It’s been pretty much shown to be a complete hoax.
What was Agatha Christie up to, if anything, for ten days?
Joe
C’mon… surely the ultimate is:
*What does “14 k of g in a f p d” stand for… * 
I’d also like to know what the Shugborough House inscription means, and what’s buried below Roslyln Chapel.
The odds on someone in the crowd making a Monty Python reference…?
Well, the classic “Catholic” joke is that after he said it a rock flies hitting the woman. Jesus looks up and says “Mum, please, don’t embarass me”
There’s a book out on that, and it pretty well solves it. Seems that the leader just got lost and didn’t beleive his own instruments.
**PastAllReason
**: they have now duplicated and even improved on Damascus steel.
Very few of these controversial “ball bouncing on the line” cases are actually goals, IMO. A lot of people tend to assume that if the contact patch of the ball bounces is across the line, then it is a goal. But in fact the whole of the ball has to cross the whole of the line.
So for instance:
_____
/ \
< ball >
\_____/
___ * <--- contact patch
^^^
line goal
is not a goal, because the ball is still overhanging the line.
Unfortunately, linesmen don’t seem to be able to grasp this, despite it being one of the fundamental parts of their job! I get so annoyed when I see the linesmen flag for a throw-in or goal kick or whatever as soon as the centre of the ball crosses the back edge of the line.
Cite? This one always got me.
Agreed, but I’m more inclined to blame the people who drew up the rule for their poor grasp of human perception and human nature. It’s much easier and more natural for people to judge whether the centre of the ball is beyond the line. To the eye, a ball that has only just gone completely over the line can appear to be way beyond it.
Add to that the natural tendency of officials to justify their presence by choosing a decision rather than a non-decision, and you get a lot of throw-ins, corners and goals that shouldn’t have been. Especially throw-ins – if the ball goes even halfway across the line, chances are the linesman will give a throw.
DrDeth, based on what I’d read, and heard, the OIC was a khaki-clad idiot who not only got lost, and didn’t believe his instruments, but since he was commissioned he wouldn’t believe the enlisted ATCs who told him he was effed up.
With most of the ‘mysteries’ I’d mentioned I believe I know what happened. Or more accurately, that there are good, strong theories that explain things without a need to involve more than mischances of weather, time or human idiocy. (Often all three combine.) The question is proving it. Especially to those who prefer to believe the more outre explainations.
As an example - look at the Wiki article about the Mary Celeste. It makes a good summary of the whole farce that was the Admiralty Court’s reaction to the crew that salvaged the ship. The Court seems to have begun with the assumption that the crew of the salvaging ship had to have done something. When the Court was forced to the conclusion that whatever else may have or have not happened aboard the Marie Celeste, the crew of the salvaging ship was not at fault - they did award a salvage prize to them. But of an unusually small amount, because they were still convinced that the salvaging crew had to have done something, anyways.
I suspect that he was diagramming for the adulterous woman to go long while Peter and Paul blocked for her.
Where do indoor cats go so that they can’t be found for hours and then show up like they never disappeared?
Because breaking a Fabergé egg is a lot easier than figuring out how to make one given only a finished product that has been encased in Lucite.
That isn’t an entirely apt comparison, because all of the source code is there. It’s just been turned into a form most people have a tough time reading, usually called machine code. There are programs called disassemblers that, with the right guidance, can turn machine code into assembly language, which is easier to read but not always easier to understand. Going from assembly to a high-level language (say C++ or so) is even more difficult, but possible if some group wants to take a rather large amount of time.
But, really, why? Nobody needs the information that badly. The people writing worms and other malware seem to find all the holes they need without any source code at all. The people writing clones of the Windows API (the Wine project, for example) might appreciate some help, but a full behavioral specification would be more interesting to them. Finally, anyone who did it would get sued by Microsoft. Don’t bother arguing about the legality of such a suit: The legal fees alone would bankrupt anyone small enough to reasonably try this stunt, and you have to consider that Microsoft would bring it under American jurisdiction where the DMCA applies.
Finally, of course, there are good OSes with the full source available free and legal. Why bother with a piker?
Here are two clips of Geoff Hurst’s famous goal. The second one gives rather fair evidence that the ball never fully crossed the goal line.
I just read “The Return of Quetzalcoatl” by Daniel Pinchback, and to my surprise I find that I am motivated to look further into the crop circle phenomenon. Yes, I am confused.
Why DID she leave me ?
I read a book about this, but can’t remember the name of it. But I’m sure there are plenty of legitimate sites on the web you can find.
For many soccers "off side rule "is still a mystery.
Here are a few:
It’s actually not that complicated. The way it’s described in the laws sounds sorta confusing but when described in laymen terms it’s mostly easy to understand.