The mass is trickier. You have to measure it by checking the planet's gravitational pull. The gravitational attraction between a satellite and Jupiter is G times Jupiter's mass times the satellite's mass, divided by the distance between Jupiter and the satellite, squared. Since we know the weight of a satellite, and we know the distance between the satellite and Jupiter, we can gauge the mass of the planet. We can check our maths by rotating the equatioin and checking Jupiter's mass against the sun (where Jupiter would be calculated in place of the satellite).
This is actually very old news. I live in Earthquake city, USA, so most houses here are wooden, so they can twist (and businesses are usually in buildings set on rollers). I talked to a guy from Israel, asking what the buildings were like there (If they had a more US or European way to decorating an interior) and he said "Well, first, there's no wood. It's concrete. We're not afraid of earthquakes hitting our houses, we're afraid of rockets hitting them."
That's the literary definition of the word "ironic", which for all intents and purposes of all discussion, besides English doctorate dissertations, is incorrect.
Ironic means contrary to plan or expectation. Atilla the Hun dying of a nosebleed is ironic (you would expect a warrior to die in battle). King Arthur and his knights being attacked and overwhelmed by a rabbit is ironic. Two books (designed to mock and illuminate the dangers of corrupting laws) being stolen from people in the name of the author almost 60 years after his death by citing a growingly corrupted law is ironic.
My father proudly tells of a story that he was once run out of a Canadian village from people wielding torches and pitchforks. The best I've done so far was get my entire ISP banned from Dalnet. Perhaps I need to raise my sights.
They should earmark some of the money for creating a charity that gives money toward helping disabled orphans find foster parents. Then the RIAA would look REAL bad when they demand money from them. "The money the RIAA is asking for is the same money we were going to give to all those poor, disabled orphans to help them find mommies and daddies!"
My mom thought he was funny, but more and more I've started to wonder if letting me watch Bugs Bunny my whole childhood was a bad choice.
"Please understand, you're not stealing from a corporation. There is only the five of us. We make a living doing this, and only this. When you steal my music, YOU ARE STEALING FOOD FROM MY DAUGHTER'S PLATE."
-David "Lars Ulrich" Phipps, Metallica drummer (emphasis was his)
Of course, this was apparently when Napster was downloading food as well as songs. That technology did not, successfully, carry over into torrents.
So if gamestop started brokering steam account transfers, would it be 'non-enforceable' then?
This would be funny to see. Too many accept Valve's contract as legal and binding, but when it comes up against the First Sale Doctrine of the copyright act, it'd more than likely shatter. If only Gamestop had the cajones to do something like this and they ended up with a judge who valued the law as something worth more than toilet paper, it might put an end to a lot of these pathetic "software license agreement" wet dreams that every greedy corporate criminal is forcing its customers to agree to. At least Gamestop would have the legal power to fight a battle like that with Valve.
So let me get this straight -- you're trying to tell game developers they don't deserve the money they're lawfully entitled to?
They're not lawfully entitled to used-game sales. Once they've received the check for the games they sell to retailers, their deal is done. They got their money. The game DVD is no longer property of $Game_Developer. That property was sold. The developer still has the rights to print the game, and make more copies, but they don't have the right to harvest cash after they've already received full compensation for the property.
Second, if they charged less, the games would suck badly enough that they'd no longer be worth even a slashdot post lamenting the lack of availability.
How much mercury did you drink before you started believing this? Until developers have access to time machines, retail price of a game will NOT affect the development process. NBA Jam for the Genesis sold for $100 retail. Shenmue had a budget of $70M and turned out mediocre. Too Human had a budget of about $100M, and was received even worse. You said yourself that price is not indicative of value, but it's an indication of what the game developer feels they "deserve" for their contributions to a superfluous entertainment industry.
I have, very very often. It seems common in the b2b market in the UK.
Same goes for the US. If someone doesn't get B2B emails from large, legitimate businesses, it's because they're not yet on the radar.
