Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 25 Dec 2006 14:07 hill(a)rowland.org wrote: > > hill(a)rowland.org wrote: > > hill(a)rowland.org wrote: > >> Winfield Hill wrote: > >>> Winfield Hill wrote: > >>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: > >>>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most > >>>>>> of the posts were under the original subject title. This > >>>>>> must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress > >>>>>> test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc. > >>>>> > >>>>> Never have so many, said so much, about so little! ;-) > >>>>> > >>>>> I heard of one long flame war that passed 10K posts, > >>>>> but I never found out which newsgroup. > >>>> > >>>> We passed 9000 on the 14th, and are now within 100 posts > >>>> of 10,000. Keep up the good work guys, you can do it! > >>> > >>> Good job guys and gals, over 10,000 posts, and still > >>> going strong. And still on topic more or less. I've only > >>> read a smattering of the posts here and there, and there's > >>> a minimum of flaming SFAICS. Nice to see. > >> > >> Still going strong, over 11,300 posts, no sign of slowing. > > > > Impressive, zoomed right past 12,000 without slowing, now > > at 12130 posts and climbing towards 13000, going strong. > > Hmm, we're slowing down a bit folks! We're now at 12480 > posts with 12500 in sight, but not so sure about 13000. Merry Christmas, Win. :) -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: T Wake on 25 Dec 2006 17:30 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:260fb$45900ba9$4fe72f2$10502(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > hill(a)rowland.org wrote: > >> hill(a)rowland.org wrote: >> >>>hill(a)rowland.org wrote: >>> >>>>Winfield Hill wrote: >>>> >>>>>Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most >>>>>>>>of the posts were under the original subject title. This >>>>>>>>must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress >>>>>>>>test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Never have so many, said so much, about so little! ;-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I heard of one long flame war that passed 10K posts, >>>>>>>but I never found out which newsgroup. >>>>>> >>>>>> We passed 9000 on the 14th, and are now within 100 posts >>>>>> of 10,000. Keep up the good work guys, you can do it! >>>>> >>>>> Good job guys and gals, over 10,000 posts, and still >>>>> going strong. And still on topic more or less. I've only >>>>> read a smattering of the posts here and there, and there's >>>>> a minimum of flaming SFAICS. Nice to see. >>>> >>>>Still going strong, over 11,300 posts, no sign of slowing. >>> >>> Impressive, zoomed right past 12,000 without slowing, now >>> at 12130 posts and climbing towards 13000, going strong. >> >> >> Hmm, we're slowing down a bit folks! We're now at 12480 >> posts with 12500 in sight, but not so sure about 13000. > > All you need to do is to feed in some flamebait. Almost > anything about Einstein should work. Throw in a combination of Einstein, 9/11 conspiracy, free will and social policy. Should work :-)
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Dec 2006 06:32 In article <260fb$45900ba9$4fe72f2$10502(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >hill(a)rowland.org wrote: <snip> >> Hmm, we're slowing down a bit folks! We're now at 12480 >> posts with 12500 in sight, but not so sure about 13000. > >All you need to do is to feed in some flamebait. Almost >anything about Einstein should work. But that would be so boring. /BAH
From: Ken Smith on 31 Dec 2006 13:10 In article <4585D562.F0F334A8(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >The Ghost In The Machine wrote: [.....] >> As it so happens I do have a cup with a good amount of ice in it; I'll >> fill it to the brim with tap water and then wait a few hours and see how >> the level goes. >> >> It's the best I can do without more sophisticated equipment. :-) In >> any event my computations suggest that no change should ensue in the >> water level. >> >> That covers prediction and experimental setup. Results...well, we'll >> just have to wait. > >It's astonishing you even feel the need to do it. But heck, why not ? > >Good luck anyway. I'd stick it in a microwave oven to get it over with quickly >but that's just me and the 'greens' would probably say that the government >microwave rays gave a flawed result so you'd better not do that after all ! You'd botch the experiment. The water would overflow the cup as a result of it's heating. This would hide the effect being tested. Ice does not absorb microwaves well. The water will end up far warmer than in the normal situation. Assuming the water remains exactly at the freezing point, you will need very accurate equipment to measure the amount of overflow because water is a lot more dense than air. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 31 Dec 2006 13:12
In article <amlhh.13$i5.162(a)news.uchicago.edu>, <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote: [....] >It is an elementary problem. The mass of the ice cube is equal to the >mass of the water it displaces (Archimedes). After melting, it'll >fill the volume it displaces. The level *will not* change. You forgot about the air above the glass. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |