Actually, no. Had we been allowed a seat in Parliament we would be happy Brits to this day. Well, maybe more like Canadians.

No, strike that. Not like Canadians as we have tans here.

Also, their tea really sucked.

The whole thing is bullshit.

He is only trying to mask the fact that they already have broken most if not all encryption.

No.

Tb shpx lbhefrys.

Gung vf nyy.

Fixed that for you.

It is a valid distinction. Also note that three of the extermination camps employed carbon monoxide. Treblika, Sobibor, and Belzec simply hooked up tank engine exhaust to fake shower rooms (plus there was a place with so called gas vans that were simply moving vans with the exhaust routed into the back of the truck). No fancy chemicals needed.

Despite the press Zyklon B gets, carbon monoxide was the Nazi gas of choice.

Too bad there isn't an obvious meta tag.

So where are the perpetual motion machines?

This is a great question. Let me rephrase it: "How can we collect dark energy and convert it into something useful?"

Nobody knows. Nobody knows if it's possible, for that matter. But yes, energy is constantly being pumped into spacetime; that's what's causing the expansion of spacetime. The nature of that energy and its origin (is it produced ex nihilo? Is it leaking in from another universe?) are currently hotly debated within physics.

But again, it's a great question. I wish we had an answer for it! :)

Try high-school level details. The basic principles of relativity ("no preferred reference frames; time and space are relative; the speed of light is constant") are taught in high school physics, as are such things as barycenters (although they usually call it the "center of gravity"). The bit about the Uncertainty Principle is college-level physics, but the rest is straight-up high school physics -- and not AP Physics, either.

And if you say the earth goes 'round the sun, you're every bit as wrong as if you say the sun goes 'round the earth. The reason why you're just as wrong is because you're making the same fundamental mistake: you're assuming the existence of a preferred reference frame.

So, in a sense, thanks for proving my points.

I've never heard of this Goedel guy but he sounds like either a hippy or a troll or both.

Kurt Goedel is widely regarded as the finest logician since Aristotle. Guy was Einstein's best friend (Einstein said he worked at Princeton "solely for the privilege of walking Kurt Goedel home"), did foundational work in general relativity, developed the Goedel Metric for GR, tore mathematics down to its foundations so violently that Bertrand Russell was shaken, lay the foundation for modern computer science, and more.

Not knowing who Kurt Goedel is, is kind of like not knowing who Isaac Newton is. Seriously. The guy was a major player in mathematics and physics from the 20s up until the 1970s. And when people call him the greatest logician since Aristotle, they're not kidding.

You are correct, sir! I spoke too broadly.

And yes, "tremendous unpopularity" would be a good way of describing the non-local hidden variable theories. :)

From any point of reference the sun is the centre of this solar system and everything in this system orbits the sun.

Not at all. Nothing orbits the sun. The planets and the sun all orbit the barycenter of Sol System, which happens to almost coincide with the center of the Sun. See, e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

Anyway, the claim that "from any point of reference the sun is the centre of this solar system" is just wrong. Walk out your front door on a clear night and you can watch the planets and stars rotate around you. You're the center, from that particular frame of reference. Sure, to describe the motions of the planets accurately requires an absurdly complex set of epicycles, so complex that they cannot be evaluated without the use of computers... but you can do it: the math gives equivalent results. The math may be easier in one reference frame, but that doesn't make one reference frame more correct.

Here's another example: stand still and spin around really fast. Your arms will naturally lift and move outwards. In one frame of reference, you're spinning and centrifugal forces are lifting your arms up. In another frame of reference, you're standing still and the entire universe has started spinning around you, and the tidal forces generated by that much mass (at, admittedly, that great a distance) generate a pull on your arms that lift them up.

That may sound pretty out there, and it is -- it was one of the arguments Kurt Goedel used against relativity back in the early 20th century. ("That's all well and good, Einstein, but if there's no preferred reference frame then how do you account for this?") Then Goedel sat down with the math, crunched a ridiculous lot of numbers, and discovered that yes, General Relativity gave the exact same results as classical physics.

We may want to choose one reference frame or another to make the math easier -- but that doesn't make one reference frame more correct than another.

Look at how many people think they're scientifically literate because they think --

1. The Earth goes around the sun. It doesn't, and in fact, this is just as wrong as saying the sun goes round the Earth. Both positions implicitly advocate there's some privileged and special frame of reference in which to view the universe, and Einstein says there isn't one. It's sort of like people who say there's no such thing as centrifugal force: stand inside a rotating reference frame and derive Newton's Laws and yes, yes it exists, and yes, yes it's real. The mistake: "some reference frames are more true than others." The reality: "you pay your money and you take your frame of reference."
2. Conservation of energy. Conservation of energy only happens in a static spacetime; astronomy says our spacetime is dynamical; energy is not conserved in our universe.
3. E=mc**2. Only true for objects at rest, and pretty much nothing in the universe is at rest. The real equation is E**2=m**2c**4 + p**2c**2. This is why light can have energy without mass: a photon's energy is carried entirely in its momentum.
4. If you measure a particle's position, you'll necessarily tweak its velocity. That's the Uncertainty Principle. No, that's the Observer Effect. The Uncertainty Principle isn't a statement about the fidelity of our measurement apparatus: it's a statement about the total information available, period. If you think the data actually exists but we just can't measure it, then you're subscribing to a Hidden Variables interpretation of quantum mechanics, and the Aspect experiments put a pretty comprehensive set of nails in that coffin.

... and that's just the tip of the iceberg. You don't have to talk to flat earthers and antivaxxers to see profound science illiteracy; usually, the people condemning the science illiteracy are just as wrong, but about different things.

Come to Baltimore and try that.

Code generators, syntax highlighting, then on to integrated refactoring tools, things like Intellisense.... I give software engineers 15 years.