The big boys like Microsoft, IBM, Verizon, Chevron, Motorolla, Wells Fargo, WD40, Johnson & Johnson, etc all use direct email marketing. They're not interested in your personal email address. For the most part, many of them would like your professional email address if your company or your position are a potential buyer. Email spam, as an advertisement medium, is less ham-handed when used legitimately than almost any other advertisement (banners, billboards, commercials, magazine ads) but it's new enough and exploited enough by pool-pissers that it can be bothersome to many. Since it partially pertains to my job, I don't mind when Oracle sends me an unexpected email on a DBA convention I otherwise wouldn't have known about, or IBM tells me that they're fireselling their year-old servers (if that ever happened). I could definitely do without the B2C crap.:\
You have to understand, though, the psyche of astronauts. There are two archetypes: Fighter pilots and scientists. These two types fit into a single archetype: Obsessive. The first astronauts were fighter pilots and test pilots. They were cocky, confident, and absolutely attention-whorish (It has to be ME up on that moon). Then, scientists trickled in. What type of scientist makes for a good astronaut? The kind that shrugs off a 10% chance of death from getting to the lab this morning. You put these guys in a simulator and they're looking for everything to go wrong. They want to get to Mars. They're probably stir-crazy in a simulator, but they have that obsessive eye on the prize. "This simulator is preparing me to go to Mars."
If there ARE any problems or clashes onboard a Mars vessel, outside of the simulator, all they have to do is have one guy dedicated to saying "Guys, we're on our way to MARS!" and poof! Problems solved.
For the typical you and me, we aren't QUITE so obsessive. Our trip to Mars would probably include some measure of space madness, but for the first groups, it's the non-psychological biology that needs to be tested rather than their mental fortitude. The people on those trips know they've got a 3% survival rate, and tends to be a very calming experience when volunteered for.
I had always known that people were planting fake reviews on forums and thought the only defense be cautious. So hearing that this is actually illegal is big news in my opinion.
Such a law is easily bypassed. All they have to do now is to buy some icecream bars with their names on a sticker on the wrapper, give it to 10 year old kids, and tell them to write down what they think of this flavor of icecream.
"Oracle is delicious! When my mom goes to the store, I want her to buy me more Oracle!"
Incorrect. There actually ARE correct answers to the inkblots - no quotes necessary around that 'correct'. The correctness is assigned a number which aggregates over the course of all the blots and assigns a statistical analysis of the level of pathology of the patients psyche. It's actually very robust scientifically and leaves no room for psychological interpretation and is comparable to recall, spelling, or reverse counting tests.
Inkblots typically just show what part of the picture a person looks at first or what's recently occured in the viewer's occular history. For example, on inkblot 10, I started on the outer edge and worked my way in. It looked like two blue lobsters holding icecream bars. (I recently watched Japanese Bug Fights with my daughter)
For most blots, if you start by looking in the center, you're more likely to see a [painted] face or a single figure. If you start on the fringes, you'll more likely see two objects interacting toward a center point. Try it out yourself. Look at a blot starting in the middle and make a note of the first thought that pops up. Then try the blot when you look at the outside and work your way in.
Granted, I didn't learn this from a psychologist, rather from an artist who played with optical illusions. "Do you see a family or do you see an angry skull, or do you just see a pile of rocks?" "I see a family.... I think" "That's because you looked here first. Now focus on this part of the drawing." "Hey, it's a skull!"
Religion and Science are 100% incompatible. Religion = "I Believe", Science = "I can show/demonstrate/repeat".
Religion and Science are both, at their purest forms, the search for truth. Pride and arrogance contaminate both. There are false religions. There are entire branches of science dedicated to false, incomplete, or incorrect theories. The followers are usually ignorant of the falsehoods, but those leading the charge know they are wrong, but either for money, power, influence, or pride's sake, they forge on. Saying that they are incompatible is incorrect. It is their falsehoods that are incompatible. You cannot rule out all religions for the sake of the one or two that were more-than-likely false to begin with, just as you should not rule out one theory for another theory simply because the second, although unproven, is more popular amongst people who spend their entire lives in attempts to intimidate you.
Richard Dawkins is a philosopher, not a scientist. What he does to science is what Astrologers have done to astronomy and the Nicean Creed did for religion. He didn't make you jetison religion, he just gave you a new one, where DNA is your god (yea, for it is the creator of all life, the answer to all questions, the omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent power that makes that hunk of lifeless chemicals that you are THINK you have free will for long enough for you to continue its enormous scale of reproduction.)
His books are 2% evidence, 80% rhetoric, and 18% manipulation. If even Richard Dawkins believed in what Richard Dawkins says, then his books would be 18% shorter.
So if the rate that the ice is melting is rapidly increasing, including the melting of ice that has been frozen for thousands of years, you aren't concerned at all?
