Super off-topic (yet useful info)- I gave up on scanners long ago. I use a digital camera instead, setting it to 'macro' to get a picture of whatever is to be scanned. Importing a picture this way is far more trivial. I even bought a tripod for the camera, and made a simple wooden construction to hold documents in an angle, to get the lighting right. I even used a webcam once -_-
It is exactly about that- in mind comes Mass Effect 2, of EA, that offers a splendid (IMO) one-person immersion into a digital universe, which works just fine 'as a business model' (to my end, at least).
For online gaming access controls have to be in place, and to pass those you need registration- and parting with your personal info (for whoever is concerned).
I do not see any convincing arguments here, this looks like an industry-herding corporate speech to me. In fact, if there is an argument it is against online; a standalone game can be played at your convenience; for an online one, you might need to hold appointments and coordinate with other players.
What is sad is the simplest solution of all is simply to pirate the games you own, because the pirate version doesn't have any DRM [..] whereas the legitimate copy can totally mess up the system?
Fine line there, but I have to second.
Speaking of malware, a fearful copy protection would be capturing a video of your expression while you realize mid-game that you've been had by EA, and uploading it to the internet for further humiliation- funny as hell, but I would SO not want it happening to me.
Especially after having bought the originals to be a gentleman and downloaded the cracked ones for convenience.
They seem to 'have done' no such thing. No mention of a working prototype- at least not one that I can find. Seems what they 'have done' is having been granted a US patend for the concept of combining what appears to be an eye-tracking device with some sort of fictitious dynamic autostereoscopic screen.
If there IS a prototype that I missed, I'm genuinly impressed by Apple. If there is none, looks just like they are patent-trolling.
Yes, there is a standard model. Ask any planetary scientist.
I have, and there isn't any.
I know of one dissenting view that involves an instability model, but while it's interesting, it's not widely accepted yet.
And what is? A theory of flying lavaballs that collide and stick together?
(like, forming a big Jupiter doesn't leave enough material around for other planets, and on the same time the stellar wind keeps on blowing material away from the system).
Um, no. In every model of planet formation I've ever seen, Jupiter forms faster than any of the other planets.
True that. You have to understand that this example was meant to illustrate accretion-antagonists, and that was before you started bragging about your PhD- so I tried to ease up on the examples.
Look, your posts are full of misinformation and poor understanding of physics and astronomy. I wouldn't mind as much if you weren't passing yourself off as an expert. Clearly, you're not. I also see from your other posts that you're prone to behave like a bit of a jerk.
I could say the same for you, plus some patronizing trends.
So I'm not going to reply further after this, feel free to get in the last word.
Actually, I have a PhD in Planetary Science. I've worked in areas directly related to this. That's how I know.
You?
You won't answer but you would like to know?
Instead of playing dumb and dismissive, and perceiving a 'how do you know' question as a personal attack, try to actually read what I am saying; posting a link to what you think as 'the standard model' for planetary formation will give you much more credit as an authority, which I suspect interests you- personally I feel inclined to believe a theory including instabilities, because I have not seen a simulation (not including instabilities) that evolves mm size to km size particles. If you have seen such a simulation, link to it.
As for Jupiter, on which I am no expert, to the best of my knowledge a standard model advocates metallic H, and snowline accretion. I have too heard speculation on water cores, am not dismissing it, and waiting for the results, which we haven't seen yet. Plus I have no idea what kind of EoS such pressurized water will feature. What we HAVE seen, though, is lots of hydrogen, and that is what I pointed out. How that drove you to write 'The very existence of the other planets puts lie to your claim' eludes me; you think I can't see that there are other planets? And since you seem to have a grasp on timescales (and O abundances) I still don't understand what made you wonder about the oxygen in the first place (which I mistakenly thought you meant Earth's biologically originated atmospheric oxygen, right before -for some reason- you got rude).
Congrats. You've found a way to use the term to mean something that no one else in science understands.
I'm very glad that you don't speak for the whole of science, especially with that kind of attitude.
Okay, I was a bit rude- but I still maintain that the celebrity sphere doesn't give a sh*t about you =)
Now on a more serious tone, my point is that, to celebrities, there is no such thing as 'bad publicity'. Look at how most of politicians are elected; all they need do is to advertise their name to voters, and the rest is almost automatic.
I am also concerned about such rights of the individuals- but on the case of public figures, they seem to both demand to have their cake and eat it. They love using 'public engineering' and seeing people as numbers, but when THEIR persona gets affected, suddenly they act as victims. Look at Hilary Clinton's statements at wikileaks; 'diplomats have the right to privacy', she said, after ordering spying on diplomats.
