Some can, some can't. Most can't.

If you can't, you can always install Skype and make phone calls that way.

File 13600326087.jpg - (86.71KB , 1282x722 , padfone2.jpg )

The padfone is close... if you're in tablet mode you have the option of answering a call on speaker without losing your tablet workflow I believe...

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gvoip&hl=en

It's just another scale of measure.

But: try to hand-divide a page into 5 even spaces sometime.

>>14247

http://www.i18nguy.com/l10n/shoes.html

>>14247
I'm a size 10.
We have the same foot size. Easy.

https://www.torproject.org/getinvolved/volunteer.html.en

also i think torchan might be looking for newbs ( not 100% sure )

>>14643
I feel your pain. The only good chemistry book I could find was 30 years old last checked out in 1991.
It had missing elements and such, but It was quite a nice book.
I would recommend just buying or downloading them.

File 136037313233.jpg - (157.89KB , 640x841 , 1356062615768.jpg )

>>14643
not sure if they have it but try:
en.bookfi.org
found almost every textbook i needed for college this year on this website.

shills everywhere

surely we must be able to feel it a bit.

If you are standing in square room there must be one point around you in a sphere where everything is moving from or too, like a tube or something

File 135956495583.gif - (10.64KB , 1006x700 , Untitled.gif )

in one second, or whatever part there of things must move in one direction?

Are there any tools we can use to figure this out?

>How the hell don't we feel all of this movement.

the human body does not feel movement, it feels changes in movement (Accelleration).
as well, while we are always changing slightly in movement as the earth spins, given the scale of things it is beyond our ability to feel it.

If you don't know then you shouldn't post. Also, this is not the place for this thread.

>>14614
>electrons are already believed to be composed of no other particles.

Hmm. True, but not relevant. Electrons do not make up mass by themselves. Even though they do have mass, it's the Protons we're interested in, since they make up about 99.97% of mass in the universe.

Their composition is truly wondrous, since there is no way it can be explained how the quarks came to be, or cling together in the way they do.

>>14608
Stop being ridiculous, an Elephant comes first!

I think you are thinking about the Oh-My-God particle. The God particle is the Higgs Boson.

It is very important because if we find it it will confirm some of our guesses about the nature and arrangement of fundamental particles: its existence is predicted by our current model, so finding it will go some way to showing the accuracy of our current model.

I think you have confused the word 'elementary' with 'god'--elementary particles are all indivisible.

> the true god particle? we've managed to divide matter down to some pretty tiny amounts
Actually we're pretty happy with where we are in terms of division; the elementary particles are about as 'small' as it comes, in that many of them are only considered to have 'size' in the loosest sense.

In terms of going 'deeper', it is my understanding that all elementary particles are essentially waves passing through a point, and that the way different waves decide which point to localize around and when to move to a different point is all determined by the interactions of forces. It is understanding the nature of these forces, and the medium through which they pass that lies next on our way to a theory of everything.

There is no basic indivisible unit. We are already long past the point of believing in the reality of matter. There is only energy. There are forces acting upon one another in an ether.

TL;DR so many fucking turtles.

>>14733
>Your arguments are pointless. Money and opportunity already empower people beyond their means and create biased superiority.

>Even if this wasn't the case, there would still be inequality due to genetic predisposition, so no matter which way you turn, however small the variable is, no men are equal.

This was the point of my arguments, thank you.

>>14733

Just because there is a small difference doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders and allow there to become a huge difference. That's like saying: people are already starving in Africa, so why should we send aid? If we do not, a few more will starve than already do. We can't save them all so it's not worth the effort.

Avoiding a tumble down a slippery slope is exactly why such morality exists. So we know where to draw the line.

The illusion of a "utopia" that will bring peace and love and and end to scarcity is total bullshit. Here we are in the grand 21st century in countries where the service economy is the largest sector; and yet a few billion people in rural areas are still living and working exactly as they did three-thousand years ago: subsistence farming and a little bit of trade. Even if we hit the so-called technological singularity, it's not going to suddenly poof all of humanity into a golden age of civilization. Oh sure, SOME people will become immoral gods that rule from inside a computer or a remote-controlled android/cyborg body... but those billions of people in China and India and Africa and where ever else will be just as unaffected in their day-to-day lives as they have been. There will still be slums, still be starvation, still be poverty and disease and death... just OVER THERE, not HERE. The divide between the rich and poor will simply continue to widen until the rich become a completely different species.

I don't exactly mean to say that is a good thing or a bad thing (after all, I'm an upper-middle class, white-collar worker in the USA making so much money per year I don't know how to spend it all besides almost-literally tossing it out my car's windows; so I'm one of the lucky few in top) just that it IS A THING, and that such biological enhancements will be of no benefit to roughly half of humanity.

>>14739
>allow there to become a huge difference

The difference is already huge. Technological augmentation would not be any more severe than the difference already is.

Why should it matter whether or not the guy who is rich enough to hop on his yacht at any moment he likes and sail to Monaco, followed by a trip to Thailand to strangle a six-year-old prostitute to death, then go on to Japan to dine with CEOs and heads of state, happens to have a pair of bionic eyes that lets him see farther than I can?

>Avoiding a tumble down a slippery slope

There is no slippery slope here, because you are already living in the disaster you're foretelling. You're insisting that the sky is going to fall when the rubble of it is already around us.

>The illusion of a "utopia" that will bring peace and love and and end to scarcity is total bullshit.

Who was talking about utopia? All I'm saying is that the "immoral gods" you're talking about already exist, and that it makes absolutely no difference to the rest of society whether they're doing what they do from a penthouse and boardroom or a heavily shielded satellite with a virtual environment that houses their mind.

well, you seem to know how *nix user accounts work, so here it is:

Make a new user for every daemon you run, make a group for related daemons (i.e. the AMP in LAMP) and configure file permissions to reflect this. I.E., dont let PHP have any access to SQL's config, or dont let SQL have access to apache, who should have access only to the components of the others which it needs.

Seriously, it's about making daemon-users only be capable of doing one thing at a time. Google how to make users and how to configure permissions...

>>14735

would a book on system administration cover this kind of thing? I'm not OP but I'm looking to move to a VPS from shared hosting and don't really know what I'm doing. I can use linux just don't know how to configure things either. Earlier tonight I set up an amazon ec2 instance for the first time and was opening ports left and right trying to get it to work not quite understanding what I was doing.