John Cuthber

"The Telecommunications Act of 1996 gave them the power" Or In 1996, they gave themselves the power...

As has been pointed out, it only matters if the laws are good. Here in the UK there is a minimum wage. But it isn't enough to live on. So, (almost) anyone who earns it is also on state handouts of some sort. Which means that the employer can perfectly legally pay starvation wages so he earns a profit (even though, in principle, his business should run at a loss because it can't afford to pay a living wage). He gets all the cash + status of being a company boss. The taxpayer gets to pay for that. But the average tax payer doesn't have enough money to set up a business; you need to be rich to do that. So it's a way to get money from taxpayers to rich people. It was initially opposed by the Tories, our right wing party, but is now part of their policy. I wonder why? If the minimum wage is enough to live on, it's a good thing. If not, it's a subsidy for the rich, at the expense of the middle class. You might ask why we didn't vote them out. well, it's tricky- all our politicians are Right wing. At the last election the New Labour party (no longer new; never was Labour) got thrown out. The two other parties formed a coalition. Their names are the Conservatives and the Liberals. Someone needs to get them a dictionary. And I'd like to see a lot more detail before I answered Studiot's question. In particular, I'd like to know if the top floor was "the boardroom" and so all its profits were paper; or if it was the cafe, and it made all its money from knackered shoppers.

Are you familiar with the so called "Schroedinger's cat" experiment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

the word "moorhen" might cover different birds in different countries. But if we are talking about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_moorhen then the red beak is a give-away- it can see green light or that beak would look the same as a white one. Presumably it's ignoring the laser for some other reason, one possible explanation is that it's already hidden in the bushes and that's the best defensive trick it knows. On a tangentially related note I recently heard of an exchange between a teenage kid and an angler. Angler "Go away! you are scaring the fish". Kid "Scaring them? So what? you plan to kill them."

"I think wealthy people are focus on accumulating all the wealth they can. So long as the wealthy are not overtly breaking the law wealth accumulation isn't a bad thing. " I disagree. A wealthy individual (or corporation) that pays very poor wages is a bad thing but, in dong so they can accumulate more wealth.

A few years ago I went to the college's celebration of its 500 th anniversary. It hadn't changed that much in 30 years. The world of Oxford entrance was very competitive then. The way to distinguish yourself was to be a better academic than the other candidates. There are cutting edge universities, they would have no difficulty asking questions that no candidate could expect to answer. They ask slightly less difficult questions, and very few of the would-be entrants can answer the questions. That's who they let in.

It's certainly well documented that the polarisation of an emitted photon isn't (always) random. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depolarization_ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence_anisotropy The fluorescence lifetimes of the europium complex they were using is about a millisecond. That's long enough for the electron to go round the entire lab, never mind the atom.

Stupidity is often excused if you feel you have no alternative. Presumably that's why you are prepared to accept the Israelis' stupidity in this matter. Also, from the point of view of those voting for them, they were not terrorists, but freedom fighters. Re. the objections, OK, fair enough, but the split seems a bit arbitrary to me. You muddled the charter and the constitution, You muddled the current policies with historic ones and You muddled Koran with the Hadith. Lets hope your vacation clears the cobwebs.

I think figures 9 and 10 here are instructive. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html It's not "corporations" going to far, it's greedy bastards going too far. Bosses are being paid several hundred times the average pay. Is it credible that you couldn't replace the CEO of most companies by a panel of a dozen or so of the middle ranking employees, just as effectively, and much more cheaply? If you could do that (and I think you almost always could) then to maximise corporate efficiency, you should do it. They don't- so it's not "Corporate efficiency" or "shareholder return" that's driving this; it's greedy bosses.

The point remains. Though the elections were far from prefect, they were not bad enough to discard, even if we don't like the outcome. Hamas won. And that's because a lot of people voted for them. So, once again, if many or most of the voters thought Hamas was a good idea, they must have been in a pretty rough spot. Their enemy is not Hamas, but whoever put them in that spot. Also, "that doesn't diminish our rights to not like the outcome or react acoordingly, such as not legitimizing or recognizing the 'sh*ts', or by cutting aid or even by segregation like a wall." Yeah, that will really help. And "I did note that both of your cited objections... " As far as I can tell, only one did. The other pointed out that many external observers thought the elections went quite well. Are you getting muddled again?