I, for one, am not. Every year, I go on a hike that's designed to push me to my physical limits. One year, we had to outrace a huge lightning storm up and over a mountain covered in the burned-out corpses of lightning-struck trees (All the while I was hobbling on a stilt I made from a pine branch, because the ligament under my kneecap was sawn in half from the first half of the hike). One year, we woke up in 3" of snow (8cm) and, in nothing but long-sleeve shirts, had to hike across miles of frozen terrain, including fording icy rivers. One year, I got to learn what it's like to face a surprised adult grizzly, alone, when I was wielding nothing but a 6" knife.
When I'm not hiking, my day is often composed of: Wake up, go to work (sit in front of a few computers for 9 hours), get home and read/play videogames/watch movies with wife and kid. I go for walks and get an occassional workout, but I'm not in any ridiculous physical shape. 51 weeks out of the year, I am a lazy, adapted human.
"What's the point, CorporateSuit?" some of you are now asking (while others are just happy to be reading a story) -- My point is that carbon-based life is tough. We are adaptable. Our creator (whatever you believe in) made us, and the rest of life on earth, extremely well-suited for sudden and drastic changes to our environments. Some organisms are not so well-suited for a changing climate. In this case, they tend to die out, and get replaced by two or more better ones.
The world is better at dealing with carbon than we give it credit. The amount of carbon in our atmosphere is laughably low compared to some prehistoric periods. People who know the data know this, but there is a lot of money to be made in scare tactics.
It is true that we, as a species, are in a better position to care for our world than the rest of the animal world. (Except maybe arthropods) It's currently the only planet we've got, and it will always be the best one we got, but there's historically more danger in overcorrecting than there is in rolling with a punch.
Slashdot Mirror
Still doesn't seem to be an issue. It may be a gas giant, but it still has a very sharp horizon.
Volume can roughly be measured as 4/3(pi)r^3
The mass is trickier. You have to measure it by checking the planet's gravitational pull. The gravitational attraction between a satellite and Jupiter is G times Jupiter's mass times the satellite's mass, divided by the distance between Jupiter and the satellite, squared. Since we know the weight of a satellite, and we know the distance between the satellite and Jupiter, we can gauge the mass of the planet. We can check our maths by rotating the equatioin and checking Jupiter's mass against the sun (where Jupiter would be calculated in place of the satellite).
This is actually very old news. I live in Earthquake city, USA, so most houses here are wooden, so they can twist (and businesses are usually in buildings set on rollers). I talked to a guy from Israel, asking what the buildings were like there (If they had a more US or European way to decorating an interior) and he said "Well, first, there's no wood. It's concrete. We're not afraid of earthquakes hitting our houses, we're afraid of rockets hitting them."
That's the literary definition of the word "ironic", which for all intents and purposes of all discussion, besides English doctorate dissertations, is incorrect.
Ironic means contrary to plan or expectation. Atilla the Hun dying of a nosebleed is ironic (you would expect a warrior to die in battle). King Arthur and his knights being attacked and overwhelmed by a rabbit is ironic. Two books (designed to mock and illuminate the dangers of corrupting laws) being stolen from people in the name of the author almost 60 years after his death by citing a growingly corrupted law is ironic.
My father proudly tells of a story that he was once run out of a Canadian village from people wielding torches and pitchforks. The best I've done so far was get my entire ISP banned from Dalnet. Perhaps I need to raise my sights.
Damn you, and thank you, Anonymous Coward, you inglorious basterd... you just made me realize that I'm actually missing the days of King George W.
They should earmark some of the money for creating a charity that gives money toward helping disabled orphans find foster parents. Then the RIAA would look REAL bad when they demand money from them. "The money the RIAA is asking for is the same money we were going to give to all those poor, disabled orphans to help them find mommies and daddies!"
My mom thought he was funny, but more and more I've started to wonder if letting me watch Bugs Bunny my whole childhood was a bad choice.
"Please understand, you're not stealing from a corporation. There is only the five of us. We make a living doing this, and only this. When you steal my music, YOU ARE STEALING FOOD FROM MY DAUGHTER'S PLATE."
-David "Lars Ulrich" Phipps, Metallica drummer (emphasis was his)
Of course, this was apparently when Napster was downloading food as well as songs. That technology did not, successfully, carry over into torrents.
Basically, they only allow developers who are willing to sit through a 30-minute video to work on their software.
