Well, well Sir Labelsalot, where exactly did anyone say "film is low res"?

Apparently not. Since no one makes the cameras anymore.

I'm not saying they're going to disappear next year or anything like that. But digital will beat film out in most respects sooner or later and then it will just be nostalgic. When CDs came out some people complained that the low bitrate cut out a portion of the music but everyone used them anyway. How many people have vinyl? How many people even noticed and cared? Not that many. And now the quality is better anyway.

So...yeah, film is here now and has some time left but I'd be pretty surprised if it has more than a marginal place in the market 50 years from now (aside from digitizing old films at least). Much like vinyl.

Welcome to Hume's nervous breakdown.

probabilities of what? If it's "probability that X occurs in situation Y" then there's absolutely no difference between that and Newtonian physics. Except that instead of Y => X you have Y => {probability set}
I don't see any differences in terms of causality. There's a sense in which neither assume it (i.e. neither says "cause") and a sense in which both rely on it (as in, without belief in causality the assumption that these are predictive are unjustified). What's the difference?

My computer is compromised. Probably severely compromised. I take bare minimum precautions (as in no IE and knowing what sites are fishy). I've gotten 2 viruses that I've noticed. One removed safemade and did other fun things. Got rid of it in about 30m. The other I'm not sure what it's doing, I think it's a key-logger. I'm pretty sure I have some sort of bot that likes using my internet when I'm idle too. Probably a host of other bs that's not noticeable as well.

I also pretty sure my opinion is worthwhile. You see, I just don't do anything involving money on this machine. Setting up a machine to be secure enough to trust banking and credit cards is time consuming, annoying, and all around makes using the internet a trying experience.

So I just have a cheap old desktop to buy things and do banking on (or, actually not do banking on since I don't need to, but if I did...). It does nothing on the internet but update software and buy things from trusted sites.

The only significant risk I'm taking is email. Someone might compromise my account. I accept that risk for the ability to use the internet without having to deal with all the trouble of securing my machine.

Everyone in Japan uses Yahoo for some reason. There Japan page has a bunch of useful Japan related stuff like train info. I still never use it for search though.
Google runs television commercials here for chrome. Probably in part to convince people to use Google instead of Yahoo.

Is there a "+1 answers rhetorical question" option?

That's a good point. I suppose Italy is the only country with Italian as it's primary language (excluding city-states) but how many people outside of Italy speak Italian?

Also, how many people in Italy use the English Wikipedia where they won't even notice this?

Seems like it would make a lot more sense to block all of Wikipedia from Italy. Maybe Wikipedia wanted more worldwide attention but they could have gotten that with a banner or splash page for everywhere.

On the other hand just taking down the Italian site was probably a lot easier than any of the alternatives.

I am offended by your mocking of our laws, I demand you correct your defamatory statements with the much more accurate:

Sincerely, The Italian Parliament

Nope. I must not know what I'm talking about. What a perceptive reader you are.

Yes, and expending energy in "transferring your weight" to a higher position on the plate is not at all like pushing through resistance. Or, since gravity provides a resistive force against you moving up and the plate depresses through resistance to produce electricity, is analogous to it in not just one but two ways.

I bow down to your superior analytical skills. I'll burn my physics degree later when I get the chance.

You have to push through that resistance. That uses more energy. As to other posts about heat/vibration/sound energy, some of that will be gathered I'm sure but that's a minuscule amount of energy.

The extra energy may not be noticeable and may result in a more comfortable floor though, like you said. Walking on a thick carpet would probably make you use more energy than these plates and people pay extra for them.

Clarity is achieved by using the most appropriate words but the most appropriate words are determined by context. If your audience doesn't understand you, you've failed to be clear. If you would have been understood had you used simpler terms, the failure is your fault.

Second paragraph: disagree.

Third paragraph: agree.

First, you responded as if I support Social Security which implies that you didn't bother to read my post in detail and/or didn't understand it.

(1) That's an answer. Ok. I didn't even bother to look at your reasoning because I agree.

(2) This is not an answer. You've decided to answer a completely unrelated question to the one I posed. The question was: How will these problems be solved if not by Social security? "People must not be robbed...Free people should take care of themselves" are not answers to these. The point is that "taking care of yourself" is not a good situation. You can be ruined by disaster in or out of your control. Which leads to question three, Do you want to live in a society who tosses the unlucky aside to die on the side of the road? Even taking a stronger survival of the fittest (animal) approach there are situations where these problems are completely unrelated to the individual, their choices and preparation. Just concentrating on that situation, do you want to live in a society which leaves the unlucky to die?

(3) This is also an answer. Here's a follow up question: Why do you live in a mixed market country that provides social services? Move to a country that doesn't enforce regulation or collective programs... like... like... like where? I know of no "opt in" governments where you can pick and choose what laws/programs to abide by. I also don't see how such a system would be different from anarchy. If you want anarchy you could go to an uninhabited island somewhere. Or Somalia maybe.

If your chief concern is freedom. Live out in the woods. Farm. You can do anything you want. Complete freedom.

Obviously this isn't what you want. My point is that you can't just yell about freedom without reason. If you want all the benefits of society you have to have a government and that government's power can't be based on your personal agreement to it's programs.

Also I'd like to know what your opinion would be if your house burned down, you were laid off, all your investments vanished and you were diagnosed with cancer all in one week. Sure, it's ridiculously unlikely. But vaguely possible. Certainly one of those things could happen any day now. Would you still be so averse to all these programs that would help you?

You can go ahead and say you'd still rather be in such a country and that you would starve on the street and be happy to live in a free country. But I don't think you really would. I think you'd be angry at a society that abandoned you despite you doing your best.

Your question is a re-statement of the last sentence of my post.

But then how do you explain the errors in the previous thousands of experiments measuring the speed of light?

If this was within the error range of previous measurements I'm pretty sure the scientists would have said something similar. This is a pretty large error here and contradicts all those other experiments.

My guess is that it's systematic error in their recording equipment either at cern or at their receiver. Unlikely, but less likely than breaking the speed of light. Or we've found new physics.