He's the dumbest smart person he knows. Pity he doesn't know that, though.

Given your uid, probably on here as well.

No need to knacker your starter.

You can bump a manual within 5 yards single handed on the flat if you know what you're doing, most of which is the distance you roll while you're getting back in the car. Facing downhill you don't even have to push and can do it in 1.

Funny. I had a rental on holiday in Crete once and not only was that the first time I'd ever driven LHD, as well as the first time I'd had to drive on the right, it was a manual, so also the first time I'd ever had to change gears with my right hand. Was second nature before I'd even left the airport.

> We already have one, it's called the Mustang mach-e (though being one of the worst EVs I've driven maybe we shouldn't acknowledge it exists).

I'm glad US has an unmentionable abomination EV from Ford as well as UK. Here, it's the Capri but they went down one level further into hell and made it a 4-door SUV-lite Chelsea tractor.

But if fewer people performing this behaviour died of starvation (or were too low in nutritional status to raise offspring to maturity - same thing really) than died of Salmonella it would still be a net benefit.

So Claude is your plastic pal who's fun to be with?

First against the wall when the revolution comes.

"No responsible disclosure" means just that. No 90 day window because that's still "responsible disclosure". Why should I give 90 days grace for a bounty that isn't going to be paid anyway?

Synced to the season 1 theme along with action shots from the upcoming episode. Don't recall any other series sign that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Unspoken: "And after testing with right dominant people, which we fully appreciate and cheerfully admit could be a factor, we called it a day and didn't bother checking if left dominant people exhibited the same behaviour"

Nothing "critical" about this due to incomplete testing. It doesn't even support the original hypothesis.

Considering the number of cases due to the Malicious Communications Act, weaponised for hurty words (12000 and counting), which one is more likely?

I looked up the figures a few days ago - but having since driven to the other end of the country, I've forgotten the precise details. IIRC it was something like Goofy having a higher aphelion - so most of the time (and length of orbital arc) it is going to be further out than Pluto (by a few %, but it also has higher eccentricity, so it's aphelion is lower than Pluto's (and indeed, Neptune's ; which is also true for Pluto). Since orbiting objects travel faster at aphelion than perihelion, that makes the average orbital period of Pluto and Goofy the same (or their year the same, or their semi-major axis the same ; these all mean the same thing) despite Goofy travelling further per orbit than Pluto, with a faster arc near perihelion.

You see the same sort of thing with, say, Uranus, Neptune, and 1P/Halley ; Halley and Uranus have quite similar orbital periods, but Halley's aphelion is well out beyond Neptune's orbit. the long period it spends out there is counterbalanced by the 3 year long Sun-dive it does form (approximately) Saturn's orbit, to the Sun, and back out to Saturn's orbit.50-odd% of it's orbital path followed in about 5% of it's orbital period.

Just because Newton's laws are quite simple, doesn't mean that their consequences are simple. Just ask (if you can get his bones to talk) one J. Kepler, who had to work out the orbits from raw observational data, unsullied by Newton's theoretical framework.

(It still sometimes astonishes me that there is no simple way to calculate the length of an arc of an ellipse or it's total perimeter - you have to do a really complicated, progressive approximation calculation for each specific shape of ellipse. Which, when you realise that Kepler would have had to make hundreds (thousands?) of such approximations while reducing Brahe's data, explains why Kepler came up with at least one relatively good approximation to the length of an ellipse's perimeter.)

hey combine hydrogen from with carbon dioxide,

Hydrogen from what or where?
If, like almost all *industrial* hydrogen, it comes from cracking natural gas, that's as something pure magenta (whatever the complimentary colour to green is).
(Our "analytical grade" hydrogen was probably sourced from electrolysis - certainly when we made it on site, it was ; but that was substantial cost of equipment and maintenance time. Our systems really cared about contaminants at the part-per-million level.)

A propos not a lot - my BOINC installation of "Asteroids@Home" has just started kicking through computations for the first time in ages. (BOINC is an indirect descendent of the SETI@Home project, generalised for a variety of distributable computation projects ; Asteroids@Home is a project that "uses power of volunteers' computers to solve the lightcurve inversion problem for many asteroids." Lightcurves are brightness versus time ; once you correct for distance asteroid to Sun and asteroid to Earth, the cross-section illuminated and rotation speed drop out - after considerable maths.

Probably someone has posted a new batch of data on something's light curve, and the rotation speed and/ or shape model is being re-analysed.

It's a small contribution.

I just find it absurd to demote Pluto to a non planet and then classify other climbs as Plutino, is pretty inconsistent.

IIRC, the term "plutino" was being used *before* the 2006 (?) IAU definition. Cart and horse sequence race condition.

But then again: you could call them Neptino, or something, or? And Pluto would be a Neptino,too.

There are bodies in a 3:2 resonance with Neptune. And other bodies in a 5:3 resonance (while 6:3 or 3:1 resonances are relatively empty : see "Kirkwood gaps" in the asteroid belt - same physics, different dominant body (Jupiter) and swarm of "test particles". And other bodies in 7:2 resonances. I can't remember the name of such a body (and can't be bothered to research it) so in keeping with other cartoon dogs, let's consider this to have a largest member "Scooby" and call these "scoobinos" (it's a class, not a proper noun, so no capitalisation).

By your naming convention, these too would be called "neptinos" (no capital), with no distinction from the 3:2 "peptinos" generally known as "plutinos". By the naming convention I describe, and which is actually being used, "plutinos" are a distinct (if related) class to "scoobinos".

It's a nomenclature - it's intended to describe meaningful (to a certain class of people, KBO astronmers, for example) differences in a compact, memorable manner.