So Saturn is obviously one of those lame vampires that sparkles in the sunlight!
Their additional pixel is referred to as a Pentile implant, I believe.
I just rooted my Charge yesterday, and am looking forward to some good ROM's after a respectful interval.
At the risk of starting a disagreement, I hope Blackdroid updates Ultimate Droid for the Charge. It was the most amazing thing I ever stuck into my OG Droid (alright, behave!).
At the risk of starting a disagreement, I hope Blackdroid updates Ultimate Droid for the Charge. It was the most amazing thing I ever stuck into my OG Droid (alright, behave!).
Credit where it's due - it came from here: [doodleofboredom.com]
Well, I only know from amateur astronomy so I don't know if it's right to extrapolate - but all amateurs are taught early on that dust on the mirror should be tolerated to a certain extent. The amount of dust needed to degrade seeing is significant, and yes, cleaning can lead to damage.
I would speculate that there is some form of electrostatic repulsion going on here - most dust is of one charge or another (don't remember which way) so charging the mirror surface in the opposite direction would help repel a lot of the schmutz.
Or maybe they use a pressure washer. (Kidding, of course.)
I would speculate that there is some form of electrostatic repulsion going on here - most dust is of one charge or another (don't remember which way) so charging the mirror surface in the opposite direction would help repel a lot of the schmutz.
Or maybe they use a pressure washer. (Kidding, of course.)
Like!
Seriously, though, I'll point out also that, despite Facebook's grand aspirations and the mongo-inflated expectations people have for it (and that Facebook would like to foster, thank you very much), it is still a free service for the vast majority of its users. The opportunity to spend money exists via the vehicle of Facebook, but it is free, and always will be - they say so themselves.
If we have unreasonable expectations, it's because we are suckers. Plain and simple. We need to stop setting our expectations according to what Facebook - or any other free service - would have us believe.
If there is failure, it is within ourselves. Best thing to do: vote with your digital feet and leave the service, for this and many other reasons.
Seriously, though, I'll point out also that, despite Facebook's grand aspirations and the mongo-inflated expectations people have for it (and that Facebook would like to foster, thank you very much), it is still a free service for the vast majority of its users. The opportunity to spend money exists via the vehicle of Facebook, but it is free, and always will be - they say so themselves.
If we have unreasonable expectations, it's because we are suckers. Plain and simple. We need to stop setting our expectations according to what Facebook - or any other free service - would have us believe.
If there is failure, it is within ourselves. Best thing to do: vote with your digital feet and leave the service, for this and many other reasons.
Sounds like an old girlfriend of mine.
ba-dum-pum-crash
ba-dum-pum-crash
I think having your tool removed is a bit extreme, but I agree that there is a great burden on the end user - a burden that should be lightened by the IT department. And if IT isn't going to support them, then the devices shouldn't be there.
And thus, I think I will never win an iPad.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? That must surely be the case, because someone with your educational credentials in physics and engineering could not so completely misunderstand my point.
I readily admit my biases, but that does not make me proud of them. I work to keep an open mind, because I NEED to work to keep an open mind.
"Spelunking" is no more a recommendation than "Potholer54," really, so why is that relevant? Oh, thank you for pointing out that interesting linguistic tidbit. Potholer = speleologist. Got it. I am not particularly interested in hearing a spelunker talk about his views on religion either - that is, I'm not going out of my way to hear someone about whom I know nothing, based on a recommendation from someone who selectively reads my arguments, and claims expertise where there is no proof of any. If I have time perhaps I'll check them out, if only to refute them! That could actually be fun. Unfortunately, I don't have too much time for fun - actually, this reply is using up most of that. But you're worth it.
Oh, and by the way, your having a Bachelors in Physics and a PhD in Engineering is great - if we were discussing physics or engineering - but your claim to have a "wider knowledge of religion than most religious people [I] have met" is specious and unsupported, and therefore irrelevant.
Just as it is irrelevant that Stephen Hawking makes pronouncements about religion; just as if I say something about string theory or evolution it is reasonable for people to dismiss it.
