Oh my goodness, how can you pop that gem out without stating the obvious and DOUBLE Whammy...
Superconducting Super Collider!! I mean really, I think your nerd badge needs a review
Otherwise, great call!
Alternately, the Super-Colliding Super Button...
Then we should see a very bright border as matter and anti-matter annihilate on the edges. As far as I know, that doesn't exist so being a bubble of matter in anti-matter doesn't seem likely.
Like, say, a nearly-uniform wash of electromagnetic radiation, apparently emanating from every observable point in the sky? I'd be willing to consider matter-antimatter annihilation at the universe's border as a possible explanation of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Since objects at the edge of the observable universe are already redshifted to near-invisibility I'd expect that the gamma they emit would be similarly redshifted.
Having said that, I'd need to hear a really good explanation for why this annihilation exactly matches the spectral distribution for blackbody radiation at 2.7260 ± 0.0013 K before I'd totally swallow it as a replacement for the big bang theory. But I won't go around demanding that funding be cut from a bubble-universe researcher, either.
FTFA:
"I think we'll see products in the market by the Christmas season in 2014," Ravencraft said. "The companies have to build silicon - device, host, bridge and hub silicon."
So it looks to be quite a ways out. Still, I'd love to see a video output spec that doesn't have mandatory DRM. I didn't see any mention of HDMI in the article, so there's a slim chance of this new interface not being broken by design...
I use bookmarklets to handle rot-13 encoding when I find it. Highlight, click bookmark, read as plain text. Simple.
Enjoy!
So, a Master's degree, then?
Having it in your map in the 14th century is a better claim than, "I have bigger guns than you, it's mine now."
Perhaps, but it's a much more practical claim than the ancient map, especially when coupled with "I've been standing on it for the last 100 years"...
Uh, no, that's not the same at all. Violence is specifically a means to deny someone else their right to life. Inherently violent resolution cannot co-exist with the belief in natural rights. That's an absurdity.
(emphasis added)
I disagree, and I'll give a clear counter-example. I believe in natural rights, specifically that life, liberty, and property are rights inherent to every living human. A robber disagrees with me, and is happy to relieve me of my property at gunpoint. How will this situation resolve itself?
* I calmly assert my natural rights, and the robber says, "oh, man!" and slinks away like Swiper the fox
* I calmly assert my natural rights, The robber shoots me and takes both my property and my life
* I give my property to the robber and think myself lucky to retain my life
* I draw my concealed firearm and encourage the robber to choose a different lifestyle
The first example is rather unlikely.
In the second example my belief in natural rights and an inherently violent resolution coexist perfectly, to the benefit of the robber.
In the third example I dare say that I've abandoned my belief in my natural rights in order to avoid violence. This is the correct response in many circumstances; I've heard many concealed firearm bearers say that "here's my wallet, take it and go" is a safe alternative to a gunfight, and one that should be seriously considered. It is, however, not optimal - I'd really rather keep all of my natural rights (both life and property in this case).
I believe that the fourth example is a proper example of maintaining my belief in my natural rights while offering an inherently violent resolution to conflict. Violent resolution is an option whether I'm armed or not, but it's only an option for the robber if I'm not. When I am armed I have the choice of defending my natural rights.
Why should I even be worried about the natural rights of someone actively depriving me of mine?
OK, you said a lot of things I agree with, and a lot of things I strongly disagree with. Each of your statements stand fairly well on their own, so I'll group them together for convenience of discussion.
The constitution is in place for a reason. Laws are made for reasons. . . Freedom does come at a price. Having what we have has come at the cost of many lives. . . I think people need to truly look around and understand why they have the freedoms they have today.
So far we're in perfect agreement. I'll return to this later.
If you constrain law enforcement and the military too much, bad things could happen to our country. . . Law enforcement is responsible for taking peoples lives when the bad American is going to do something bad, and there are no other alternatives other than to take the bad person's life. There could easily be a time when law enforcement cannot or does not have the ability to act against bad Americans, and the military with their drones may be the only thing able to deal with these bad people. By making a law that says drones cannot be used to kill an American could easily cost another 3000 Americans their lives. This is a very complicated world we live in. We sometimes need to do things we are not proud of to protect this country. . . You can be outraged at what Holder says, but at least understand why he is saying what he is saying.
Here we diverge almost completely after the first sentence. I'll go point-by-point:
I think I do understand where Holder is coming from. I used to oppose the release of suspects whose guilt was proven via illegal searches. The fundamental question is this: "how much harm is done be releasing the guilty versus allowing Police more power to conduct searches?" I've moved over to wanting restricted police power, since I now believe that abuse of police power is the greater harm.
The constitution and our laws were written for a reason; it originally was to protect The People against abuses of power. The American Revolutionaries committed treason and laid down their lives so that they and their neighbors would never again need to live in constant fear of execution at the whim of an over-powerful commander-in-chief. Until 9/11 I thought most people understood that the cost of living in a Free society was allowing people to occasionally make choices that were violently wrong so that the rest of us could live without constant fear of the government making violently wrong choices. The typical historic quote for this is from Benjamin Franklin:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
TL;DR version:
I don't want the Government to keep me perfectly safe. The only way to do that is to make the Government unsafe. I can live with the deaths of a few innocents at the hands of murderers and terrorists if it means my children and grandchildren will not live under the oppression of a tyrant.
I can't have been the only one to think, "wait, Glaive isn't a polearm...", can I?
For the record, I voted "Bec de Corbin" because it's the closest thing on the list to a Lucerne Hammer =P
If the biggest problem you have with it is the battery life, then fix the problem - just replace the battery!
Since you're posting to Slashdot I'm going to assume you are willing to do some soldering if you have to.
Invest $15-25 and you can get 2x or 4x the battery life; that tablet only came with 2500 mAh if the other posters here guessed your model correctly.
Make sure the new cell will fit, then have at it!
So... in the quote you have there... He had 88 miles left when he stopped... woke up, lost 30 miles, then drive 28 miles, and connected with 50 miles left.
My math is a little rusty, so help me out here... 88 - 30 - 28 = ?? The answer is 50 right?
Yes, your math is rusty:
88 - 30 - 28 = 30
On the trip from hotel to charger the range estimate dropped by 8 miles despite a traveled distance of 28 miles.
Variables don't; constants aren't.