Darth Vader: He is here.
Governor Tarkin: Obi-Wan Kenobi? What makes you think so?
Darth Vader: A tremor in my pants. The last time I felt it was in the presence of my old master.
Governor Tarkin: Surely he must be dead by now.
Darth Vader: Don't underestimate the Force.

Inside you'd find an immense amount of mass at an extraordinarily high temperature. Your McGuffin device would measure those high temperatures and the gravitational force being exerted on it. It would see light (probably a blinding amount of it) if it looked at the surface of the black hole, and if it looked outside of it it would see the stars as well as any matter or light approaching the event horizon. All of that external stuff would slowly "fall" towards the surface but eventually appear to freeze right at the event horizon after being completely redshifted.

Pretty much never.

The Bone Clocks
Alas, Babylon
Good Omens
Gödel, Escher, Bach

Quote from: Jarihat Turkia on February 08, 2016, 08:12:02 PM

the story is about the new Avengers team causing an international incident, in response to which SHIELD creates a regulatory agency to direct when and how the Avengers are used.

Isn't SHIELD disbanded (officially, at least)? From what I've seen, it looks like the actual government is trying to make the Avengers more of a military branch, so that they alone can choose when they get deployed and where to

Yeah, you're right. It seems like the UN's version of SHIELD, but with more restriction.

I'm an engineer who aced calc I, so feel free to PM me so I can laugh at how easy your work is and not help you at all.

Can someone explain how exactly supers will get "regulated?" What does that even mean?

It requires anyone with superpowers who wants to use them publicly (ostensibly for crime-fighting) to register with the government so SHIELD can keep an eye on them. Weirdly enough, it's a huge problem in the comic but in the MCU, the first thing SHIELD does after the battle of New York is make this very same registry, and nobody has a problem with it. From what it looks like, the Civil War movie's conflict has nothing to do with any superhero registry; rather, the story is about the new Avengers team causing an international incident, in response to which SHIELD creates a regulatory agency to direct when and how the Avengers are used.

In the comics (and from what we've seen of the movie), the pro-regulation camp is the obviously correct side, but the writers make them do uncharacteristically evil shit to make them seem like the bad guys.

You can't antagonize a region and people and hope to ever leave peace in your wake.

That's just nonsense. "Antagonization" from America wasn't what led to radicalization of the Sunni population in Iraq, nor was it what allowed a pissant terrorist group (ISI) to bring thousands of followers back from Syria and have a secure foothold from which to conduct operations. We can't be militarily involved somewhere and hope to ever have them in our favor? What about Germany, Japan (who, almost immediately after being nuked twice, adopted American production principles and became a leading nation in industry and trade), Korea, or Vietnam? The argument that the Middle East has been at war for decades is a tired one; dovish isolationism won't fix anything.

Looks like the action shots are better. Kind of hard to fault it for looking cliche as hell when the series invented those cliches.

Shadow Queen from Paper Mario TTYD. Still can't beat her to this day.

It's cringey as fuck to refer to your SO as your 'mate'.

https://www.soylent.com/



This stuff has been around for a little while but recently released an updated version with better texture, consistency, and flavor, making it more appealing to a broader audience. It's designed as a complete meal replacement rather than a supplement like a protein shake.

Powder:
40% fat
45% carbohydrates
15% protein
500 kcal
$1.54 per serving ($54 = 28 servings)

Liquid:
47% fat
33% carbohyrdrates
20% protein
400 kcal
$2.42 per serving ($29 = 12 bottles)

They justify the high fat content by claiming the upper limit of 35% used by most nutritional guides is because of the high amount of trans fat in most people's diet. Here's an article about someone living exclusively off Soylent for nearly 6 months, planning on an entire year. He says he spends an equivalent of $6 per day to consume 1200 calories. The rest of the article is basically fluff.

I'm interested to see what other companies can do with similar ideas; it seems like there'd be a huge market for being able to customize macronutrient ratios for various fitness goals and lifestyles. Right now I often make a meal replacement shake in the mornings, consisting of whey protein powder, powdered peanut butter, skim milk, and instant coffee.

Thoughts? Would any of you use this, or like the idea of one day being able to replace most of your meals with fine-tuned replacements?

Quote from: N'awoo on February 07, 2016, 09:36:37 AM

That's pretty cool. But why would you expect a raise after a couple months at jj's? Usually it's 6 months you get a raise in fast food

I was promised a raise when I learned how to bread start, then the bar was raised to being able to help open and close the store, then to managing catering orders, etc.

In the future, if anyone ever promises a raise like this, ask for it in writing.

The book's fantastic, too.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/why-bernie-sanders-cant-win-and-cant-govern/460182/

What then? The odds that a Sanders victory would lead to a Democratic House or a majority of more than one in the Senate are very slim. House districts have grown in partisan tilt; there is no room at all for a Democratic landslide, and not much for significant gains. Democrats have a real chance, if they win the White House, to pick up the four seats needed to recapture a majority, but it would be a very heavy lift to shift that number to seven, eight, or 10. So Sanders, like Obama, would face a divided government. It would be a very different situation than Obama encountered when he first entered the White House, and more like what he faced after the first, disastrous midterm election in 2010. Sanders has made it clear that he would have an extraordinarily ambitious agenda, including Medicare for all, reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, free college for all, and sweeping campaign-finance reform just to start with, along with stiff tax increases to pay for it.

[...]

So all of Sanders’s initiatives would start as non-starters. Here, his theory of election and governance comes into play. He would go to the public, a public disgusted with Washington and its corrupt ties to the billionaire class and to business, and force members of Congress to their knees, shifting the debate and the agenda his way.

Sanders as president would be left with two main options: reduce his goals to aim for more incremental progress, or adopt a defensive approach to keep Obama’s policies from being rolled back—exactly what he has condemned in Hillary Clinton’s approach to governance. And while Sanders has been a more effective lawmaker than Cruz (or Rubio, for that matter, as demonstrated by Rick Santorum’s embarrassing failure on Morning Joe to find one accomplishment for his endorsee) there is little evidence that he has or could build the kinds of relationships with other members of Congress, or find ways to move the now humongous boulder up the hill (or Hill) of a thoroughly dysfunctional governing process. And, of course, he would face the deep disappointment of the activists he has inspired.

Could Clinton do better? Yes. First, she has an entirely realistic understanding of where American politics are, something she would carry into the White House on the first day. Progress can be made, on health delivery, financial regulation, the tax system, energy and infrastructure, but it will be a series of incremental steps, a tenth or a quarter of a loaf at a time. Second, in her time in the Senate she showed an impressive ability to build relationships with her Republican colleagues; many of them privately praise her even as they will do their duty and condemn her through the campaign. And she knows enough about the executive branch to use its tools effectively early on to protect the Obama legacy and extend it a bit further. Some progressives, like Bill Press, have expressed disappointment with Obama’s failure to further their agenda; to one who has watched the lawmaking process up close and personal for more than four decades, his ability to move the ball in the face of challenges from his own party and Republicans, and in the face of huge headwinds from the conservative wind machine, has been extraordinarily impressive.