When you have to find a way to build the plant so that the only thing coming out of the stack is water vapor, you will also find that it is a fiscal and physical impossibility.
That's no good either. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.:)
I doubted this from the beginning, as Relativity Theory clearly predicts that external observers cannot watch anything fall beyond the event horizon.
Well you can, sort of. As something falls toward the event horizon, the light coming from it gets more and more redshifted (longer wavelength, lower energy) until it goes beyond our ability to detect it.
Can anyone name ONE good design that came out of a US company,
Dodge Viper? Chrysler PT Cruiser? Plymouth Prowler? Chevy Corvette?
Lately it seems like all the good designers work at Chrysler and all the bad ones work at GM (I think the new Impalas are *really* ugly, not to mention those Pontiac Aztecs or whatever), the Corvette being the exception at GM.:)
Still, in this job, you get used to dealing with ignorance (I'm a programmer).
I guess I must be ignorant then, because I do not naturally think in OO terms. I understand OO; I can code OO; but it's just not how my brain works. I had a similar (but much bigger!) problem with functional programming in college. Or maybe it's just C++ I have problems with. I code on a MUD using LPC, which has a lot of OO features, and it's just so much cleaner than C++.
I won't say OO is a load of rubbish, but I will say that trying to apply it everywhere is a mistake.
One of the basic assumptions is that the human brain is built to think about the world in terms of things that have properties and behaviour. We can think in terms of procedures and execution flow as well, but we're not nearly as good at it.
I disagree, but maybe I just have a weird brain.:) When I sit down to code, I think about what I have to start with, what I want the result to be, and how I am going to get there. In other words, I think about things in terms of procedures and execution flow. I don't think about objects or properties or any of the other stuff OO is noted for.
Don't get me wrong, I *can* write OO code if I have to, but I have to think a lot harder. I know this was one of the intentions: OOP makes you plan out things before you start. But I don't naturally think that way. Maybe it's because I started with BASIC on my C64 and moved to C; I dunno. If I had started with C++ maybe I would agreee with you.:)
I don't know if this is a troll or not, but what the hell...
Although the theory of evolution has many supporters, such as Sagan, this has no relevance to the truth of the matter.
"Evolution" is a fact as much as "gravity" is a fact. There are several theories of evolution to explain how it works, just as there are theories to explain how gravity works.
Today we can see evolution's supports slowly crumbling, because of new evidence.
Such as....?
In immense numbers of years it took to evolve these features, they would have simply served as a useless hunk of flesh that made life difficult.
how about complaints that no matter how many missions we send to planets (Mars) we never find anything. We keep sending missions out looking for water and find nothing...
What do you mean we never find anything? The pictures alone are worth it. Take the Pathfinder and Viking missions. We have pictures taken on the *surface of another planet*; to me that's just the coolest thing. All we have of pluto is some fuzzy images taken from Hubble. The chance to see close up what's out there, even if it's just a dirty ball of rock, is worthwhile.
No, they didn't send robots to take those pictures.
Um, yes they did, at least for some of them. I remember reading a story about it in National Geographic (I think) a few years ago.
In some areas the radiation was so bad that it fogged up the camera.
I also remember that the "sarcophagus" is pretty lousy as a containment building. There are some fairly large openings. Birds fly in and out freely, and there was danger that the whole thing was going to collapse. There was talk about building a *second* sarcophagus around the first one, but I guess that never happened.
Its gravity is so weak, due to its small mass it could only capture *one* moon!
The Earth probably didn't capture the moon. Latest theory is that another planet about the size of Mars crashed into the Earth at very low angle and sheared off a lot of rock that went into orbit. After a while, some of the material collected to form the moon.
One of the nice things about 10-digit dialing is that it now opens up new exchanges and new area codes. It used to be that area codes always had a 0 or 1 as a middle digit, and that exchanges never did. This allowed the switch to be able to tell an area code from an exchange.
Er, AFAIK, the 0/1 middle digitt restriction on area codes went away several years ago. Western Pennsylvania got a new 724 area code, but I don't think they have 10-digit dialing. The switching equipment just got smarter.:)
It seems to me that the Copernican effect is running out of control. Every day, almost, scientists strive to convince us that we are small and insignificant as a civilisation.
