A nebula is, on average, less dense than the best vacuum we can produce aritificially here on earth.
The only real point is, as I stated, one of communication, so you don't end up spending hours talking about trying to land on a nebula, or putting a Gas Giant in your sock drawer.
In much the same way when you discuss a reptile you know you aren't talking about something covered with fur.
It certainly makes no difference to the reptile what we call it, and it will make no difference to the bits of stuff in space what they are called either.
Have you ever heard the old children's riddle about whether you know the difference between an egg and an elephant?
The answer is, if you don't know, I'm certainly not sending you to the store to get eggs.
When a mountain is just a mountain one is practicing Zen.
When a mountain is more than a mountain one is a fool.
After Zen the mountain is an invisible pink unicorn living in your sock.
KFG
Re:Why is size an issue?
on
Defining "Planet"
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
That would include black holes, the odd rock about the size of a silly putty egg drifting on its own through "empty" space, a comet, a large gas cloud and flecks of paint that came off an Apollo mission.
Such a definition defies what *anyone* understands to be a planet.
While you are correct that the definition is going to be somewhat arbitrary, there is certainly an element of "knowing what it is when I see it" already involved.
Jupiter is a planet. A Coke can dropped out the garbage chute of a Vogon ship is not.
I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone who would disagree with the above.
In the same vein no one has ever come up with a clear definition of a human being either, but you're likely to know one when you see one with at least a certain level of accuracy.
Planets can't file civil rights suits though, so we get to define them, even though whatever that definition ends up being will also end up flawed.
I suppose the real question is whether having some sort of definition has a pragmatic *usefulness* in scientific communications, so that when one scientist is talking about planet the other one *knows* the object is question is *not* a giant gas cloud, paint chip or discarded Coke can.
Of course we could, but the social taboos against it at the moment are enormous, and probably insurmountable.
You often hear about water shortages. We have toilets that can't flush an ant, mandated by law now in America, in order to "save water."
What they don't tell you is that the shortage is of *drinking* water. We're the only culture that has ever used its drinking water to dispose of shit, then has to retreat it to be fit for drinking, and then use it to flush away shit *again.*
It really doesn't make a lot of sense.
KFG
Nothing for the conspiracy theorists to see here
on
Cow Manure --> Electricity
·
· Score: 4, Informative
We *did* do this 20 years ago. It *is* old news.
Sheesh. Doesn't anybody read Mother Earth News anymore? Are we so focused on what might be coming out tomorrow that we've completely forgoten what we did yesterday?
Farmers have been doing this for over 100 years. Henry Ford promoted it as the ideal way to provide for our energy needs before WW1.
During WWII you could buy units on trailers to pull around behind your car, pile the shit in,a nd get a few miles of driving out of the resultant outgassing.
The only "conspiracy" here is that people no longer want to acknowledge that shit even exists and would rather go to war and die over a bit of oil than shovel a bit of their own shit.
Napoleon considered the most valuable men in his army the people who cleaned the latrines. They didn't *bury* the shit, they collected it for use.
Napleon's army made much of its own gunpowder while, ummmmmmmmmmm, "on the run," as it were.
Cows aren't the only biological device which can serve as a very efficient refinery of raw materials.
Indeed, look at chapter one of *any* high school biology text.
You'll find something there called "The Carbon Cycle."
I could go into it here and show why this process, or cows themselves, don't really "pollute," but I can't do it as well in a/. post as the aforementioned text can.
I think it fairly reasonable that geeks should be at least chapter one literate in biology, and so repeat my recommendation to read the book.
The essential problem with fossil fuels is that they *break* the carbon cycle.
To be perfectly fair I don't have any problem with your post resting at a score of 1. That's seems about right. However, it was quite clearly relevant and on topic.
This is one of the problems with open peer review.
Have you ever noticed that companies often make false claims about their products/words and their origins to promote a publicly desired view of their company and in an attempt to avoid being accused of trademark infringement?
Yeah, me too.
Ain't it great that we are among the elite few who can differenciate between PR, spin and reality?
Clearly the name "Roogle" has some trademark issues, and clearly the site realizes this as well, as I have already stated. They will have to deal with this, and probably fairly quickly.
I know that. Obviously.
But here are some other things I know.
Google is a trademark of Columbia Pictures and King Features Syndicate and has been since the 1930's.
The name of the search engine comes from ( as opposed to the common assumption/claim that it's a spelling variant of "googol") the slang phrase "Google eyes" ( and its variant "Googly Eyes"). Google eyes was slang for either promimenent eyes, or eyes "bugged out." In other words it is a humorous variant of "goggle." Barney Google had such eyes. See how it all comes together?
One would "make google eyes" at a pretty girl.
Google is thus a very good word for a search engine name.
Please note how Google(tm) itself aknowledges this in a lefthanded way by now claiming "Google Eyes" as well. Google on it.
