Sayonara

The only posts that get deleted are duplicates, or one-word posts that say things like "erm?" and "HAHA".

Why would I tell you to read the thread as a response to you reading something? Don't you think maybe I just might be talking about something you didn't read? The fact that several towns in the USA require all residents to own a firearm has been established several times in this thread. Additionally, the argument "this random object X kills too so it should be banned" has been debunked already as being utter tripe. Again, several times. Hence "read the thread". It's not up to you to police the threads. That's what mods (hi!) are for. If you think a post is country-bashing, report it to a mod. We WILL warn people who we agree are trolling or inciting flame wars. Otherwise posts like this one^ could even get you a warning for trolling, because whether you intend to or not you're stirring up animosity. In Britain we wander around waiting for the queen to tell us what to do, because she runs the country See above posts. Worst. Reasoning. Ever. Maybe you should turn your attention to why it got you mad, instead of having random knee-jerk reactions. And you still didn't answer my question, damn your socks

Why? I'm pretty sure he was referring to the right to bear arms, which is a different matter. Also consider that the other countries that allow ownership of handguns either do so under strict regulations, or don't have the resources to be universally intolerant of civilian gun use. We're interested in the manifestation of democracy. The actual mechanism is irrelevant. The queen has virtually no power in this country. She doesn't sit at the top, telling everyone what to do. Parliament can be likened to your Senate as far as the democratic process is concerned in this discussion. The changing of the guard has nothing to do with politics, governance or this discussion. (a) That question wasn't for you, (b) You didn't answer the question anyway - RTFQ! © Even if I had asked the question you tried to answer, your answer would still be stupid. "Some things might kill me, so it doesn't matter if I invite more risk!" Also, I'm pretty sure you're more likely to be shot in the USA than you are to win the lottery, get hit by lightning, or involved in a fatal car accident.

If you aren't going to bother reading the thread, don't post to it.

So?

Oh, you mean a positional universal reference. With a lone object accelerating you can compare its origin rest frame with its terminal rest frame, can't you?

There's definitely a lot in that slidescale idea - people tend to confuse gender identity issues with the expression of either/or sexuality.

Sorry, I forgot this discussion. I very specifically said "effect, not 'cause' or process'" (because the latter two weren't relevant to my question). By saying "or at least not in the same way" and "a yagi would be crapest of all examples", you're acknowledging the same effect does occur. So although a Yagi might not be the best example, it's just as valid as an example. I think we can probably agree you didn't so much correct MrL's explanation, rather you enhanced it

Call me Mr Cynical but I think this is turning into the sort of thread Fafalone intended to preclude

e=mc2 That 2 in there makes it an exponential relationship (or thereabouts). Think graphed curves. Isn't that "c"?

Well, I don't own a gun. I don't particularly want to own a gun, and I certainly don't need to. I don't think I am any less "free" than you are, in fact I would say I am a couple of shades more free (Can you say "Patriot Act"?) to be perfectly honest. So I'm afraid I don't see your point. As Glider says, and atm alludes to; if you feel you need to have a gun in order to defend yourself from the people around you, you cannot possibly seriously think you are more free than people who require no such assurance? Compare the murder rates of the USA against any other major country with similar population distribution and socio-economic status. I think you'd have a job proving that "more people with guns means fewer people getting murdered". ( ^ I'm not talking about "more guns means more death by the gun" there, I'm talking about the fact that countries without a gun in every other home don't tend to descend into bloodbaths of homicide, so where did this idea/excuse of "self defence" come from?)

They've been going on about this technology for years (I remember it being on "Tomorrow's World" in the early 90s so that's the kiss of death right there) and legislation has still not come to fruition in the UK. I'd be quiet surprised if they became a legal requirement any time soon (although the way civil liberties are being quietly pruned back at the minute in the UK and US, it might not be that much of a surprise).

When atinymonkey was at school he built a robot that burned down an entire block. True story.

You're quite happy to be shot in the face by a raving lunatic then?

... What criteria do we have to fulfil to have chosen "correctly"? Just that the choice is random?

Well I hope that lot jogged your memory in the right direction

Dude, that's even worse You really ought to learn JavaScript if you're going to promise things that require it to paying clients. Check child has loaded: http://developer.irt.org/script/1683.htm Bidirectionals: http://www.webreference.com/js/tips/000610.html Check named window exists: http://www.faqts.com/knowledge_base/view.phtml/aid/1460/fid/124 Check window [still] open: http://www.faqts.com/knowledge_base/view.phtml/aid/1765/fid/124 Check if window.name exists: http://www.faqts.com/knowledge_base/view.phtml/aid/21359/fid/124

I tell you what, I wouldn't like to be on the command crew of one of those things, much less the engineering staff.

Certainly not, but it's probably better off with one rather than without.

I meant generally, not in response to you I think that Orion monster could do with a Faraday cage.

I think this is what he was talking about originally: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/O/OrionProj.html

Is that as raw numbers, or is it as "percentage of users meeting a related untimely death"?

Isn't he supposed to be trying to win the public's favour for the next few months. Or did I just answer my own question...

I was thinking more along the lines of "internet geek in imploded spicy mace pummelling" headlines

Cruithne is in a stable orbit. Maybe not what you'd call regular, but it is in an equilibrium of some sort. If the sun had more of a relative influence on Cruithne than it did on the moon (accounting for the difference in mass, obviously), and the Earth less so, don't you think Cruithne would have been torn away by now? Or, more likely, never reached a 3-body orbital state in the first place?