“You CANNOT name this species the ‘greater blue-balled ding-dong monkey’. Not least because we will not let you name something else the ‘lesser blue-balled ding-dong monkey’!”
(Erm…ACKUALLY)While you can hunt with a 50-caliber. It’s usually only with a black powder rifle. Even then, I’ve seen most .50 black powder rifles use a 44 bullet with a sabbot or something similar.
That and hunting with larger calibers are usually illegal.
In what way? I use it a lot and feel like it’s still on par with the older versions. It’s got some annoying “Microsoft-y” things typical to them from the last 10 years or so but I think the core functionality is still intact.
I think it’s mostly because they keep trying to push other services down your throat. For example, opening a link in Outlook opens it in Edge, even when your default browser is something else. I can’t use Edge for that link, I’m not signed into stuff there. So now, because of retarded decisions like that, Outlook actually is missing basic features that Hotmail in the 90s had.
The extent to which something is held back or delayed.
Considering that the features being complained about impede the user, calling those features “retarded” is an adequate description.
It is also in-fitting with the definition of lacking of intellectual development; as mentioned, other programs do not feature such impediments, and in the case of Office 365, may actually be a regression of features.
Are there handguns small enough to fit inside a Petri dish? Or do you just aim the handgun at the Petri dish? Does the handgun need to be loaded? If it must be loaded, will blanks suffice? Does a larger caliber reduce the time needed to aim the handgun at the Petri dish? Is there a specific distance to the dish from which one must aim the handgun? Are rifles, shotguns, and machine guns specifically excluded? Will a sword work? It’s generally made of the same kind of material as a handgun. Is it necessary to stand on a chair while wearing a lab coat while aiming the handgun? Can two hands be used to aim the handgun? Does engaging the handgun’s safety have any effect on the contents of the Petri dish?
I don’t know of any handguns small enough to fit into a petri dish. The handgun must be loaded and fired at the petri dish. A large caliber will be easier to aim since it would decrease the need for accuracy. Close range is a better distance. Shotguns and machine guns would do an even better job, rifles are fine. A sword decreases the likelihood of destroying a virus because of its low energy. Standing on a chair while wearing a lab coat makes you look cooler. Two hands can be used to aim the gun if it helps you. The handgun will not fire with the safety on, thus decreasing the probability of destroying the virus.
The internet has proven to be very clever with its “loss” memes. I keep seeing innovative and/or fun applications of it before I ever feel they’re getting stale.
The square root of negative 1 is “i”. The “i” referrs to an imaginary number. When you square a number (e.g. 2^2 ) the result will always be positive. This is because you are multiplying the number with itself, and a negative number multiplied by another negative number will be positive. So -2 * -2 = 4, -3 * -3 = 9, and so on.
A square root is the inverse of this. It attempts to find what the original number was that was squared, so sqrt(4) = 2, sqrt(9) = 3, and so on. However, what do you do if you have sqrt(-4)? There’s no way for a square to result in a negative number, so the result must be imaginary. So sqrt(-4) = 2i, sqrt(-9) = 3i, and so on. As such, sqrt(-1) = i.
For the next part, when you divide one number by another, it is sometimes referred to as [first number] over [second number].
Finally, 8, well, sounds like “ate”.
So sqrt(-1)/8 = i/8 = i over eight= I over ate.
(Sorry if this came off as condescending near the end, I’m trying to be thorough in case you aren’t a native English speaker)
Not my argument but causality is a principle of the universe and may not be applicable to entities which exist outside of it.
The universe is bound by physical rules but something which exists outside of it may not be. Of course this is pure conjecture but you can find interesting theological arguments beyond creationists.
The argument I’ve heard is “It must stop somewhere, and whatever it stops at, we’ll call that god”. It’s not a good argument, because it then hopes that you conflate the Judeo-Christian deity with that label and make a whole bunch of assumptions.
It’s often paired with woo that falls down to simply asking “Why?”, such as “Nothing could possibly be simpler than my deity”
Agreed, the big issue with their argument here is that “god” implies sentience, which isn’t something we have any reason to assume exists for whatever’s at the “stop somewhere” point. If energy was the starting point for example, I doubt these people would be down with calling heat a god
On the contrary, I’d argue energy mostly meets many of the philosophical criteria for God.