Personally, I think Jobs crybabies now, but underneath he's SO jizzing his pants out of this.
And by the time Jupiter was big enough to capture hydrogen, the oxygen had mostly reacted with the hydrogen.
How do you know that? Have you been running planetary formation models and studying formation timescales?
Water ice was (according to the standard model) a major building block of Jupiter's core.
What 'standard model' is that? There is no complete theory in planetary formation- plus, Jupiter's core is metallic hydrogen, not water.
Also, your theory fails observational tests. Almost all of the moons and other small bodies (ie, comets) in the outer solar system are made of water ice principally.
I said 'water formed (and remaining) in space is not necessarily stable in spacetime' - that does not mean it is not abundant. 'Spacetime' here means that there are different conditions locally during the process of accretion, characterized by both time AND spacial coordinates. F.i., the 'iceline' (theoretical surface away enough from the star where the temperature drops enough for water to stop being volatile, hence chucks of ice start floating around) does not hold the same position in space through the timespan of 'time zero' (be that pre-main sequence, or main sequence, or whatever floats your boat) until today. Timescales are important, because accretion is competing with itsself (like, forming a big Jupiter doesn't leave enough material around for other planets, and on the same time the stellar wind keeps on blowing material away from the system). And THAT is what I mean by timespace.
Water molecules are stable in space, unless they're near a high-energy source, especially a source of UV.
Look up what 'photodissociation' means, then look up UV luminocity on newly-formed stars. More or less, we are saying the same thing here.
If anything, they're probably more stable in space than on the Earth because of the lower chemical reaction rate. (When the main other chemicals you encounter are hydrogen (atomic or molecular) or helium (atomic, of course), there's not a lot of reacting you can do.)
Sais who? Have you been running models on that as well? There is a host of reactions that take place, plenty of organic molecules in dynamical balance even on very very low temperatures. There is also a mechanism of electron exchange between molecules deposited on dust particles floating in space. And dust particles are neither H, nor He. Plenty of metals are around these days, even more so on star-forming regions.
A protoplanetary disk is an environment that may both encourage and inhibit molecular composition, due to its diversity- tracking compounds in such an environment is far from trivial.
This sentence, although full of interesting words, makes no sense. In the very least, you're trying to say something simple in an overly complicated way. I'm not quite sure what, though.
Fair enough, I'll try to popularize; I am trying to say that when some researcher tries to study the structure of a protoplanetary disk, one of the goals is to acquire profiles for temperature, pressure and abundances. This is done because, to some extent, knowing how these parameters scale 'across' the disk (on the direction of 'away-near' the star, and on the direction of 'away-near' the disk's plane) enables said researcher to feed valuable constrains and interaction laws to his to-be-iterated computer model. Then, after running the model, results are compared to the observable universe. The actual planet-making process is not easy to see without cheating a bit, even on new, state-of-the-art computer models that run on supercomputers for months at a time.
Even more simple: stuff is in dynamic balance; water that forms on some distance from the star, will be destroyed if it drifts too close into the star. The key to an answer on 'how much water after all' is figuring out creation rate vs destruction rate.
The whole water from the large bombardment period never really made that much sense to me. It always seemed like grasping at straws.
Before waiving your hand in dismissal, perhaps Your Exellence would consider investigating the D/H isotopic ratio of the oceans, and how they compare with the cometary one- a possible correction for long-term exposure to cosmic rays may also apply.
Btw it's called 'science', and 'working with evidence'.
From procaryotic metabolic processes (if you are referring to Earth's atmospheric abundance).
Most of it in the protoplanetary disk would have already encountered hydrogen (being 75% of the stuff there) and made water.
It is not that simple- most of the available hydrogen was spent forming Jupiter. Furthermore, water formed (and remaining) in space is not necessarily stable in spacetime; among other possibilities, depending on the proximity of a heat source, it may photodissociate back to its building blocks.
A protoplanetary disk is an environment that may both encourage and inhibit molecular composition, due to its diversity- tracking compounds in such an environment is far from trivial.
Blender? for a 4 year old? are you actually serious?.
Absofuckinglutely. Do not underestimate their intelligence; everything that will get the kid to programming. I was introduced to BASIC at the age of 4, and some months later I was making the computer flash colors while playing music, copied from the radio (by me) using the BEEP statement (the one where one controls the duration and frequency of the beep). All in one go, because I had no tape to save it in (Spectrum Sinclair 48k). Boy if I only had access to Blender back then, I would be friggin' directing Pixar by now.
