Moreover, if you're at the speed of light, time is stopped for you. You can't move without taking time to do so. This, I believe, is how we know neutrinos don't go at the speed of light: they can change neutrino type as they move, and so they have to be experiencing time, and therefore they can't be going exactly c. (They go really close to it. In a supernova, the neutrino burst will leave the core immediately, while the light takes a few hours to get out of the star, so the neutrinos have a head start of a few hours - and we notice these few hours while watching supernovae from other galaxies.)

Light has energy and momentum. It does not have rest mass, and physicists usually use "mass" to mean rest mass nowadays.

If light had positive rest mass, it's fairly easy to show that, to travel at the speed of light, it would require infinite energy.

Sorry; if special relativity holds, FTL travel is equivalent to time travel.

Let's assume two spaceships pass each other at a speed giving a contraction factor of 2, and attune their ansibles. You're on one spaceship, and I'm on another.

Now, I knock my water glass into the main computer an hour later. This is bad. I send you a message saying that I did that, and ask you to repeat it. You receive it at the same time as I send it - but how is that measured? If I perceive you as receiving it at the same time I sent it, then I see you getting it when you've traveled half an hour from our meeting. You repeat it back to me. If you perceive me as receiving it at the same you sent it, then you see me getting it when I've traveled fifteen minutes, forty-five minutes before I sent it.

According to special relativity, there is no one privileged reference frame, so we have to measure things like simultaneity in a reference frame that varies with the observer. If there is any such thing as an absolute time that doesn't allow time travel, then special relativity is completely wrong.

This would appear to run into the problem that quantum entanglement can't transfer anything FTL.

Also, when two particles are quantum entangled, they need to be kept from undergoing any changes that would break entanglement. Make another human body, quantum entangle it somehow, and how long is that entanglement going to last during normal living? I'm not real happy about being kept in stasis for five hundred years so the quantum entanglement doesn't collapse earlier.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly. This means a potential of more distracted drivers on the road. I bought a used Viper, one of the originals, and not only is there no radio, there is no OEM slot to put a radio in. There is, also, a State law that makes distracted driving illegal. Use of this type of technology while driving may provide probable cause for a traffic stop so caution is paramount. The overreach of such laws is absurd though the intent is good (I believe). Recently a driver was stopped for eating a sandwich whilst driving, I think that was unnecessary and using the law for purposes which it was not designed for.

There are a lot of fake liberals there.

Having dealt with the Chicago "limousine liberal", I think I know what to expect.

It doesn't really worry me. I can find decent people anywhere. Thanks for the heads up.

Quality is not a requirement for it to be defined as a panorama and quality is not a metric used when determining the size. However crappy it still qualifies as the largest panorama (it seems - Google does not indicate that there are larger with commercially available products) even though it doesn't meet your standards. It does not meet my standards either but we do not count and the definition is not affected by standards. Additionally, it is "a lot" and not "alot." 'Alot' is not a word in English.

No. Well, not according to my app that is called TheSage which has very good definitions. I looked because I have seen a picture of an item that was circumnavigated being called a panorama. I figured I would get a more authoritative source and went to the MW source:

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Colloquially I would agree with you BUT reality says otherwise. I personally only use it to describe what you think is the definition. However it is not as strict as I use it and you believe it actually is. To offer you some support, Oxford Dictionary has the very first definition as being what you describe and what I use it for. You can see that here:

http://www.oxforddictionaries....

However, even Oxford goes on to list additional definitions that negate the strictness of it having to be the area surrounding the viewer/camera/photographer.

"It might still be true" also leads to discoveries. If you have reason to believe a theory is correct, anomalies are a way to explore previously unexplained cases. To give an example, Newtonian gravitation predicted Kepler's laws and some variations from them, but not the exact orbit of Saturn. It turned out that the anomalies could be explained by a planet further out, and one was indeed found. It also had problems with the orbit of Mercury, but that turned out to be a relativistic effect, a case where Newtonian laws of motion and gravity mostly worked but needed refinement.

We really should be more specific when using the word Alps. There are a number of different "Alps." It is a rather ambiguous term. Alas, as people won't Google themselves and will ask for a citation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

If you're writing code that has complicated order-of-construction or order-of-destruction order dependencies, rewrite it. Same with base classes with non-virtual destructors. There's no point in laying traps for yourself.

I remember that song. Bands with long songs got little radio so were not as popular, it was a self-feeding cycle. The Doors were so popular that people wanted to hear their music on the radio. They lead the way for bands like the Grateful Dead, Pink Floyd, and Led Zeppelin. I admire the Doors for many things, this is one of them though the information could be incorrect I suppose. I grew up with the Doors so, well, they have stuck as have all the bands listed above.

I'm going to suggest the Meyers books for the entry-level person. Sutter's books are good, but demand more expertise to appreciate.

How much do you pay in Cap and Trade? If I read properly that is where the funds are coming from.

How about not returning values that are going to go away when the function ends?

While shallow vs. deep copies are important, I'd much rather a beginner never write a C-style array. std::vector is safer and easier to use.