|
dokmo posted:The other stuff in the General Article: What is "wrongful cohabitation"? And just how indecent does the language have to be to warrant action being taken?
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:38 |
|
|
Do we have an AmeriCorps thread? I've got some questions about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
Abel Wingnut posted:How much are you looking to spend? Leather jackets get expensive real quick. My top limit is about 500 dollars as for style casual or bomber is what I am aiming for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 03:11
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:What is "wrongful cohabitation"? And just how indecent does the language have to be to warrant action being taken? Cohabitation probably means living with your girlfriend, but I'm not sure what would make it wrongful. As for the indecent language, it's important to bear in mind that a lot of this stuff has been on the books for a very long time, and something that wouldn't even raise an eyebrow today might have gotten you in really hot water 100 years ago. One of the men on the Lewis and Clark expedition (which was a military operation) was court martialed for calling one of the officers a rascal. One things dokmo bolded was about sending obscene content in the mail. It wasn't all that long ago that something like Playboy would have been a violation of that rule--hell, in the early 20th century birth control literature and medical textbooks were sometimes blocked from being sent via mail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 03:22
|
|
|
'Wrongful cohabitation' has a specific meaning. It's when a person lies about being married to their live-in partner. Seems like a pretty dumb thing to do. (1) That, during a certain period of time, the accused and another person openly and publicly lived together as husband and wife, holding themselves out as such; (2) That the other person was not the spouse of the accused; (3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 03:55
|
|
God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title
|
CraigK posted:Do we have an AmeriCorps thread? I've got some questions about it. No, but you can make one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
overseerbrian posted:Speaking of tea, I pretty much hate milk and never drink it except for in an occasional cup of tea on the weekend. Is there any acceptable substitute for milk in tea? Something I can just keep around for occasional use, that would last longer, like a non-dairy creamer would be for coffee? I know this was a couple of pages ago but I had the same issue (I drink tea in the mornings and use like ~2 tbsp of milk a day) so I just started buying soy milk. It lasts about 3 months in the fridge and now I like it better than regular milk. You can also substitute it for lots of cooking/baking recipes but only if you don't mind the outcome being ever-so-slightly sweet. Like, I'll use it when I'm making a cake or cornbread and it tastes exactly the same as when I use regular milk. But I made gravy with soy milk once and it was NASTY!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 04:12
|
|
|
Almond milk is also awesome, though I never tried it in a hot drink. Same for coconut milk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
Dassiell posted:I am a sophomore and do plan on going to grad school if I stick with this major. I am just unsure of the prospects out there for me. There's the academic advice thread in SAL which might be useful to you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
I don't want to come off like negativity is my idea of a comedic trump suit, especially since I tried only a very specific kind, but I feel it is my duty to post that the organic unsweetened vanilla almond milk I decided to pick up on a whim at Trader Joe's was really awful and in my experience has the distinct ability to awfulize anything it comes into contact with. Tea, coffee, cereal, smoothies, taste buds. Anything. I was able to finish it only because my sense of punishment for buying such an awful thing overrode every other instinct. Also, I was on a Silk soy milk kick for a long time, and I thought that it tasted like soil when it was added to hot coffee, no matter if it was Vanilla, Plain, Unsweetened, whatever. Great for everything else, including plain; but in hot coffee, soil. Tea may be okay. I think I loved it in chai. How about just buy a small cup of something at a gas station every few days and pilfer an appropriate/legitimate amount of little half & half creamers. "Appropriate" meaning not taking full advantage of the self-serve beverage station's surely impeccable honor system. EDITS: -I'm not above putting powdered creamer in my tea, and in fact prefer it for Constant Comfort, and Earl and Lady Grey teas which segued me into coffee. It made them feel fuller, thicker. -I, too, thought milk was just mildly tolerable by both taste and scent (so long as I wasn't already feeling queasy) for the longest time before discovering organic milk (I am not an organic freak, I swear; it was through my fiancé who thinks everything in the US tastes like shameful copies of what he remembers in Turkey and has filled my fridge with things he finds suitable). Organic milk--and I buy whole, even--might open up a whole new world of wonder for you if you haven't already tried it. Liebfraumilch fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Nov 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 05:44
|
|
|
Any help with iTunes audio woes would be greatly appreciated. All the tracks for my books are being sorted 1, 10, 11, 2, 3, 4, etc. Any fix for this issue? Also - each CD I burn of my books keeps being read as separate books. I tried "part of compilation" and nothing happens. There are still 11 different "books" when in reality it's just an 11 CD book. Found a thousand different answers online and any smart goon tips would be incredibly appreciated. Thanks!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 06:40
|
|
|