It's all part of the "Green economy" so get to building those new transformers so those coal fired power plants can get the power to where it needs to be.
I was under the impression that Transformers where built on Cybertron- and folks there are not that wild on "Green economy"
Check out WIPO or TRIPS, they both facilitate the application of American trademarks around the world.
I did, and it just further proves my point. Non-elected UN council bodies (in fact, UN being US's brainchild) and the WTO does not have a saying or an inspection authority over my homeland's legislation; my homeland's constitution does, so do I through my voting rights.
If anything, you're more harshly effected by this ruling as those outside of the US lack the 1st Amendment protections of citizens.
I hope you realise how arrogant you sound- this inhibits your judgement; USA is not the cradle of civilization, and most certainly is not an example of civil rights, humanitarianism and free society- do take a good hard look at your legal system (which 'works' only in within US borders, btw) before you start preaching '1st amendment'.
in the same way that Coke hasn't got to worry when trading in Japan, or Microsoft in Russia.
I will not even use a counter-example from Asia- just remember LEGO and Canada
Slashdot Mirror
The only way to win facebook is NOT TO PLAY.
My sig applies
I want to ascend beyond eating
Super off-topic (yet useful info)- I gave up on scanners long ago. I use a digital camera instead, setting it to 'macro' to get a picture of whatever is to be scanned. Importing a picture this way is far more trivial. I even bought a tripod for the camera, and made a simple wooden construction to hold documents in an angle, to get the lighting right. I even used a webcam once -_-
In even smaller words: Nothing you said addresses the parent posts questions.
C'mon, the answer is there, hard to miss. It's not like it's rocket science!
And don't forget companies that sell alcohol.
-and cigarettes.
But Greenpeace told me that half the frickin' Ukraine was going to be instant radioactive death for ten thousand years...
Yea, well, when money talks ..
In soviet Russia, USSR militarily dominates YOU.
It is exactly about that- in mind comes Mass Effect 2, of EA, that offers a splendid (IMO) one-person immersion into a digital universe, which works just fine 'as a business model' (to my end, at least).
For online gaming access controls have to be in place, and to pass those you need registration- and parting with your personal info (for whoever is concerned).
I do not see any convincing arguments here, this looks like an industry-herding corporate speech to me. In fact, if there is an argument it is against online; a standalone game can be played at your convenience; for an online one, you might need to hold appointments and coordinate with other players.
What is sad is the simplest solution of all is simply to pirate the games you own, because the pirate version doesn't have any DRM [..] whereas the legitimate copy can totally mess up the system?
Fine line there, but I have to second.
Speaking of malware, a fearful copy protection would be capturing a video of your expression while you realize mid-game that you've been had by EA, and uploading it to the internet for further humiliation- funny as hell, but I would SO not want it happening to me.
Especially after having bought the originals to be a gentleman and downloaded the cracked ones for convenience.
What they've done is hooked it up ...
They seem to 'have done' no such thing. No mention of a working prototype- at least not one that I can find. Seems what they 'have done' is having been granted a US patend for the concept of combining what appears to be an eye-tracking device with some sort of fictitious dynamic autostereoscopic screen.
If there IS a prototype that I missed, I'm genuinly impressed by Apple. If there is none, looks just like they are patent-trolling.
Yes, there is a standard model. Ask any planetary scientist.
I have, and there isn't any.
I know of one dissenting view that involves an instability model, but while it's interesting, it's not widely accepted yet.
And what is? A theory of flying lavaballs that collide and stick together?
(like, forming a big Jupiter doesn't leave enough material around for other planets, and on the same time the stellar wind keeps on blowing material away from the system).
Um, no. In every model of planet formation I've ever seen, Jupiter forms faster than any of the other planets.
True that. You have to understand that this example was meant to illustrate accretion-antagonists, and that was before you started bragging about your PhD- so I tried to ease up on the examples.
Look, your posts are full of misinformation and poor understanding of physics and astronomy. I wouldn't mind as much if you weren't passing yourself off as an expert. Clearly, you're not. I also see from your other posts that you're prone to behave like a bit of a jerk.
I could say the same for you, plus some patronizing trends.
So I'm not going to reply further after this, feel free to get in the last word.
Actually, I have a PhD in Planetary Science. I've worked in areas directly related to this. That's how I know.
You?
You won't answer but you would like to know?