The Google logo is a blatent rip off of the trademarked Playschool logo, and clearly intended to be, in the current mode of assuming that computer items will be "friendlier" if they appear to be aimed at drooling two year olds.
The blue color used on the Google page is what is known as "IBM Blue" and was the trademarked "look and feel" of IBM software and products. ( And Microsoft took advantage of their position of supplier to IBM to rip it off). IBM word processing programs, for instance, had white text on that exact shade of blue background. (As did Infocom games and some other third party apps intended for the IBM PC).
You are absolutely right, and people who violate trademarks, look and feel are scum and should be publicly flogged.
The "Roogle" people themselves note that the name is temporary, right on the site. While they are clearly combining RSS and Google, which just happens to be descriptive of what they are and do, they also know that they need their own name.
One might also wonder how many "looks and feels" are going to be allowed to be propriatary for a single input box, a single button and a bit of black text on a white background.
Well, if nothing else, spending a few weeks in pleasant weather on a broad reach with first landfall in Puerto Rico (less commercial than St. Thomas which has a pure tourist trade economy) beats the hell out of beating to windward through the icebergs for a first landfall in Newfoundland.
Even if it's a toss up, it's still not a toss up. Monohullers have been doing this for ages for just that reason. (And I don't mean to get into the "hull wars." I kinda like "Sharpie tris" and Bolger square boats myself, so everybody hates me already)
The orbitals are certainly fascinating though. Good thing we have computers now. I'd hate to work that out with slide rule, pen and paper.
" . . . my patent for the use of hypothetical allegories involving hoses for causing disintegration of cells from the contiguous epidermal . . . "
Well, it looks like you're sending me to the showers on this one.
May introduce you to my patented (expired) Colt 45? (Although I hold the patent on exothermic chemical reactions, a license for your use of return fire will be taken up by my estate)
Exactly. I've never understood why more game companies don't do this. Giving away an old game is certainly cheaper than conventional advertising. Hell, it's cheaper than a bloody Print Shopped flyer, even taking into account server and bandwidth expenses.
Yet the rewards for promoting your current product are potentially staggering.
Don't these guys ever go to the supermarket and eat the free cheese? They aren't giving that stuff away to feed the homeless or something.
I think every game marketer should be required to spend a few years at Proctor & Gamble first. Now those guys really know how to, ummmmm, play the game.
I'm sorry, but I've already patented the process of patenting a process of making a patent.
You may speak to my attorneys to arrange a use license.
Please don't try to fight this in court. I've patented that. You'll need a license.
The internet infringes on my license for making odd symbols, pointing at them, and grunting as a crude form of communication between any animate object and any other object ( animate or not).
This patent itself merely extends my previous patent on forces between fundmental particles.
Well no, actually, that sounds like computer/communications science. It's the guys who conduct the attack who are doing the rocket science.
They guys *under* the falling missles are generally working of perfecting their "Run away, run away" science.
We told you geeks to at least join the track team, but would you listen? Noooooooooo!
Making the internet into rocket science wouldn't be rocke. . ..er, hard though. Just stick a Saturn V up its virtual butt and have the internet in "Space. ..Space. ..Spaaaaace. .."
If you can't find a Saturn V on the surplus shelves I guess you can make do by shoving a D size engine up a Timex-Sinclair's butt, although I've discoverd imperically that it's somewhat lacking in stability.
Hide the dog well.
Did I mention I havn't had my coffee yet this morning? That may effect the lucidity of the above, but I'm counting on that fact that you haven't had yours either and won't notice.
Just as if one wants to travel from England to NYC entirely by sail it is faster to sail south to the Canary Islands off the coast of Africa, across the Atlantic to the Caribbean, then up the east coast of North America, because that way you are traveling with the currents and prevailing winds the whole way, rather than against them.
These are even often refered to as "Highways on the Sea," and calling these "Interplanetary Superhighways" is no doubt derived from this.
Of course there is no actual structure.
The only real difference is that in space the "continents" are in continuous and *rapid* movement as well, and thus the "currents" and "winds" are in a constant state of flux.
Slashdot Mirror
A nebula is, on average, less dense than the best vacuum we can produce aritificially here on earth.
The only real point is, as I stated, one of communication, so you don't end up spending hours talking about trying to land on a nebula, or putting a Gas Giant in your sock drawer.
In much the same way when you discuss a reptile you know you aren't talking about something covered with fur.
It certainly makes no difference to the reptile what we call it, and it will make no difference to the bits of stuff in space what they are called either.
Have you ever heard the old children's riddle about whether you know the difference between an egg and an elephant?
The answer is, if you don't know, I'm certainly not sending you to the store to get eggs.
KFG
When a mountain is just a mountain one is practicing Zen.
When a mountain is more than a mountain one is a fool.
After Zen the mountain is an invisible pink unicorn living in your sock.
