The trouble with that definition of simultaneity is that it's asymmetrical. By that definition, someone sitting at the point of the explosion would disagree that the explosion and your alarm clock going off happened at the same time - he'd have to wait 11,000 years for the light from the alarm clock going off to reach him.

Two observers in the same frame of reference (assuming Earth and the exploding star are not moving very much relative to each other) should agree on the order and simultaneity of events - otherwise it's not much use as a frame of reference.

I don't think that's how a physicist would define simultaneity. There is a reference frame in which it happened as arbitrarily close to "now" (in that reference frame) as you'd like, but we're not in one of those.

The event which produced the photons happened, as far as I'm concerned, 11,000 years ago.

If you want to say it's happening "now," then any signal we send back in that direction will also get there "now." Except that that "now" will be 22,000 years later then the first "now," which makes no sense.

.... And?! I need closure on that anecdote!

Hah. Guber.

Presumably so. I can't come up with any reason why it's remotely relevant to the article, though.

Huh. I thought fenders were bumpers. So what are bumpers in USian?

Statistics do not work that way! Goodnight!

Ah, the system works.

Fricken what?

It also doesn't make it insincere just because you can come up with a wildly different example of potential free speech infringement.

It's like berating your neighbour for holding a noisy barbecue, and asking him how he'd like it if you broke into his house in a ski mask, threatened him with a baseball bat and trashed his furniture.

How is that in any way equivalent to DD trying publish its own data?

Who knows how the game might've gone without the under-inflated balls in the first half? Maybe the other side were psychologically defeated by the lead the Patriots had thanks to cheating in the first half. Maybe they were forced into some risky tactics which failed to pay off.

I mean, maybe not, I have no idea about the two teams involved. But you can't just extrapolate directly from one half to the other.

Had to? Because otherwise there couldn't be possibly be any reason to look anywhere other than the USA for high quality software? Sheesh.

You do know it's okay not to be "number one!" at everything, right?

And it's everywhere, which makes it the om nom.

With blackjack? And hookers?

A similar story local to me:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...