Instead of playing dumb and dismissive, and perceiving a 'how do you know' question as a personal attack, try to actually read what I am saying; posting a link to what you think as 'the standard model' for planetary formation will give you much more credit as an authority, which I suspect interests you- personally I feel inclined to believe a theory including instabilities, because I have not seen a simulation (not including instabilities) that evolves mm size to km size particles. If you have seen such a simulation, link to it.
As for Jupiter, on which I am no expert, to the best of my knowledge a standard model advocates metallic H, and snowline accretion. I have too heard speculation on water cores, am not dismissing it, and waiting for the results, which we haven't seen yet. Plus I have no idea what kind of EoS such pressurized water will feature. What we HAVE seen, though, is lots of hydrogen, and that is what I pointed out. How that drove you to write 'The very existence of the other planets puts lie to your claim' eludes me; you think I can't see that there are other planets? And since you seem to have a grasp on timescales (and O abundances) I still don't understand what made you wonder about the oxygen in the first place (which I mistakenly thought you meant Earth's biologically originated atmospheric oxygen, right before -for some reason- you got rude).
Congrats. You've found a way to use the term to mean something that no one else in science understands.
I'm very glad that you don't speak for the whole of science, especially with that kind of attitude.
Okay, I was a bit rude- but I still maintain that the celebrity sphere doesn't give a sh*t about you =)
Now on a more serious tone, my point is that, to celebrities, there is no such thing as 'bad publicity'. Look at how most of politicians are elected; all they need do is to advertise their name to voters, and the rest is almost automatic.
I am also concerned about such rights of the individuals- but on the case of public figures, they seem to both demand to have their cake and eat it. They love using 'public engineering' and seeing people as numbers, but when THEIR persona gets affected, suddenly they act as victims. Look at Hilary Clinton's statements at wikileaks; 'diplomats have the right to privacy', she said, after ordering spying on diplomats.
Personally, I think Jobs crybabies now, but underneath he's SO jizzing his pants out of this.
And by the time Jupiter was big enough to capture hydrogen, the oxygen had mostly reacted with the hydrogen.
How do you know that? Have you been running planetary formation models and studying formation timescales?
Water ice was (according to the standard model) a major building block of Jupiter's core.
What 'standard model' is that? There is no complete theory in planetary formation- plus, Jupiter's core is metallic hydrogen, not water.
Also, your theory fails observational tests. Almost all of the moons and other small bodies (ie, comets) in the outer solar system are made of water ice principally.
I said 'water formed (and remaining) in space is not necessarily stable in spacetime' - that does not mean it is not abundant. 'Spacetime' here means that there are different conditions locally during the process of accretion, characterized by both time AND spacial coordinates. F.i., the 'iceline' (theoretical surface away enough from the star where the temperature drops enough for water to stop being volatile, hence chucks of ice start floating around) does not hold the same position in space through the timespan of 'time zero' (be that pre-main sequence, or main sequence, or whatever floats your boat) until today. Timescales are important, because accretion is competing with itsself (like, forming a big Jupiter doesn't leave enough material around for other planets, and on the same time the stellar wind keeps on blowing material away from the system). And THAT is what I mean by timespace.
Water molecules are stable in space, unless they're near a high-energy source, especially a source of UV.
Look up what 'photodissociation' means, then look up UV luminocity on newly-formed stars. More or less, we are saying the same thing here.
If anything, they're probably more stable in space than on the Earth because of the lower chemical reaction rate. (When the main other chemicals you encounter are hydrogen (atomic or molecular) or helium (atomic, of course), there's not a lot of reacting you can do.)
Sais who? Have you been running models on that as well? There is a host of reactions that take place, plenty of organic molecules in dynamical balance even on very very low temperatures. There is also a mechanism of electron exchange between molecules deposited on dust particles floating in space. And dust particles are neither H, nor He. Plenty of metals are around these days, even more so on star-forming regions.
A protoplanetary disk is an environment that may both encourage and inhibit molecular composition, due to its diversity- tracking compounds in such an environment is far from trivial.
This sentence, although full of interesting words, makes no sense. In the very least, you're trying to say something simple in an overly complicated way. I'm not quite sure what, though.
Fair enough, I'll try to popularize; I am trying to say that when some researcher tries to study the structure of a protoplanetary disk, one of the goals is to acquire profiles for temperature, pressure and abundances. This is done because, to some extent, knowing how these parameters scale 'across' the disk (on the direction of 'away-near' the star, and on the direction of 'away-near' the disk's plane) enables said researcher to feed valuable constrains and interaction laws to his to-be-iterated computer model. Then, after running the model, results are compared to the observable universe. The actual planet-making process is not easy to see without cheating a bit, even on new, state-of-the-art computer models that run on supercomputers for months at a time.
