Probes. That's what you've got? You are still thinking traditionally based on what's possible now or the near future. Imagine technology that could scan for lifeforms in solar systems of remote galaxies at a rate of ***llions per per millisecond. 2000 years of continued advancement could produce that technology. Regardless, I won't sit here and declare that it doesn't exist or is impossible when we barely have an understanding of basic properties of matter.
No, because the universe is so fucking huge that the probability of aliens visiting Earth or humans visiting Rsdflkjasd is zero.
And if near instantaneous travel is discovered? Technology in 2000 years will be unrecognizable to us. I wouldn't make that bet. Also, maybe we've been visited but we weren't interesting or habitable for visitors. Assume visitors would only be interested if we have technology. Human technology of any value we appreciate has only been in existence for a very narrow slice of time--several thousand years. Not much on the galactic scales.
Lastly, how do you know we're not visited and studied now under a Prime Directive rule?
Research: The dark side of the moon is the most quiet nearby location for interstellar telescopes. Quiet means seeing much further into space.
Population Size: A space station has a very limited maximum sustainable population size. The moon would support much larger populations.
Comfort: If you are manufacturing worker, where would you rather spend 10 years? A tiny cramped space station with no gravity and a very small population available for social life? Or, the moon where there is open space, room for green houses large enough to contain entire parks with trees and meadows, large buildings, gravity, a variety of recreational activities, and a much larger population? Which option do you think will let you take your spouse and kids along? Unless you're a high ranking official, definitely not the space station. A lifestyle similar to a lifestyle on Earth is achievable on the moon--but not in a space station. Do you realize how important little things become over time like being able to bath normally? Many things you take for granted are not possible in zero gravity.
Safety: A moonbase is safe from solar flares and radiation bursts from space if covered with moon soil or made with thick walls. A fixed pressurized structure is MUCH safer than a pressurized tin can in space. Which will hold up better against space debree traveling at 20,000 mph? Space docking is dangerous to two vehicles. Moon landing is dangerous to one. Less risk when ships arrive.
Quarantine: People get sick. Where do you quarantine them on a space station? There's lots of room on the moon for that scenario.
Permanency: It's easier to setup a self-sufficient colony on the moon rather than a space station because many raw materials are available locally: metals, water, oxygen, fuel, silica, concrete, etc.
Maintenance: Space stations need constant course corrections which requires fuel. A base on the moon does not.
Stockpiling: Where would you rather store your stockpiles of fragile goods? In space blasted by radiation or in an underground moon bunker?
Mining: It'll be cheaper to mine for metals and building materials on the moon and lift them into orbit using locally made rockets using locally refined fuel for building massive space stations.
Land Grab: Ignoring the landmass of 4 United States for colonization and exploration would be stupid. If we don't claim it, someone else will (the Chinese).
Tourism: room for hotels, ability to wear wings and fly indoors, craters and caverns to explore, amazing views, etc.
There is no homebrew scene for the 360 because the mods only let you play burned copies of *signed* software. They don't allow you to run *unsigned* software.
As of 7:30 pm-ish. Meals: 0. Snacks: 1 slim-fast shake (230 cals), 1 starbucks (220 cals). Does sugar free gum count? 5 cals max. Of course, I'm not recommending that as a healthy diet, but you asked what I had and I answered. I will probably eat one regular meal tonight: 500-750 cals and possibly have a few beers (300-500 cals): that'll be 1500-1600 cals max for today.
2000 calories is considered normal for females, 2500 for males. I generally average between 1500 and 2000 per day, so, let's say 1750 cals/day. I do not lose nor gain weight because I am somewhat lethargic so it balances out and I break even.
Fat is an energy cache which cannot be created nor destroyed (although can be removed with lipo). Assume the ideal parameters. If it took you 10 years to become obese averaging 2700 cals/day, you will never lose weight if your daily average is 2500 cals/day, and it will take you another 10 years losing it averaging 2300 cals/day therefore a good 15 to 17 years out of your last 20 years will be marked with obesity despite your "dieting" which will likely color your perception. You will probably adopt a stance that you never make progress and you are always fat regardless of what you do. This causes you to become frustrated and then regress which begins the cycle anew.
At some point age kicks in and you start to develop health conditions that prevent you from aggressive exercise or diet. That is when you are screwed and you will begin bitching about your situation. Well, if that becomes your future then it's a result of the choices you made. There is no one else to blame.