Omnipotence: It literally is what drives stuff to happen.
Omnipresence: It is present to some degree in all things everywhere for all time, though you could argue about vacuum.
Omniscience: See omnipresence, although having knowledge implies some level of consciousness, which is pretty debatable. My psychedelic phase tells me that it’s totally a thing, but I’ll be the first to admit that’s not a rational argument.
Omnibenevolence: I don’t understand why God needs to be good.
I mean your argument stumbles at the exact point of my original comment. We have no reason to think it has any form of consciousness, and therefore no reason to believe it’s omniscient. On top of that, even if it was conscious, arguing it’s omniscient because it’s omnipresent assumes that it isn’t a collection of distinct consciousnesses and is instead one giant being, which we also have no reason to believe one possibility over the other.
If I remember correctly from my hazy years of school philosophy classes, it was Thomas Aquinas who suggested it. Who was a friar, so that’s why the assumption of the religion.
Also, I understood the core idea being that God isn’t what IS the beginning, but that the point where human mind can’t comprehend beyond is God. Which, back then, and even now, I considered to be a lazy copout for a philosopher, as the point of a philosopher is to test the limits of our understanding.
Then again, for friar to state that the end solution is not god for their thinkings, at that time and place, would’ve probably result in being positioned as a centerpiece of a bonfire.
It’s also a bad argument, because the concept of things being ‘created’ is an entirely human one. It’s us who decided that if a pile of pre-existing atoms are moved into the shape of a chair, we’ll say that chair was ‘created’.
Aside from this conceptual creation, nothing is ever created in the universe, as far as we know. Atoms don’t ever just pop into existence out of thin air.
I have heard the argument that the universe was just as well ‘created’ in the conceptual sense, so everything existed beforehand, it was just moved into a shape that we recognize as ‘universe’ today.
But that would still mean there’s no argument for a creator and of course, this is simply not what most people mean when they talk about the creation of the universe.
At their highest it was estimated that the Appalachians were comparable to the Himalayas, with the potential for multiple Everest height mountains along the chain.
I guess, because taller mountains need a bigger/heavier base (Mnt Everest is only a few km over it’s base, stone is too brittle) and a too heavy base gets “liquid” on, or literally under the plate (it’s magma underneath).
Only guessing though.
But then there’s Himalaya and the whole mongolian ranges on the same plate…
Seeing it like that, we are beings of energy, existing on the thin skin of a ball of molten stone, revolving around a ball of fire.
Mountain bases can support a lot. Everest is not terribly tall from its base, true, but Denali is 5500 meters from base to top and Mauna Kea rises to 10000 meters over base.
Its also a bit of an incorrect picure to think of the interior magma as a liquid. It can flow, but it can also sieze up or crack. Its an in-between, like corn starch and water.
Its indirectly gravity. The taller the mountain, the more eroding force can be pleced on it. Water travels faster and therefore cuts deeper.
Everest is still uplifting fairly quickly at 1mm a year, but its also eroding at roughly the same pace and won’t get significantly taller than it is now. The same is true for the rest of the Himalaya as well, the whole range is eroding at a very high pace.
The Himalaya are home to some very spectacular canyons, including the largest canyon above water. The geology there is on full display and incredible.
Plate tectonics and isostasy: Ocean ridges can only push so much and the denser a mountain range is, the higher the stress on the crust and mantle material.
The scottish highlands are the continuation of the appalachians. Those long striations you can easily see on heightmaps is pretty much the most easily noticeable features of both ranges.
If you think about it, it is completely absurd, why anyone assumes the right to ‘own’ a piece of land. Or even more land than the other guy. Someone must have been the person to first come up with the idea of ownership, but it is and was never based on anything other than an idea, and we should question it.
After all inheritance of landownership is a major cornerstone of our unjust and exploitative society.
Every generation, people want to try new things and it’s nice. But landownership can and has been and good thing in a way that just going back to “anarchy” wouldn’t work. E.g. creation of ghettos, who gets to farm the best land, etc.
