Slightly offtopic, but interesting: The swords wouldn't break. Mythbusters tried it out. Breaking swords by hitting them with other swords is exceptionally hard; they'll just bend. At most, there will be some severe dents in both blades.
I don't understand. Most games prohibit you from playing online on official servers unless you have a valid cd-key. This check is easy to implement and not intrusive at all, and provides a benefit for paying customers. So why haven't they done so in this case?
It's not about the cost. It's all about how easy it is to obtain the app via different distribution channels.
People do what is easiest for them. By now, people have so much experience searching for and downloading torrents that they can do it in their sleep. Why then bother with going to a store, having to login and bring up your credit card, when the other path is faster and more familiar?
I'm not defending piracy here, but stores have quite an uphill battle.
Which orbit, the orbit of the asteroid or the orbit around the asteroid? Personally, I hope for the former, it would mean that we could nuke it from here.
The previous Batman movie was much worse. SPOILER ALERT!!!
A microwave device with enough energy to instantly boil all water in the vicinity - but spares humans? Give me a break. That ending ruined a perfectly good action flick.
It plays an add every ten songs or so. For me, it is no big deal, but in case you should think so, there is also an add-free subscription option for 99 SEK ($12) a month.
Please enlighten us about what evidence was wiped out by this piece of news, because as far as I know noone has ever said that global warming means continually rising temperatures. Because that is not how things work.
Earth may be cooling, Earth may be warming, but the fact that 2008 was cooler than 2000-2007 proves neither.
Except if the average temperature for 2002 was between that of 2000 and 2001, in which case it would have broken no records. Except the one for being "the most average temperature of the century", but that doesn't make headlines. (-:
Oh sure right after you explain why CO2 doesn't deflect an equal amount of light right out and that CO2 by-products (ie tag alongs like soot) don't do it either. Because from what you're telling me it goes both ways. Which would mean global warming is a lie and a scam.
CO2 doesn't absorb much at the higher frequencies, but a lot at the lower frequencies. The incoming light is high frequency, and the resulting infrared warmth is low frequency. Thus, more energy will pass through the atmosphere on the way in than on the way out.
Exactly why CO2 absorbs these frequencies is a bit technical, and involves electrons jumping between orbits around the atomic nucleus.
How did this get modded insightful? Look at the first paragraph. Stating that there is not much difference between evolutionary theory, based on facts, and intelligent design, based on belief, is the most uninsightful thing I've read all day.
In addition, the likening of evolution to chance is precisely the kind of misunderstanding of evolution that TFA is talking about.
Well, supposing that the Earth was created 6000 years ago brings with it all sorts of other problems, including among much else the fact that there exists written records from people living before that. But that's probably another discussion.
Don't try to confuse with a nonsensical argument. Water being the biggest contributor doesn't say anything about the effect on carbon dioxide on global temperatures.
Let's take an example. Say that the global average temperature is proportional to the amount of greenhouse gases (plus say -40 degrees Celsius, supposedly the temperature on an Earth without any greenhouse gasses). If CO2 makes up for 10% of the greenhouse effect, doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would contribute to a 3 degrees of a rise in average temperature that would bring all sorts of consequences. There you have an example of why your logic fails so badly.
They assume the speed of light has been constant over time (a reasonable assumption), and then they can easily calculate both the spatial and temporal distance.
He never says that it takes energy to uphold a magnetic field, but that it takes energy to CHANGE it, which is is another matter. What we call "permanent" magnets can in fact lose their magnetization, for example by heating them. Read up.
I don't know if this explains the observed effect, but it is a plausible explanation. I just had to intervene because I hate people that are rude and stupid at the same time. Thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
Slightly offtopic, but interesting: The swords wouldn't break. Mythbusters tried it out. Breaking swords by hitting them with other swords is exceptionally hard; they'll just bend. At most, there will be some severe dents in both blades.
I don't understand. Most games prohibit you from playing online on official servers unless you have a valid cd-key. This check is easy to implement and not intrusive at all, and provides a benefit for paying customers. So why haven't they done so in this case?