So to simplify things for you:
Stephen Hawking : religion :: ps61318 : (string theory, evolution, many other things) :: LittleJon : Anything NOT(Physics, Engineering).
And I've started to repeat myself, and my quota of fun is used up for now! Enjoy your life, since you are so firmly ensconced in your conviction that this is the only one we get!
I readily admit my biases, but that does not make me proud of them. I work to keep an open mind, because I NEED to work to keep an open mind.
"Spelunking" is no more a recommendation than "Potholer54," really, so why is that relevant? Oh, thank you for pointing out that interesting linguistic tidbit. Potholer = speleologist. Got it. I am not particularly interested in hearing a spelunker talk about his views on religion either - that is, I'm not going out of my way to hear someone about whom I know nothing, based on a recommendation from someone who selectively reads my arguments, and claims expertise where there is no proof of any. If I have time perhaps I'll check them out, if only to refute them! That could actually be fun. Unfortunately, I don't have too much time for fun - actually, this reply is using up most of that. But you're worth it.
Oh, and by the way, your having a Bachelors in Physics and a PhD in Engineering is great - if we were discussing physics or engineering - but your claim to have a "wider knowledge of religion than most religious people [I] have met" is specious and unsupported, and therefore irrelevant.
Just as it is irrelevant that Stephen Hawking makes pronouncements about religion; just as if I say something about string theory or evolution it is reasonable for people to dismiss it.
So to simplify things for you:
Stephen Hawking : religion :: ps61318 : (string theory, evolution, many other things) :: LittleJon : Anything NOT(Physics, Engineering).
And I've started to repeat myself, and my quota of fun is used up for now! Enjoy your life, since you are so firmly ensconced in your conviction that this is the only one we get!
Well, that's just silly! I'm not ignorant of evolution! How foolish of you to assume so! But I have a bias against it based on my religious beliefs, making any statements I make about it highly suspect.
Thanks for the tip on those videos. I'm sure to take advice from you and somebody named Potholer54! Indeed! LOL!
When the pot (you) stops calling the kettle (me) black (regarding education) then we can talk.
Regards!
Thanks for the tip on those videos. I'm sure to take advice from you and somebody named Potholer54! Indeed! LOL!
When the pot (you) stops calling the kettle (me) black (regarding education) then we can talk.
Regards!
He was also a scientist, actually. You should look him up sometime, you might learn something.
I know many MANY religious scientists. You need to get out more.
Edit: Just to make sure, I checked on Wikipedia: He was a professor of biochemistry at Boston University. Most of those biochemistry professors are scientists, ya know. Or maybe you don't. Wouldn't be surprised....
I know many MANY religious scientists. You need to get out more.
Edit: Just to make sure, I checked on Wikipedia: He was a professor of biochemistry at Boston University. Most of those biochemistry professors are scientists, ya know. Or maybe you don't. Wouldn't be surprised....
Actually, speech and fire are stronger differentiators between us and the animals.
I agree - Critical thinking should be applied to every situation throughout your life. Facts should always be questioned. Religion can stand up to critical thinking, if you know enough about religion.
The "facts of the universe" should always be questioned - and my answer may differ from yours.
The point here is that people should not listen to Stephen Hawking when he talks about religion - as much as he has free speech and is entitled to his opinion - because his comments on the subject are layered over and over with bias - an enemy of critical thinking.
You want to accept his views of physics? Yeah, me too. His views on religion? Don't care what he has to say. Neither should you. Neither should Gizmodo - that was my point.
I agree - Critical thinking should be applied to every situation throughout your life. Facts should always be questioned. Religion can stand up to critical thinking, if you know enough about religion.
The "facts of the universe" should always be questioned - and my answer may differ from yours.
The point here is that people should not listen to Stephen Hawking when he talks about religion - as much as he has free speech and is entitled to his opinion - because his comments on the subject are layered over and over with bias - an enemy of critical thinking.
You want to accept his views of physics? Yeah, me too. His views on religion? Don't care what he has to say. Neither should you. Neither should Gizmodo - that was my point.
It's not stated as a belief, it's stated as a fact.