Sorry, but on the large scale, we are beneath notice. You are one human among countless billions of other life forms, on a very tiny planet, orbiting a smallish star, 30000 light years from the center of an unremarkable galaxy.
We, the human race, are the most important things we know of.
Why? Most of the oxygen in the atmosphere come from algae in the oceans; surely the algae is more important than us? I bet the dolphins think they're pretty important too.
I purport that in this age of guilt trips and materialism run riot, they should be striving to show the opposite ; just how important we are.
Science is not about making people feel good; it's about trying to find out the truth. Whether people *like* the truth or not is a different matter.
It would require a 2/3 majority in US Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the States to amend the US Constitution to 'do away with' the Electoral College.
Er, you don't have to do away with it. You could do things like split a state's electoral votes based on percentage of popular vote won. You don't need a Constitutional amendment to do that.
Therefore, even the smallest of states get 4 EC votes.
I think the minimum is 3 EC votes.
My own opinion is that the EC system stinks the way it is. Let's say for argument that there are 18 states that have the minimum 3 votes. Now let's say that Candidate A wins California by 1000 votes and that Candidate B wins each of the small states by 10,000 votes. They both get equal numbers of electoral votes. Why should 1000 people in California have as much influence as 180,000 people in the other states?
The best compromise solution (IMO) is probably to split each state's votes. If a candidate gets 40% of the popular vote in a state, they get 40% of the state's electoral votes.
You're assuming that the students even *care* who wins. We only voted for the Homecoming Queen in my school, and I voted for the one who was in my home room. Name recognition, see. She didn't win, even though I thought she was prettier than the winner.:)
Nerd 7, Jocks 0?? I don't get it. What's the big obsession on Slashdot with perpetuating silly stereotypes? It's like people here actually believe that they are B-movie nerds, waging an eternal war against jocks.
Well, I don't know whhere you went to high school, but where I went (in 1989), there were pretty much 4 kinds of students:
In fact, the main complaints people have are that they lose their interest deducations or their house, chartible contributions, etc...
(sigh)
My main complaint is this:
Some Rich Bugger
Income: 250,000
Tax : 50,000
Net : 200,000
Me
Income: 60,000
Tax : 12,000
Net : 48,000
SRB can live a lot easier on his 200k net than I can on my 48k. And no, I don't suggest that we tax the SRB until he ends up making the same as I do, but even if he payed an extra 15%, he's a lot better off than I am.
Slashdot Mirror
That's no good either. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. :)
Well you can, sort of. As something falls toward the event horizon, the light coming from it gets more and more redshifted (longer wavelength, lower energy) until it goes beyond our ability to detect it.
Dodge Viper? Chrysler PT Cruiser? Plymouth Prowler? Chevy Corvette?
Lately it seems like all the good designers work at Chrysler and all the bad ones work at GM (I think the new Impalas are *really* ugly, not to mention those Pontiac Aztecs or whatever), the Corvette being the exception at GM. :)
I'm kind of partial to my Mustang. :)
Actually, the Sun is the closest star. Proxima Centauri is a distant second. :)
I guess I must be ignorant then, because I do not naturally think in OO terms. I understand OO; I can code OO; but it's just not how my brain works. I had a similar (but much bigger!) problem with functional programming in college. Or maybe it's just C++ I have problems with. I code on a MUD using LPC, which has a lot of OO features, and it's just so much cleaner than C++.
I won't say OO is a load of rubbish, but I will say that trying to apply it everywhere is a mistake.
I disagree, but maybe I just have a weird brain. :) When I sit down to code, I think about what I have to start with, what I want the result to be, and how I am going to get there. In other words, I think about things in terms of procedures and execution flow. I don't think about objects or properties or any of the other stuff OO is noted for.
Don't get me wrong, I *can* write OO code if I have to, but I have to think a lot harder. I know this was one of the intentions: OOP makes you plan out things before you start. But I don't naturally think that way. Maybe it's because I started with BASIC on my C64 and moved to C; I dunno. If I had started with C++ maybe I would agreee with you. :)
Hmm, I must have been hallucinating the huge line I had to stand in at Border's Books the other day. Thank you for setting me straight.
Although the theory of evolution has many supporters, such as Sagan, this has no relevance to the truth of the matter.
