How many episodes would this fight take. Geez, the fight with Frieza where they were supposed to have 5 min. left ended up taking >20 episodes. A fight with funimation would take even longer, and you'd have to go after Cartoon Network too, who I'm sure have some sort of right to it now. Plus, wouldn't that mean either the game or the show is defeated? I'd rather have both.
You have a choice of either getting links to M$N or Netscapes's site if you use IE or Netscape. Both companies exploit this opportunity. It's up to you do decide which is worse. Or you could skip it all and use another browser like Opera. It all boils down to personal preference.
While I know that they have been beaten out by nVidia lately and are making over-priced & under-performing cards, I can't help feel a little sadness over this loss. Like them or not, 3dfx did play a large role in pushing the limits of consumer video cards a while back and probably inspired much of the competition leading to the foundation of the major card companies today. Perhaps it's just nostalgia left over from the time I drooled over the Voodoo 2s, but I think 3dfx should be given some appreciation for the work they did in the past. Don't get me wrong- I love my GeForce 2:P. I just think they deserve some praise/credit. Am I totally wrong?
This sounds like a great new hacking project/field if it ever catches on. It's risky, but think of the payoff. A whole air force at your command. MUHUHAHA. Also, these new aircraft would presumably have to have contact with the ground. Wouldn't it be easy to jam/disable this contact and send them spiraling to their demise? Just a thought.
What's odd is that (here in Florida) they are saying that Gore has won, but that Bush received 49% of the vote and Gore received only 48%. I would think they would label FL 'too close to call' at this point since not all of the districts or precincts or whatever have reported. The major networks, however, are no longer talking about FL so I don't know what there statistics show. It will be interesting to see if anything develops from this.
Aside from rights to a few popular game characters, M$ doesn't really have much to gain from buying Sega. Making a new console system doesn't exactly involve top secret technology, and M$ has already been working on their own for a while. Sega has some industry experience, but obviously it doesn't have the answer to succeding in the console system market. All they will inherit from sega besides a few characters is a company already in the red with an obsolete console system on the market. It's not really a lucrative gain. Perhaps they feel that a popular character can carry a platform. That's not really the case. Mario games or Sonic games that seem to debut with Sega/Nintendo systems are actually fun games. The fact that they feature a specific character helps, but in the end, game quality tends to carry a system further than a well-known face. (and please don't bring pokemon into this. They are crappy games that carry the gameboy now, but that is a different category. That is a kiddy craze. Sonic & co. are not.)
Perhaps there is something I just don't get about the possible deal. Feel free to inform me of anything I have overlooked/interpreted incorrectly.
From what I understand of stock market speculation, it has numerous negative side effects. First of all, it artificially inflates our economy. It can be nice for a while and magically create wealth, but it really can't last forever. As we have learned from what happened with the western land specuation during the 'Era of Good Feelings', the stock market speculation during the 'Roaring 20s', and numerous other examples throughout our history, the bottom will fall out eventually. Usually, when it bottoms out, it won't just settle at its actual worth, but it will fall below and cause a serious recession/depression. This is obviously a negative side effect and there is actually a chance that it could happen soon. The market right now is already inflated by speculation and recently, the trend has been slowly downward. If it can adjust itself slowly this way, then all should work out fairly smoothly. But when speculators crowd the marked, the results are unpredictable and dangerous.
Also, Speculation can harm businesses. With speculation, it is not uncommon to see a particular stock triple its value suddenly and lose it all by the end of the week. This kind of constant aggrivation leaves businesses with no sense of their actual worth and of their financial situation. When businesses are fooled by this manipulation of the market, it can cause bankruptcy or at least heavy financial losses. If an economy is to be stable, growth or decline must happen gradually, not overnight. Again, the results of speculation can be disastrous.
Obviously, people become speculators for the money. If it becomes harder to profit from it, then it will become less common, the market will be an accurate representation of the American economy, and the economy will behave more predictably and midly. One way to curb the speculation is to tax it. Higher taxes mean smaller returns which then means less incentive. Who knows, people may just turn back to long-term investment (something far less harmful) if short-term speculation becomes less profitable. That is probably Nader's motivation behind taxing the speculation. He's thinking long-term economic health is more important than unmaintainable short-term rapid growth.
