Thanks, I’ll look into it. It doesn’t seem that easy but might be an option

Looks good, but video chat is a must have. We like to give each other the middle finger often.

I’ve been looking for an alternative as well. My gaming friends always use Skype when we play together. We started a million years ago when Skype was huge and everyone had it and since it kept working, we kept it around.

We tried a lot of stuff, but nothing just works the way Skype always did. Why did MS have to be bitches and get rid of it.

The annoying thing is, a lot of modern battery protection circuits will brick themselves once they read a too low battery voltage. So not only will they not charge anymore, they will never charge, even with new cells. It’s so dumb and meant to prevent 3rd party refurbished battery packs.

While this is funny and all, this isn’t really true for a couple of reasons:

• We know a hell of a lot about the oceans, we’ve studied them for hundreds years. There has been extensive mapping of the seafloor. All of the areas close to land have been thoroughly studied. And where we’ve spotted interesting stuff, we’ve investigated for sure.
• We haven’t thoroughly explored the moon. Sure we’ve had nice pictures for a long time. But we’ve only recently seen the rear side of the moon, as we more or less always see the same side from Earth. Not till recent orbiters we’ve had a high resolution map of the moon, comparable to maps we have of the oceans.
• Only a dozen or so people have ever been to the moon and the amount of research they did was very low. They also haven’t brought back many samples. And the amount we can do from orbit and with rovers is very limited. At this point I would say we know more about Mars than we do about the moon, depending on how to count. The moon isn’t that interesting, so we haven’t done much with it. It’s made of the same stuff as the Earth and without an atmosphere and biosphere, it’s kinda dull.
• This is basically impossible to measure. What is knowledge? How is it quantified? We could say it’s relative. But since there isn’t a way to know how much total knowledge there is available to learn, I’d say that’s not possible. What does it mean to “explore”? Do people need to go there? Because a hell of a lot of people have been to the seafloor than to the moon. Hell going to the seafloor is a basic tourist activity these days. I’ve been to the Maldives and did some crazy dives looking at life on the bottom of the sea.
• People might argue the Moon is basically all the same, so once you’ve seen one spot you’ve seen them all. I’d argue that’s not true, we’ve only recently learned the moon’s poles are very interesting and we know very little about that. And I’d counter that argument with the fact the same goes for the deep oceans. A whole lot of it is just barren wasteland, an under water desert. We haven’t explored because there is nothing to see. We select interesting locations and study them thoroughly, instead of studying a lot of it a little bit and wasting huge amounts of time.
• Another argument often repeated is new species are discovered every day in the ocean. Whilst this is true, we are also destroying a lot of species, so the total number might actually go down instead of up. And a lot of species are variants of already known species. Only expert biologists can differentiate between the species and know what to look for. And I’d argue they don’t change the big picture or understanding at all. Still interesting, but not an indication there is so much more to find out there.
• But what about something huge living down there? Like a Kraken or dinosaurs? Well no, we don’t have to have studied every square inch to know about big life. Big life is messy, requires a lot of resources and is part of a food chain. You don’t need to see the dinosaur if you can see their giant mountain of crap amidst broken trees. There might be some kind of large squid or something down there, but they will probably be extremely similar to other large squid we already know about. So a new species, but not changing the overall picture. If there were any big monsters down there, we would know about them by now.

So this is one of those things that might feel true, but in reality it really isn’t.

I remember when I bought an 40MB hard drive back in the day. (Yes, megabyte, not gigabyte) And I labeled it “WOWSOBIG”, because it was huge for me. When I bought a 32" flat screen when those first released I thought that was big. Now even the TV in the bedroom is a 48" and that just the small secondary TV. One of my neighbors across the street has a TV as big as his wall, I can watch his TV from my window.

Funny how perspectives change over time.

You know you are in for a good time when you get to the chapter called “Sexual connotations”.

I’m not an expert on the field, so I’ve read the paper, but am not qualified to draw conclusions from it. But as I read it, the focus is more on the role of ritual and religion in the making of the iron. And the transfer of knowledge through this process and hypothesize the addition of the burning of bone is actually beneficial.

However they do not approach this from a material technology standpoint. So I would love for someone with knowledge on this point to chime in. It’s very interesting if the people back in the day knew how to make low carbon iron and the little bit of carbon they did add came from the burning of the bones. But as I see it the burning of the bones is more a ritual kind of thing and getting all of the carbon out of the iron is the harder thing to do, not putting the carbon in.

Is this actually true? Because all the YouTube videos I’ve seen of people trying to make iron in primitive ways have the issue of too much carbon in the iron. This causes the iron to be very brittle and hard to work. The trick about making good steel is to get just the right amount of carbon.

Nice

I had a TV capture card in my computer and a little program that could in a sense decode the signal. However it wasn’t very good at it. It had hotkeys to fiddle with the parameters, because a lot of them weren’t constant in the encoding, but varied over time. This meant readjusting them all the time, otherwise it would lose tracking and get messed up. The colors would also invert every 30 secs or so, so you would need to hit a hot key to toggle that. Also there was no sound, the encoded TV stations used a digital sound track instead of the regular analog one, and nobody had figured out how to decode that. And because computers weren’t that fast back then (I had a Celeron 300A running at 500mhz), the resolution was only half what the signal was. The signal was 480i, which got turned into a 240p image. Which at double the pixel size was still a very small image.

But it was kinda neat it could at least decode some of it and boobs could definitely be seen :) Funny how that’s 25 years ago, it feels like it wasn’t that long at all.

Eat less sugar. What you are experiencing isn’t true energy, it’s the immediate boost sugar gives you. It’s a high your body has become addicted to.

If you cut back on the amount of sugar, your body will adapt to the lower energy levels coming from burning fats. It’s lower overall, but it’s much more constant without the high highs and low lows. You’ll feel much much better.

I would recommend looking into the cycles your body goes through. When you kick your body into a sugar burning cycle, it’s rough to transition back to fat burning. It feels like you have no energy and are hungry for snacks. It’s better to stay in the fat burning cycle for a longer time.

This is why I’ve personally had good success with intermittent fasting or something like one meal a day. I eat normally in the evening and can even have a snack after. During the night my body goes from burning sugar to burning fat, then the next day it’s burning fat all day. A zero sugars diet wasn’t for me, but other people have had good luck with it.

Just do some research and figure out what works for you, everybody is unique.

That’s the neat part, you don’t

Checkmate physicists

Agreed. The downside of community developed software is it can very easily die. All too often almost all of the work is done by one or a few very active people. When they stop working on the project it’s a matter of luck if someone is willing to take it on. I’ve lost more than a few good tools that way.

A Planck length is the smallest length possible, a smaller length simply can’t exist.

At least that’s what scientists believed until they studied OPs penis, then they found out something smaller does in fact exist.

Damn that looked even worse than I imagined it would. The movement doesn’t even naturally follow one shot to the next.

Don’t forget to tell the customers about raising the prices because of the inflation

You don’t just want to fix one human, you want to fix all the offspring as well.

deleted by creator

Reverse parked it 2cm too far to the left causing a corner protector to scrape along the side with a very loud screech. Everyone looked because of the noise and I still feel bad to this day. To be fair the corner protector did the job, so in the end not a problem.