You cannot escape physics. You are either very lethargic or binge occasionally. Dieting 6 days and then binging on the 7th in excess of the previous 6 will not allow a person to lose weight, and it's well known that skipping meals throughout the day generally causes a person to binge on the dinner meal. Also, walking burns very few calories because humans are very efficient at walking. Resistance is required to burn calories. If your desire is to be thin within 2.5 years given the 10 year scenario, you will have to work 4 times harder than you did working to gain it, and it is very unlikely you are currently working 4 times harder.
The truth is you don't want to face the truth. Skinny people are skinny because they: don't eat very much, are very active (we're not talking about walking; we're talking about intense exercise such as basketball, tennis, running, etc), or do both.
A better system would be fully peer-to-peer in that any two cars that happened to be traveling in the same direction could link up.
What would suck is when 100 of them link up and form impassable moving clogs. Imagine trying to get to the off-ramp quickly but several 30 length car trains are barricading you.
Two people can eat identical diets, and do comparable amounts of exercise.
Physics dictates that is impossible. You must be a fat person making excuses again. You'll get thin the minute you cut the bullshit and quit assuming thin people make little or no effort. And no, you don't have a "glandular" problem. That won't fly in fat camp. You are lazy and gluttonous.
I have been thin and I have been fat. The difference between the two was I ate a lot, drank a lot of beer, and exercised very little when I was fat. The opposite was true when I was thin. Imagine that. I wonder if there's a causal relationship.
(For the stupidly insane, the answer is yes--there was.)
"Suspicious registrations" was intended to cast the activity under a veil of guilt. It's completely unfounded because anyone from anywhere can sign-up to a free service. The offer extended to hire the lead engineer was normal business practice. Google recognized a motivated developer who possessed valuable insight and attempted to acquire him. Totally legal. The comments were intended to imply there was a contractual relationship between Google and FramIt where there was none. Without a business relationship, anyone can implement anything so long as patents (or DMCA) aren't infringed. Google taking the idea and implementing it in their own way was a legal and commonplace occurrence. I see no guilt here other than incredible bias on the author of the article's part (Clint Boulton).
It does not work for cars because cookies and rocks have a property that cars do not--symmetry of matter. Materialwise, they are consistent. Imagine a plane slicing through a rock dividing it into two--slicing at any angle. The material on both sides of the plane will always be of the same type of material possessing the same properties. This is why a rock sliced in half results in 2 rocks--not 2 half rocks. That is not true for cars because I can slice only the tire and have rubber on one side and the remainder of the car (glass, metal, etc) on the other side. Slicing a car in half results in 2 half-cars
Slicing a continent behaves like slicing a rock. You will end up with 2 continents: not 2 half continents because a continent is an organizational structure which we determine based on an arbitrary selection process (such as elevation above sea level). Since a continent is purely a conceptual organization, that means every point within it has exactly the same property value: inside. It is materially consistent just like a rock (or cookie).
See other post. Already answered the crumb question.
FYI: these cookies have no chocolate chips. Why? Because.. rocks don't have "chocolate chips" and a continent is just a big rock. But really, the gist of my point is plain cookies and rocks are made of a simple materials and no matter how you slice them, your slice will result in 2 divisions containing the same material: left/right, up/down, regardless of the infinite slicing angles or directions. That's symmetry. That's not true with a chocolate chip cookie, an apple, a cake, a single cell organism, a person, a car, etc.
When is a crumb not a cookie? When it's a bread crumb. It's not called a cookie crumb for nothin. A cookie crumb is just a very small cookie. Would a mile wide cookie cease to be a cookie? Why discriminate against the radially challenged?
There are no half-cookies. There are only cookies. Some are small; some are big. It's like saying there are half rocks. Divide a rock in half, u get 2 rocks. Not 2 half rocks. This is because a cookie has no anatomy as you and I would know it. It is symmetrical and the independent of scale. It applies down to a cookie of size 2 molecules. A 1 molecule cookie cannot be divided, because dividing molecule yields entirely different substances.
If I had said an "apple", that would have been different. Half apples do indeed exist.
After the first break it's no longer a cookie. It's 2 cookies. Cookies, much like continents, are composed of 1 piece. It takes 2 more breaks to divide those 2 cookies. You are thinking of slicing a cake. When you slice a cake criss-cross, you end up 4 slices of cake, not 4 cakes.
I left out one more trait: they don't quit trying even after initial success is achieved.