There were certainly problems with the election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006 For example, "In the lead-up to the elections, Israel launched on 26 September 2005 a campaign of arrest against PLC members. 450 members of Hamas were detained, mostly involved in the 2006 PLC elections. The majority of them were kept in administrative detention for different periods. In the election period, 15 PLC members were captured and held as political prisoners. During the elections, the Israeli authorities banned the candidates from holding election campaigns inside Jerusalem. Rallies and public meetings were prohibited. Also, the Jerusalem identity cards of some PLC members were revoked. The Carter Center, which monitored the elections, criticised the detentions of persons who "are guilty of nothing more than winning a parliamentary seat in an open and honest election"." But, on the whole it went well "After polls closed, officials and observers called the vote "peaceful"; Edward McMillan-Scott, the British Conservative head of the European Parliament's monitoring team described the polls as "extremely professional, in line with international standards, free, transparent and without violence". His colleague, Italian Communist MEP Luisa Morgantini said there was "a very professional attitude, competence and respect for the rules."[20][21] " And Hamas won. The vote is (as with all polls) questionable in parts but why do you doubt that it is "at least partly legitimate." Is it because you don't like the outcome?

You may find it interesting to note that the direction in which a photon is emitted may depend on whether or not there is a mirror nearby. This also affects the emission half- life. http://newton.ex.ac.uk/research/emag/pubs/pa_thesis.pdf

What's your point? It's not as if I said the elections were entirely legitimate. I said "However they are a bunch of shits who were (more or less) elected.". Incidentally, you may find this informative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Current_status_of_the_Charter "Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal indicated to Robert Pastor, senior adviser to the Carter Center, that the Charter is "a piece of history and no longer relevant, " So it's accepted that their old policy of the destruction of Israel is no longer valid. It hasn't been their current policy since (at least) 2010) when that statement was made. Why did you cite it?

"Is it okay to be immunized multiple times." In general, yes. Having been immunized does not stop you being "naturally" exposed to the infection again, and that doesn't do you any harm. Being "artificially" exposed to it won't be very different.

So to start things off, what effects are there on the body when moving at 300 miles per hour?" None. Compared to my cousin who lives near the equator, my speed differs from his by rather more than 300 MPH.

Nope, I did not. what I said (quite clearly I thought) was "There's little if any doubt that Hamas are a bunch of shits." And I pointed out that, if you find yourself in a position where Hamas look good, your enemy is the people who put you in that position. You made some spurious comments about Hitler whose "election" was roughly as dubious as Hamas'. I repeated my point. "my point is that the retributions from WW1 were not imposed by Germany's friends. The people who forced the Palestinians out of much of their land were not the Palestinians' friends." and you ignored it. Would you care to try again?

Actually, it doesn't quite. This is a fairly typical YT vid of a building being demolished by a series of explosions. You can hear each bang. Now that's no great shock- explosions are loud. Now listen to the soundtrack of the collapse of WTC7 No series of bangs. No controlled demolition. The assertion has been assailed.

my point is that the retributions from WW1 were not imposed by Germany's friends. The people who forced the Palestinians out of much of their land were not the Palestinians' friends.

I have a bus to catch so I'm not going to waste much time on this now. OK, It's been a while- they building was hit by a building that was hit by a plane, rather than the building was hit by a plane. Like hat matters... The premise I'm working on is one of sudden major damage to the building. That's not false. Since I ruled out people as the setters of the explosives (because they would have been seen, I'n not asking who did it: I'm asking what did it? The tooth fairy is one option you might choose. And you tried to get away with pretending not to cherry pick the data.

