No, they're responding appropriately to how the story was posted. The original article is supposed to be fun. But the post says "Programmer Debunks Source Code Shown In Movies and TV Shows" and "Someone is finally pausing TV shows and movies to figure out if the code shown on screen is accurate or not." as if it's something new.
It's not new, but it is cool how deeply they investigated this stuff.
This might have been true in the 1930s and prior (when they actually had to pass a constitutional amendment in order to outlaw alcohol). But now people do not hold the constitution so highly. It's much easier to ignore now.
Seems that this is pure speculation. They are counting their chickens before they hatch. The Wii was launched in 2006. The average is 5, but sometimes 6 years. That means that it could be as long as 2012 until a new Wii is launched. I'm guessing a new Wii will be launched in 2012.
No one denies that the earth is getting warmer, but there are people that deny the cause of it (natural vs. human). "Global Warming" describes the ideology that humans are the cause of the earth getting warmer.
except, it's not EDGE, so I don't know how it's 2.5G, it's GPRS with boost, but I don't know that all the stuff with GPRS will be compatible with the EDGE network for speed. I'm doubting it will, which will leave you with speeds back at 2G GPRS.
... if we get into serious trouble maybe. But as it is now, no one really understands how the global climate works and what effects what.
However, I am glad people are thinking about this. Maybe if the oceans start rising quickly or we start getting 120 degree weather in the summer here in Boston we should start seriously thinking about this stuff.
I don't think you understand what the 'round' part of the definition is about.
From the iau.org site:
(1) A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape(1), and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.
and
This generally applies to objects with mass above 5 x 1020 kg and diameter greater than 800 km.
So it's not actually the 'roundness' but the amount of mass that the object has.
What does the barycenter being above or below the surface of the primary have to do with anything? By that rule, you could have two bodies that were absolutely identical in evey way, and one would be a moon and the other a planet, because their primaries were different densities.
The barycenter is to determine what the object is actually orbiting. If it's primarily the Sun, then it's a planet. If it's primarily a planet, then it's a moon. It's pretty simple. It's not about size, it's about what it's orbiting. Otherwise, anything that was spherical because of gravity and orbited the Sun in anyway would be a planet (including a tun of Jupiter's moons).
The definition wasn't to satisfy anything but science, not to purposefully keep the Moon as being a moon or Pluto to be a planet. I challenge you, come up with a better definition which is scientific and not arbitrary.
The Earth-Moon isn't a double planet because the barycenter of gravity is clearly within the earth's surface because the size of the Earth is so much bigger than the Moon.
However, Pluto and Charon's barycenter of gravity is on the outside of Pluto's surface. That is why Pluto-Charon is a double planet, but not Earth-Moon. It's scientific, not arbitrary.
I may be woefully ignornant on the subjecct but I really don't see why sticking with the current definition is a problem.
Could you tell me what the 'current' definition is?
The problem was that there wasn't a definition before. More of just an accepted method of measurement. And it was arbitrary. I think it was generally based off of 'anything as big or bigger than pluto is a planet'. That's not scientific at all. The new definition is great. It relies on science to determine the status of 'planet' rather than something arbitrary picked out of the sky to satisfy what people had learned in grade school.
They don't make a Treo that support UMTS or HSDPA right now. Only EDGE, which is the 2.5G tech. UMTS is 3G and HSDPA is 3.5G. However, near Boston, I get great service with EDGE on my Treo. 120kbits/sec most of the time.
For a well produced battery, I highly doubt that even the air pressure of 33,000ft would do anything to it.
But it seems there have been some poorly produced batteries lately. Maybe one of those rare instances just happened to be on that plane and just happened to be triggered by either the flight, the handling, or perhaps even the air pressure change. But my bet is on the handling or the rigors of the flight rather than the simple air pressure change.
Also, just because OpenOffice is the de-facto standard for reading/writing the OpenDocument format doesn't mean that it's the only thing you can use. And while I don't think there is a good OSS wordprocessor that does support this, there are plugins for MS Office to import and export OpenDocument. I believe they are free as well.
So the good thing about OpenDocument is that everyone can read the format. Even if you're a user with disabilities and you need to use MS Office.
And eventually, there will be a reader/writer for OpenDocument that does have good support for the disabled.
Drunk driving is also only a small percentage of accidents; should we legalize that now?
Let me state again as it has been stated many times.. you can put down the phone. You can't stop being drunk. And the number of accidents caused by drunk driving is far more than those caused by cellphone usage. (especially serious accidents)
So maybe we should make it illegal to talk to the other passengers in the car? And if you tell me that they can point out dangerous situations.. maybe we should just make it illegal to talk to blind passengers?
I think that'll go over well.
