I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me or to somebody else, because what you are saying is pretty much what I had said... that any so-called limits that might exist arise as a consequence of a limitation of the technology, and since there is no pre-defined notion of just how fast that technology can become, it can still be considered unlimited in that sense.

If the idea of "unlimited" bothers you, then think of an unlimited plan as being capped at whatever the technology currently being used would allow you to download 24/7 at whatever speed the network can support, for the entire billing cycle. As technology improves, that limit goes up... without any predefined limit.

Which is, of course, what "unlimited" means. So in reality, the term is quite accurate. The fact that a person can't physically download an infinite amount of content in a finite period because network speeds are finite is entirely irrelevant.

Neither is downloading an unlimited amount in a finite period at any finite speed, no matter how fast. The point of an unlimited bandwidth plan is so that one does not experience any unexpected fees for excessive usage, regardless of how much they actually end up using the service. If Verizon doesn't have the infratstructure to support its subscribers having such plans, then they shouldn't be offering them.

The fact that they literally can't download an infinite quantity of content in a month is irrelevant.

If you're just adverse to the notion of "unlimited bandwidth" you can think of unlimited bandwidth plan, as actually a cap at whatever the theoretical maximum could be if they were downloading 24/7 at full speed for the entire billing cycle, the maximums of which are dictated by the physical hardware and technology... which is only limited by what we can do today, but if the technology improves, the cap goes up with it, with no defined upper bound. And that's the "unlimited" that is being referred to.

Its my understandin that Asia has been mostly spinning clockwise as a result of plate tectonics, and the region that is Siberia is actually slightly further south today than it used to be.

The exact position of the Arctic circle varies from year to year slightly, oscilating across a lattitude difference of about 2 degrees in a cycle that is roughly 40,000 years long. So... how do you figure it wasn't above the arctic circle?

No, they would still be obligated to refund his ticket purchase, since the decision would have been theirs to refuse service.

The other issue is whether the passenger did anything wrong by tweeting.

No, he did not. The flight agent was being a dick by asking him to leave... if the passenger really doubted that the agent had the authority to do ask that question, then he should have immediately asked to speak to that agent's manager or supervisor instead of complying with the request.

It very easily could have been a huge PR problem if they had called the police... but in all likelihood, he still wouldn't be allowed on the plane before they arrived, and by then the plane could have already left. Oh, and his luggage would be flying off without him.

Sounds like a good recipe for a migraine from bowels of hell.

...once he's allowed past the gate, he's allowed.

And once he's been asked to leave, he is trespassing if he does not peacefully comply. Companies can refuse service to anyone for practically any reason they want... presumably,. however, if the reason is not actually a good one, the bad publicity that could easily follow will tend to keep companies from being entirely *too* arbitrary about such reasons.

And while one is busy trying to exercise their so-called "rights", wronged or not, their plane will take off without them... If one has to be somewhere, I guess it just depends on how much your time is worth..

How do you get at the notion that no singularities necessarily means that there are no black holes?

Can't a volume of space be sufficiently bent by gravity so as to not allow light to escape from it, without there being a singularity at the center?

This. Even the best extended medical plans that I have ever had at any job I've ever held would barely cover a fifth of the cost of such surgery.

Can you explain to me, therefore, why information should collapse to a single state inside of a black hole? Because I can't think of one unless you assume that a singularity is at the center of every black hole.

The paradox arises when this system falls into a black hole causing the information to devolve into a single state.

Or... maybe it doesn't devolve into a single state at all. We can't actually see what goes on inside of black hole... but if our assumptions about what actually happens appear to create a paradox, then maybe it's our assumptions aren't valid, rather than the original basic concept of what a black hole supposedly is. I believe that the concept that black holes are necessarily singularities may be flawed. Space is so distorted by gravity in their vicinity that straight lines which intersect their event horizon never exit it, but I do not think that means that all of a black hole's mass is necessarily at its center, or even necessarily collapsing inexorably towards its center. Its center is just its center of mass.

And yeah, I know that astrophysicists with a vastly more qualifications than I have came up with these ideas, but in the end, an argument from authority does not make one actually right.

The point the poster made, which I think is legitimate, is that even a very small earthquake could probably be catastrophic for a collider's integrity and alignment.