KFG
That would include black holes, the odd rock about the size of a silly putty egg drifting on its own through "empty" space, a comet, a large gas cloud and flecks of paint that came off an Apollo mission.
Such a definition defies what *anyone* understands to be a planet.
While you are correct that the definition is going to be somewhat arbitrary, there is certainly an element of "knowing what it is when I see it" already involved.
Jupiter is a planet. A Coke can dropped out the garbage chute of a Vogon ship is not.
I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone who would disagree with the above.
In the same vein no one has ever come up with a clear definition of a human being either, but you're likely to know one when you see one with at least a certain level of accuracy.
Planets can't file civil rights suits though, so we get to define them, even though whatever that definition ends up being will also end up flawed.
I suppose the real question is whether having some sort of definition has a pragmatic *usefulness* in scientific communications, so that when one scientist is talking about planet the other one *knows* the object is question is *not* a giant gas cloud, paint chip or discarded Coke can.
The answer to that is, yes. Yes it does.
KFG
The sad part is that there are plenty of people here in *New* York who don't know that answer to that.
Another thing they don't know is why, if this is New *York,* why isn't it part of New England?
But the real question is, why are Mexico and *New* Mexico 0 miles from each other?
KFG
Old Zeeland is in the Low Countries, now known as the Netherlands.
KFG
Through the wonders of modern medicine.
That was an easy one too.
KFG
Of course we could, but the social taboos against it at the moment are enormous, and probably insurmountable.
You often hear about water shortages. We have toilets that can't flush an ant, mandated by law now in America, in order to "save water."
What they don't tell you is that the shortage is of *drinking* water. We're the only culture that has ever used its drinking water to dispose of shit, then has to retreat it to be fit for drinking, and then use it to flush away shit *again.*
It really doesn't make a lot of sense.
KFG
We *did* do this 20 years ago. It *is* old news.
Sheesh. Doesn't anybody read Mother Earth News anymore? Are we so focused on what might be coming out tomorrow that we've completely forgoten what we did yesterday?
Farmers have been doing this for over 100 years. Henry Ford promoted it as the ideal way to provide for our energy needs before WW1.
During WWII you could buy units on trailers to pull around behind your car, pile the shit in,a nd get a few miles of driving out of the resultant outgassing.
The only "conspiracy" here is that people no longer want to acknowledge that shit even exists and would rather go to war and die over a bit of oil than shovel a bit of their own shit.
Napoleon considered the most valuable men in his army the people who cleaned the latrines. They didn't *bury* the shit, they collected it for use.
Napleon's army made much of its own gunpowder while, ummmmmmmmmmm, "on the run," as it were.
Cows aren't the only biological device which can serve as a very efficient refinery of raw materials.
KFG
Indeed, look at chapter one of *any* high school biology text.
/. post as the aforementioned text can.
You'll find something there called "The Carbon Cycle."
I could go into it here and show why this process, or cows themselves, don't really "pollute," but I can't do it as well in a
I think it fairly reasonable that geeks should be at least chapter one literate in biology, and so repeat my recommendation to read the book.
The essential problem with fossil fuels is that they *break* the carbon cycle.
A person on a bicycle resides within it.
KFG
To be perfectly fair I don't have any problem with your post resting at a score of 1. That's seems about right. However, it was quite clearly relevant and on topic.
This is one of the problems with open peer review.
To paraphrase Bill Cosby:
"Yeah, but what if your peers are assholes?"
KFG
Have you ever noticed that companies often make false claims about their products/words and their origins to promote a publicly desired view of their company and in an attempt to avoid being accused of trademark infringement?
Yeah, me too.
Ain't it great that we are among the elite few who can differenciate between PR, spin and reality?
KFG
He also missed Natalie Portman, petrification, hot grits and goatse.cx.
:)
A rank amateur.
Or a 30 year old who thinks that takes him out of the "youngster" catagory.
Kids these days.
KFG
Because you are deluded.
Go ahead,ask me another one, only make it a bit harder this time.
KFG
Well, looks don't hurt either.
Clearly the name "Roogle" has some trademark issues, and clearly the site realizes this as well, as I have already stated. They will have to deal with this, and probably fairly quickly.
I know that. Obviously.
But here are some other things I know.
Google is a trademark of Columbia Pictures and King Features Syndicate and has been since the 1930's.
The name of the search engine comes from ( as opposed to the common assumption/claim that it's a spelling variant of "googol") the slang phrase "Google eyes" ( and its variant "Googly Eyes"). Google eyes was slang for either promimenent eyes, or eyes "bugged out." In other words it is a humorous variant of "goggle." Barney Google had such eyes. See how it all comes together?
One would "make google eyes" at a pretty girl.
Google is thus a very good word for a search engine name.
Please note how Google(tm) itself aknowledges this in a lefthanded way by now claiming "Google Eyes" as well. Google on it.