I think it is important to note that although Nader sees the side effects of speculation bad, he doesn't neccessarily want to eliminate it altogether. Without risk, after all, not much progress can be made. Also, speculation can create an economic stimulant to begin real economic growth when the time is right. However, this is not the time. Also, it is important to point out that the majority of speculators actually lose money, while only a few strike it rich. The temporary prosperity it creates generally isn't for the average speculator, but for businesses and high-profile speculators.
Actually, the core would remain hot enough for a long time. A planet like this is not hot enough to fuse hydrogen, but it certainly would have enough heat to radiate it everywhere for a long time. Sure it will eventualy cool down, but so will any star (unless it blows up, but then I suppose that cools it down too). The environment would be very volitile, but it would not be conducive to carbon-based life. Perhaps ammonia or methane based life could exist if certain circumstances were just right, but this is highly unlikely and nobody even knows if life could be based on these chemicals yet. Chemosynthesis (the reaction taking the place of photosynthesis that is found by the deep see vents off the west coast of South America) might be possible, but it's quite a stretch.
Also, tectonic movement is not an issue for a planet of this size as it is almost certainly gasseous and not solid. Also, tectonic activity on rocky planets is likely caused by an active and hot core, not the other way around.
This is interesting.
Actaully, they are closer to brown dwarfs than anything else. Also, almost all planets put out their own radiation (which is a form of light). Jupiter, for example, is hot enough to put out quite a bit of radiation without the sun. So, by the standard definition, I don't think even earth counts as a planet. I'm sure earth puts out some radiation on the lower end of the scale (radio waves and such which count as light, just not visible light). But perhaps the dictionary meaning isn't the one used in astronomy. If it is, I think it needs to be updated. Either that, or ignored.
If I understand my basic astronomy correctly, most planets form at about the same time stars form. When the big ball of gas that will be a star begins to be drawn in by its own gravity, it starts to spin (someting about angular momentum). As it spins, sometimes a disk of gas and whatever was in the gas forms around it. These gases and other materials begin to form clumps and eventually some generate enough gravitational attraction to suck other clumps into them until they too form a somewhat dense ball. These clumps in the disk surrounding the forming star become the planets and eventually suck up most of the stuff the star didn't.
If we find an isolated planet like the one mentioned, it simply means that there was enough gas to cause contraction, but not enough to create a central pressure great enough to cause a temperature of aobut 10^7 Kelvins (I think that's the right temperature) so that Hydrogen fusion will take place. It probably formed from a small, somewhat isolated, interstellar cloud. That is precisely what a brown dwarf is, except they are usually bigger. It is a would-be star, but there just was not enough raw material available for hydrogen fusion. Jupiter is the closest thing in our solar system to being a brown dwarf. We might have had a binary solar system had enough gas collected where jupiter is, however, it did not. Instead the pressure at jupiter's center only causes temperatures high enough for metallic hydrogen (I think that's what it's called) to exist. It's not nearly hot enough for fusion. I believe that a brown dwarf has to reach about 80 times Jupiter's mass to be considered a brown dwarf.
I think I saw someone ask something about life on a planet like this. It is highly unlikely because of the volitile environment, enormous (by earth's standards) gravity, and presumably very hot surface (think Jupiter). The planet would almost certainly not be solid like earth because of its size and because of the concentration of material in space. If there is enough material to form a solid rock that size, then there is probably an ass-load (couldn't think of a better term) of material around and you could bet that there would be a large star near the planet.
Another thing that could be an issue is the definition of a planet. Generally the definition of a planet includes the fact that it orbits something. If an isolated planet-like structure exits wihtout a star and it is not large enough to be a brown dwarf, then we may have a new category of atronomical object on our hands. Either that or we have to change the definition of one of these things (most likely brown dwarf or planet). Or it could be that a planet doesn't have to orbit something by the astronomical definition and I'm completely wrong. Either way is fine with me.
Ok, I think that is plenty of information. Sorry if I've bored you or made lots of mistakes typing/spelling. Also, my facts may not be exactly correct, but I believe they are all correct in a general sense. If not, feel free to call me an idiot and correct me.
Is it just me or does this seem kind of pointless?
