What about sending a missile of some kind directly to the surface of mercury and then analyzing what it kicked up from a non-orbiting position? A bit more violent, and no "hands on" chemistry, but would be much cheaper.
More specifically, it confirms where you are faster. I've heard it's not quite sensitive enough to give you weather predictions based on your one phone (hence the need for distributed phones) but it IS sensitive enough to give an idea of altitude. So if your barometer shows you're at sea level, and the GPS starting up is saying you're in Denver, your phone can say "You sure about that, GPS?"
Wrong on both counts. You have no "freedom" to ruin the atmosphere for everyone else. You can get away with it for now, but that doesn't mean you're entitled to release enough carbon into the atmosphere to change the climate. It's also not security. If you know something is going to happen, say you know that at 11 PM someone is going to try to break into your house, standing at the door with a shotgun at 11 is not "security." It's acting on a known threat. Preventing climate change is not "security" by any measure: we know it is going to happen, unless you have your head up your ass based on propaganda from the fossil fuel lobby.
"Cast the first stone" if you haven't committed a sin. It would be a question of whether this "cyber-terrorista against a Muslim recruiting site" was a case of illegally harassing a legitimate organization, or whether it was a case of harassing a terrorist front. The latter would not be a "sin" and it would not be hypocritical.
I don't know which it would be, as you haven't provided a link.
From reading part of TFA (I don't know why I bothered) that seems to be the case:
Yes, the long finale of Revenge of the Sith has more inherent artistic value, emotional power, and global impact than anything by the artists you name. It's because the art world has flat-lined and become an echo chamber of received opinion and toxic over-praise. It's like the emperor's new clothes—people are too intimidated to admit what they secretly think or what they might think with their blinders off.
Interestingly, she says other arts, videogames specifically, are doing much better. So it's probably more a hyperbole to shock the art world into, I don't know, getting better, than something she actually thinks is true.
A company's... ahem... "life" would be money. In jail, basically part of your lifespan is given up. It kinda makes sense that criminal charges would result in a fine.
And by "kinda makes sense" I mean in the insane worlds of the judicial system and business.
According to various "sources," it was actually that Google wanted their logo on the maps app. Haven't heard anything about google demanding more data.
And, why would apple be so concerned about not sharing their user data? They suddenly started taking an interest in user's privacy?
No, MickyTheIdiot is probably more accurate: this is arrogance, greed, and ridiculous corporate branding, not a principled stand by Apple.
"My problem is they are using my goat for this. Again. The preists say they're going to pay me back, but I notice they put 'Pay back Argous for this goat' on my goat. I suspect they're going to blame the Gods. Again. And they eat the goat afterward. They're getting a free goat barbecue and not even inviting me to it."
That's quite simplistic and mostly bandied about by antigovernment nutjobs
And actual studies of traffic. I can see how you could take my post as arguing cities didn't need money, but only if you make wild assumptions. I'd much rather they simply raise taxes: no one dies that way.
As far as lengthening lights, they don't want to do it, because it's inefficient. Ideally, nobody will be using the extra time, except rarely, and if they're traveling the speed limit, they will usually have sufficient time to stop.
In an ideal world where no one runs yellow lights or speeds? What's the point of discussing such a world? Do you think we live in that world?
Grow a pair already and stand up for yourselves, or is the collective western european culture even more panty waisted than the most stridently politically correct US citizen?
I have yet to meet a US citizen who I could describe as "stridently politically correct." Maybe I don't really know what that means. Someone who is afraid of expressing their opinion for fear it might upset someone? Say what you will about us, but we do NOT have that problem.
I'm being serious here. For all the bitching and moaning about being "politically correct," I sure don't see people worrying about being politically correct. Aside from maybe people don't use the N word as much anymore. I certainly don't see anyone arguing against free speech. Then again, I don't see anyone trying to implement gun control, yet I constantly hear the government is trying to take guns away from us.
Same issue with cities shortening yellow lights: you get increased T-bone collisions. But naturally cities are loath to lengthen the lights, because that reduces their income. At least in this case, safety aligns with what cities are going to do anyway.
They technically could do it, but they can't for IP/DRM reasons, whether you think that is a good reason or not is irrelevant.