I talk on my cellphone (handfree of course) every single day. And while I'm on the phone, I'm the one that's noticing the poor driving of the other people on the road. When I'm in a dangerous situation, I stop talking and almost stop listening. I have never been even close to an accident while I was talking on the phone. So you want to strip my right to use the cellphone just because some other people (a minority of accidents) blame their bad driving on cellphone usage.
Let me setup the test and I think I can get the results that I'm looking for out of the cellphone vs. drunk. There are so many variables and I had problems with the way that both Mythbusters and this current article performed the test.
Don't tell me that we can't do stuff like this. We've been doing it for thousands of years, in the form of domesticated plants and animals. Or do you not believe in the existence of genetic clocks and genetic sequencing?
Ugh. You missed the entire point of my definition of kinds, which is why I said 'kinds' in the first place.
From me: > If there has not been an experiment to observe a lifeform creating a new Genus (or Family) during experimentation, then it falls into the category of having less experimentational support than what can be observed in strict scientific experimentation.
So take whatever we have done with genetics and file that into the category of strict scientific experimentation. Now take all the theories of how different species/genus/family/etc came to be, which do NOT have an observable experiment to go along with it. Those would fall into a separate categories which have less scientific proof. It doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just another category.
Interesting. What's you level of understanding of Evolution. BSc Biochemistry/Zoology/Biology/Genetics? Master, or PhD? Or basic schooling with a few easy books on the side and an armchair expert?
No BS, no master, no PhD. Highschool and college classes and a whole lot of research on the side. You got it about right. However, I did not say I was an expert, nor did I say that I knew Evolution better than people with degrees in such fields. However, MOST people I know do not have degrees, they have the same level of schooling I did, but have NOT done a lot of research on the side.
Now, I didn't say the Theory of Evolution should not be a scientific theory. I said that I didn't believe in it. My belief has really nothing to do with the science behind it.
My major problems with Evolution is the presumption that change over time can create new kinds of life. By 'kinds' I mean the level on the species chart which has yet to be newly created in an experiment (probably Genus, but maybe Family). Meaning - if there has not been an experiment to observe a lifeform creating a new Genus (or Family) during experimentation, then it falls into the category of having less experimentational support than what can be observed in strict scientific experimentation. AFAIK, the support for this part of the theory comes from many other theories, which all have their own issues of concern.
Slashdot Mirror
> He's convinced Apple, Google and Facebook will be bigger in 2075,"
He's convinced Apple that Google and Facebook will be bigger? How did he do that? And why did Apple need to be convinced?
So let me get this straight.... Dropping bombs on people doesn't make them stop attacking you?
Whenever I get into an argument, I just punch the other guy in the face. That usually stops the argument and everyone walks away with a happy smile.
No, they're responding appropriately to how the story was posted. The original article is supposed to be fun. But the post says "Programmer Debunks Source Code Shown In Movies and TV Shows" and "Someone is finally pausing TV shows and movies to figure out if the code shown on screen is accurate or not." as if it's something new.
It's not new, but it is cool how deeply they investigated this stuff.
This might have been true in the 1930s and prior (when they actually had to pass a constitutional amendment in order to outlaw alcohol). But now people do not hold the constitution so highly. It's much easier to ignore now.
> And the status could change simply by having one body move further away, like Earth's moon is currently doing.
And that's a problem because....?? Eventually Earth/Moon will be a binary planet. I see no problem with that.
Seems that this is pure speculation. They are counting their chickens before they hatch. The Wii was launched in 2006. The average is 5, but sometimes 6 years. That means that it could be as long as 2012 until a new Wii is launched. I'm guessing a new Wii will be launched in 2012.
No one denies that the earth is getting warmer, but there are people that deny the cause of it (natural vs. human). "Global Warming" describes the ideology that humans are the cause of the earth getting warmer.
Ah. Thanks for the clarification.
except, it's not EDGE, so I don't know how it's 2.5G, it's GPRS with boost, but I don't know that all the stuff with GPRS will be compatible with the EDGE network for speed. I'm doubting it will, which will leave you with speeds back at 2G GPRS.
Definitely agree here. He is either an idiot or a troll. Either way, I really don't care what he says.
Mod Parent up. This is the correct link for the Relient K download. That info should've been in the slashdot article.
mod parent up!!
He's right. Apple is not going after the term 'podcast', just the term 'mypodder'.
Someone should update the Slashdot article to reflect that little tidbit rather than spreading FUD about Apple.
... if we get into serious trouble maybe. But as it is now, no one really understands how the global climate works and what effects what.
:-)
However, I am glad people are thinking about this. Maybe if the oceans start rising quickly or we start getting 120 degree weather in the summer here in Boston we should start seriously thinking about this stuff.
Maybe we should try it on Venus first?
From the iau.org site:
and
So it's not actually the 'roundness' but the amount of mass that the object has.
