Your weight is higher at the poles than on Everest because the earth is not a sphere, but an oblate spheroid. And the mountain would raise you away from the central mass of the earth even more.

Because the mass beneath your feet would be lower.

A mountain at 42,164bkm would have the peak in geosynchronous orbit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

But if someone built a tower 384,000 km high, it would travel faster than the moon. And if you jumped off that tower, you'd also never reach the ground.

You're thinking of the ZFS that goes through FUSE. There is also ZFS on Linux that runs as kernel modules like any other fs.

There's also btrfs.

Of course, neither of those needs the md driver at all, they have their own raid like systems.

If you have a "login" without security, like SMTP, if you were to hook up 12 SMTP servers like this, the simple replay of logging into one and sending an email would work fine. EHLO, and all that, assuming no dropped packets, would send a perfect copy of the one email through all the others.

It went to Grand Jury and was no-billed.

A lawyer that can't work out a resolution for the issue at hand in TFA without going to jury trial is a fucking moron.

Since the contact details are her work details posted to a public website and in regard to a work matter, it's not a problem. Private contact details would be over the line.

http://dictionary.reference.co... "given to waging war." Synonyms: combative, quarrelsome (others trimmed)

Good so far

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite The Internet Protocol Suite is called TCP/IP. UDP is a subset of The Internet Protocol Suite. Thus, UDP is a subset of TCP/IP. There is no UDP/IP. That's a typo of TCP/IP or UDP.

You are just making it clear you don't know what TCP/IP means, or belligerent, for that matter. You are being deliberately contentious. You are ignoring cites that support my position, and can present none that support yours.

It was never feasible for him to block the bill, so I don't see why details of, e.g, when he did it would be important. The purpose was to raise awareness and I've seen quite a bit of coverage including major political sites like DrudgeReport so I would say whatever his notions were they worked out rather well. If it is a call to the masses then it makes sense to give them time to digest and react (hopefully with a call to their representatives) before the actual bill.

As is, are we under the impression that once in office Rand Paul will abandon the cause? Because if not, as the chief executive he would certain have the ability to direct these agencies differently. Personally, this convinces me he would be committed to doing so.

Actually, the problem as you describe is that bicyclists are treating the signs as though they don't exist. They're not treating them as yield signs, they're ignoring them. Changing the law to allow riders to treat stop signs as yield signs would STILL have the described behavior be a violation.

*sigh* That's still nothing compared to being, you know, dead. I'm not much of a physical threat to you.

Also, I was taught when I was growing up that the laws of physics trump the laws of man - IE it's not a good idea to engage in behavior where I'm likely to be run over by a non-careful driver, even if I'd be technically in the correct(and them liable) by the law. I'd rather not be run over, thank you very much. ;)

... How? Of course, I don't live in an area with significant numbers of them. I avoid them just like I avoid cars. I'm continuously scanning for things to avoid, pedestrians are easy. Well, unless the crowd is too thick, but again, at that point I'm either riding elsewhere or walking.

On the generic tact, I'd think we'd see a lot more injury reports if cyclists were indeed a significant danger to pedestrians.

Well, you'll actually need to prove that the law is effective then, I guess. Because as you've mentioned, it's being completely non-followed right now. Having the cops enforce being not stupid for a bit might be more effective than trying to keep pushing 'stop means stop! Because bicyclists are ignoring stop signs and risking me run over them!'. I've already told you I'm not going into the intersection if I'm at risk of you running me over. I know quite a few riders that way. I'm sorry that you only remember the idiots, but I can't do anything about them.

The question is, would he have done this even if not running for president?

The answer is obviously yes, based on past behavior. Rand Paul has been one of the few people willing to go on record voting against things he does not agree with, instead of not voting at all.

So while of course some element of it is PR, that is not the core reason as to why he did this.

Which is doubly annoying/funny because Google, at least, doesn't give people brain teasers.

Then learn to affect a cheesy eastern European accent and tell the interviewer you are after Moose and Perl.

researchers say that's up for interpretation

What good is a law if it cannot let the government arrest Sandor silence anyone arbitrarily based on the prevailing political winds?

Guess what? I *AM* an asshole.

If you want "nice" managers and project leads, check the unemployment lines.

I'm guessing you're a twenty-something who grew up in the age of "everyone gets a trophy" instead of learning that failure IS an option.