This sounds like an intersting debate, but I can't really understand what significance this debate will have. First of all, this issue has been around for a long time now, and most everybody intersted in it already knows each sides' reasoning. Also, it's probably not going to change any laws/court rulings. If you know anything about the debators, you know where each one stands and what they will argue for. Both sides will doubtless have valid points, and in the end everything will boil down to personal philosophy. Still, if anyone attended the debate, it would be nice to have a summary of each sides points.
Oh well, at least I'll be able to use my 89 on standardized tests like the APs and SATs (I'm a high schooler). I doubt they'd let you get away with and MP3 playing monster of a calculator on those tests. That won't stop me from getting one, of course (unless TI comes out with a similar product).
Are you guys nuts??? That POS crashes all the time. I used R3 for the F.I.R.S.T Autodesk Animation Competition this year at my school. Sure it was a pretty good program, but you would think that they could work some bugs out of it. After all, it retails for about $3000 a copy. I ran it on a Win98 machine that (unfortunately) had 64MB RAM. However, I added another 64 later and it was just as unstable. I also had a TNT2 and DirectX 6.1.
Does this mean I can launch stuff from my backyard
on
Launch Limits Lifted
·
· Score: 3
Wow, that's great news for evil masterminds everywhere. When Dr. Evil comes back down, he'll be tickled pink. He can finally get a legal, certified "Big Boy".
Everyone knows that Netscape sucks balls. IE is slightly better, but is not good either. The best browser is Opera. If you're not using Opera, you're either not at your own computer, or you're stupid.
The law Utah is about to pass is illegal. There is simply no other way to think about it. The constitution gives the media the freedom to print pretty much whatever they want. Along with that right is the right of people to have legal access to what the media legally prints. Sure there are some restrictions about what the press can print like the press can't lie about people (slander), but there are not content restrictions. Basically what the government is doing is forcing libraries that want government funding to violate the government's own constitution. It seems that the government should actually restrcit funding to the libraries that do block "sites", as they are called in the vague wording of the illegal law, on the internet.
This problem does not just exist in Utah libraries, either. Censorship like this also happens to be in effect at numerous places. My school is an example. At my high school all sorts of content is blocked. Public school is a government institution, yet it violates one of the fundamental priciples of this country. It doesn't matter that most of the students at my high school are still minors. That just means that according to another law (and one that might also be illegal) they cannot view pornography. The way the shcool sensors everything, however, doesn't just block the "sites" that minors cant view. It also blocks thousands of useful sites and thousands of sites with non-shcool related content.
The question then comes down to whether the United Sates Government or State, County, or City Governments have the right to violate the United States Constitution. The answer should, of course, be NO! Citizens of the United States have a guaranteed right to legally access legal material. The government can't make the material that is right now legally blocked legally illegal without drasticly modifying the Constitution.
They have already made pornography illegal for minors, a choice that is not the governments to make. The choice should be left to the parents of the minor, because they are the one's in charge of the minor. The government's job as a government elected by the people is not to tell the people what is suitable for them to see and unsuitable for them to see. That is not far from the way the communists ran things. They hid (censored) information they didn't want people to see. By doing so, they were able to distribute propaganda that nobody could argue with. In this manner they corrupted their country and eventually ruined it too.
It is obvious that this is a step that is not desirable. The government should focus its power on keeping people from fighting each other to death so that attention can be given to other things. Instead, the government is censoring things that its framework says it is not supposed to be doing. This just causes people to get angry and try to fight each other (not to death in this case, but it is still not a positive thing).
Something seems to be wrong with the America we are living in today. The government is trying to make it illegal to follow the constitution. What is the next step? Modifying the Constitution to the exact opposite of what it says now? I hope this doesn't turn into a "four legs good... to legs better" situation (George Orwell reference). Perhaps an appropriate way to end this comment that turned into an essay is with Patrick Henry's famouse quote: "Give me liberty or give me death."
I've never been happier that I don't watch X-Files
on
X-Files FPS Episode
·
· Score: 1
Thanks to my personal goal to never watch a single episode of the X-Files, I was not disappointed by last night's apparently horrible episode. I encourage others to make a similar commitment. Hopefully, actions like this one will eventually vanquish the evil of mediocre prime-time television.
