|
Well, since you asked so politely for criticism and suggestions, I will criticise this project on the basis that this sort of price manipulation is illegal in the U.S. (where your domain was registered) and also in many other countries, and I suggest that you abandon it for that reason.
|
|
|
|
You're assuming there's a physical barrier (earth curvature), but the vanishing points physical limitations are the result of the observers perceptual matrix.
Define "perceptual matrix". A camera with no Telephoto Lens has a closer point than one with a TL. One camera will see half a ship on the horizon and one will see 100%. This proves that there's no physical barrier in the case of a ship on the ocean. The same would apply to the sears tower.
Have you ever operated a camera with a telephoto lens? If you had, you would know this is not the case. |
|
|
|
I'm willing to bet that with a more powerful telephoto lens 100% of the tower will be visible. I'm extremely confidant (and the numbers are backing me up here) that perspective is at play here and not earth curvature.
Can I stop facepalming yet?
No.  Perspective does not work that way. Zooming in doesn't allow you to see over obstructions. |
|
|
|
Do I get another facepalm or is this correct?
You get another facepalm.  There are plenty of buildings in Chicago taller than 33 metres. The city itself is 181 metres above sea level. The top of the Sears Tower is 709 metres above sea level, almost high enough to be visible from 60 miles away without atmospheric refraction. |
|
|
|
|
His account was deleted after he posted. Situations like this are (one of) the reasons the admins don't delete accounts any more.
|
|
|
|
The light from distant objects on the earth is refracted too; the straight line from your eye to a distant mountain might be blocked by a closer hill, but the actual light path may curve enough to make the distant peak visible. A reasonable first guess: a mountain's apparent altitude at your eye (in degrees) will exceed its true altitude by its distance in kilometers divided by 1500. This assumes a fairly horizontal line of sight and ordinary air density; if the mountain is very high (so much of the sightline is in thinner air) divide by 1600 instead. 96.5 / 1500 = 6.4 centimeters |
|
|
|
How does a map of a spherical Earth confirm that the Earth is flat? It is obviously a spherical map, because it doesn't have a scale, just the words "60 Miles to the Degree" (nautical miles, that is). Degrees of what? Curvature of the Earth, of course! You have to take it into account to read the fucking map, and the map itself says so.  Flat-Earthers are getting dumber all the time. |
|
|
|
|
I know this one. Poisoned ice cubes didn't have time to melt and release the poison. What I don't know is what kind of poison you'd have to use to manufacture a poisoned ice cube. If the poison is water-soluble (and it seems it would have to be) it would act as a freezing-point depressant, and the sub-zero ice cubes would freeze the drink rather than melt. Maybe if it was an extremely potent poison, so you didn't need enough of it to lower the freezing point, but such poisons are difficult to obtain. A non-soluble poison could work, but would be difficult to avoid detection. It would be more sensible to just poison the drink itself. Why can't the assassins in these riddles ever do things sensibly?
|
|
|
|
So, what kind of anacondas do you have in Australia? I guess theyīve adapted to deserts. Do they carry the young around in pouches?
Very funny. Australia is unique in that it has more venomous snakes than non-venomous ones. You won't find anything so harmless as an anaconda here (or any other boa constrictor, for that matter). But Australians do know about snakes in general. We wouldn't live long if we didn't. |
|
|
|
Well, I donīt know about that. Predators donīt usually spend more energy than necessary. Thereīs always the balance between energy in and energy out.
Well, I do know about that. I am from Australia, after all. It is indeed necessary for an anaconda to constrict its prey to death before eating it, since anacondas are slow and have no options if the prey decides to get up and walk away. They will not attempt to swallow something alive, and they can tell. Playing dead doesn't work on snakes. |
|
|
|
They nudge and examine the prey to check for movement. They donīt just slither up to a sleeping animal and start swallowing it without any ado. I guess evolution has taught them certain carefulness.
More carefulness than you think. They examine their prey by constricting it until it stops moving. They are sensitive enough to feel the prey's heartbeat, and will not be fooled by a person playing dead. |
|
|
|
Everyone should realise that this advice is a well-known joke and should not be taken seriously. It contains several pieces of false information for the purpose of building to the punchline. Anyone who actually follows this advice will be quickly killed. 1. If you are attacked by an anaconda, do not run. The snake is faster than you are.
False. Anacondas are extremely slow, and can easily be evaded by just walking away. They donīt waste time and energy on constricting something that is already still. Itīs just another carcass to them.
They do. Constrictors often prey on sleeping animals, and do not want their prey to wake up while being eaten. They are not scavengers, and do not usually eat things they didn't kill themselves. |
|
|
|
it's my first mistake
Liar. You've been banned before for the same offence. Since you haven't learned your lesson, this time your ban is permanent. Any alt accounts (likely including this one, since you've been posting outside Meta) will also be permabanned. You're not welcome here any longer. Now get out. |
|
|
|
I sold at the top and made an immodest $100k+ profit. I figure the next bubble will buy me a house.  |
|
|
|
I don't think you can have incoming connections over tor, only outgoing connections.
This is false. You can have incoming connections over Tor via a hidden service, as long as your hidden service is known to the Tor network (which can take several days for a new hidden service - you just have to leave it running for a while). Bitcoin itself will advertise its .onion address to any node it connects to, though that won't do any good until Tor knows how to reach it. |
|
|
|
I love reading bitcoin related news articles but almost 70% of articles being released nowadays is honestly of a very poor quality and it seems like they are just regurgitated for the need to get an article out there.
News articles? What are you talking about? Bitcoinist.net isn't a newspaper. Would someone tell me again why this crap's allowed in the Press section? |
|
|
|
Why not just take a sha256sum of the image file to obtain the hex privkey?
Probably because the hash will change if the image is ever re-encoded, even if the pixel data remains unchanged. |
|
|
|
|
I will also go with 3... a6.
a6: 6 votes (hermesesus, galdur, XMRpromotions, Hueristic, Taras, Foxpup)
Nf6: 4 votes (Morecoin Freeman, dre1982, actmyname, boolberry)
Bc5: 1 vote (jjacob)
Nd4: 1 vote (languagehasmeaning)
|
|
|
|
|
2... Nc6.
2 votes Nc6 (dre1982, Foxpup)
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