No, they could do it aside from the CEO of netflix having ties to MS. Whether I think it is a good reason or not is irrelevant to what netflix does, you're right, though I think implying my opinion is completely irrelevant is a bit harsh. It's relevant to ME!!! (sniff sniff).
It's subscription based, so I really don't see how you get to that. I have a netflix subscription, I pay money to netflix reguardless of whether I'm watching it on my PC, wii, or pocketwatch.
No, in other words diversity doesn't happen equally fast at all possible levels. Perhaps a better example would be DNA coding. How the DNA is read stays very consistent. I don't believe there's any chemical reason why AUG MUST be translated as methionine. You could have AUG read as any other amino acid. But if you made that change suddenly, none of your existing protein sequences would work, and you would go extinct immediately.
Gould calls these things constraints on evolution. There are a number of them, one is historical: nature doesn't reinvent the wheel when it doesn't have to. If it can modify something instead, it will tend to do that rather than create a new feature out of nothing.
No, but I'd wager most of them revolve around using bone and muscle to move the predator to the impala and then using some sharp bit of bone or keratin to shred and kill it. There are many diverse ways within that, but nature generally doesn't totally reinvent the basics. I haven't heard of any natural predators that use projectiles shot from their bodies, or clouds of knockout gas, for instance. It would require quite a bit of evolutionary innovation and then refinement for any of those to become useful. Meanwhile, predators that merely increase their muscle speed or grow longer claws would do well quicker.
Slashdot Mirror
Well that's just it: it's not the world. It's the moon. Your earth-logic has no place on the theoretical-cold-war-moon-nuclear-base.
As a scientist, I can't imagine any other philosophy would work.
What about sending a missile of some kind directly to the surface of mercury and then analyzing what it kicked up from a non-orbiting position? A bit more violent, and no "hands on" chemistry, but would be much cheaper.
Presumably, in such a situation, your phone being wrong is less of a concern than you being a mile underground.
More specifically, it confirms where you are faster. I've heard it's not quite sensitive enough to give you weather predictions based on your one phone (hence the need for distributed phones) but it IS sensitive enough to give an idea of altitude. So if your barometer shows you're at sea level, and the GPS starting up is saying you're in Denver, your phone can say "You sure about that, GPS?"
Wrong on both counts. You have no "freedom" to ruin the atmosphere for everyone else. You can get away with it for now, but that doesn't mean you're entitled to release enough carbon into the atmosphere to change the climate. It's also not security. If you know something is going to happen, say you know that at 11 PM someone is going to try to break into your house, standing at the door with a shotgun at 11 is not "security." It's acting on a known threat. Preventing climate change is not "security" by any measure: we know it is going to happen, unless you have your head up your ass based on propaganda from the fossil fuel lobby.
"Cast the first stone" if you haven't committed a sin. It would be a question of whether this "cyber-terrorista against a Muslim recruiting site" was a case of illegally harassing a legitimate organization, or whether it was a case of harassing a terrorist front. The latter would not be a "sin" and it would not be hypocritical.
I don't know which it would be, as you haven't provided a link.
Or, occam's razor: they actually have fewer viruses. Probably because fewer people use them.
Yes, the long finale of Revenge of the Sith has more inherent artistic value, emotional power, and global impact than anything by the artists you name. It's because the art world has flat-lined and become an echo chamber of received opinion and toxic over-praise. It's like the emperor's new clothes—people are too intimidated to admit what they secretly think or what they might think with their blinders off.
Interestingly, she says other arts, videogames specifically, are doing much better. So it's probably more a hyperbole to shock the art world into, I don't know, getting better, than something she actually thinks is true.
I know SOPA is more relevant to slashdot, but I think climate change is a bigger concern here.
A company's... ahem... "life" would be money. In jail, basically part of your lifespan is given up. It kinda makes sense that criminal charges would result in a fine.
And by "kinda makes sense" I mean in the insane worlds of the judicial system and business.
According to various "sources," it was actually that Google wanted their logo on the maps app. Haven't heard anything about google demanding more data.
And, why would apple be so concerned about not sharing their user data? They suddenly started taking an interest in user's privacy?