"Evolution" is a fact as much as "gravity" is a fact. There are several theories of evolution to explain how it works, just as there are theories to explain how gravity works.
Today we can see evolution's supports slowly crumbling, because of new evidence.
Such as....?
In immense numbers of years it took to evolve these features, they would have simply served as a useless hunk of flesh that made life difficult.
Wrong. See the talk.origins website.
I wish I had moderator privs today. :-b
What do you mean we never find anything? The pictures alone are worth it. Take the Pathfinder and Viking missions. We have pictures taken on the *surface of another planet*; to me that's just the coolest thing. All we have of pluto is some fuzzy images taken from Hubble. The chance to see close up what's out there, even if it's just a dirty ball of rock, is worthwhile.
I wonder if he's talking about the *old* animated (sort of) movies, which mostly sucked, or the new live-action movies, which aren't out yet. :)
The heart monitor was on an Atari800.
No. :) Jupiter is a planet; Ganymede is a satellite of Juptier.
Following up to myself :)....
I did a search on nationalgeographic.com, and it might have been the May 1987 issue, if you want to look it up.
Um, yes they did, at least for some of them. I remember reading a story about it in National Geographic (I think) a few years ago.
In some areas the radiation was so bad that it fogged up the camera.
I also remember that the "sarcophagus" is pretty lousy as a containment building. There are some fairly large openings. Birds fly in and out freely, and there was danger that the whole thing was going to collapse. There was talk about building a *second* sarcophagus around the first one, but I guess that never happened.
The Earth probably didn't capture the moon. Latest theory is that another planet about the size of Mars crashed into the Earth at very low angle and sheared off a lot of rock that went into orbit. After a while, some of the material collected to form the moon.
OK, I live in a box. But it's over a nice warm grating and it's on the bus line. So ner!
Er, AFAIK, the 0/1 middle digitt restriction on area codes went away several years ago. Western Pennsylvania got a new 724 area code, but I don't think they have 10-digit dialing. The switching equipment just got smarter. :)
Not around here (area codes 703 and 301). We've had to dial all 10 for a good while now. Still haven't quite got used to it, but it's no big deal.
Sorry, but on the large scale, we are beneath notice. You are one human among countless billions of other life forms, on a very tiny planet, orbiting a smallish star, 30000 light years from the center of an unremarkable galaxy.
We, the human race, are the most important things we know of.
Why? Most of the oxygen in the atmosphere come from algae in the oceans; surely the algae is more important than us? I bet the dolphins think they're pretty important too.
I purport that in this age of guilt trips and materialism run riot, they should be striving to show the opposite ; just how important we are.
Science is not about making people feel good; it's about trying to find out the truth. Whether people *like* the truth or not is a different matter.
Er, you don't have to do away with it. You could do things like split a state's electoral votes based on percentage of popular vote won. You don't need a Constitutional amendment to do that.
I think the minimum is 3 EC votes.
My own opinion is that the EC system stinks the way it is. Let's say for argument that there are 18 states that have the minimum 3 votes. Now let's say that Candidate A wins California by 1000 votes and that Candidate B wins each of the small states by 10,000 votes. They both get equal numbers of electoral votes. Why should 1000 people in California have as much influence as 180,000 people in the other states?
The best compromise solution (IMO) is probably to split each state's votes. If a candidate gets 40% of the popular vote in a state, they get 40% of the state's electoral votes.
My net pay: $48,000
Your net pay: $72,000
You can still live a hell of a lot better on your 72 grand than I can on my 48.
I think the flat tax is one of the stupidest economic ideas anyone ever devised. But maybe that's just me.
You're assuming that the students even *care* who wins. We only voted for the Homecoming Queen in my school, and I voted for the one who was in my home room. Name recognition, see. She didn't win, even though I thought she was prettier than the winner. :)
Well, I don't know whhere you went to high school, but where I went (in 1989), there were pretty much 4 kinds of students:
Maybe it's changed these days; I don't know.
(sigh)
My main complaint is this:
Some Rich Bugger
Income: 250,000
Tax : 50,000
Net : 200,000
Me
Income: 60,000
Tax : 12,000
Net : 48,000
SRB can live a lot easier on his 200k net than I can on my 48k. And no, I don't suggest that we tax the SRB until he ends up making the same as I do, but even if he payed an extra 15%, he's a lot better off than I am.