Slashdot Mirror
How many episodes would this fight take. Geez, the fight with Frieza where they were supposed to have 5 min. left ended up taking >20 episodes. A fight with funimation would take even longer, and you'd have to go after Cartoon Network too, who I'm sure have some sort of right to it now. Plus, wouldn't that mean either the game or the show is defeated? I'd rather have both.
You have a choice of either getting links to M$N or Netscapes's site if you use IE or Netscape. Both companies exploit this opportunity. It's up to you do decide which is worse. Or you could skip it all and use another browser like Opera. It all boils down to personal preference.
While I know that they have been beaten out by nVidia lately and are making over-priced & under-performing cards, I can't help feel a little sadness over this loss. Like them or not, 3dfx did play a large role in pushing the limits of consumer video cards a while back and probably inspired much of the competition leading to the foundation of the major card companies today. Perhaps it's just nostalgia left over from the time I drooled over the Voodoo 2s, but I think 3dfx should be given some appreciation for the work they did in the past. Don't get me wrong- I love my GeForce 2 :P. I just think they deserve some praise/credit. Am I totally wrong?
This sounds like a great new hacking project/field if it ever catches on. It's risky, but think of the payoff. A whole air force at your command. MUHUHAHA.
Also, these new aircraft would presumably have to have contact with the ground. Wouldn't it be easy to jam/disable this contact and send them spiraling to their demise? Just a thought.
What's odd is that (here in Florida) they are saying that Gore has won, but that Bush received 49% of the vote and Gore received only 48%. I would think they would label FL 'too close to call' at this point since not all of the districts or precincts or whatever have reported. The major networks, however, are no longer talking about FL so I don't know what there statistics show. It will be interesting to see if anything develops from this.
Aside from rights to a few popular game characters, M$ doesn't really have much to gain from buying Sega. Making a new console system doesn't exactly involve top secret technology, and M$ has already been working on their own for a while. Sega has some industry experience, but obviously it doesn't have the answer to succeding in the console system market. All they will inherit from sega besides a few characters is a company already in the red with an obsolete console system on the market. It's not really a lucrative gain. Perhaps they feel that a popular character can carry a platform. That's not really the case. Mario games or Sonic games that seem to debut with Sega/Nintendo systems are actually fun games. The fact that they feature a specific character helps, but in the end, game quality tends to carry a system further than a well-known face. (and please don't bring pokemon into this. They are crappy games that carry the gameboy now, but that is a different category. That is a kiddy craze. Sonic & co. are not.)
Perhaps there is something I just don't get about the possible deal. Feel free to inform me of anything I have overlooked/interpreted incorrectly.
From what I understand of stock market speculation, it has numerous negative side effects. First of all, it artificially inflates our economy. It can be nice for a while and magically create wealth, but it really can't last forever. As we have learned from what happened with the western land specuation during the 'Era of Good Feelings', the stock market speculation during the 'Roaring 20s', and numerous other examples throughout our history, the bottom will fall out eventually. Usually, when it bottoms out, it won't just settle at its actual worth, but it will fall below and cause a serious recession/depression. This is obviously a negative side effect and there is actually a chance that it could happen soon. The market right now is already inflated by speculation and recently, the trend has been slowly downward. If it can adjust itself slowly this way, then all should work out fairly smoothly. But when speculators crowd the marked, the results are unpredictable and dangerous.
Also, Speculation can harm businesses. With speculation, it is not uncommon to see a particular stock triple its value suddenly and lose it all by the end of the week. This kind of constant aggrivation leaves businesses with no sense of their actual worth and of their financial situation. When businesses are fooled by this manipulation of the market, it can cause bankruptcy or at least heavy financial losses. If an economy is to be stable, growth or decline must happen gradually, not overnight. Again, the results of speculation can be disastrous.
Obviously, people become speculators for the money. If it becomes harder to profit from it, then it will become less common, the market will be an accurate representation of the American economy, and the economy will behave more predictably and midly. One way to curb the speculation is to tax it. Higher taxes mean smaller returns which then means less incentive. Who knows, people may just turn back to long-term investment (something far less harmful) if short-term speculation becomes less profitable. That is probably Nader's motivation behind taxing the speculation. He's thinking long-term economic health is more important than unmaintainable short-term rapid growth.
