rich73

Jeez. To think that someone like him could be in the pool of potential voters.....scary.


Kinda like Pat Robertson endorsing "Mr. Divorce" Giulani.

mentholated

Don't worry, I won't be voting. There is only an illusion of choice presented in any election. They have already been decided, regardless of who wins they have plans and backup plans to get the right man or (in this case, woman {hint hint}) for the job.

stickyjeans69

perception is a naughty thing, dont get too caught up in it. A Theory is just that, a Theory its not right or wrong, but it can be assumed to be wrong and not the opposite because no one has ever Proven it.

__________________

mentholated

A theory is considered true, not right or wrong, if it consistently produces physical effects that can be measured or observed.

stickyjeans69

That's the definition of a Law my friend............

See Sir Isaac Newton

Theory
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Personally i dont think anything you've talked about thus far is worth more then a Hypothesis. back to the drawing board bud.

__________________

mentholated

Its a good thing you don't have anything to do with what makes those decisions, then.

The decisions of what can be done or seen, and what hasn't been done or seen yet.

stickyjeans69

nobody has decision over that. it's my personal belief only god does. but this isn't a thread on religion. the possibilities on what a man can do with what given to him are endless. the things you mention are mostly Sci-Fi at this day and age because we as people can't reproduce anything that you mention. once it become applicable to todays technology, if it even can. witch i honestly don't think any of it can or will any time in the near future, if not ever. Then I will take note to your "Ideas" of our natural world.

Meth is bad for the Brain.

A General understanding of the Scientific Method

1 Hypothesis
2 Experiment
3 Data
4 Repeated thousands of time across the world by many scientists
5 Theory, the data seems conclusive and can be reproduced by EXPIREMENTS that are capable of producing Physical Results Supporting the Hypothesis that was Formed the Conclusion to the Hypothesis is now accepted as a Theory due to overwhelming evidence that it is infact, Real.
6 after a few hundred years if the Theory can't be proven wrong, it generally becomes a Law. but laws are far and few between because our understanding of this world is in my mind, probably very small.

you have a Hypothesis my friend. No expirement, no Data.

__________________

mentholated

I don't have anything at all. They do.

And by they, I mean anyone other than you who happens to understand this reality better than you do.

Which includes me.

I'll explain this in a way you can understand.

Even if you do this on an extremely small scale the effect is the same: motion. Suddenly create a gap between a moving object and the rest of space in the form of a bubble connected and generated by that object, and it will produce motion that is parallel to the angle and intensity of that bubble coupled with the original input energy. Yes, you may think of a bubble as being composed of empty space, but it isn't. A bubble is made of trapped "air" pushing back against molecules of soap. Their forces interact in a perfect system, but eventually they decay and the bubble pops. When the bubble pops, there is an imbalance of pressure created outside the membrane of the bubble, and the membrane of air on the outside pushes back against the membrane, slipping around it. Think of atmosphereic pressure as everything outside of that bubble, or in this case, the universe.

Beatnik

Like this?

ScratchMonkey

Editing a page against the purpose of a wiki is vandalism. You could also go into a public library and insert bogus books.

But unlike a library, a wiki remembers its past, as well as what IP address issued an edit and when. Vandalism is at least detectable and somewhat addressable, and in particular it's easily reversible.

The most controversial pages at Wikipedia become the subject of "reversion wars", and the editors move to lock these down so that only trusted authors can modify them.

When viewing any page on Wikipedia that might be of questionable neutrality, I inspect its discussion page. That's where you usually find the really juicy stuff about the topic. As a rule, I dismiss the flamers.

You can also look at the history of a page and inspect the edits that have been made over time.

If you think a page needs attention from an editor, you can either call one in through the wiki equivalent of a PM, or flag the page with a special macro.

TheSkudDestroyer

Oh god, internet crimezzzz!

Simply configuring my home network correctly I could avoid any IP ban Wiki throws at me.

And if the premise of Wiki is for the free transition of information by anyone...having it locked keeps information out. Defeating the purpose of Wiki. At any rate, many moderators there are jokes.

I never find any "neutral" topics on Wiki anymore. Stupid topics like Halo 3 can get locked over "neutrality"

__________________
|TG-6th|Skud
BMT Graduate - 320th Training Squadron, Flight 024 - MSgt Romero - "Kids no more!"
30 weeks Keesler AFB, 1W031 - Weather

ScratchMonkey

Please enlighten us how you do this? How big is the netblock served by your head-end router? A /24?

Many wikis control who is allowed to author. The CentOS wiki, for example. Wikipedia just makes this control more fine-grained, limiting control only on pages that are abused.

Again, please enlighten me about this.

I almost puke reading the local newspaper. All sources of information are subject to bias. But any bias at Wikipedia is at least visible. One can easily review the sources.