Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 22/01/20 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Hey guys, i was an avid reader back years ago when this magazine first started, and loved the case mod section, does anyone know if there is a still a forum that has these. i own a computer business and am looking at posting custom computer mods on my facebook page, as WOW Wednesday. any help would be awesome. i may just have to go and pull my Atomic Magazines out of storage and see what we used to do, back in the day.
  2. 1 point
    Ether should be reused for dark matter. Though it'd help to have an understanding of it first, which is sort of unlikely for a while. Food science is too agenda driven, but it's not the only one.
  3. 1 point
    You know scientist were once wholey convinced that the luminiferous ether was a real thing. They were wrong, and none of them held onto that old theory long. The ice age hypothesis was wrong too. It was also never universally accepted in the same way as ether was, but was ceased upon by pop-sci types, of which a geat many school science teachers are - particularly in the lower grades. If you're desperate to find 'scientists' (they're often not) being flagrently wrong, and very frequently too, look to nutritionist.
  4. 1 point
    Be quiet commie. When we need you we’ll dig a mass grave. What stops the identification of pedophilia being changed from criminal to “sexual preference”? Pederasty was practised for Millenia (if not longer) and was a natural part of human sexual activity. I mean... let’s face it. Your belief that “gender is fluid” now trumps biological reality. What’s next?
  5. 1 point
    Is a religious text, which inherits ftom the Christian Bible in a similar way that the Bible inherits from Jewish scriptures. It is not a "non-Biblical" source just by dint of a name change and some extra material. What I think you'll find he meant is secular sources like: Roman census records (they were supposed to be taking one at the puted birth, no?); or notes from one of the many competant astronomers around ar the time about the weird light in the sky; or law-enforcement records of the fecking zombie invasion! If that last line doesn't do it for you, you really are lost.
  6. 1 point
    Totally. You know it means average temperature, right? And there's a mini ice age in store for Europe, thanks to global warming. Whodathunk, that a vast system ful of feedback loops might not fit the simplistic reasoning of jumped-up monkeys bent on pretending the world is how they wish it was...?
  7. 1 point
    It would be better in the LNP wrote the Bill of a Rights than the Greens. It would be like Rolf Harris writing a child protection document relative to the Catholic Church writing one.
  8. 1 point
    Hang on. We here on atomic could write it Mind, it might take a few decades for us to agree ...
  9. 1 point
    I agree. There are none to be trusted with writing such a document.
  10. 1 point
    Yes, it should be written by the Liberals and Nationals, staunch defenders of... *checks notes* government overreach when it's convenient for shoring up their grasp on power.
  11. 1 point
    A bill of rights written by the Greens would be like a child protection document from the Catholic Church.
  12. 1 point
    Ok, so you've shifted (or at least illuminated) the source of that set of points. That's an argument from authority - they're still wrong. Don't worry: you shouldn't be afraid of acknowledging being wrong - that's how you get to be right. Einstein was wrong on occasion; Chomsky often; and Shapiro fecking-near always. BTW: "granted by birthright"? Bullshit. Rights are a human concept, and thus awarded by humans. You can claim whatever right you like, but unless someone else agrees that you have it, you don't. It's somehow befitting the Libertarians (big L) that the most effective way to claim a right is by force.
  13. 1 point
    What monopoly laws does the US have that aren't based in anticompetitive behaviour, which is also what Australian laws are based on? This is why lots of grains of sand should be taken with opinions given from the far distant sidelines. FB already pays various groups, internal and external, to run fact-checking because of the vast reams of paranoid (and otherwise) 'fake news' that spread even easier now there's no need to figure out how to use a fax machine. They don't need to decree the news anymore than they already do. But they could also have just pulled a page from the Twitter playbook, and said they wouldn't take any money for paid political ads. That'd be a slightly better moral position than 'well, if we don't sell them coal, someone else will take their PAC $$$, how will people who uncritically accept all of this at face value ever learn that they're being lied to?' What a quaint way of saying 'oh right, I got called out'
  14. 1 point
    seriously... i showed how you many toilets are needed to cope with demand. generally speaking, 3 unisex toilets provide for 50 people comparably to 4 toilets + 1 urinal in gendered bathrooms. the red tape of how they are housed is irrelevant to how much pooing and peeing needs processing per head. what i said about the way demand scales was this: "for a given number of people the chances of them concurrently occupying all cubicles goes down exponentially with each additional cubicle." which is why its no surprise, as per the Australian Sanitary Facilities calculator :- 5 men, 5 women = 1 toilet each = 2 separate toilets OR 1 unisex toilet 10 men, 10 women = 1 toilet each = 2 separate toilets OR 1 unisex toilet a translation for the slow of wit: in this instance, - 2x the number of people, 1x the number of toilets. - 1 unisex toilet replaces 2 "NOTE: In calculating the number of facilities to be provided...an accessible unisex facility required for people with a disability may be counted once for each sex...This concession means that for each wash basin and closet pan counted above, you may deduct one for each accessible unisex facility provided." we are not talking about what is, but what could be — what size unisex toilet could cope with demand. you seem to have lost sight of that. we do not have adequate provisions for building modern multiple cubicle unisex toilets in this country. as such, our current code doesnt provide for equivalent toilet numbers to replace urinals. obviously, were modern multiple cubicle unisex toilets to be adopted here, provisions for them would need to be amended to the code. thats what we are talking about. and one argument for doing so, as i have proven over and over again, is they can be cheaper and take up less space. is there no limit to how far you will contort your cognitive dissonance to preserve your prejudices?
  15. 1 point
    theres economies of scale at play architecturally: a toaster that does 4 slices is not double the volume of one that does 2. what are those? guidelines for domestic shitters? as to the 1200mm length, that seems like a desirably luxurious size, but unless for some strange reason its the legal minimum for unisex bathrooms, your point is? ive used unisex facilities that had multiple cubicles with thin but dense floor to ceiling panelling between them, all within the same room. theres economies of scale at play architecturally: a toaster that does 4 slices is not double the volume of one that does 2. you, for instance, apparently strive to do most of your shitting verbally. its a truism that people generally shit once a day, and if they can help it, they far prefer the privacy and comfort of their own throne. you...you...actually...need this explained to you... theres economies of scale at play architecturally: a toaster that does 4 slices is not double the volume of one that does 2.
This leaderboard is set to Sydney/GMT+11:00