I think it is important to note that although Nader sees the side effects of speculation bad, he doesn't neccessarily want to eliminate it altogether. Without risk, after all, not much progress can be made. Also, speculation can create an economic stimulant to begin real economic growth when the time is right. However, this is not the time. Also, it is important to point out that the majority of speculators actually lose money, while only a few strike it rich. The temporary prosperity it creates generally isn't for the average speculator, but for businesses and high-profile speculators.
Actually, the core would remain hot enough for a long time. A planet like this is not hot enough to fuse hydrogen, but it certainly would have enough heat to radiate it everywhere for a long time. Sure it will eventualy cool down, but so will any star (unless it blows up, but then I suppose that cools it down too). The environment would be very volitile, but it would not be conducive to carbon-based life. Perhaps ammonia or methane based life could exist if certain circumstances were just right, but this is highly unlikely and nobody even knows if life could be based on these chemicals yet. Chemosynthesis (the reaction taking the place of photosynthesis that is found by the deep see vents off the west coast of South America) might be possible, but it's quite a stretch.
Also, tectonic movement is not an issue for a planet of this size as it is almost certainly gasseous and not solid. Also, tectonic activity on rocky planets is likely caused by an active and hot core, not the other way around.
This is interesting.
Actaully, they are closer to brown dwarfs than anything else. Also, almost all planets put out their own radiation (which is a form of light). Jupiter, for example, is hot enough to put out quite a bit of radiation without the sun. So, by the standard definition, I don't think even earth counts as a planet. I'm sure earth puts out some radiation on the lower end of the scale (radio waves and such which count as light, just not visible light). But perhaps the dictionary meaning isn't the one used in astronomy. If it is, I think it needs to be updated. Either that, or ignored.
If I understand my basic astronomy correctly, most planets form at about the same time stars form. When the big ball of gas that will be a star begins to be drawn in by its own gravity, it starts to spin (someting about angular momentum). As it spins, sometimes a disk of gas and whatever was in the gas forms around it. These gases and other materials begin to form clumps and eventually some generate enough gravitational attraction to suck other clumps into them until they too form a somewhat dense ball. These clumps in the disk surrounding the forming star become the planets and eventually suck up most of the stuff the star didn't.
If we find an isolated planet like the one mentioned, it simply means that there was enough gas to cause contraction, but not enough to create a central pressure great enough to cause a temperature of aobut 10^7 Kelvins (I think that's the right temperature) so that Hydrogen fusion will take place. It probably formed from a small, somewhat isolated, interstellar cloud. That is precisely what a brown dwarf is, except they are usually bigger. It is a would-be star, but there just was not enough raw material available for hydrogen fusion. Jupiter is the closest thing in our solar system to being a brown dwarf. We might have had a binary solar system had enough gas collected where jupiter is, however, it did not. Instead the pressure at jupiter's center only causes temperatures high enough for metallic hydrogen (I think that's what it's called) to exist. It's not nearly hot enough for fusion. I believe that a brown dwarf has to reach about 80 times Jupiter's mass to be considered a brown dwarf.
I think I saw someone ask something about life on a planet like this. It is highly unlikely because of the volitile environment, enormous (by earth's standards) gravity, and presumably very hot surface (think Jupiter). The planet would almost certainly not be solid like earth because of its size and because of the concentration of material in space. If there is enough material to form a solid rock that size, then there is probably an ass-load (couldn't think of a better term) of material around and you could bet that there would be a large star near the planet.
Another thing that could be an issue is the definition of a planet. Generally the definition of a planet includes the fact that it orbits something. If an isolated planet-like structure exits wihtout a star and it is not large enough to be a brown dwarf, then we may have a new category of atronomical object on our hands. Either that or we have to change the definition of one of these things (most likely brown dwarf or planet). Or it could be that a planet doesn't have to orbit something by the astronomical definition and I'm completely wrong. Either way is fine with me.
Ok, I think that is plenty of information. Sorry if I've bored you or made lots of mistakes typing/spelling. Also, my facts may not be exactly correct, but I believe they are all correct in a general sense. If not, feel free to call me an idiot and correct me.
