Just a guess, but maybe the capitol of Western Australia (which I'm assuming is a 'state')...senate chamber? So sad that they seem to have emulated our (US) congress in attendance and respect.

Im guessing the possibility to one day create a competitive table tennis robot is doable but doubt they are anywhere near that now technologically (just a guess). The info that has to be gathered before each shot and the ability for the computer/robot to counter with the best type of shot seems like a daunting task for the computer/robot to make.

From this video im guessing that it wouldn't take much of a table tennis player to destroy a robotic competitor. I see nothing here that makes me think this robot could play worth a shit competitively. Way to easy to exploit it's shortcomings is my guess.

Now a robotic pool player seems much more realistic.

How about computer controlled car in a formula one race?

I have a friend who speaks Brazilian Portuguese and says she can't understand Portugal Portuguese at all. Could it be that this girl is pseudo-speaking a Brazilian dialect? (Just a guess)

Only thing i can think of is it may be blocked in the states, but thats just a guess.

Just a guess, but... this?

This one suspect was not a threat to the entire Boston area, and did not make what amounts to Martial law without the declaration right. If you think being scared is the best reason to give up your rights to privacy and freedom from search and seizure, you don't understand the USA and perhaps should move to one of those other countries that agree with you, there are many.
Now, we appear to have a comprehension problem...I said I disagree with those claiming this was some conspiracy or even a compliance test. I did not say, and have not heard anyone else say (besides the suspects father) that this was perpetrated by the government, that's a pretty big jump there. The implication is that the police are using the fear violate people's rights thinking they'll be either be justified in their actions or at least get away with them. Sadly they would likely be right, thanks in large part to people like Fletch that don't understand or agree with the freedom from 'search and seizure'.
As to what they might find that would make it 'justified', nothing in my mind, but in theirs could be a different story. They leave it open for the GBs out there to call this a 'deadly ruse' amongst other things, and to claim it was simply a way to enter and search peoples homes for whatever they might find (remember, that's how many departments fund themselves, with seizures, so there's a great reason for them to want to know if there's something to seize).
I'm of the opinion that the Boston police saw an opportunity to enter at least some homes they knew full well were not in danger but that they were 'suspicious' of under the 'public safety' umbrella, and likely brought charges against some for what they found, but that's just a guess based on past behavior, I have no evidence that this happened.
I believe the police should have narrowed the search area to less than one square block once they knew where he was, not randomly search homes for him when they have no idea whatsoever where he is. There's no danger if he's not there, so no excuse to enter. If they don't know, but search anyway, that's an illegal warrantless search. If they pull their guns on you and train them at you (which they seemed to do in the video) they put your life in danger for no reason and should be prosecuted for brandishing.
No one (after the carjack victim not in a home) was held against their will, no one needed saving. When they don't know where the suspect is, they don't know where to search for him, so should not enter any home uninvited. How do you not get that? If they don't know where he is or what he's doing or even if he's armed (which it turns out he was not) then there's no exigent circumstance. Period. They only exist when there is knowledge of the suspects actual presence and evidence the he's either threatening others or evidence, not the worry that he might be.
Again, you appear to suggest that the police may enter your home to search for dangerous criminals at any time they choose in the name of safety because they are dangerous criminals and MAY be in your home, they are certainly in the area. That's just plain dumb and shows lack of forethought and lack of understanding of the right to be free from search and seizure, especially in your own home.
If you want to give up your rights because your a coward, move. I hear Australia is nice.
Apologies for the long post.

From just reading your username, I'd guess that you're a 21 year old boy from Texas who likes to shoot his mouth off. But that's just a guess.

In any case to you and the other gremlins in this thread - behave or be banned.

My guess is that in order for the two bodies of water (the main body and each droplet) to coalesce, their molecules have to agree on a resonating frequency. When there is no other interference, the droplets take on the frequency of the larger body almost immediately. Since the main body is resonating at a frequency above normal, the droplets can't "catch up", and so bounce and wobble along, trying to achieve equilibrium with the larger body, and failing.

Just a guess.

Yes, thank you, you put it so much simpler than I do!
In reply to this comment by Thumper:
Your views are inconsistent because you're suggesting her obesity is somehow impactful on others. If it's not that then your suggesting you're concerned for her health. If you're so concerned for her health (or others) then what about her mental health (or ours)? Arguably the most important form of health. You already admitted there is no polite way to tell a stranger that is probably already aware, that their weight is a health concern. I don't see how promoting forwardness with disregard to one's reaction/ feelings is any bit healthier. Not to mention the whole bully awareness month - which this is just a guess, but, doesn't that specifically entail "we" as a society passing stronger consideration for others feelings?

