[–] 7 points 1 day ago

I don't know it is protection enough, but my golden rule is that if something is too good to be true it is usually a scam.

Easy way to make money? Probably a scam. Unbelievably attractive and rich person is into you? Probably a scam.

Etc. etc.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    You know what, now that your mention it, wasn't the explanation that the signal was reflected back to the surface due to the ionising radiation of something, so the beam was kinda split or doubled. So my premise was wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 62 points 1 week ago (21 children)

    A distinction between a teleporter and a transporter...

    To teleport implies the original matter is instantly moved from one place to another so there would be no destruction and reconstituted copy. A wormhole would seem to be the only realistic way that could be achieved.

    A transporter, well that means copy then kill. No one knows if the kill part is painful because noone survives it. I find it funny Riker's copy is actually the "original" and his lack of death is considered a transporter accident. Yet he is the one treated like the copy...

    And all that said, barclay's experience in the transporter beam is more suggestive of a wormhole style device.

    I don't know why I bothered to write all this out...

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago

    When the great AI bubble bursts, there is chance that the chip manufacturers are not only going to suddenly have a drop in demand, but also their surplus stock will be competing with a nearly new second hand market that may be flooded with stock from collapsed companies unless those companies are fully bought out by their competitors without any attempt at loss recovery.

    At least that is my unrealistic hope and I'm sticking to it.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    No they say "Your choice to move away from your family or their choice to move away from you shouldn't adversely affect all of the other children in your child's class because the teacher has limited time and is now spending it catching up your child who missed foundational concepts for the stuff that is being taught when they get back.

    You are not entitled to cheap travel. I never got to travel all over the world as a child because, spoiler, we couldn't afford it, but people also didn't feel so entitled to cheap travel that they were taking their kids out of school for cheaper flights. You just didn't fly.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    Jeez, why the aggression? I dislike meta too, but there are other products that have glasses mounted cameras that do offer zoom and text to speech for macular degeneration that he now won't consider because people react like you just did to the meta product .

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    Every decade has its musical style that generally makes it easy to place what decade a song was written in if you haven't heard it before.

    40s big band

    50s rock and roll

    60s essentially has its genre named after the decade or at least I can't think of anything I'd call a genre.

    70s punk and beginnings of heavy metal, disco

    80s electro synth, rap

    90s grunge, dance, R&B, trance

    Etc etc. Obviously these don't entirely define the music of the decade but are highly recognisable genres that can more often than not pinned down to a decade.

    So my question is, since the 2000s I don't see as much differentiation but that might be because I'm too old (44) and not as exposed to be music as I was in my teens, so help me pretend I'm "hip" and "with it" by giving me some clues. I'm curious to know what you think defines the music of the 2020s, what defines the 2010s and what defines the 2000s. I.e. When someone says they are going to listen to noughties music what do they put on? Etc. Or have we reached a point where music has been explored to the point new genres are much rarer to establish?

     

    The Geneva convention was established to minimise atrocities in conflicts. Israeli settlements in Gaza are illegal and violate the Geneva convention. Legality of Israeli settlements Article 51 of the Geneva convention prohibits indiscriminate attacks on civilian population yet Israel attacked hospitals with children inside. Whether you agree or not that Hamas were present, children cannot be viewed as combatants.so when no care was taken to protect them, does this not constitute a violation? According to save the children, 1 in 50 children in Gaza had been killed or injured. This is a very high proportion and does not show care being taken to prevent such casualties and therefore constitutes a violation.

    So my question is simply, do supporters of Israel no longer support our believe in the Geneva convention, did you never, or how do you reconcile Israeli breaches of the Geneva convention? For balance I should add "do you not believe such violations are occurring and if so how did you come to this position?"

    Answers other than only "they have the right to go after Hamas " please. The issue is how they are going after Hamas, not whether they should or not.

    EDIT: Title changed to remove ambiguity about supporting Israel vs supporting their actions

    view more: next ›