Is it just me or does this seem kind of pointless?
This sounds like an intersting debate, but I can't really understand what significance this debate will have. First of all, this issue has been around for a long time now, and most everybody intersted in it already knows each sides' reasoning. Also, it's probably not going to change any laws/court rulings. If you know anything about the debators, you know where each one stands and what they will argue for. Both sides will doubtless have valid points, and in the end everything will boil down to personal philosophy. Still, if anyone attended the debate, it would be nice to have a summary of each sides points.
oops, that was supposed to be hear (not here) in case you are confused.
Ever here of these things called WARS!!!!
Think Kosovo for a recent example.
Let's hope that they don't run on WinCE :)
Oh NO!!! The Blue Face of DEATH!!
Oh well, at least I'll be able to use my 89 on standardized tests like the APs and SATs (I'm a high schooler). I doubt they'd let you get away with and MP3 playing monster of a calculator on those tests. That won't stop me from getting one, of course (unless TI comes out with a similar product).
Are you guys nuts??? That POS crashes all the time. I used R3 for the F.I.R.S.T Autodesk Animation Competition this year at my school. Sure it was a pretty good program, but you would think that they could work some bugs out of it. After all, it retails for about $3000 a copy. I ran it on a Win98 machine that (unfortunately) had 64MB RAM. However, I added another 64 later and it was just as unstable. I also had a TNT2 and DirectX 6.1.
Oops. I typed "to" when I ment "two" in my Animal Farm reference. Sorry I didn't catch it. Please disregard the error or at least forgive me.
The law Utah is about to pass is illegal. There is simply no other way to think about it. The constitution gives the media the freedom to print pretty much whatever they want. Along with that right is the right of people to have legal access to what the media legally prints. Sure there are some restrictions about what the press can print like the press can't lie about people (slander), but there are not content restrictions. Basically what the government is doing is forcing libraries that want government funding to violate the government's own constitution. It seems that the government should actually restrcit funding to the libraries that do block "sites", as they are called in the vague wording of the illegal law, on the internet.
This problem does not just exist in Utah libraries, either. Censorship like this also happens to be in effect at numerous places. My school is an example. At my high school all sorts of content is blocked. Public school is a government institution, yet it violates one of the fundamental priciples of this country. It doesn't matter that most of the students at my high school are still minors. That just means that according to another law (and one that might also be illegal) they cannot view pornography. The way the shcool sensors everything, however, doesn't just block the "sites" that minors cant view. It also blocks thousands of useful sites and thousands of sites with non-shcool related content.
The question then comes down to whether the United Sates Government or State, County, or City Governments have the right to violate the United States Constitution. The answer should, of course, be NO! Citizens of the United States have a guaranteed right to legally access legal material. The government can't make the material that is right now legally blocked legally illegal without drasticly modifying the Constitution.
They have already made pornography illegal for minors, a choice that is not the governments to make. The choice should be left to the parents of the minor, because they are the one's in charge of the minor. The government's job as a government elected by the people is not to tell the people what is suitable for them to see and unsuitable for them to see. That is not far from the way the communists ran things. They hid (censored) information they didn't want people to see. By doing so, they were able to distribute propaganda that nobody could argue with. In this manner they corrupted their country and eventually ruined it too.
It is obvious that this is a step that is not desirable. The government should focus its power on keeping people from fighting each other to death so that attention can be given to other things. Instead, the government is censoring things that its framework says it is not supposed to be doing. This just causes people to get angry and try to fight each other (not to death in this case, but it is still not a positive thing).
Something seems to be wrong with the America we are living in today. The government is trying to make it illegal to follow the constitution. What is the next step? Modifying the Constitution to the exact opposite of what it says now? I hope this doesn't turn into a "four legs good... to legs better" situation (George Orwell reference). Perhaps an appropriate way to end this comment that turned into an essay is with Patrick Henry's famouse quote: "Give me liberty or give me death."
Thanks to my personal goal to never watch a single episode of the X-Files, I was not disappointed by last night's apparently horrible episode. I encourage others to make a similar commitment. Hopefully, actions like this one will eventually vanquish the evil of mediocre prime-time television.