Sayonara

And let's not forget the testicle.

Keeping the testicles safe until they are needed?

Is he eating the paint?

It's all so cray-zee.

In order for balance to be achieved, wouldn't Fox viewers have to watch the other networks? There's no point having balanced views spread across different stations if people are only watching one or the other. That creates an argumentative population, not a well-informed one.

Don't trust either, don't support either - it's fairly obvious that regardless of the quality of information they have access to, both parties have an agenda and could benefit themselves by misleading you. Given that you have access to the source information, you're capable of drawing your own conclusions. I am not sure what Bush knows (compared to me) has to do with what I said. I was laughing at the dichotomy in the reaction that people have to these things, not to what was actually being said. It's the same old "you're either with us or against us" nonsense that seems to be indoctrinated into Americans from a very young age.

I find it funny (as in amusing) that when the politicians at the head of the parties you support do the same thing (on a daily basis, as part of their jobs), it's "okay". As for the "whole team in Washington relying on the best inteligence reports in the nation", it's been known for a couple of months now that they were doing anything but that.

Where did you hear that?

Or we could take the advice of professionals and use the correct exercises to halt any damage.

I don't think you can necessarily say that using components of things that have already been experienced to make something new "has logic". What is it supposed to mean?

Well... this one is.

I think everyone should declare themselves right. My brain hurts and I want bed now.

Use the links on the page. That's what wikipedia is good for! It explains it better than I can.

Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_media

I'm sure that if you know your physics it does

Only if fools like you bought them.

Because the (euclidean) radius is the distance between the circumference and the centre of the circle. We have provided a reason; you have not.

They are obviously terrorist suicide squads and must be bombed from the air, wherever they live.

I'm guessing that taking the shortest radius of the circle described by the circumference of the great circle is cheating?

How can you not be following this? I am starting to think you know the conclusion but not the explanation.

I would have thought so, but I don't think it will "outlast" the radius. You can't have one without the other.

Only in the same way that there would be no circle due to the circumference shrinking, one would assume. If the circumference shrinks, the radius shrinks "automatically". Of course that assumes Euclidean geometry, which after a mammoth ammount of tooth-pulling we learn is left behind in this example. Considering you set this thread up to explain the phenomenon I don't see why it should be so difficult for us to extract explanations for it.

You don't get what we're saying. All that's telling us it that the radius does not shrink due to relativity. It does not tell us that the radius does not shrink "at all".