I just got trolled, didn't I?

In the amount of time it took you to write that post, you could have googled it yourself. WTF? Knowledge about nearly anything is only seconds away and yet I frequently see posts like this from people too lazy to wade through a few paragraphs on wikipedia. For fucks sake.

Well, if the rumored prisoner/guard experiments are true, even compassionate guards turn into animals when given the opportunity.

Why? Climate Change does not automatically make every area more prone to the kinds of disasters that frequently occur there. Why wouldn't it lessen the chance for severe wild fires? This is the kind of thinking that fuels "deniers". It's always, smaller polar caps, retreating glaciers, intensified tornadoes, wildfires, hurricanes, rising sea levels. Why not more rain in the desert or semi-arid farmland? Or the shifting of severe weather events to another area? More snow for the ski areas. Less rain for flood prone areas. Why is it always worse?

It's closed captioned.

So, they say it's non computable, but then they concede that it is probably computable but likely too complex to do it right now. So, computable then. Sensational headline or what.

Damn it

And? Flying cars are still impractical, dangerous, and expensive. This is dictated by the physical laws of the universe. Grounds cars can move from point a to point b with less fuel. Mechanical failures in ground cars are non-fatal events(usually). And ground cars are far cheaper and simpler to build and maintain. This is not going to change no matter how you design it.

Guys, if you don't want the NSA scanning your websites, just set up a robots.txt. Duh.

You mean like how the DEA is still going after medical marijuana dispensaries in Denver despite Obama supporting legalization? http://www.denverpost.com/news...

I've been doing several to dozens of solves daily for the last several years. I couldn't average much faster than 40 seconds no matter how much a studied and practiced. A few months ago I threw away all of my cubes (around 10 of them) so that I could stop obsessing over it. I was wasting so much of my life sitting there solving over and over.

Thanks Shatner.

What part of my last sentence didn't you read?

If we could actually speed a ship up to anywhere near the speed of light, even hitting a pebble is likely to blow up your spaceship.

You're assuming these transits would occur frequently and that we actually have the equipment pointed at the sky to detect them. Even if there were 200 times as many brown dwarfs as stars in the galaxy, actually seeing one pass in front of another star would be an extremely rare occurrence and we'd only detect if we were looking right at that star. Even then we'd only detect a small decrease in light and we'd be unable to distinguish it from the transit of a planet with a long orbital period. Also, consider the velocity of stars in relation to each other? The transit may only visible for a fraction of a second...in which case we wouldn't be able to detect it at all.

Brown dwarfs are small. And we can only detect exoplanets by detecting the effect they have on the wobble of the host star, by their transit of the star, or very rarely we can see light from extremely hot planets.

Even at 200 times, collisions would be extremely rare. And the collision would be a non-event as far as the earth is concerned. Why don't they collapse into stars [assuming the collision produced a star with sufficient mass to be a star]. Maybe they are? Still the collisions would be so rare that we'd almost certainly never witness the event.

The only part of your argument that really works. Even with the limited instruments we have now, we'd expect to see more if there were 200 times as many brown dwarfs. But then, we're discovering a lot more of these now that we have instruments designed to find them. Regardless, I don't think 200 times the number would account for the missing mass.