This is where we need to draw the line on the whole obesity/ drug addict comparison. There is NO NEED to throw tough love at an overweight person. Even if you succeed in pushing them to lose weight - you're changing the very foundation of personal relationships. Where does the bully draw the line at school? "Stop being so dorky?". Oh and I'm not a fan of letting our children carry such moral burdens. Their parents should lead by example. Lets not build a world where people push one another into choices even if they are good for them. Let's let freewill be freewill. If you really want to make a difference - befriend them, get close to them, within the "YOU can say that to me" walls. Actually give a shit about the person and not the idea of people. Stop treating that woman like an negative average in a large container and more like a PERSON.

Problem solved. Become their friend - follow time-tested relationship rules and then, and only then, can you relay such private and impactful information to them.

>> ^scannex:

I am not sure how my argument is nihilistic at all.
I am not sure what mold you think I am promoting, aside from not being in a state which has been, by all available science, deemed to be u healthy. (read: not obese)
I am happy to address where you think my view is inconsistent, can you please elaborate?
Re feeling: I think that is fair, to a point. But to me, the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.
You pretend to care for the health of others yet there is a perverse nihilistic undertone to your entire argument. The only thing in this for you is to point out that "people" should fit a mold that you and your constituents have deemed appropriate. Which furthers strengthens the overall bizarre and inconsistent view you're slinging. Shouldn't your dismissal of common morals/ sensibilities completely free you up from trying to impress or coincide with a particular group? The thing that bugs me the most is that you seem to completely ignore this person's feelings. It's as if, for the purposes of your argument having a body you have obfuscated her feelings or anyone else's for that matter.

Your views are inconsistent because you're suggesting her obesity is somehow impactful on others. If it's not that then your suggesting you're concerned for her health. If you're so concerned for her health (or others) then what about her mental health (or ours)? Arguably the most important form of health. You already admitted there is no polite way to tell a stranger that is probably already aware, that their weight is a health concern. I don't see how promoting forwardness with disregard to one's reaction/ feelings is any bit healthier. Not to mention the whole bully awareness month - which this is just a guess, but, doesn't that specifically entail "we" as a society passing stronger consideration for others feelings?

This is where we need to draw the line on the whole obesity/ drug addict comparison. There is NO NEED to throw tough love at an overweight person. Even if you succeed in pushing them to lose weight - you're changing the very foundation of personal relationships. Where does the bully draw the line at school? "Stop being so dorky?". Oh and I'm not a fan of letting our children carry such moral burdens. Their parents should lead by example. Lets not build a world where people push one another into choices even if they are good for them. Let's let freewill be freewill. If you really want to make a difference - befriend them, get close to them, within the "YOU can say that to me" walls. Actually give a shit about the person and not the idea of people. Stop treating that woman like an negative average in a large container and more like a PERSON.

Problem solved. Become their friend - follow time-tested relationship rules and then, and only then, can you relay such private and impactful information to them.

>> ^scannex:

I am not sure how my argument is nihilistic at all.
I am not sure what mold you think I am promoting, aside from not being in a state which has been, by all available science, deemed to be u healthy. (read: not obese)
I am happy to address where you think my view is inconsistent, can you please elaborate?
Re feeling: I think that is fair, to a point. But to me, the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.
You pretend to care for the health of others yet there is a perverse nihilistic undertone to your entire argument. The only thing in this for you is to point out that "people" should fit a mold that you and your constituents have deemed appropriate. Which furthers strengthens the overall bizarre and inconsistent view you're slinging. Shouldn't your dismissal of common morals/ sensibilities completely free you up from trying to impress or coincide with a particular group? The thing that bugs me the most is that you seem to completely ignore this person's feelings. It's as if, for the purposes of your argument having a body you have obfuscated her feelings or anyone else's for that matter.

And NOW, with the current situation in play and we now know how Mitt feels for a vast swath of America. He most likely ALSO hated this person in a wheelchair for being disabled too.

Really there isn't a way to defend him unless you have truly given up your intelligence and given fully into opinion and ignorance, because it makes your stomach more "fuzzy".

Too many people now in America need to wake up to the reality of what this world REALLY IS! There isn't a unicorn. There isn't a mystical force stopping rape pregnancies. There isn't a magical non-person free-market that just regulates itself into pure equality and use for all. There is no Gods, which leaves you with a SERIOUS question NO MATTER WHAT FAITH you belong to, is there a God at all? The two-party setup is a mere cultural and sociological play of what is essentially a difference in people's fundamental psychology. Though we like to pretend conservative or liberal values are MORE than they really are, they are illusions created by our minds--as fake as any religion other than YOURS... That last word, really, really should mean something to somebody that doesn't quite get psychology and the absolute BLANKET and hallucinatory world it can proceed to give to our brains that is just as real as reality--so if you understand psychology is a POTENT little thing that runs our lives...