By the way, you're right that he is entitled to his beliefs. If I say that "String Theory and evolution are a bunch of hooey," I'm entitled. But I'd be speaking from ignorance (regarding the former) and bias (regarding the latter). Thus, I (and he) can say whatever I (or he) want (or wants) to - but that doesn't mean it has any credence, and is thus not deserving of new coverage.
Or that anyone on either side should be affected by it.
By the way, you're right that he is entitled to his beliefs. If I say that "String Theory and evolution are a bunch of hooey," I'm entitled. But I'd be speaking from ignorance (regarding the former) and bias (regarding the latter). Thus, I (and he) can say whatever I (or he) want (or wants) to - but that doesn't mean it has any credence, and is thus not deserving of new coverage.
Or that anyone on either side should be affected by it.
Look up the definition of circular logic and get back to me.
I'm saying exactly this: a physicist is not to whom we should be listening about the nature of the metaphysical. He is entitled to his opinion - but it carries no more weight than if I were to say "String theory is bunk."
I'm saying exactly this: a physicist is not to whom we should be listening about the nature of the metaphysical. He is entitled to his opinion - but it carries no more weight than if I were to say "String theory is bunk."
Nice try, but just because he made an ignorant, unprovable statement and passed it off as fact, doesn't mean that I did. So no, obviously, that's not what I mean.
I didn't try to prove anything. I pointed out that Stephen Hawking is not a theologian, knows very little about the nature of Heaven, and his opinion is just that - and the people who idolize him because of his knowledge of physics just need to remember that his expertise stops there. In my observation.
That is a point, by the way, about which you are welcome to prove me wrong - I mean, other scientists have been thoroughly immersed in Biblical study as well - Asimov comes to mind in that regard. If you are going to tell me that Dr. Hawking is also a theologian, ok! Bring it on! I'll recant everything I've said about him if you can do that.
I didn't try to prove anything. I pointed out that Stephen Hawking is not a theologian, knows very little about the nature of Heaven, and his opinion is just that - and the people who idolize him because of his knowledge of physics just need to remember that his expertise stops there. In my observation.
That is a point, by the way, about which you are welcome to prove me wrong - I mean, other scientists have been thoroughly immersed in Biblical study as well - Asimov comes to mind in that regard. If you are going to tell me that Dr. Hawking is also a theologian, ok! Bring it on! I'll recant everything I've said about him if you can do that.
I've never understood that statement ("Get over yourself"). What exactly does that mean?
And if we're gonna play a game, perhaps another headline could be "Gizmodo commentor replies to comment with non-sequitur, and cryptic adjuration."
And if we're gonna play a game, perhaps another headline could be "Gizmodo commentor replies to comment with non-sequitur, and cryptic adjuration."
No. So they might. You stick to your beliefs! That's awesome! A life spent without invisible magical unicorns is so much duller than a life with them!
Again, opinion stated as fact.
I would suggest that it's MANY ridiculous cult's unprovable opinion, and the unprovable opinion of some very serious, intelligent, thoughtful people too.
What it ISN'T, in my opinion, is provable at all. The best that you can do with religion is have sufficient evidence that belief is possible, and the individual has to take it from there. In my opinion, of course.
I would suggest that it's MANY ridiculous cult's unprovable opinion, and the unprovable opinion of some very serious, intelligent, thoughtful people too.
What it ISN'T, in my opinion, is provable at all. The best that you can do with religion is have sufficient evidence that belief is possible, and the individual has to take it from there. In my opinion, of course.
Oh, that's fine and not something I was aware of.
By the way, your statement is not proven either - even by this statement. There are religious people who don't believe in the "classical" view of heaven. I would never claim to know what goes on in Stephen Hawking's mind - and it may be highly implausible - but his current statement does not necessarily conflict with his being religious.
Although the preponderance of evidence would seem to suggest that he's not. ;-)
By the way, your statement is not proven either - even by this statement. There are religious people who don't believe in the "classical" view of heaven. I would never claim to know what goes on in Stephen Hawking's mind - and it may be highly implausible - but his current statement does not necessarily conflict with his being religious.
Although the preponderance of evidence would seem to suggest that he's not. ;-)
