The sound waves arises from quantum fluctuations, and those sound waves can propagate through the medium because it is a Bose-Einstein condensate, i.e. it have almost(?) zero resistance to sound waves. So that experiment is acutally measuring quantum fluctuations.

Your comment is funny, because the very article for this thread is about neurological research.

It depends on the situation. What you certainly do not have is unlimited free speech.
Brandenburg v. Ohio "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
And further, Justice Frank Murphy "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

You need to prove that in a court.

Or maybe English is just not my first language.

Your whole argument is BS. The 1th is not that you have the unlimited power to say whatever you feel like, and that your government cannot make laws restricting you to say whatever you want. The 1th is about political speech and freedom of religion. The 1th does not give you the right to incite hate speech or incite any form of crime or cause any form of harm. Your rights ends when they infringe on other people rights, and the government is elected to ensure the rights of all.

You would be correct if the NSLs would prohibit somebody to excercise political speech or religion. But congress is perfectly in its rights to limit your free speech to protect other citizens rights. Like, you have no 1th right to shout fire in a crowded theater and thus cause a panic and maybe the death of some people. Or you have no 1th right to tell people to kill some other people.

You do realize that the 1th does not trump all the other ammendments of the constitution only because it is the first? That is why your government can arrest you for a crime, for example, and thus restricting your 1th, 2th, etc.

Don't you realize that RedHat is a multi-million company that knows exactly what it needs on its servers?
That maybe, just maybe, RedHat needs systemd, and is funding it because of that?

Maybe because systemd is fucking good? And all the whiners about it are just retards. Seriosly, I did not came acros one legit critique of systemd.

For example with the file, the application could ask for an alternative file location.
Or if the socket can't disconnect, the app can ask the user to connect to the internet again.

A file should be flush()ed so that changed are written out. That can cause I/O errors. If you disconnect your computer from the Internet, that can cause an I/O error on close(). There are sure more valid scenarious, when close() or flush() can cause I/O errors. There are also more subtle ways, like if you write a log message to a file in your dtor. That log message can cause I/O error.

And how do you handle exceptions? For example, if you close a file it's a good idea to flush() changes. flush() can throw I/O exceptions.
Or if you close a socket. Or anything else that handles external resources.

You know that you can do that with the PhantomReference, SoftReference, WeakReference classes?
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/...
clear() Clears this reference object.

With the limitation that C++ destructors cannot throw exceptions, why would you need them in Java? a close() method is just fine in Java, because you don't need to deallocate any memory. So what would you do in Java with destructors?

You should not free up resources in a c++ destructor. I guess that is exactly what Linus meant with his quote.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BewareO...
http://www.codingstandard.com/...
C++ destructors can be used to deallocate any memory, or do other stuff that cannot go wrong. But they cannot be used to release any resources, like sockets, streams, files, connections, etc.

Why are people taking C.S. Lewis so seriosly? I was reading quotes and texts from Lewis and it's full of holes and jumping to conclusions that only show his presupposed world view. I view C.S. Lewis as just another Christian apologetic, more like Willeam Lane Craig.

In religion, the ultimate cause of things is always god or gods. The conclusion is already set in stone, and theists are trying to find ways to validate the conclusion.
"by definition, science cannot tell you about them", yes it can, and does. The ultimate cause of things are interactions of matter with the four forces of nature, gravitation, electromagnetism, weak and strong force. I'm sorry if that answer is not satisfying to some, because it does not make you a special created purposeful snowflake. Or, in the words of Fight Club, "You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all a part of the same compost pile.—Tyler Durden"

What is the cause of matter and those four forces of nature? We don't know yet, but that does not mean we will never know. But we have the best method to discover it, and that best method is so far the scientific method. The scientific method is observation, testing and creating of models with explanatory and predictive powers.

"philistines like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne thinking science has made God irrelevant" - way to go with ad-hominim attacks.
God is an idea to explain natural penomena, because God is postulated by religion as the ultimate cause of things. Science explains things better and more accurate, and hence it does make God obsolete.

"You might think of science advocate, cultural illiterate, mendacious anti-Catholic propagandist, and possible serial fabulist Neil DeGrasse Tyson" - more with the ad-hominim attacks.
"Actually, he doesn't just dismiss it. He goes much further — to argue that undergraduates should actively avoid studying philosophy at all. Because, apparently, asking too many questions "can really mess you up.""

That makes Tyson a pragmatist and not a philistine. And I agree with Tyson. Philosophie is ultimatelly useless, and it's just a waste of time. In science the ultimate arbiter of what is true and what is false is nature, and not philosophical arguments.