38% when I'm watching it.
What's with the cutesy headline? "Shock collision in black hole plasma jet," is pretty sensational on its own, and actually tells us something. Maybe more people would have read the article and we'd have a discussion here instead of crickets.
Unless you're reading ancient aramaic and greek, you're interpreting an interpretation of words whose original meanings and connotations are speculative anyway. You're speculating on speculation, even assuming the original text was authoritative.
Of course, the canonical texts of the New Testament were chosen by some guy named Athanasius who lived 300 years after Jesus, and you probably didn't know of until reading this. If you did, you'd be an exception. And why are there four gospels? Because of such amazing logic as: "since there are four-quarters of the earth in which we live, and four universal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world, and the 'pillar and ground' of the church is the gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh⦠Therefore the gospels are in accord with these things⦠For the living creatures are quadriform and the gospel is quadriform⦠These things being so, all who destroy the form of the gospel are vain, unlearned, and also audacious; those [I mean] who represent the aspects of the gospel as being either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer." By that logic, the Bible should exhibit bilateral symmetry and be capable of reproduction.
But I guess that doesn't matter, as long as we get the "jist" of the Bible. Even though not one word can be added or removed, sayeth the Lord, dontchaknow.
Meanwhile, science is testable and repeatable, not "trust me, it happened because someone wrote it down and then some other people voted on it."
"Jur ass has had it Park"?
"Late Cretaceous Park," would have been a much more relevant dig at the name.
If a product ships broken but has an "unbreak" checkbox, it still ships broken.
Most people don't have time to do this, even if they had the requisite level of knowledge, so we trust other people to do it for us, and we call those people "journalists." Ideally, there would be multiple people doing independent reviews, but in the days of the AP and Reuters, we just get 1 semi-literate write up and then syndication, unless it has to do with whether some soccer people took bribes or how cute kittens are, and then we can count on no less than 20 independent reporters and weekly follow-ups.
The other problem is that there is no genuine nutrition research, nor genuine nutrition practitioners. As someone above mentioned, the only way to have controlled trials which pass ethical considerations is if you believe a substance will help, or very certain that it won't harm someone. You can't just feed them a diet of Twinkies and red meat and then see what happens, and say "oh yeah, heart disease, sorry about that" but you can't have a controlled trial without doing that either.
Eating less... food that is not chocolate, you mean.
Either it's your first phone, then you're not counted as switch
Is a switch from a "feature phone" to a smartphone counted as a switch or a first time?
I know, right? Kids these days don't even know why we call it "rolling down the windows." Give me a GPS where I have to tap in my destination by morse code using a switch from a Model M and I'll be a happy camper.
Right... manufacturers could avoid all of this BS if they just stuck to standard head unit sizes and bezels. For whatever reason, though, they don't want to make it easy to replace a stereo -- probably to make the $5000 upgrade to the "premium" audio more compelling. Of course, once you hear that midrange, it's hard to say no. It sounds like someone's right there in the car, possibly in the trunk, quickly running out of air.
A pattern of Congress continually extending term lengths retroactively is not the same as a law declaring that copyrights do not expire, because the action that occurs if Congress does not act is that copyrights expire. Whereas in the latter scenario Congress has to act in order to make copyrights expire.
Each house of Congress also has to act every two years in order to set its rules. The requirement of a periodic formality to prevent copyrights from expiring does not change the practical outcome, just as the requirement of a periodic formality to readopt House and Senate rules every two years does not keep the House and Senate from having rules.
Nobody actually wants perpetual copyright terms, except maybe Disney.
And the Gershwin estate. And the leadership of the Motion Picture Assocation of America (to find sources, search the web for the phrase "forever less one day"). And Dr. Seuss Enterprises, whose argument in its Eldred amicus was that an author and his heirs deserve royalties from adaptations of the author's work to media invented decades after the work's first publication.
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.