The Google logo is a blatent rip off of the trademarked Playschool logo, and clearly intended to be, in the current mode of assuming that computer items will be "friendlier" if they appear to be aimed at drooling two year olds.
The blue color used on the Google page is what is known as "IBM Blue" and was the trademarked "look and feel" of IBM software and products. ( And Microsoft took advantage of their position of supplier to IBM to rip it off). IBM word processing programs, for instance, had white text on that exact shade of blue background. (As did Infocom games and some other third party apps intended for the IBM PC).
You are absolutely right, and people who violate trademarks, look and feel are scum and should be publicly flogged.
KFG
The "Roogle" people themselves note that the name is temporary, right on the site. While they are clearly combining RSS and Google, which just happens to be descriptive of what they are and do, they also know that they need their own name.
One might also wonder how many "looks and feels" are going to be allowed to be propriatary for a single input box, a single button and a bit of black text on a white background.
Down that road lies madness.
KFG
Well, if nothing else, spending a few weeks in pleasant weather on a broad reach with first landfall in Puerto Rico (less commercial than St. Thomas which has a pure tourist trade economy) beats the hell out of beating to windward through the icebergs for a first landfall in Newfoundland.
Even if it's a toss up, it's still not a toss up. Monohullers have been doing this for ages for just that reason. (And I don't mean to get into the "hull wars." I kinda like "Sharpie tris" and Bolger square boats myself, so everybody hates me already)
The orbitals are certainly fascinating though. Good thing we have computers now. I'd hate to work that out with slide rule, pen and paper.
KFG
" . . . my patent for the use of hypothetical allegories involving hoses for causing disintegration of cells from the contiguous epidermal . . . "
Well, it looks like you're sending me to the showers on this one.
May introduce you to my patented (expired) Colt 45? (Although I hold the patent on exothermic chemical reactions, a license for your use of return fire will be taken up by my estate)
KFG
Exactly. I've never understood why more game companies don't do this. Giving away an old game is certainly cheaper than conventional advertising. Hell, it's cheaper than a bloody Print Shopped flyer, even taking into account server and bandwidth expenses.
Yet the rewards for promoting your current product are potentially staggering.
Don't these guys ever go to the supermarket and eat the free cheese? They aren't giving that stuff away to feed the homeless or something.
I think every game marketer should be required to spend a few years at Proctor & Gamble first. Now those guys really know how to, ummmmm, play the game.
KFG
I just love the sound of screaming ground drop apples in the morning.
KFG
Ah, but some time ago I patented *you.* All your IP are belong to us now.
I knew that human genome project would be good for something.
KFG
I'm sorry, but I've already patented the process of patenting a process of making a patent.
You may speak to my attorneys to arrange a use license.
Please don't try to fight this in court. I've patented that. You'll need a license.
The internet infringes on my license for making odd symbols, pointing at them, and grunting as a crude form of communication between any animate object and any other object ( animate or not).
This patent itself merely extends my previous patent on forces between fundmental particles.
Face it, you're hosed.
KFG
Well no, actually, that sounds like computer/communications science. It's the guys who conduct the attack who are doing the rocket science.
.er, hard though. Just stick a Saturn V up its virtual butt and have the internet in "Space. . .Space. . .Spaaaaace. . ."
They guys *under* the falling missles are generally working of perfecting their "Run away, run away" science.
We told you geeks to at least join the track team, but would you listen? Noooooooooo!
Making the internet into rocket science wouldn't be rocke. . .
If you can't find a Saturn V on the surplus shelves I guess you can make do by shoving a D size engine up a Timex-Sinclair's butt, although I've discoverd imperically that it's somewhat lacking in stability.
Hide the dog well.
Did I mention I havn't had my coffee yet this morning? That may effect the lucidity of the above, but I'm counting on that fact that you haven't had yours either and won't notice.
I'll go make some now. It's not rocket science.
Oh, wait. Yes it is.
KFG
You clearly haven't actually read, let alone understood, the myth.
There were *two* people on that particular flight. The one who stayed with the parameters of the design was *successful* in his flight.
Think about it.
KFG
Just as if one wants to travel from England to NYC entirely by sail it is faster to sail south to the Canary Islands off the coast of Africa, across the Atlantic to the Caribbean, then up the east coast of North America, because that way you are traveling with the currents and prevailing winds the whole way, rather than against them.
.
These are even often refered to as "Highways on the Sea," and calling these "Interplanetary Superhighways" is no doubt derived from this.
Of course there is no actual structure.
The only real difference is that in space the "continents" are in continuous and *rapid* movement as well, and thus the "currents" and "winds" are in a constant state of flux.
Other than *that* Mrs. Lincoln. .
KFG
Don't worry. It will all be constrained in its movements by a WonderDatabase(tm).
KFG