Where in the various treaties negotiated in the recent past has a "blind trust" as you term it, been an essential part? Seriously, you'd cast out all forms of diplomacy as being too trusting, and instead prefer war? Have you ever been in a war? Have you ever seen civilians killed because they had the misfortune of living nearby a perceived threat? If you had, then I believe that you would (eventually) prefer a flawed diplomacy to what promoters of war would profess to be the perfect solution.
What's your alternative? Surely it isn't to forget all diplomacy as pointlessly inefficient and so proceed to destroy all those (and their surrounding civilians) who would even appear to threaten us?
Then, according to this inchoate treaty, (and many others like it), a demand would be made to inspect the site to prove no violation was underway. If there was no proof provided or allowed, then sanctions would be restored, or even military action taken, (as some warmongers desperately want already done immediately). But yet somehow i fear this simple honest reply wasn't the one that you were actually curious about?
Seriously, we're all doomed here on the west-coast, run-away! sell your property, save yourselves! It's all just rain and drought here anyway - nothing to see here, move along. The midwest is where you you should go. All that nice safe open space. Leave us poor clueless left coasters to die. oh... and take all the telephone sanitizers with you.
"If you disagree, post. Make your case, explain your disagreement. Moderation is supposed to be factual..." and right there is a major contradiction of moderation: anyone who "disagrees" fundamentally believes that the post is false, non-"factual". So as a moderator, i have to intuit that while i disagree with your statement and that your statement is flawed, it honestly expresses your false state of mind, and not a "troll", (as you're currently unaccountably marked a troll, and as i probably will be soon)
perhaps we should take solace in this occasional blissful ignorance of past evils (even when they're cavorted about under our noses)
given your statement, I think you might be younger than George Lucas, or me. Because I hear nothing but that characterization of jar-jar binks. *and* the Shylock interpretation of Watto.
Remember waterbeds? you don't?? ("hey everybody! an old man is talking!") So that was nearly there, some bright entrepreneur (you sir, in the back, the one texting his stockbroker) needs to combine the "work paradigm" with the "waterbed conceptualization" to form: the water-station. the mark-III will include a endless lap pool attachment.
Excellent advice. (but) back it up on what sort of media? not likely SSDs stored on the furnace?
the original question: At what point, of photon flux, (one presumes), is the cross-over between observed quantum and classical phenomenon? none of those ('advertising') links answer the question. So make up your own number, there will be a constrained uncertainty to it anyway ("42"?)
... is a factor here. If you can constrain your academics for "defense", then you can more easily constrain them for "IP" reasons as well. And there's no bigger business than defense.
yeah. is a bit. here
no windows for 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036...
Yes it deals with Hen Egg-White protein, but it's about overcoming electrostatic barriers to crystallization. The first article involves a urea compound, the second a more esoteric complexed metal compound (Tellurium(VI)-Centred Polyoxotungstate). It's not a direct reference to the first link.