Isn't it a waste of resources to put security officers at a turnstile at a subway station? Wouldn't it cost more money paying the officers hourly pay than the amount of people who would try to get a free ride? In LA we have Sheriffs doing the job for the most part and I know they must make $50k a year + benefits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 08:50
|
|
|
Those security officers also provide physical security for the subway station itself - here in Seattle, in our Tunnel bus stations, we often have a security officer or two just wandering around the bus stops, holding a clipboard, not really doing much of anything. Except they prevent the homeless and drug dealers from moving into the tunnel, look intimidating whenever anyone tries to start poo poo with a bus driver, and answer any general-purpose questions that bus riders might have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 09:01
|
|
|
TheGame posted:'Wrongful cohabitation' has a specific meaning. It's when a person lies about being married to their live-in partner. Seems like a pretty dumb thing to do. They do it to get out of the barracks and into military housing (or off-post housing) and the pay benefits that go with it. I knew a couple in AIT that were friends but got married (actually married, not lying about it) just for those reasons. Seems like a horrible idea, but 19 years later and they are both out of the military and still happily married, so things worked out in the end. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 09:34
|
|
|
b0nes posted:Isn't it a waste of resources to put security officers at a turnstile at a subway station? Wouldn't it cost more money paying the officers hourly pay than the amount of people who would try to get a free ride? In LA we have Sheriffs doing the job for the most part and I know they must make $50k a year + benefits. Yes, it would cost more! But. Let's say some people are always honest, and some people are conditionally honest. This is optimistic, I know. Here are three situations: 1. If there are never officers, all honest people will pay, and all conditionally honest commuters will always hop a turnstile. This will save money in officers' wages. 2. If there are always officers, all honest people will pay, and conditionally honest commuters will either pay or find another way of getting to point B. 3. If there are sometimes officers, all honest people will pay, and most conditionally honest people will pay. So: almost everybody will pay. I never got on the U-Bahn without paying even though I never saw an officer on it. I was thinking, maybe I don't have that delicious two-Euro pretzel, since this ride cost two Euro, but I don't have to worry about a two-hundred-Euro fine. These reasons apply partially or not at all in cases of makework, which can be good (WPA) or bad (the thickets of police and prison guard unions' actions.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 09:41
|
|
|
b0nes posted:Isn't it a waste of resources to put security officers at a turnstile at a subway station? Wouldn't it cost more money paying the officers hourly pay than the amount of people who would try to get a free ride? In LA we have Sheriffs doing the job for the most part and I know they must make $50k a year + benefits. I see the value of putting staff at stations, but I've been wondering for a while whether it's actually worthwhile having the roving ticket inspectors that PTV has been bringing out in greater and greater numbers to Melbourne's trams. They travel in groups of three or more, so how many people would they have to fine to even break even on that? And honestly, it would be incredibly easy to avoid being fined with the new ticketing system, since if you scan your ticket when you see the inspectors getting on the tram they can't tell if you just did it then or earlier (even though you'd think the electronic ticketing system would make that possible), and tons of people scan their tickets when they get off the tram (even though you don't need to) so it won't even look suspicious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 11:52
|
|
|
b0nes posted:Isn't it a waste of resources to put security officers at a turnstile at a subway station? Wouldn't it cost more money paying the officers hourly pay than the amount of people who would try to get a free ride? In LA we have Sheriffs doing the job for the most part and I know they must make $50k a year + benefits. There are also security reasons. Even if the officers cost more, the prevention of theft or violent crime is worth the cost.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 15:49
|
|
|
Anyone got any simple info on IPv6? I work in IT, but I'm so used to pinging IPv4 addresses, and configuring NAT that I simply do not know how IPv6 will work. Some things I read say that they're randomly generated, some say ISP issued, and I know you can get IPv6 DHCP servers. How on earth will I check if a PC on our network is online if IPv4 is completely gone? No one can remember massive sequences like that. Additionally, since there's no NAT, I guess people are more accountable for their online actions under IPv6? You can't simply say "IT WASNT ME MY WIFI IS PUBLIC" etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
"Data collection at the LHC finally commenced in March 2010.[68] By December 2011 the two main particle detectors at the LHC, ATLAS and CMS, had narrowed down the mass range where the Higgs could exist to 115–130 GeV. In addition, both experiments were starting to see hints of a new particle that could be the Higgs with a mass around 125 GeV.[69][70] It was therefore widely expected around the end of 2011, that the LHC would provide sufficient data to either exclude or confirm the finding of the Standard Model Higgs boson by the end of 2012, when their 2012 collision data (with slightly higher 8 TeV collision energy) had been examined.[71][72]" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson Does this mean they technically spotted it around Nov/Dec 2011? (Or at least glimpsed it at that time?)