No, MickyTheIdiot is probably more accurate: this is arrogance, greed, and ridiculous corporate branding, not a principled stand by Apple.
I don't know, it sounds more likely to me that it went
"Rich, are the maps ready?"
"What? No, we haven't finished testing."
"Well, we told Google to fuck off this morning, so it's ready. Don't worry, I'll make sure everyone who matters knows that it went out too soon."
(That afternoon in boardroom)
"Yeah, Williamson assured me the maps were ready to go, so we told Google we weren't interested. My stock options just got a little sweeter."
"My problem is they are using my goat for this. Again. The preists say they're going to pay me back, but I notice they put 'Pay back Argous for this goat' on my goat. I suspect they're going to blame the Gods. Again. And they eat the goat afterward. They're getting a free goat barbecue and not even inviting me to it."
That's quite simplistic and mostly bandied about by antigovernment nutjobs
And actual studies of traffic. I can see how you could take my post as arguing cities didn't need money, but only if you make wild assumptions. I'd much rather they simply raise taxes: no one dies that way.
As far as lengthening lights, they don't want to do it, because it's inefficient. Ideally, nobody will be using the extra time, except rarely, and if they're traveling the speed limit, they will usually have sufficient time to stop.
In an ideal world where no one runs yellow lights or speeds? What's the point of discussing such a world? Do you think we live in that world?
Grow a pair already and stand up for yourselves, or is the collective western european culture even more panty waisted than the most stridently politically correct US citizen?
I have yet to meet a US citizen who I could describe as "stridently politically correct." Maybe I don't really know what that means. Someone who is afraid of expressing their opinion for fear it might upset someone? Say what you will about us, but we do NOT have that problem.
I'm being serious here. For all the bitching and moaning about being "politically correct," I sure don't see people worrying about being politically correct. Aside from maybe people don't use the N word as much anymore. I certainly don't see anyone arguing against free speech. Then again, I don't see anyone trying to implement gun control, yet I constantly hear the government is trying to take guns away from us.
Same issue with cities shortening yellow lights: you get increased T-bone collisions. But naturally cities are loath to lengthen the lights, because that reduces their income. At least in this case, safety aligns with what cities are going to do anyway.
You responded to a false dichotomy with another false dichotomy. I'm confused as to whether this makes a false trichotomy or a false quadchotomy.
And we know that how? Because Netflix, helmed by the microsoft board member said so?
Do you commonly take company statements at face value?
They technically could do it, but they can't for IP/DRM reasons, whether you think that is a good reason or not is irrelevant.
No, they could do it aside from the CEO of netflix having ties to MS. Whether I think it is a good reason or not is irrelevant to what netflix does, you're right, though I think implying my opinion is completely irrelevant is a bit harsh. It's relevant to ME!!! (sniff sniff).
It's subscription based, so I really don't see how you get to that. I have a netflix subscription, I pay money to netflix reguardless of whether I'm watching it on my PC, wii, or pocketwatch.
I'd say it actually has more to do with their CEO being on the board of MS until recently.
No, in other words diversity doesn't happen equally fast at all possible levels. Perhaps a better example would be DNA coding. How the DNA is read stays very consistent. I don't believe there's any chemical reason why AUG MUST be translated as methionine. You could have AUG read as any other amino acid. But if you made that change suddenly, none of your existing protein sequences would work, and you would go extinct immediately.
Gould calls these things constraints on evolution. There are a number of them, one is historical: nature doesn't reinvent the wheel when it doesn't have to. If it can modify something instead, it will tend to do that rather than create a new feature out of nothing.
No, but I'd wager most of them revolve around using bone and muscle to move the predator to the impala and then using some sharp bit of bone or keratin to shred and kill it. There are many diverse ways within that, but nature generally doesn't totally reinvent the basics. I haven't heard of any natural predators that use projectiles shot from their bodies, or clouds of knockout gas, for instance. It would require quite a bit of evolutionary innovation and then refinement for any of those to become useful. Meanwhile, predators that merely increase their muscle speed or grow longer claws would do well quicker.
But they can't possibly manage to bring it to Linux.