I was casually browsing one of the circlejerk threads, and in one they came up up with "Hubskineers".

cool story bro.

My feed

I wasn't really clear.

I am not talking about orbits or the model of the solar system. I'm talking purely about changing the frame of reference.

If you want to plot the movement of planets, you set the frame of reference at the sun. That way, the orbits are nice and elliptical. If you plot the movement of the moon, it will look something like this, though. To get a nice ellipse, you have to set the frame of reference at the earth.

So now you have the earth at point (0,0,0) and you have the moon revolving around it in an elliptical orbit. What happens if you plot the sun?

Normally, people consider the ground not to move, and use it as a frame of reference. So if you're just standing, you're not moving. If you're driving 30 miles per hour, you're moving at that rate relative to the earth's surface, right? So, if the ground is not moving but the sun moves from one side to the other, then at this frame of reference the sun is moving around the earth.

So to be clear: I'm not making an argument against the model where the earth orbits around the sun - everything behaves the same. The only thing that changes is the frame of reference.

Sorry, I can't figure out what you're trying to say... you're not forming coherent sentences.

Then again, my post was made under influence of alcohol, so I guess that's ok.

I can have all the faith in the world that the sun revolves around the earth however the evidence would prove me wrong.

Is there really evidence? Or is it just blind faith in what your elementary school teacher once told you? ;)

What about the whole concept of relativity and frame of reference? Should your driver's license be revoked if the police officer can provide evidence that your car was traveling 108,000 km/h above the speed limit? Because that's the speed it was traveling relative to the sun.

Sure, if you're approximating planetary orbits, this is much easier to work with than this. But neither it technically wrong. Can you disprove that the sun "rises" each morning? No, because it's just a matter for frame of reference.

It opens the links and comments page in new tabs.

If you just want to open one link, you can just middle-click it as usual.

I got a 100 on Toronto :P

(85/100 final)

I have a domain that is WhoisGuard protected (first year is free on NameCheap), and it has the same exact address.

It's really the credit card company's responsibility to check the address. Disposable or not, the credit card has an audit trail that leads to the owner of the account, which happens to be in the US, and probably has the author's name on it.

According to the end of the paper, it appears to be challenging the traditional assumptions that rocky exoplanets would have similar compositions to what we have here.

Numerous studies have suggested the possibility of carbon-rich exoplanets ... However, the prevalent practice is to assume Earth-centric compositions, comprising of Fe, silicates, and H₂O, in explaining super Earth observations. A carbon-rich 55 Cancri e would represent a departure from Earth-centric mineralogies in rocky exoplanets.

Muahaha!

Actually, this is more related to trademarks rather than copyright.

I'd like to offer a differing opinion.

I listened to NPR on the day it broke out, and here was the full quote:

It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that didn't work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.

Yes, it's ignorant, but the point is that he never stated it as a fact. While everyone is focusing on "legitimate rape", the actual point he was trying to convey is that "punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child". You might disagree with it, but remember that he's not the only one holding that position - Paul Ryan, for instance, supports banning all abortion, including in case of rape and incest.

So is it a "controversial remark"? Yes, because it sparked the whole abortion debate, which was not really being discussed at that time.

So is it a "gaffe"? I think so - he said something he should not have said because he did not know what he's stalking about.

And let's face it - while it would be nice if politicians knew the facts about everything they voted on. But they don't. They just know what their lobbyists laid it out for them. Take net neutrality, for instance, or software patents.

I don't know, I live in the US right now. I also don't know what canned milk is.

Just curious - any reason you decided to use |'s rather than the "standard" email quote ">"?

No breading for you!

Considering it's deemed safe in most of the world, including most countries in Europe (with proper inspections), I'd think that the dangers of raw milk are a bit overblown. I dare say there might even be some lobbying involved.

But hey, I find the idea of eating raw fish or raw beef revolting.

Raw milk yuck. But if you want it, I think you should have it. Please turn your head away when you puke though.

What? Why? Have you ever had any?

When I was a kid, we'd go to the market in the outskirts of the city in the morning. By the time we bought it, it was usually still warm.

Quite honestly, I don't see anything wrong with raw milk as long as it's fresh and the cow lives in "proper" conditions. It strikes me as odd that something that seemingly "normal" is downright illegal here in the States.

they're missing out by not calling it Mapple.

Simpsons did it

That would be perfectly cromulent thing to do.

Sorry, I meant that the article needed better citations, not you.

[citation needed]

And also for "Xenottabyte", "Shilentnobyte" and "Domegemegrottebyte"

I think that's because these days it's a pretty minor transgression. What about carrying liquids on a plane, and the rest of the "security theater"? See, for example: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/03/harms_of_post-...

These kinds of errors tend to completely throw me off. As a non-native speaker, then/than, your/you're and they're/there/their "sound" very different to me. Here's what happens if I get caught off-guard reading your sentence:

If some one comments on your grammar rather then you're... "Rather" looks odd there

... then you're reasoning it means you... Missing period?

... then you're reasoning. It means you won. Wait, what?

If some one comments on your grammar, (rather?) then you're reasoning. It means you won. That makes no sense! How is it that you are reasoning if someone comments on your grammar?

And by the time I re-read the sentence the third time to finally get it, I usually lose track of what's being said, and either re-read the whole paragraph, or just skip reading the rest. (Or in the case of chronic terrible spellers/grammar-ers, skip their posts entirely.)

So I'd like to take issue with your premise that you win if someone comments on your grammar. If you use terrible grammar, then for every person who comments on it, there are a few more (like me) who won't bother getting to the reasoning, and won't feel bad about it. That said, I'd like to request you to also put "some one" in bold ;)

(I'm sorry)

They were tripping balls, that's for sure:

http://creativecriminals.com/documents/pepsi_gravitational_f... (pdf)

The idea is to make the insurance companies to give up something, you need to give things up as well. If everyone is signed up, insurance companies should theoretically have enough new income to allow people with preexisting conditions and kids under 26. If you impose those requirements on the insurance companies without increasing the number of people signed up, they'll just increase the prices - common sense.

Whether it's going to work out, I don't know. But it's a step in the right direction. If the act is not reverted, some years from now they could start thinking about forcing insurance companies to be non-profit (so that they don't have the incentive to deny claims) and make employers subsidize insurance rather than choose the employees' insurance company, like most large corporations currently do (so that people could actually switch the company if they don't like the service without a financial burden). And then we'd be on the way to the healthcare model that most of the developed world uses (Germany, Japan, etc.)

There's also the Vivaldi Tablet, which also runs plain Linux and uses entirely open-source software out-of-the-box.