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
Speaking of science questions, I've got a really silly one. Say we built a spacecraft capable of flying the speed of light. I know the human body can only handle so many g's (I see anywhere from 10-20 sustained depending on the relative axis to the body). So how long would it take to accelerate to the speed of light at a rate that didn't kill you? If you could show the math, I'd appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
Flash Gordon Ramsay posted:Speaking of science questions, I've got a really silly one. Say we built a spacecraft capable of flying the speed of light. I know the human body can only handle so many g's (I see anywhere from 10-20 sustained depending on the relative axis to the body). So how long would it take to accelerate to the speed of light at a rate that didn't kill you? If you could show the math, I'd appreciate it. You'd use the following formula: t=(C-0)/3. In this instance t equals time taken, C equals the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s), 0 equals your starting speed and 3 is the maximum acceleration (I believe 3 g is roughly the maximum amount an average human can withstand long term without harm). Therefore you would do: (299,792,458-0)/3 which gives ≈999,308,019 seconds or ≈32 years. I think I'm remembering GCSE physics right, but it seems to check out  EDIT: Plus, if you want to figure out how much g-force you'd pull if accelerating over a certain time you use: a=C/x. In this, a equals acceleration, C is again the speed of light, and x is the time in seconds to reach that speed. So say you accelerated from a standstill to the speed of light in ten seconds. You would experience an acceleration of ≈299,792,045 m/s which is ≈305,702,080 g. Aka, you'd be squished flat in less than a second. Experto Crede fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Nov 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
Welp, beaten  But the units of your calculations are wrong. The human body can survive up to 50g of acceleration in short bursts, but for sustained acceleration anything above 1g would probably be intolerable. Let's say your spaceship accelerates at 9.81 m/s2. The velocity you're after is close to light speed ~ 299 792 458 m/s. Speed = acceleration * time, so time = speed/acceleration 30528763.5438 seconds ~ 353 days. So if you take that up to 3g, accelerating at 29.46 m/s2, it would take 10176254.5146 seconds ~ 118 days. axolotl farmer fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Nov 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
Flash Gordon Ramsay posted:Say we built a spacecraft capable of flying the speed of light. I know the human body can only handle so many g's (I see anywhere from 10-20 sustained depending on the relative axis to the body). So how long would it take to accelerate to the speed of light at a rate that didn't kill you? If you could show the math, I'd appreciate it. So we're completely ignoring the relativity stuff that makes it impossible to reach the speed of light and assuming a constant acceleration of 10Gs? So 10Gs would be 98.0665 metres per second squared acceleration So after 1 second, velocity of 98.0665 m/s. After 2 seconds, velocity of 196.133 m/s. And so on. How fast do we need to get? Well, the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. So at a constant acceleration of 98.0665 m/s^2, that will take 299,792,458 m/s / 98.0665 m/s^2 seconds, or 3057032.29951 seconds. 3057032.29951 seconds works out to be 35 days in change. So it'd take a little over a month of constant 10G acceleration to hit the speed of light, and then a little over a month to decelerate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
Experto Crede posted:You'd use the following formula: t=(C-0)/3. In this instance t equals time taken, C equals the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s), 0 equals your starting speed and 3 is the maximum acceleration (I believe 3 g is roughly the maximum amount an average human can withstand long term without harm). Your units don't match; you have m/s for the speed of light and Gs for acceleration. If you plug in 29.41995 m/s^2 for 3G acceleration, you end up with 10190107.665 seconds or 117.941 days. ulmont fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Nov 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
Flash Gordon Ramsay posted:Speaking of science questions, I've got a really silly one. Say we built a spacecraft capable of flying the speed of light. I know the human body can only handle so many g's (I see anywhere from 10-20 sustained depending on the relative axis to the body). So how long would it take to accelerate to the speed of light at a rate that didn't kill you? If you could show the math, I'd appreciate it. 9.5m/s = 299,792,458m/s / 3.15569e7 seconds Which gets me roughly 1G for roughly 1 year to the speed of light.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
Litch991 posted:Any help with iTunes audio woes would be greatly appreciated. For the individual tracks, look at your list in itunes and one of the headers should be "Sort Name" (it may be hidden by default. Just right click in the header bar if that's the case). Edit as necessary. Stick with a two digit system for all track names (01, 02-09, then 10, 11, etc) For the books showing up as separate disks, is there no way for you to label the album as "BOOK TITLE volume 1 of 11"
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Acceleration = Change in Velocity / Change in Time The whole thing is simple to solve for any number of g: t = c/xg t is time in seconds c is the speed of light (299792458 m/s) g is standard gravity (9.80665 m/s2) x is the "number of gs"
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
Dumb question probably since both things are made for PCs, but if I get a cheapy 2.4ghz wireless keyboard from amazon, is it going to interfere with my 802.11G wifi? We used to have a 2.4ghz cordless phone that would shut off wifi connections randomly on laptops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
