> 'a paper called: "It's All About The Benjamins: An empirical study...'
> 'cash the researchers offered, capping out at $1,
Because they never offered more than one "George", their paper's title is clearly overstated.
I think your post needs some clarification.
> After a while, space itself would expand meaning that the ruler will now be longer than what it was.
The expansion of space must be measured with respect to something. The usual idea is that space is expanding with respect to other properties of the physical world, e.g., the mean distance between electron and proton in a hydrogen atom. So, because your hypothetical ruler is made of atoms, the claim is that tomorrow it will take more of those rulers laid end to end to reach distant galaxies.
In contrast, one kind of "ruler" that _is_ changing when space expands is the wavelength of photons and other ultrarelativistic particles. If space expands by 1%, photon wavelengths increase by 1% (as measured w.r.t. your hypothetical 1 meter ruler made of ordinary material) and thus photon energies decrease by 1%. This change is the explanation for the redshift of light from distant galaxies.
> After a while, the space between the nucleus and electrons or within the nucleus itself will become too large, ultimately ripping apart for the fabric of reality itself.
I suspect you are referring to cosmological models that end with a "Big Rip". In these models, the amount of dark energy in a constant volume of space (as measured with an ordinary ruler) increases with time. Eventually, the density of dark energy becomes greater than the density of other kinds of energy, e.g., the binding energy of atoms. Then fluctuations in this dark energy will rip apart atoms.
Because the properties of dark energy are hard to measure, it is not yet clear how its density changes with time. The current so-called "standard model" of cosmology, Lambda-CDM, takes the density of dark energy as constant, and this assumption is consistent with our best current measurements. So, as far as we can now tell, we are not living in a "Big Rip" universe.
Inside the NSA.
From the first-linked article:
'...she later found her footage had been edited for the new film and overdubbed with one of the most controversial lines: "Is your Mohammed a child molester?"'
It sounds like she is in precisely the scenario you describe.
The first link in the summary leads to the Orlando Sentinel, which links to the full video from the Universidad de Huelva. That video estimates "400 kg, 0.6-1.4 m object, 40 m crater, 61000 km/h, 15 tons of TNT". The first three are SI units, the fourth closely related, and the fifth... well, "tons of TNT" dates from the 20th century so how can we call it archaic? It's the Orlando Sentinel who translates into those archaic English units for US-ers such as myself. In the second link in the summary Phil Plait goes so far as to translate the crater size into football fields, but perhaps we shouldn't fault him as that standard unit is neither "English" nor "archaic".
I'd like to nominate Dr. Thomas Neff (http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/14/01/29/0157208/megatons-to-megawatts-program-comes-to-a-close) as more deserving.
A correction to your terminology:
Exposure decreases _quadratically_ with distance and _exponentially_ with time.
> Not a very good idea to completely shut out one of the most important amino acids from your diet.
BTW, ascorbic acid is not an amino acid.
In this post you wrote:
> Let's be clear about this. Silk Road operators had a guy killed.
And in another post you wrote:
> These guys are also murderers.
While I think your main point is correct, that Ross Ulbricht is (allegedly) a thug, I also think we should be clear that (probably) nobody actually died. Ulbricht is accused of paying bitcoins to have two people killed, but neither "hit" was carried out. See
bottom of page 23, for a summary of one "hit", and
starting on page 6, for a step-by-step account of the other.
Nevermind: increase or decrease ten-fold means nine times. Got it. Duh.
Your rationale suggests that "reduce ten-fold" would always be equivalent to zero. It seems that "reduce nine-fold" would be equivalent to "divide by ten", right?
BTW, I have no problem with your conclusion, just with the rationale.
Do you have statistics that support your honesty?
> it's like the ad in the top right corner of the page
> So what? They've gotta make money.
I already paid them money, by subscribing, so that I'm not shown ads.
Now they're showing me an "article" that, as you said, is like an ad.
> People detest change.
I detest not getting what I believe I paid for.
>This is an obvious prank, and is unlikely to cause any harm...
Isn't that just what CBS executives said before airing War of the Worlds?