So if gamestop started brokering steam account transfers, would it be 'non-enforceable' then?
This would be funny to see. Too many accept Valve's contract as legal and binding, but when it comes up against the First Sale Doctrine of the copyright act, it'd more than likely shatter. If only Gamestop had the cajones to do something like this and they ended up with a judge who valued the law as something worth more than toilet paper, it might put an end to a lot of these pathetic "software license agreement" wet dreams that every greedy corporate criminal is forcing its customers to agree to. At least Gamestop would have the legal power to fight a battle like that with Valve.
That comes across as awfully non-enforceable.
So let me get this straight -- you're trying to tell game developers they don't deserve the money they're lawfully entitled to?
They're not lawfully entitled to used-game sales. Once they've received the check for the games they sell to retailers, their deal is done. They got their money. The game DVD is no longer property of $Game_Developer. That property was sold. The developer still has the rights to print the game, and make more copies, but they don't have the right to harvest cash after they've already received full compensation for the property.
Second, if they charged less, the games would suck badly enough that they'd no longer be worth even a slashdot post lamenting the lack of availability.
How much mercury did you drink before you started believing this? Until developers have access to time machines, retail price of a game will NOT affect the development process. NBA Jam for the Genesis sold for $100 retail. Shenmue had a budget of $70M and turned out mediocre. Too Human had a budget of about $100M, and was received even worse. You said yourself that price is not indicative of value, but it's an indication of what the game developer feels they "deserve" for their contributions to a superfluous entertainment industry.
would suspect that, while the "hybrid of the seas" shtick is a good line for jumping on the greenwashing bandwagon
The navy just heard it can get $4,500 per warship in the "Cash for Clunkers" program.
I have, very very often. It seems common in the b2b market in the UK.
Same goes for the US. If someone doesn't get B2B emails from large, legitimate businesses, it's because they're not yet on the radar.
:\
The big boys like Microsoft, IBM, Verizon, Chevron, Motorolla, Wells Fargo, WD40, Johnson & Johnson, etc all use direct email marketing. They're not interested in your personal email address. For the most part, many of them would like your professional email address if your company or your position are a potential buyer. Email spam, as an advertisement medium, is less ham-handed when used legitimately than almost any other advertisement (banners, billboards, commercials, magazine ads) but it's new enough and exploited enough by pool-pissers that it can be bothersome to many. Since it partially pertains to my job, I don't mind when Oracle sends me an unexpected email on a DBA convention I otherwise wouldn't have known about, or IBM tells me that they're fireselling their year-old servers (if that ever happened). I could definitely do without the B2C crap.
I've been waiting and preparing for this day my whole life.
Well... did you end up forging your huge love sword or not?
There never was a 0 AD... it went from 1 BC to 1 AD... Did I wake up in an alternate universe? Am I in Star Trek?
You have to understand, though, the psyche of astronauts. There are two archetypes: Fighter pilots and scientists. These two types fit into a single archetype: Obsessive. The first astronauts were fighter pilots and test pilots. They were cocky, confident, and absolutely attention-whorish (It has to be ME up on that moon). Then, scientists trickled in. What type of scientist makes for a good astronaut? The kind that shrugs off a 10% chance of death from getting to the lab this morning. You put these guys in a simulator and they're looking for everything to go wrong. They want to get to Mars. They're probably stir-crazy in a simulator, but they have that obsessive eye on the prize. "This simulator is preparing me to go to Mars."
If there ARE any problems or clashes onboard a Mars vessel, outside of the simulator, all they have to do is have one guy dedicated to saying "Guys, we're on our way to MARS!" and poof! Problems solved.
For the typical you and me, we aren't QUITE so obsessive. Our trip to Mars would probably include some measure of space madness, but for the first groups, it's the non-psychological biology that needs to be tested rather than their mental fortitude. The people on those trips know they've got a 3% survival rate, and tends to be a very calming experience when volunteered for.
I had always known that people were planting fake reviews on forums and thought the only defense be cautious. So hearing that this is actually illegal is big news in my opinion.
Such a law is easily bypassed. All they have to do now is to buy some icecream bars with their names on a sticker on the wrapper, give it to 10 year old kids, and tell them to write down what they think of this flavor of icecream.
"Oracle is delicious! When my mom goes to the store, I want her to buy me more Oracle!"
