muff528

Maybe the true intent of "the right to bear arms" really did include privately-owned warships complete with cannons. With the absence of an effective Navy, the Colonists employed hundreds of "privateers" who took on the greatest navy of the era with great success. They inflicted heavy damage, not only on the English naval fleet, but also on hundreds, if not thousands, of British ships engaging in commerce in the region. So, privately-owned "arms" of all kinds played a (not so small) part in successfully overthrowing tyranny ...a fact that might have been given some recognition and a sort of reverence by being included, immediately following the 1st, and arguably the most important, Article of the Bill of Rights.

IMO - In the 18th century "well regulated" seems to have referred to the "operational readiness" (my words ...I've seen other, more explanatory, definitions) of the "militia". It didn't (IMO) refer to "regulation" or control by the government which would have "infringed" on the specifically enumerated right to bear arms. But, we, as a society, have to decide through our representatives how to allow the government to determine which citizens can be denied that right and how the gov't is to make that determination. (whether based on mental health evaluation, felonies, and other circumstances where rights might be denied.) We (the citizenry) retain the right to disallow and remove that privilege from "the government" if we see it being misused. Of course, that would never happen. Once government gets "a power", whether by regulation or by legislation or by rule, it never gives it up. Besides, it's easier to just let government decide for us and we live with the consequences of their proclamations or executive fiat.

Don't know if this has already been posted. Give yourself 25-30 minutes to watch the whole video. http://www.fark.com/vidplayer/7449996

You forgot "Asshole".

What great jobs some folks have.

They are the same number of syllables... However (and I'm pained to say this) you Americans say aluminium as it was originally intended, the British added the extra i so that it conformed with the -ium ending of metallic elements. Here, in the States, all we're hearing is an extra syllable. Al- u- min- e- um I think that sometimes it's Al-you-mean-yum.

Regarding the Hill Spheres. I think that the extreme close proximity of the two black holes and the great gravitational field strengths of each object would cause the Hill Spheres of both objects to contain each other and there might be no L2 location that exists outside the less massive object's sphere but still within the more massive object's sphere (depending on their difference in mass). So a satellite would probably have to be so far away that it orbits the binary system but only sees it as a single object emitting all kinds of weird, pulsating stuff.

They probably won't find another candidate of his caliber so you shouldn't gauge him by his action. On the other hand this sawed-off snake could be a charmer. But,some folks might recoil at the thought of him setting his sights on the council chamber.

Yeah, "DUH" on your point about L1! . My bad. I was only wondering how a satellite at L2 (if it can exist) would see the BH pair. Without considering the math or seeing equations I don't even know if L2 can be far enough away to be outside of the (combined) event horizon or if it would be much farther away. Again, trying to apply classical thinking to a relativistic system? I'm only considering the event horizons as a way to define the binary black hole as an "object" that might be observed from a distance. example for clarity | | V

Imagine an orbiting system with a "heavy" black hole and a "lighter" black hole in which their event horizons are merged. To an outside observer there is an "elongated" black hole ...like a bowling pin shape. The L2 position, as long as it is outside the event horizon, might still exist (The L2 position may or may not be outside the "combined" black hole EH). Question would then be would it have relevance ...i.e., could a satellite reside at that orbit and stay put, so to speak? Like throwing the bowling pin so that it spins around its CG, there will be same classical stable Lagrangians as for 2 separate bodies. Or maybe I'm trying to apply a classical example to a non-classical system.

So, why are they different? Is light (still traveling at c by definition) confined within the event horizon because the "intensity" of the gravitational field has slowed time to the point that there is not enough time (to an outside observer) for the photons to make it out? Or does gravity physically act on the photons sucking them into the hole? Is gravity unaffected by its own effects on time, allowing gravity to escape the event horizon? Or does gravity not act on itself? Or is gravity really ("the fabric of") space itself and gravitational waves are propagated on the "surface" of gravity (space) at the speed of light? Like a tsunami, the wavefront moves faster in the open ocean and slows as a land mass is approached. (terrible analogy, but that's all I got.)

Yeah, right! Quantum tunneling makes perfect sense.

Do the gravity waves pulsate at the same frequency? Could you imagine some kinda gravity wave harmonic where an object gets blasted at some interval by two gravity waves intersecting? This is some weird and seriously cool stuff. I owe you a . By "sees a single rotating black hole emitting pulsating waves", I meant the orbiting pair is seen as a single object emitting waves at the frequency determined by the orbital rotation of the pair. Now add to the mix your reference to the two black holes spinning at different rates while orbiting. What weirdness would be seen then!

Wouldn't the satellite have to feel the gravitational force from the distant BH for L2 to have any relevance at all. IOW- wouldn't the Lagrangians exist only if they and the satellite are interacting gravitationally as 3 distinct objects? If not then no L2 exists and the satellite "sees" a single rotating BH emitting pulsating grav waves. I'm thinking of 2 orbiting black holes that have not yet merged event horizons. But, once their event horizons have merged, wouldn't they be orbiting too fast for the satellite to keep up with L2 (probably long before merge) and maybe be ejected from the system?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ek3eCbfqp0

Gravity has waves. The waves travel. Unless they're "standing waves" ...then they just stand.

Kinda hard to argue with the numbers; money up, fear down. Can't disagree here. I was "for" extending the Bush rates. Only minor differences in this (unsigned) bill. These differences will have their negative effects, but not as bad as going back to the old rates. But you do realize that the stock markets no longer reflect earnings and company health ...only pure speculation and knee-jerk reactions to silly stuff like this.

Check-out lines at Wal-Mart, too. Only if it's not me. I would be fair ...kinda like a Sicilian Solomon.

Well, one thing we learned is that the prospect of returning to the Clinton tax rates is so terrifying that the entire country (and much of the world) has been gripped in fear of impending deep recession, plummeting stock markets, and other economic doomsday stuff. The Bush tax cuts don't seem so bad now, do they?

Yes, maybe that happened.

Maybe. Do you habitually "just know" that people are dickheads based on something they may or may not have done? Can you also read minds about other things too? That must be really cool. Hey, maybe you could be a "professional jury"; no need for testimony, evidence, all that time-and-money-wasting BS. Just ask Muff, he always knows exactly what happened. You could save the judicial system a fortune! Get rich too, just charge 10% of the cost of a full trial for your services. You get paid, the courts save money, everybody's happy, right? Well, except maybe the guy on trial, but who gives a shit about him. If somebody says he's guilty, maybe puts something on the internet, well then it's a foregone conclusion, right? Any response to Bill's point that the family could have had the guy charged with assault, if their story is true? Don I don't know either way. Neither do you. (

Maybe he slipped and busted his ass as the scared kid was trying to escape.

This is the "dickhead" part: "As Scott stood up and tried to apologize, the man grabbed Scott and threatened to sue him and his whole family" Maybe the 7-year-old made that part up. I seriously doubt a 7 y.o. came up with that story. Maybe the parents made it up. I doubt that, too, since it really has no relevance to the lawsuit.

Yes, I was referring specifically to his calling for the special session as a possible example. The rest of the Wiki example was just for context.

We did get spending cuts! We got $1 in promises of future spending cuts for every $41 in new taxes. Better than nothing, I suppose. Reagan, on the other hand, got $3.00 in imaginary spending cuts for every $1.00 of tax increases. Bush41 got two bucks in fake cuts for every dollar tax increase and he got canned for it.