Every one of the traits I have observed in them had less to do with raw brain processing power. I think with persistence the traits are learnable if the desire is there but it requires self-reflection and the willingness to consider constructive criticism from one's self and others. Of course, not all criticism is fair or unbiased so it has to be selective and metered with objectivity. Every person I know who has not become a high level executive or corporate owner is lacking in some of these traits, including myself.
I've worked with and known several people who become millionaires and owners of corporations. The personality aspects they shared (in addition to being risk takers as you mentioned) were:
When asked if it can be done, they don't start with "no".
They worry about implementation and funding issues later and focus on developing the concept first.
They eagerly delegate what they can't do, can't do quickly, or can't do well.
They have some willingness to entertain stupid ideas and quickly prune ones that obviously won't work.
They reduce their risk by testing and prototyping rather than diving in quickly.
They have focus, drive, and motivation.
When they have time off, they tend to work or research.
They apply strategy. They think about verticals and horizontals.
They don't let mistakes get them down.
Their mental health is stable. They aren't depressed or immersed in personal drama.
They are extroverted, unafraid of confrontation, and personable.
Slashdot Mirror
Probes. That's what you've got? You are still thinking traditionally based on what's possible now or the near future. Imagine technology that could scan for lifeforms in solar systems of remote galaxies at a rate of ***llions per per millisecond. 2000 years of continued advancement could produce that technology. Regardless, I won't sit here and declare that it doesn't exist or is impossible when we barely have an understanding of basic properties of matter.
Duct tape is lower tech. Are you saying you don't use duct tape?
Be careful with that answer.
And if near instantaneous travel is discovered? Technology in 2000 years will be unrecognizable to us. I wouldn't make that bet. Also, maybe we've been visited but we weren't interesting or habitable for visitors. Assume visitors would only be interested if we have technology. Human technology of any value we appreciate has only been in existence for a very narrow slice of time--several thousand years. Not much on the galactic scales.
Lastly, how do you know we're not visited and studied now under a Prime Directive rule?
Right...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free60
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biCZJNFV8nI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_XNA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_(video_games)#Xbox_360
The community is not as large as other consoles, but it's not zero.
Mini-meme alert: There fixed that for you. QDOS
A lawyer who chases ambulances?
As of 7:30 pm-ish. Meals: 0. Snacks: 1 slim-fast shake (230 cals), 1 starbucks (220 cals). Does sugar free gum count? 5 cals max. Of course, I'm not recommending that as a healthy diet, but you asked what I had and I answered. I will probably eat one regular meal tonight: 500-750 cals and possibly have a few beers (300-500 cals): that'll be 1500-1600 cals max for today.
2000 calories is considered normal for females, 2500 for males. I generally average between 1500 and 2000 per day, so, let's say 1750 cals/day. I do not lose nor gain weight because I am somewhat lethargic so it balances out and I break even.
Fat is an energy cache which cannot be created nor destroyed (although can be removed with lipo). Assume the ideal parameters. If it took you 10 years to become obese averaging 2700 cals/day, you will never lose weight if your daily average is 2500 cals/day, and it will take you another 10 years losing it averaging 2300 cals/day therefore a good 15 to 17 years out of your last 20 years will be marked with obesity despite your "dieting" which will likely color your perception. You will probably adopt a stance that you never make progress and you are always fat regardless of what you do. This causes you to become frustrated and then regress which begins the cycle anew.
At some point age kicks in and you start to develop health conditions that prevent you from aggressive exercise or diet. That is when you are screwed and you will begin bitching about your situation. Well, if that becomes your future then it's a result of the choices you made. There is no one else to blame.
You cannot escape physics. You are either very lethargic or binge occasionally. Dieting 6 days and then binging on the 7th in excess of the previous 6 will not allow a person to lose weight, and it's well known that skipping meals throughout the day generally causes a person to binge on the dinner meal. Also, walking burns very few calories because humans are very efficient at walking. Resistance is required to burn calories. If your desire is to be thin within 2.5 years given the 10 year scenario, you will have to work 4 times harder than you did working to gain it, and it is very unlikely you are currently working 4 times harder.
The truth is you don't want to face the truth. Skinny people are skinny because they: don't eat very much, are very active (we're not talking about walking; we're talking about intense exercise such as basketball, tennis, running, etc), or do both.
What would suck is when 100 of them link up and form impassable moving clogs. Imagine trying to get to the off-ramp quickly but several 30 length car trains are barricading you.