...you can get laid?
That is true. Excessive CO2 can actually hurt plants.
It's not about the cost. It's all about how easy it is to obtain the app via different distribution channels.
People do what is easiest for them. By now, people have so much experience searching for and downloading torrents that they can do it in their sleep. Why then bother with going to a store, having to login and bring up your credit card, when the other path is faster and more familiar?
I'm not defending piracy here, but stores have quite an uphill battle.
Doesn't really matter if the mission is 1 hour long or 10 years as long as you get the results you want.
Provided that you have found the asteroid more than 10 years before ETA.
Which orbit, the orbit of the asteroid or the orbit around the asteroid? Personally, I hope for the former, it would mean that we could nuke it from here.
Congratulations to "the most redundant explanation of a joke" award of the year. (-:
(Really, it was hinted at by the GGGP, literally spelled out by the GGP and GP and then thoroughly explained by you... geez...)
Begin with learning to discern between advertisements and reviews.
The previous Batman movie was much worse. SPOILER ALERT!!!
A microwave device with enough energy to instantly boil all water in the vicinity - but spares humans? Give me a break. That ending ruined a perfectly good action flick.
No.
It plays an add every ten songs or so. For me, it is no big deal, but in case you should think so, there is also an add-free subscription option for 99 SEK ($12) a month.
I laughed.
#2 - Please cite your source.
Please enlighten us about what evidence was wiped out by this piece of news, because as far as I know noone has ever said that global warming means continually rising temperatures. Because that is not how things work.
Earth may be cooling, Earth may be warming, but the fact that 2008 was cooler than 2000-2007 proves neither.
Except if the average temperature for 2002 was between that of 2000 and 2001, in which case it would have broken no records. Except the one for being "the most average temperature of the century", but that doesn't make headlines. (-:
Oh sure right after you explain why CO2 doesn't deflect an equal amount of light right out and that CO2 by-products (ie tag alongs like soot) don't do it either. Because from what you're telling me it goes both ways. Which would mean global warming is a lie and a scam.
Look here for example:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/absorbspec.gif
CO2 doesn't absorb much at the higher frequencies, but a lot at the lower frequencies. The incoming light is high frequency, and the resulting infrared warmth is low frequency. Thus, more energy will pass through the atmosphere on the way in than on the way out.
Exactly why CO2 absorbs these frequencies is a bit technical, and involves electrons jumping between orbits around the atomic nucleus.
Well, kg*m^2/s^2. Just so people won't begin to wonder. But other than that, you're absolutely correct.
How did this get modded insightful? Look at the first paragraph. Stating that there is not much difference between evolutionary theory, based on facts, and intelligent design, based on belief, is the most uninsightful thing I've read all day.
In addition, the likening of evolution to chance is precisely the kind of misunderstanding of evolution that TFA is talking about.
Well, supposing that the Earth was created 6000 years ago brings with it all sorts of other problems, including among much else the fact that there exists written records from people living before that. But that's probably another discussion.
Thank you for stating the obvious, and welcome back when you can contribute something to the matter at hand.
Don't try to confuse with a nonsensical argument. Water being the biggest contributor doesn't say anything about the effect on carbon dioxide on global temperatures.
Let's take an example. Say that the global average temperature is proportional to the amount of greenhouse gases (plus say -40 degrees Celsius, supposedly the temperature on an Earth without any greenhouse gasses). If CO2 makes up for 10% of the greenhouse effect, doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would contribute to a 3 degrees of a rise in average temperature that would bring all sorts of consequences. There you have an example of why your logic fails so badly.
They assume the speed of light has been constant over time (a reasonable assumption), and then they can easily calculate both the spatial and temporal distance.
He never says that it takes energy to uphold a magnetic field, but that it takes energy to CHANGE it, which is is another matter. What we call "permanent" magnets can in fact lose their magnetization, for example by heating them. Read up.
I don't know if this explains the observed effect, but it is a plausible explanation. I just had to intervene because I hate people that are rude and stupid at the same time. Thank you.
Yeah, because nuclear waste products have never been harmful...