Take a look at this picture and note the position of the shadow on the rocket nozzle and the shadow of the launch vehicle cockpit of the landing gear on the right. Now compare to the picture at the bottom of this page. Note that the shadow of the cockpit is identical to the first picture, as are other shadows cast by the vehicle. But in that picture the nozzle is completely in shadow. One of the pictures must be altered.
In fact the first picture seems to be an altered version of the second picture. What's different:
The rocket nozzle.
In the first pic SpaceShipOne is mated to the launcher, in the second pic SpaceShipOne is resting on it's own landing gear.
In the second pic the launcher does not have it's jet engines installed (in fact those jet engines are not installed in any of the ground based pictures I've seen except the first pic).
What's the same:
The shadows are in exactly the same positions (so the pictures where taken at the same time of day, to within a few minutes).
The cracks in the ground are exactly the same so the vehicles have been places in the same position, despite major work having been performed (the jet engines, the mating superstructure).
The backgrounds are identical, right down to another vehicle on the tarmac obscured in exactly the same way by the landing gear on the right. All the other planes in the background are also in the same locations.
IMO, the picture of the mated vehicles has been faked from the picture of the separate vehicles. SpaceShipOne's landing gear has been removed (suspiciously leaving no hatch for it to emerge from), the mating superstructure has been added, and the launcher's jet engines have been added. I can only imagine this has been done to make it appear that they are further advanced than they actually are.
I doubt it because they don't have that kind of cash. According to their last 10-K they had 4.337 billion in cash and other liquid assets. Obviously some sort of stock deal would be necessary.
That "who knew" question was one of the stupidest things I've seen in a story posting for a while: the cash holdings of public companies are public knowledge.
Look people, the article is clearly about the use of the term "broadband" for marketing purposes and that is the context that I'm defining it in. I'm not interested in the technical definition - that is fixed and has nothing to do with the story.
1.544 Mbps ADSL, T-1, DS-1 North America
128 Kbps ISDN
Somewhere between those speeds seems like a good point to define the lower bound of "broadband". Personally I think 128K is too slow to really be broadband. 256K is marginal but probably qualifies. 512K is fast enough to be broadband.
In other words, let's just assume it's caused by humans.
Still missing the point. It doesn't matter what the cause is, it only matters whether we can reduce it's effect.
While we're at it, let's focus on the costs that don't exist (the "what if" costs), and completely ignore the costs of proposals such as the Kyoto protocol that do exist.
The "what if" costs are very large. We're talking trillions of dollars. It's like Russian roulette. Ignoring the possible risk would be foolish in the extreme. Doing nothing now may mean that we are giving up our chance to act while the costs are low. Then again any action we take might be wasted. Basically what I'm saying is that people advocating either extreme are being very short-sighted, IMHO. I'm not advocating Kyoto, but I do think it would be prudent to take what action we can without undue cost.
This only furthers the evidence that global warming has not been caused by human action.
The study shows that higher global temperatures existed in the past. It doesn't say anything about what is causing the current warming trend. Those who are opposed to emissions restrictions like to argue that the current warming trend may not be caused by humans. They may be right, but that's not the point. It does not matter if warming is human-caused or not. What matters is "is this a good trend for us?" (and it does not look good) and "can we do anything about it?" (probably).
Human activity is certainly contributing to global warming, and we can do something about that activity. So the question is then: "should we?" Given that warming seems to lead to more extreme weather, and given that any climate change is going have drastic and expensive consequences for argriculture, and given that it seems easier to induce global warming than global cooling, it seems prudent to err towards the side of trying to slow or stop the warming trend by reducing emissions where realistically possible.
It is possible that loacal warming in urban areas has contaminated surface data, skewing the results.
So how do you explain the documented increase in extreme weather? The increase in ocean temperatures? It is highly unlikely that everyone has got it all wrong and that there is no global warming at all. And again, it's better to err on the side of caution. If we convince ourselves that there is no problem and we turn out to be wrong the cost of that mistake will be extreme high.
He's talking back end database servers. And don't forget that Microsoft purchased Hotmail in 1998 - it's entirely likely that they wouldn't be in any sort of hurry to migrate to a new platform.
A general purpose dictionary definition is not very helpful in this case. Show me a definition from a computer science dictionary or a legal dictionary and I'll grant it has some weight. Webster's is not an authority on technical meanings.