Wagonburner posted:Dumb question probably since both things are made for PCs, but if I get a cheapy 2.4ghz wireless keyboard from amazon, is it going to interfere with my 802.11G wifi? You should be okay, but if you do experience connectivity issues with one/the other/both, change the channel on the keyboard if possible, if not, go into your router settings and change its channel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
Those calculations don't take into consideration the relativistic effects of approaching light speed. You can never reach light speed 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
Wagonburner posted:Dumb question probably since both things are made for PCs, but if I get a cheapy 2.4ghz wireless keyboard from amazon, is it going to interfere with my 802.11G wifi? You will likely have the opposite problem (wifi will interfere with keyboard/mouse). Think about how much information is traveling over the wifi compared to how much information your keyboard sends. Having the keyboard in close proximity or LOS of receiver will help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
Doctor rear end in a top hat posted:Why did you use a high-precision number for the speed of light and then 9.5m/s/s for g?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:28
|
|
|
I've never been able to understand, and the fancy mathy explanation on Wikipedia isn't helping, how would faster-than-light communications violate causality? I don't understand how any definition of it leads to receiving a reply before you send the original message, or what not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:33
|
|
|
It's because speed and mass, and mass and time are related. The faster you go, the heavier you are, and the heavier you are, the slower time passes. If you could break the speed of light, the math works out that time would be moving so slowly it'd be going backwards. I used to have a simple way to understand why speed, mass and time were related, but decided to forget it and take it on trust instead. Something to do with E equalling MC squared I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
Experto Crede posted:You'd use the following formula: t=(C-0)/3. In this instance t equals time taken, C equals the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s), 0 equals your starting speed and 3 is the maximum acceleration (I believe 3 g is roughly the maximum amount an average human can withstand long term without harm). Wow, thanks for the explanation from you and all who followed. I knew I could count on this forum to answer a ridiculous question. I'm aware of many, although I'm sure not all, limitations of why this isn't feasible with our current understanding of physics. It was just more thinking of space movies where they jump to light speed and was wondering how long it would actually take if they respected that limitation. The answer is actually less than I thought.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
Experto Crede posted:You should be okay, but if you do experience connectivity issues with one/the other/both, change the channel on the keyboard if possible, if not, go into your router settings and change its channel. XmasGiftFromWife posted:You will likely have the opposite problem (wifi will interfere with keyboard/mouse). Think about how much information is traveling over the wifi compared to how much information your keyboard sends. Having the keyboard in close proximity or LOS of receiver will help. Thanks you all. It'll be like 8-10 feet away with only a glass equip rack door in between. Is that considered nearby for modern wireless kbds? The specs claim 30' range. I've had a logitech in 2000 and a free from newegg rosewill one about 2003 that both only went like 3 feet. This is for an htpc, not a device to write the next Randian-ish novel, so at most we're going to be pointing and clicking with the builtin touchpad to start a movie a few times a week and occasionally typing something like youtube.com <enter> american psycho huey lewis <enter> I think I'll give it a try. Vin BioEthanol fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Dec 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
Flash Gordon Ramsay posted:Wow, thanks for the explanation from you and all who followed. I knew I could count on this forum to answer a ridiculous question. I'm aware of many, although I'm sure not all, limitations of why this isn't feasible with our current understanding of physics. It was just more thinking of space movies where they jump to light speed and was wondering how long it would actually take if they respected that limitation. The answer is actually less than I thought. Well, don't forget, you'd be experiencing time dilation. It probably wouldn't make 32 years pass in seconds to you, but it may have a pretty discernable effect. Can't provide more detail than that because holy poo poo the maths involved makes my head hurt. So my question is: Taking time dilation into account, how long would reaching the speed of light seem to the person accelerating over the course of 32 years?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
Since we're talking about the speed of light, I have a stupid question. If you could drive your car faster than the speed of light, what would you see in your rear-view mirror?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 01:31
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:Since we're talking about the speed of light, I have a stupid question. You'd see the Ask me about physics thread whiz by.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:38 |
|
|
We have cable TV services with Cogeco (we're in Ontario). Lately we have been through about 3 PVRs, and all for the same reason. If you are watching program A and have set it to tape program B, as soon as program B starts recording then the channel (A) that you are watching will freeze. We call Cogeco, they send another box, same loving thing. Is there something else we're missing, like a patch or...? Please don't say "lol go to Bell" because I will do without television before I go back to those assholes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 02:11
|
|