I can only be bothered to point out a few of your errors at the moment " But the observed descent time for 8 stories was 0 percent greater than the computed free fall time for 8 stories.... and that's completely inconsistent with physical principles." Nope, not zero. Not measurably different from zero isn't the same thing.The internals structure wouldn't make much difference to the fall speed once it got underway. "There's simply no point during a natural progressive structural failure where the conditions required for free fall can arise. An explosion or other type of event must have occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove support from beneath the the literally falling upper part of the building" Yes, you may recall that someone flew a plane into it, also you seem not to have understood the stuff about buckling. "No, that's where the NIST looked very carefully at the data for (about) 1.75 seconds to 4 seconds and said "it's in free fall", not me. " OK, it's NIST's graph, but it is the data you are using, so, in that sense it's "your" data, and it contradicts what you say. Do you not understand that the data only indicate very close to "free fall", for about half the time? They do so at the point where the building would be expected to be in near free fall because the structure isn't built to have a building dropped on it. The resistance it offers to that huge impact load is small, compared to the weight of the building. Essentially, once the building starts to fall, it hardly notices the structure under it. "No, I chose to look at an aspect of the NIST analysis that describes a physical impossibility." Nope, the physics is fine. The problem is your lack of understanding. "No cherry picking. Like I said, I chose to look at an aspect of the NIST analysis " Nonsense, the choice of the few seconds in the middle of the graph where the building is in near free fall but ignoring the start and finish, is clearly cherry picking the data. Did you think you would get away with that? "As anyone who owns an old television set knows, ..... it's done by attaching precision timed high-explosives/cutter charges to the steelwork." And, as anyone who has watched the TV shows knows, it takes a lot of time, and expertise to place those charges- not to mention pre cutting through the structure, drilling damned great holes in the concrete etc. Are you saying the tooth fairy did it? Because humans couldn't have- they would have been spotted. And finally (hopefully) The thread title asks Why was it so fast? well, it wasn't fast so there's nothing to answer.

Sounds like a good idea. Incidentally, I'm not sure how rich they would be. It's widely touted that the UK has to maintain low taxation to stop those in the finance industry buggering off. Well, for a start, most of them wouldn't get far without a translator but that's not the important point. The implication of that "threat" is that the finance industry is "The Big Industry" in the UK. Everyone "knows" that the UK's manufacturing industry went down the toilet in about 1970. But that's a misrepresentation (no prizes for guessing who is maintaining it, but here's a hint- it's why I don't wish to be ruled from Westminster) Here's the figures from wiki "In 2011 the UK manufacturing sector generated approximately £140,539 million in gross value added" "The UK financial services industry added gross value of £116,363 million to the UK economy in 2011" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom Yep Our old, tired, run-down manufacturing industry still makes more money than the financial sector. Incidentally, re. "After all the Geordies are well known as drunken misogynists, with poor diets, whose speech is unintelligible. - so they are obviously Scottish already." Have you met the Mancs, the Scousers and the Brummies?

I certainly hadn't forgotten the crusades- I thought about including them as an example of why it's roughly as logical to say that "Christians should kill Muslims" as it is that "Muslims should kill Jews".but that seemed to be complicating the issue. There's little if any doubt that Hamas are a bunch of shits. However they are a bunch of shits who were (more or less) elected. You need to realise that the people who voted for them thought they were the "best available" option. If someone puts you in a position where Hamas look like a good idea, then your real enemy is whoever put you in that position in the first place.

"he strength of buckling columns (whether buckled one at a time or all at once) doesn't just go from 100% to 0% when they fail, " Actually, it almost does. That's the basis of this widely used model. "In 1757, mathematician Leonhard Euler derived a formula that gives the maximum axial load that a long, slender, ideal column can carry without buckling. An ideal column is one that is perfectly straight, homogeneous, and free from initial stress. The maximum load, sometimes called the critical load, causes the column to be in a state of unstableequilibrium;" from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling There really is a "switch" from the stable to unstable state. And impact loading will help too. I presume that you don't have enough grounding in engineering or physics to have realised that before. The problem you have is that you keep arguing against yourself. You say "the falling is too fast" and "the falling is too slow". You keep trying to pretend that a building should stay still for a little over a second after the "explosion" destroys the structure. And then it suddenly goes into free fall. That only happens in scenarios like the critter in the first cartoon here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_physics#mediaviewer/File:Cartoon_physics_WikiWorld.png

Can we move the border down to about Birmingham, then declare independence? There are plenty of people in the North of England who have no more desire to be ruled from Westminster than the Scots have.

It's not clear to me whether the translation would be because I don't know what word you are seeking to translate What does the word mean?