So then the suggestions are that the land are owned and “managed” by the state apparatus. Now we have a few famines in history to show us how gaining favor in a political system is not the best way to manage the land.
I’m open to better suggestions but just shitting on land ownership seems easy and unproductive.
If someone owns a house, they kinda have to own at the very least some land around it. I just don’t really see any other way for that to work. Would be interesting to hear how that could work otherwise.
There’s a thing called leasehold whereby you own the building and lease the land usually for 99 years after which it returns to the freeholder. It’s one of the reasons that the US embassy in London moved from Mayfair to Nine Elms. It was the only US embassy in the world that the US government didn’t own, the freehold belongs to the Grosvenor family (i.e. Lord Grosvenor). When the US tried to buy the freehold the Grosvenor family refused but agreed to a 999 year lease in exchange for the return of 12000 acres of Florida that was confiscated from them after the Revolutionary War - yes, they’ve been landowners for a very long time! I think the US made sure to buy the freehold of the new site at Nine Elms (they sold the remainder of the 999 year lease in Mayfair for an undisclosed sum) 😀
They grew enough potatoes to feed the population in spite of the blight losses. However said taters fetched a higher price abroad. So fuck the poor, I guess.
Also they would have had a higher diversity of crops if not for landlords. Landlords were extorting farmers and the only way the farmers could pay the bills was with the vegetable that had the highest margin. Farmers were forced to switch from other crops to growing potatoes by their landlords.
The blight affected all of Europe, yet only Ireland had severe famine because while the French government bought food for their citizens, the English government publicly declared the invisible hand of the free market would fix the famine.
Similarly the Ukraine famine was crop failure due to bad weather conditions that affected all of Eastern Europe. The crop failure wasn’t caused by the Soviets. Yet only Ukrainians died because the Soviets shipped Ukrainian food to Moscow in the same way Irish died because of free markets shipping Irish food to London. (Yes, Ireland was still a net exporter of food during the famine.)
When natural disasters occured it’s, “Millions died because of communism.” Yet when millions die under the free market it’s only the natural disaster and not capitalism.
I’m pretty sure the Native Americans didn’t believe in land ownership, at least not individual land ownership, more of a communal version, and it worked out well for them. They had huge societies, vast trade networks, and were able to feed themselves fine. It requires a different, non-capitalist, non-Western mindset, but it can work.
Define for the class what you think anarchy means, and, wait one minute, you think ghettos are created by people not recognizing private land ownership?
There’s quite a lot of thought missing from your definition of anarchy, including, ya know, all of the ideas on how to make that work, and the assumption by most that it wouldn’t be an immediate process, and for someone that knows how ghettos are created, you sure used it as a criticism of an idea that would make them literally impossible, while doubling down on insisting that the thing creating ghettos can solve the ghettos if you… Do it more, and harder?
I don’t actually believe in the dissolution of private property, at least in regards to individual land ownership. I just take issue with people stating their opinions as facts, especially when they’re just flat out wrong.
Which is rather part of the problem, as a lot of modern anarchists don’t believe in the dissolution of the state, at least as a deliberate policy, thus the idea that Marxists and anarchists are ultimately working towards the same goal (communism) and disagreeing on the methods to achieve it.
Yeah i was referring to the dissolution of property rights when referring to anarchy. It was more colloquial than the actual system. Yes I didn’t copy the wiki for anarchy because it was irrelevant.
Not sure where you took the opinion as facts thing but okay…
People like the idea of the stability ownership offers. You can’t be kicked out of your house or off your land you own because your income dropped out lost a job. How would you suggest this stability is maintained?
Unfortunately land will fall into disrepair if someone doesn’t actually own it. They have no incentive to invest in its upkeep if it can just be taken away at any moment. There’s a reason rental buildings have a reputation for being unkempt, the renters don’t want to pay for the upkeep since it’s not theirs and the landlords don’t want to pay for the upkeep because they don’t live there.
It gets even worse if government owns it, it would take 6 months just to get a light bulb changed let alone a new roof or hedges trimmed.
mander.xyz
Top