Even more simple: stuff is in dynamic balance; water that forms on some distance from the star, will be destroyed if it drifts too close into the star. The key to an answer on 'how much water after all' is figuring out creation rate vs destruction rate.
It looks like he has a case under Chinese law:
It is prohibited to use other's image for commercial use without the person's consent.
But they all look alike!
i'd feel somewhat uncomfortable if somebody was using my likeness in products around the world without my knowing.
There there, Mr Nobody. What are the odds for that?
this would probably be especially frustrating to people who simply don't want that publicity, fame, and extra attention.
Like modesty incarnate, low-profiled Steve Jobs?
The t-shirt seller lost.
You expected Chuck Norris to lose?
The whole water from the large bombardment period never really made that much sense to me. It always seemed like grasping at straws.
Before waiving your hand in dismissal, perhaps Your Exellence would consider investigating the D/H isotopic ratio of the oceans, and how they compare with the cometary one- a possible correction for long-term exposure to cosmic rays may also apply.
Btw it's called 'science', and 'working with evidence'.
Where do you get the oxygen?
From procaryotic metabolic processes (if you are referring to Earth's atmospheric abundance).
Most of it in the protoplanetary disk would have already encountered hydrogen (being 75% of the stuff there) and made water.
It is not that simple- most of the available hydrogen was spent forming Jupiter. Furthermore, water formed (and remaining) in space is not necessarily stable in spacetime; among other possibilities, depending on the proximity of a heat source, it may photodissociate back to its building blocks.
A protoplanetary disk is an environment that may both encourage and inhibit molecular composition, due to its diversity- tracking compounds in such an environment is far from trivial.
Blender? for a 4 year old? are you actually serious?.
Absofuckinglutely. Do not underestimate their intelligence; everything that will get the kid to programming. I was introduced to BASIC at the age of 4, and some months later I was making the computer flash colors while playing music, copied from the radio (by me) using the BEEP statement (the one where one controls the duration and frequency of the beep). All in one go, because I had no tape to save it in (Spectrum Sinclair 48k). Boy if I only had access to Blender back then, I would be friggin' directing Pixar by now.
Of course, I don't listen to them by having a voice read the ones and zeroes, but interpreted to analog via the proper codec.
Speaking of which, this is what I get when I try to stream it;
Connecting to server www.linux.fm[69.164.211.221]: 80...
Cache size set to 320 KBytes
Cache fill: 1.70% (5580 bytes)
Win32 LoadLibrary failed to load: avisynth.dll, /usr/lib/codecs/avisynth.dll, /usr/lib/win32/avisynth.dll, /usr/local/lib/win32/avisynth.dll
I guess this is whhat makes it nerdy (as opposed to geeky) ...
On a lighter note, the file I got served was panic.c -nice, eh?
It's all part of the "Green economy" so get to building those new transformers so those coal fired power plants can get the power to where it needs to be.
I was under the impression that Transformers where built on Cybertron- and folks there are not that wild on "Green economy"
Check out WIPO or TRIPS, they both facilitate the application of American trademarks around the world.
I did, and it just further proves my point. Non-elected UN council bodies (in fact, UN being US's brainchild) and the WTO does not have a saying or an inspection authority over my homeland's legislation; my homeland's constitution does, so do I through my voting rights.
If anything, you're more harshly effected by this ruling as those outside of the US lack the 1st Amendment protections of citizens.
I hope you realise how arrogant you sound- this inhibits your judgement; USA is not the cradle of civilization, and most certainly is not an example of civil rights, humanitarianism and free society- do take a good hard look at your legal system (which 'works' only in within US borders, btw) before you start preaching '1st amendment'.
in the same way that Coke hasn't got to worry when trading in Japan, or Microsoft in Russia.
I will not even use a counter-example from Asia- just remember LEGO and Canada
1 gram is of the order of 1 trillion bacteria - I am not impressed by 90G
You're no longer allowed to create a social networking site using Face-, that's all.
You are wrong. I can create whatever I want, because I do not live in the USA and I am not subject to such moronic laws.
Have you ever taken a moment to think that the United States of America != the whole planet?
Now get off my face.
Sheldon? Dr. Sheldon Cooper? Is that you?