Incorrect. There actually ARE correct answers to the inkblots - no quotes necessary around that 'correct'. The correctness is assigned a number which aggregates over the course of all the blots and assigns a statistical analysis of the level of pathology of the patients psyche. It's actually very robust scientifically and leaves no room for psychological interpretation and is comparable to recall, spelling, or reverse counting tests.
Inkblots typically just show what part of the picture a person looks at first or what's recently occured in the viewer's occular history. For example, on inkblot 10, I started on the outer edge and worked my way in. It looked like two blue lobsters holding icecream bars. (I recently watched Japanese Bug Fights with my daughter)
For most blots, if you start by looking in the center, you're more likely to see a [painted] face or a single figure. If you start on the fringes, you'll more likely see two objects interacting toward a center point. Try it out yourself. Look at a blot starting in the middle and make a note of the first thought that pops up. Then try the blot when you look at the outside and work your way in.
Granted, I didn't learn this from a psychologist, rather from an artist who played with optical illusions. "Do you see a family or do you see an angry skull, or do you just see a pile of rocks?" "I see a family.... I think" "That's because you looked here first. Now focus on this part of the drawing." "Hey, it's a skull!"
Perhaps next, they can follow Slashdot's example and phase out support for web browsers.
This is why smart web developers use tables.
Religion and Science are 100% incompatible. Religion = "I Believe", Science = "I can show/demonstrate/repeat".
Religion and Science are both, at their purest forms, the search for truth. Pride and arrogance contaminate both. There are false religions. There are entire branches of science dedicated to false, incomplete, or incorrect theories. The followers are usually ignorant of the falsehoods, but those leading the charge know they are wrong, but either for money, power, influence, or pride's sake, they forge on. Saying that they are incompatible is incorrect. It is their falsehoods that are incompatible. You cannot rule out all religions for the sake of the one or two that were more-than-likely false to begin with, just as you should not rule out one theory for another theory simply because the second, although unproven, is more popular amongst people who spend their entire lives in attempts to intimidate you.
Richard Dawkins is a philosopher, not a scientist. What he does to science is what Astrologers have done to astronomy and the Nicean Creed did for religion. He didn't make you jetison religion, he just gave you a new one, where DNA is your god (yea, for it is the creator of all life, the answer to all questions, the omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent power that makes that hunk of lifeless chemicals that you are THINK you have free will for long enough for you to continue its enormous scale of reproduction.)
His books are 2% evidence, 80% rhetoric, and 18% manipulation. If even Richard Dawkins believed in what Richard Dawkins says, then his books would be 18% shorter.
So if the rate that the ice is melting is rapidly increasing, including the melting of ice that has been frozen for thousands of years, you aren't concerned at all?
I, for one, am not. Every year, I go on a hike that's designed to push me to my physical limits. One year, we had to outrace a huge lightning storm up and over a mountain covered in the burned-out corpses of lightning-struck trees (All the while I was hobbling on a stilt I made from a pine branch, because the ligament under my kneecap was sawn in half from the first half of the hike). One year, we woke up in 3" of snow (8cm) and, in nothing but long-sleeve shirts, had to hike across miles of frozen terrain, including fording icy rivers. One year, I got to learn what it's like to face a surprised adult grizzly, alone, when I was wielding nothing but a 6" knife.
When I'm not hiking, my day is often composed of: Wake up, go to work (sit in front of a few computers for 9 hours), get home and read/play videogames/watch movies with wife and kid. I go for walks and get an occassional workout, but I'm not in any ridiculous physical shape. 51 weeks out of the year, I am a lazy, adapted human.
"What's the point, CorporateSuit?" some of you are now asking (while others are just happy to be reading a story) -- My point is that carbon-based life is tough. We are adaptable. Our creator (whatever you believe in) made us, and the rest of life on earth, extremely well-suited for sudden and drastic changes to our environments. Some organisms are not so well-suited for a changing climate. In this case, they tend to die out, and get replaced by two or more better ones.
The world is better at dealing with carbon than we give it credit. The amount of carbon in our atmosphere is laughably low compared to some prehistoric periods. People who know the data know this, but there is a lot of money to be made in scare tactics.
It is true that we, as a species, are in a better position to care for our world than the rest of the animal world. (Except maybe arthropods) It's currently the only planet we've got, and it will always be the best one we got, but there's historically more danger in overcorrecting than there is in rolling with a punch.