This is on the Science Channel again folks..And then there was Einstein.
Great program on the Science channel now.
Einstein & Hawking: Unlocking the Universe
If there is a pantheon for great minds, Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein would undoubtedly qualify for membership. Their remarkable theories were transformative in the world of physics, and both are lauded as luminaries across the world.
On Sunday, a new 2-hour program will delve into the fascinating work of Hawking and Einstein, how their ideas are connected, and what that fruitful pondering means for modern physics.
"Einstein and Hawking: Unlocking The Universe" premieres March 10 at 8 p.m. ET/PT on the Science Channel. The program will also re-air on March 14, which is the first anniversary of Hawking's death and Einstein's 140th birthday.
I think I love you sideways old man. No one cares.This is on the Science Channel again folks.
I recorded it and watched it twice by myself and once with my grandson.
Did you celebrate Pi's birthday?I think I love you sideways old man. No one cares.
The record for the most digits of pi memorized belongs to Rajveer Meena of Vellore, India, who recited 70,000 decimal places of pi on March 21, 2015, according to Guinness World Records.
I hate u and I hate your motherThe record for the most digits of pi memorized belongs to Rajveer Meena of Vellore, India, who recited 70,000 decimal places of pi on March 21, 2015, according to Guinness World Records.
The advent of computers radically improved humans' knowledge of pi. Between 1949 and 1967, the number of known decimal places of pi skyrocketed from 2,037 on the ENIAC computer to 500,000 on the CDC 6600 in Paris, according to "A History of Pi" (St. Martin's Press, 1976). And late last year, Peter Trueb, a scientist at the Swiss company Dectris Ltd., used a multithreaded computer program to calculate 22,459,157,718,361 digits of pi over the course of 105 days, according to the group.
Blow out your ass!!!I hate u and I hate your mother
That was on tonight.This is on the Science Channel again folks.
I recorded it and watched it twice by myself and once with my grandson.
You're lost again old man.This is on the Science Channel again folks.
I recorded it and watched it twice by myself and once with my grandson.
Turns out Michael Steele admitted in a British court last year that all the things he said about Trump came from a now defunct CNN website called CNN iReport, a user driven website where unverified things on many issues are posted anonymously. Steele said in his deposition that he copied the things written in his dossier off a report on that website but then admitted he was unaware how that website worked, didn't know it was uncorroborated, unverified. So there you go. There's the foundation of this whole mess.If 62% are true, that's pretty bad.
I hope the golden shower ones are true.
So 62% of the information that Steele got from the website has since been corroborated.Turns out Michael Steele admitted in a British court last year that all the things he said about Trump came from a now defunct CNN website called CNN iReport, a user driven website where unverified things on many issues are posted anonymously. Steele said in his deposition that he copied the things written in his dossier off a report on that website but then admitted he was unaware how that website worked, didn't know it was uncorroborated, unverified. So there you go. There's the foundation of this whole mess.
So 62% of the information that Steele got from the website has since been corroborated.
My previous statement stands.
WrongThere's the foundation of this whole mess.
Nope!So 62% of the information that Steele got from the website has since been corroborated.
My previous statement stands.
Source?So 62% of the information that Steele got from the website has since been corroborated.
My previous statement stands.
Well you haven’t posted anything that disputes my assertion except that you don’t want to believe it.Nope!
The 62% actually came from one of van’s posts.Source?
You're quoting a source that you reject, to "stand" on?The 62% actually came from one of van’s posts.
Lol. What?You're quoting a source that you reject, to "stand" on?
Pitiful.
And that would be?The 62% actually came from one of van’s posts.