Physics dictates that is impossible. You must be a fat person making excuses again. You'll get thin the minute you cut the bullshit and quit assuming thin people make little or no effort. And no, you don't have a "glandular" problem. That won't fly in fat camp. You are lazy and gluttonous.
Fat people are always full of excuses.
I have been thin and I have been fat. The difference between the two was I ate a lot, drank a lot of beer, and exercised very little when I was fat. The opposite was true when I was thin. Imagine that. I wonder if there's a causal relationship.
(For the stupidly insane, the answer is yes--there was.)
No offense but.. I think guys like you crying flamebait are big fat pussies. Seriously.
"Suspicious registrations" was intended to cast the activity under a veil of guilt. It's completely unfounded because anyone from anywhere can sign-up to a free service. The offer extended to hire the lead engineer was normal business practice. Google recognized a motivated developer who possessed valuable insight and attempted to acquire him. Totally legal. The comments were intended to imply there was a contractual relationship between Google and FramIt where there was none. Without a business relationship, anyone can implement anything so long as patents (or DMCA) aren't infringed. Google taking the idea and implementing it in their own way was a legal and commonplace occurrence. I see no guilt here other than incredible bias on the author of the article's part (Clint Boulton).
Regardless, mastering a piece is involved.
You mean.. like this? http://fandangogroovers.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/mystique.jpg http://alisonburkley.com/galleries/true/images/psylocke_jpg.jpg http://bluraymedia.ign.com/bluray/image/article/976/976510/x-men-trilogy-20090424062834623-000.jpg
I did. Btw, 512k ought to enough for any mouse.
http://www.openofficemouse.com/about.html
Half threads exist.. btw.
It does not work for cars because cookies and rocks have a property that cars do not--symmetry of matter. Materialwise, they are consistent. Imagine a plane slicing through a rock dividing it into two--slicing at any angle. The material on both sides of the plane will always be of the same type of material possessing the same properties. This is why a rock sliced in half results in 2 rocks--not 2 half rocks. That is not true for cars because I can slice only the tire and have rubber on one side and the remainder of the car (glass, metal, etc) on the other side. Slicing a car in half results in 2 half-cars
Slicing a continent behaves like slicing a rock. You will end up with 2 continents: not 2 half continents because a continent is an organizational structure which we determine based on an arbitrary selection process (such as elevation above sea level). Since a continent is purely a conceptual organization, that means every point within it has exactly the same property value: inside. It is materially consistent just like a rock (or cookie).
See other post. Already answered the crumb question.
FYI: these cookies have no chocolate chips. Why? Because.. rocks don't have "chocolate chips" and a continent is just a big rock. But really, the gist of my point is plain cookies and rocks are made of a simple materials and no matter how you slice them, your slice will result in 2 divisions containing the same material: left/right, up/down, regardless of the infinite slicing angles or directions. That's symmetry. That's not true with a chocolate chip cookie, an apple, a cake, a single cell organism, a person, a car, etc.
When is a crumb not a cookie? When it's a bread crumb. It's not called a cookie crumb for nothin. A cookie crumb is just a very small cookie. Would a mile wide cookie cease to be a cookie? Why discriminate against the radially challenged?
There are no half-cookies. There are only cookies. Some are small; some are big. It's like saying there are half rocks. Divide a rock in half, u get 2 rocks. Not 2 half rocks. This is because a cookie has no anatomy as you and I would know it. It is symmetrical and the independent of scale. It applies down to a cookie of size 2 molecules. A 1 molecule cookie cannot be divided, because dividing molecule yields entirely different substances.
If I had said an "apple", that would have been different. Half apples do indeed exist.
After the first break it's no longer a cookie. It's 2 cookies. Cookies, much like continents, are composed of 1 piece. It takes 2 more breaks to divide those 2 cookies. You are thinking of slicing a cake. When you slice a cake criss-cross, you end up 4 slices of cake, not 4 cakes.
3 pieces. Not 4. You would need 3 breaks to get 4 pieces.
I left out one more trait: they don't quit trying even after initial success is achieved.
Every one of the traits I have observed in them had less to do with raw brain processing power. I think with persistence the traits are learnable if the desire is there but it requires self-reflection and the willingness to consider constructive criticism from one's self and others. Of course, not all criticism is fair or unbiased so it has to be selective and metered with objectivity. Every person I know who has not become a high level executive or corporate owner is lacking in some of these traits, including myself.