Darth Fluffy

OMG, you're right. I suppose it would help if I could read. Oo?

I'm guessing you'd recommend 5th ed? I've played 3.5 quite a bit, haven't played for years, trying to decide between Pathfinder and D&D 5. Pathfinder is doing a 2nd ed, which complicates the choice. I can find either a couple of times a week; D&D exceeds Pathfinder about 3:1, but I'm not planning to spend that many evenings. Once a week would be ideal. So either should work.

Point of fact: Squirrels in the park where you feed them nuts or at large outdoors are cute. Wild squirrels in your house are a very fluffy form of rat, with slightly better press releases. They are bold as #*&% and quite destructive. Feel free to use rat traps.

You've got to know when to hold 'em (When to hold 'em) Know when to fold 'em (When to fold 'em) Know when to walk away And know when to run You never count your money When you're sittin' at the table There'll be time enough for countin' When the dealing's done

I agree, this is the only way I can make sense of her desire to hide. She reminds me of Paulina Rubio from the first music video of Y yo sigo aqui, when she (Paulina) is wearing the similar wig. I don't understand "Acorn". I can get squirrel, or oak, or nuts from that, none of which seem to relate to the comic. Unless acorns grow up to be trees which give shade, and she put on shades. Ugh, that's painful. I probably would not have gotten "duck" from "quack" without the commentary, it's a bit too convoluted and comes across as a non sequitur.

Yes, but only by several orders of magnitude. "nothing to do with English" - agreed. English had to do with equating to related but distinct words. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. - I am not aware that this is considered in any sense controversial any more. Nor is the similar Halting Problem. These do not prove nor disprove Newton, they related to the limitations of what you were saying at the time. Something about formal logic, IIRC. disproved experimentally - I think we are arguing semantics here. You are saying, "Near the speed of light, Newton's laws of motion no longer work, therefore Newton's laws are disproved." Is that a correct summary? I'm saying, "Near the speed of light, Newton's laws of motion no longer give a correct result, use a more refined model in those cases." sum of all angles in triangle is 180 degrees - It's really weird that you word that the way you do, because you are obviously aware that only works explicitly on a flat surface. In day to day real life, in the process of navigation, the sum of the angles of a triangle exceed 180 degrees. This also rarely affects us; we typically live in a small enough piece of the earth that like relativity and quantum mechanics, we can generally ignore it; the earth isn't flat, but it is huge enough that small pieces of the surface appear flat for practical purposes. And even if you travel long distances in an airplane, as a passenger, you don't need to worry (much) about the nuances of navigation. But the folks we are counting on to get us there better be d@%& sure they know that a triangle's angles exceed 180 degrees. Your other link - Nice to know the universe at large is flat. I've had to do so for classes only. Then again, I specifically avoided IC design; not because quantum effects are a big player, per se, more having to do with lifespan of employability, but they are not entirely unrelated. Then you haven't been paying attention, all I've been referencing is related to context. I'm not knocking your English, it's better than my whatever you speak. I can track a bit of Spanish, and I can read some German (and apparently Dutch, which is enough like German that I was able to follow an article I was interested in). Well, I don't plan to travel at a significant fraction of the speed of light (in a vacuum) within my lifetime, but you're right, if it happens, I should be aware of the effects. If I worked at CERN, and routinely tossed nuclei around the race track, yes, then I'd be concerned. That has to do with taking the long path, Newtonian distance, as it were. Yes, the signal is traveling at relativistic speed; no, relativistic effects are not germane to the outcome. Probably some on other nations soil; I would guess GB and Australia.

Notoriously unsolvable by strictly analytic methods, which feeds back into "proof" and the use of computational hardware. From a practical standpoint, if we throw enough computation at it, we can get close enough (as arbitrarily close as we require). On another tangent, I have the notion that for urban centers, you could do better triangulating off cell towers. IIRC, that was done before cell phones included GPS. GPS works particularly well for the military because you don't have to install it prior to invading. Also, for a satellite, it's pretty high up, and harder to shoot down than your average bear in LEO. Will make a mess of things if that happens, like we need more debris in orbit.