The barycenter is to determine what the object is actually orbiting. If it's primarily the Sun, then it's a planet. If it's primarily a planet, then it's a moon. It's pretty simple. It's not about size, it's about what it's orbiting. Otherwise, anything that was spherical because of gravity and orbited the Sun in anyway would be a planet (including a tun of Jupiter's moons).
The definition wasn't to satisfy anything but science, not to purposefully keep the Moon as being a moon or Pluto to be a planet. I challenge you, come up with a better definition which is scientific and not arbitrary.
Did you guys not read about the barycenter of gravity? Read the AU's definition. http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/NEWS.55. 0.html
The Earth-Moon isn't a double planet because the barycenter of gravity is clearly within the earth's surface because the size of the Earth is so much bigger than the Moon.
However, Pluto and Charon's barycenter of gravity is on the outside of Pluto's surface. That is why Pluto-Charon is a double planet, but not Earth-Moon. It's scientific, not arbitrary.
Could you tell me what the 'current' definition is?
The problem was that there wasn't a definition before. More of just an accepted method of measurement. And it was arbitrary. I think it was generally based off of 'anything as big or bigger than pluto is a planet'. That's not scientific at all. The new definition is great. It relies on science to determine the status of 'planet' rather than something arbitrary picked out of the sky to satisfy what people had learned in grade school.
They don't make a Treo that support UMTS or HSDPA right now. Only EDGE, which is the 2.5G tech. UMTS is 3G and HSDPA is 3.5G. However, near Boston, I get great service with EDGE on my Treo. 120kbits/sec most of the time.
I believe Cingular's HSDPA is available in Chicago, which is more like 3.5G - much faster than EVDO I believe.
For a well produced battery, I highly doubt that even the air pressure of 33,000ft would do anything to it.
But it seems there have been some poorly produced batteries lately. Maybe one of those rare instances just happened to be on that plane and just happened to be triggered by either the flight, the handling, or perhaps even the air pressure change. But my bet is on the handling or the rigors of the flight rather than the simple air pressure change.
Also, just because OpenOffice is the de-facto standard for reading/writing the OpenDocument format doesn't mean that it's the only thing you can use. And while I don't think there is a good OSS wordprocessor that does support this, there are plugins for MS Office to import and export OpenDocument. I believe they are free as well.
So the good thing about OpenDocument is that everyone can read the format. Even if you're a user with disabilities and you need to use MS Office.
And eventually, there will be a reader/writer for OpenDocument that does have good support for the disabled.
Let me state again as it has been stated many times.. you can put down the phone. You can't stop being drunk.
And the number of accidents caused by drunk driving is far more than those caused by cellphone usage. (especially serious accidents)
So maybe we should make it illegal to talk to the other passengers in the car? And if you tell me that they can point out dangerous situations.. maybe we should just make it illegal to talk to blind passengers?
I think that'll go over well.
I talk on my cellphone (handfree of course) every single day. And while I'm on the phone, I'm the one that's noticing the poor driving of the other people on the road. When I'm in a dangerous situation, I stop talking and almost stop listening. I have never been even close to an accident while I was talking on the phone. So you want to strip my right to use the cellphone just because some other people (a minority of accidents) blame their bad driving on cellphone usage.
Let me setup the test and I think I can get the results that I'm looking for out of the cellphone vs. drunk. There are so many variables and I had problems with the way that both Mythbusters and this current article performed the test.
Ugh. You missed the entire point of my definition of kinds, which is why I said 'kinds' in the first place.
From me:
> If there has not been an experiment to observe a lifeform creating a new Genus (or Family) during experimentation, then it falls into the category of having less experimentational support than what can be observed in strict scientific experimentation.
So take whatever we have done with genetics and file that into the category of strict scientific experimentation. Now take all the theories of how different species/genus/family/etc came to be, which do NOT have an observable experiment to go along with it. Those would fall into a separate categories which have less scientific proof. It doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just another category.
No BS, no master, no PhD. Highschool and college classes and a whole lot of research on the side. You got it about right. However, I did not say I was an expert, nor did I say that I knew Evolution better than people with degrees in such fields. However, MOST people I know do not have degrees, they have the same level of schooling I did, but have NOT done a lot of research on the side.
Now, I didn't say the Theory of Evolution should not be a scientific theory. I said that I didn't believe in it. My belief has really nothing to do with the science behind it.
My major problems with Evolution is the presumption that change over time can create new kinds of life. By 'kinds' I mean the level on the species chart which has yet to be newly created in an experiment (probably Genus, but maybe Family). Meaning - if there has not been an experiment to observe a lifeform creating a new Genus (or Family) during experimentation, then it falls into the category of having less experimentational support than what can be observed in strict scientific experimentation. AFAIK, the support for this part of the theory comes from many other theories, which all have their own issues of concern.