Mitt is just as lost as everyone else. Not only does he do what his idiotic psychology tells him to do, completely being an ass. But, he is fully unaware that he is FULLY inside the grip of ignorance and his own self-created ego trip. That is why it is so utterly hard to reach any of these people and talk to them about a TRUE compromise or negotiation. They just say the words and nod their heads, but you never truly got through to a person that understands themselves OR more importantly reality, even to the smallest extent.

This is why education is so vitally important, because we MUST give our kids the tools necessary to be able to make the final leap in self-consciousness that for some reason so many seem to never get there and get sidelined in the various vices of life--or more precisely the mind and your psyche.

Some people are just a record, playing in a loop. The rest are playlists, with thousands, or perhaps hundreds of songs. BUT, the people that UNDERSTAND are the people that can design the program that makes the playlists and moreover they make the music that those with the playlists or the record listen to. THAT is the difference.

They are the ones beckoning to you to LEARN, not to CHANGE, but to LEARN! Change will come when you see like they do...
----

Mitt had no reason to be like that. Something tells me if Mitt truly ever talked a mental health professional he would be diagnosed with something... Just my guess (like narcissistic personality disorder--but, I'd have to see even more of Mitt to be certain).

You can't legally shelter funds from taxation in Swiss bank accounts. You are taxed on your worldwide income when you are a resident of the US.

The olly olly oxen deal was for Corporations -- businesses that aren't US residents, that only do business in foreign countries with lower tax rates. They can't bring the cash back to America without paying US taxes. The olly olly deal was to let the corporations bring cash back into America at lower rates than normal.

I understand that Rmoney doesn't want his tax returns to be picked apart.

But he can easily provide Page one and page two, which have no details, just totals. Then we can see what rate of tax he paid. But he isn't doing that. And that makes me think that he probably did pay very low taxes for some of those years.

His earnings on his Swiss bank accounts were taxed in America though -- they were on his tax return and that is why we all found out that he had a lot of money parked over there. And that is why he doesn't want to release his full tax returns -- folks read "Swiss bank accounts" and get all in a tizzy. I can understand him wanting to avoid that kind of ignorance. So? Release page one and page two.




>> ^ObsidianStorm:

I suspect that Romney was one of the guys who sheltered massive amounts of money in Swiss bank accounts to avoid US taxes and then took advantage of the 2009 ollyollyoxenfree that allowed that money to be moved back into the US without penalties.
Just my guess...

I suspect that Romney was one of the guys who sheltered massive amounts of money in Swiss bank accounts to avoid US taxes and then took advantage of the 2009 ollyollyoxenfree that allowed that money to be moved back into the US without penalties.

Just my guess...

>> ^legacy0100:

I'm just wondering, wouldn't the can be shaken up after all that spinning movement and cause it to overflow? You may end up having to wait for the can to settle down before opening it anyway, which may negate the time saved from fast cooling lol
If the spinning doesn't agitate the can and there is no overflowing, then there may be a use for this device. It's a fun little gimmick


I a lot of what makes cans get fizzy is shifting that pocket of air at the top of it through the liquid enough that it causes the carbonation to get agitated. Like if you took a can and just ran it between your hands smoothly it's not going to bubble over. And when they slide down convenience store shelving they aren't agitated either because the pocket of air is at the top and not running through the liquid like it is with a shake.

That's just my guess at it, because I often run cans between my hands if they are dirty to try to get some of the condensation so I can clean them a little and never end up with a fizzing over can. Plus if you've got a really good cooler and plenty of ice a can of pop can be far too cold to drink if it's really hot out...like an ice cream headache at times.

>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^criticalthud:
in reality, we're ultimately just guessing.

Yes, ultimately (in reality) everything is JUST a guess -- or, if you prefer, guessing. And I emphasize GUESS because that's all it is. Good work (and FUCK the sarcasm button. In this case, I emphasize FUCK because I don't give it out very often.). t('o't)


no, ultimately, everything is not JUST a guess. there are these things we call facts. but neither you nor anyone has ever experienced a black hole or witnessed the joining of two black holes. but hey, what the FUCK. let's pretend our young, stupid species actually knows something about the universe while most of our population is still debating whether evolution exists.