OMG, give yourself a cookie, you found an article with much more accurate numbers than I threw out, but you're still missing the point. In the very article you quoted, it says: "But GPS is an exception" So, go ahead, swallow that camel while straining out the gnat. Meh, you could probably do so and not have enough overhead to really matter, even at a few minute intervals. I like the approach of doing both; calculate as accurately as possible, and check periodically. The need to check position is inherent in all dead reckoning navigation. The error is always cumulative. That is why until recently, with the availability of GPS, navigators are all trained in archaic navigational techniques; is probably still a good idea, because that one time you really need it, you can bet that GPS is going to crap out. (Come to think of it, that's happened to me. I use the Waze app to navigate in my car, if I'm going somewhere unfamiliar. My cell phone has been acting up lately, I need to replace it, will do so soonish. So one time recently, I could not get a signal when I needed to find my way home, so no Waze. I opened a compass app, and went in a useful direction and found a road I knew.) No. Most people on the planet don't. Read on. Again, missing the point. "However, you can easily get into situations where they would be measurable." - yes, but you don't fix it; it's been done for you by a handful of specialists. Think of it this way, do you fix your own car? I'm odd, I have. I no longer do, I can't afford the time, nor the downtime on the vehicle. I go to a mechanic. I read health articles. When I'm sick, I go to a doctor. I'm not allowed to prescribe my own medication. I don't want to invest in the expensive and quickly outdated medical equipment. I like that my cell phone already has corrected GPS coordinates, and I don't have to calculate an offset manually. I think if it did, few people would use GPS. Oo? That isn't even wrong. Do you know of such a family? I won't argue the hypothetical merits, it just isn't a reality. The term "disproved" has specific meaning in different contexts, including science, somewhat different in math, definitely different in court, and so on. Even then, the meaning can be in dispute; for example, do mathematical proofs that are beyond human calculation and require the use of computational hardware to prove count as proved? Regardless of your opinion on the matter, (i.e., I'm not really asking, I'm making a related point), there are competent mathematicians that disagree with you. So the notion that proof means exactly what you think it does is fraught with difficulty. And, unfortunately, it has much to do with the language and culture you express it in, even the subculture within that sphere; if this were not the case, we would not be dealing with the plethora of inane public controversies that we experience on a daily basis. "Yes, but formal logic always applies". Godel showed why that's wrong, and essentially the same problem keeps cropping up in other fields, in a different guise. But I like this refutation best. Sorry, man, I don't see that you've even acknowledged the difference, let alone established it. Yes, I think everyone here understands the framework. OK, now I would consider the point acknowledged. Here is where we are parting ways. Context is everything; depending on your context either one is way more correct. If you mean, you need to choose what context applies, that makes sense. For the most part, we (big we, all of us, even the astrophysicists drive to work) do not choose; rather, we are born into the milieu; it is the water we swim in, the air we breathe. Our world, our life is Newtonian. The relativistic and quantum effects are imperceptible. I'm not saying you can't find them if you look for them, just that you won't encounter them unless you do. We are born into a relativistic world, and we are born into a quantum world, neither of which manifest plainly on a daily basis. I've been pretty clear that it's not "the only choice", that some specialists have to take relativity and/or quantum effects into account; however, I do not see it so much as a "choice" as tools that may or may not apply to a given situation. As far as convincing anyone, I really don't give a rats ass. Convincing the delusional is futile, it is wasted effort. I know people who believe the moon landings were faked. Evidence means little to them. Intelujint Dezine? I'd rather argue with the paint on the wall, at least it doesn't say stupid stuff back. We have a "No politics" policy for a reason; people are not generally reasonable. So actually, please take it as a complement that I'm willing to respond to you. You bring up good points, you are interesting, and I do not mind a different point of view; I've changed my mind often enough.

Native English speaker here; disproved is not the same as superseded nor extended. I won't even give that Newton is wrong (not disproved); as I spend most of my time on the surface of this planet, I generally do not need to account for relativistic effects nor quantum effects in my day to day activities. That's why schools teach statics and dynamics and motors and engines in an Newtonian framework. If that doesn't suit you, you are welcome to formulate your own system that works better, but I'm not going to be sitting, waiting, with high expectations. Think about why relativistic effects even matter in the special cases. GPS is a locating system. It was developed by the military (US) for targeting purposes. Feet or decimeters matter. And even a small error is cumulative, over the days, months, years that the satellite orbits. (I think they also calibrate themselves against fixed points on the earth, but a relativistic calculation software upgrade would have been a welcome quick fix.) And so on. A few specialty jobs deal with this all the time. Most of us can safely ignore non-Newtonian physics, or even be ignorant of it, and still be functional. You didn't create the capability for your cell phone to tell you where you are; some engineer and a software team did. Yet you can use the driving app. Even when you touch on the relativistic or quantum, you are essentially unaware of it. (I expect you now to say, "No, I'm not", and miss the point entirely. Go for it.)

I hear you. I don't see "Gee, magic is real." equating to "I'm going to be incredibly credulous from now on." Both Ellen and Nanase, who are more than adequately exposed to magic, show a healthy skepticism from time to time.

Concrete & shipping? It's been done.

Quick Google search: "Cronkhite Name Meaning. Americanized spelling of Dutch Krankheid, from an abstract noun meaning 'weakness', hence probably a nickname for a sickly individual." My gut says this is not exactly right, that it could also be from a very similar German name, but I don't really know. Walter Cronkite was a good bit older than Dan Rather, born nearly twenty years apart. Quoting Wiki, "When Walter Cronkite retired in 1981, Rather was promoted to news anchor for the CBS Evening News, a role he occupied for 24 years."

Ashley is a bit of an anomaly as well. A normal person does not take these claims at face value, although she is predisposed to think of the members of this group favorably, for various reasons.

I'll have to look that up. Not at the moment, have an appointment I need to run off to soon.

Arrgh, Grace! You're not that naive! There has to be an insight reason this made sense to her.