Be careful to get the unrated US version of "Dead Alive" that is 97 minutes long and not the R rated 85 min version. The international version "Brain Dead" is 104 minutes long, but Jackson has stated that he prefers the 97 minute version. Details on IMDB.
Fair enough, I'm not criticising your position, just trying to understand it. You keep comming back here, and you clearly read the comments so you obviously are interested in other users input. You've posted more comments than I have, in a shorter period of time; some 800-odd comments in 3 or 4 years, right? That probably puts you in the top 5% of Slashdot readers in terms of use of the site. It seems like you get value from the site, yet you don't feel it's worth paying for.
All of the news stories are from somewhere else, submitted by users, commented on and moderated by users. If they are going to post duplicate stories, spelling and grammar errors, and dingus stories like this one, then I don't feel it is worth paying for.
It sounds like you don't want to pay for Slashdot because you don't see the value in the aggregation service. You seem to think that since Slashdot is not generating the content directly so they don't deserve compensation for the resources that they contribute. If that's the case then I doubt any improvement in the editing of the site would be enough to entice you to subscribe. Do you read other similar sites, like Fark or Kuro5hin?
One thing that struck me was the implication from the core team that they didn't know about the issues that Keith Packard is concerned about and that Keith never said anything. There are piles of people on the list and elsewhere with the same concerns, particularly the difficulty in getting code into the official tree. That leads me to conclude that the core team are hopelessly out of touch with the majority of their community, and the fact that no one has been added to core since 1999 (or perhaps this is out of date?) supports that conclusion.It's also interesting that the mailing list that these discussions are now happening on has been in existance since the 19th of March, some 3 days.
Unfortunately we don't, and probably never will, know the exact circumstances behind this split in developer ranks. It mirrors Matt Dillon's recent dismissal from the FreeBSD project.
Weta was founded by Peter Jackson to handle the special effects for his previous movies, which were very gory action movies involving zombies and aliens (Bad Taste, Dead Alive) and required a lot of prosthetics, face masks, etc. so he started Weta with a few friends to handle that.
Close, but not quite. Weta Workshop was not formed specifically to work on Peter Jackson's films, and did some work on TV series and commericals before providing physical effects for Meet the Feebles, PJ's second movie after Bad Taste. However this article was about Weta Digital which is the digital effects division that was formed in 1993 to do the digital effects on Heavenly Creatures.
SCO was the outfit with the hot tub in the courtyard of the original company offices and the source of numerous interesting legends. There was a lot of cross-fertilization with SGI and Sun
Is that what the hot tub got used for? I hope it got cleaned regularly.
(2)Moderation is already based towards early posters. But since subscribers will likely only represent a small percentage of all posting, I can't imagine more than a few dozen comments making it inside this window.
There should be ways around this if it became a problem. Maybe randomise the order of posts/threads for moderators. Or disallow moderation for the first 45mins or so.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact the first picture seems to be an altered version of the second picture. What's different:
- The rocket nozzle.
- In the first pic SpaceShipOne is mated to the launcher, in the second pic SpaceShipOne is resting on it's own landing gear.
- In the second pic the launcher does not have it's jet engines installed (in fact those jet engines are not installed in any of the ground based pictures I've seen except the first pic).
What's the same:- The shadows are in exactly the same positions (so the pictures where taken at the same time of day, to within a few minutes).
- The cracks in the ground are exactly the same so the vehicles have been places in the same position, despite major work having been performed (the jet engines, the mating superstructure).
- The backgrounds are identical, right down to another vehicle on the tarmac obscured in exactly the same way by the landing gear on the right. All the other planes in the background are also in the same locations.
IMO, the picture of the mated vehicles has been faked from the picture of the separate vehicles. SpaceShipOne's landing gear has been removed (suspiciously leaving no hatch for it to emerge from), the mating superstructure has been added, and the launcher's jet engines have been added. I can only imagine this has been done to make it appear that they are further advanced than they actually are.Check out this screenshot for windows casting shadows. Apparently the server doesn't currently do this, but it's a nice effect.
That "who knew" question was one of the stupidest things I've seen in a story posting for a while: the cash holdings of public companies are public knowledge.
Look people, the article is clearly about the use of the term "broadband" for marketing purposes and that is the context that I'm defining it in. I'm not interested in the technical definition - that is fixed and has nothing to do with the story.
He's talking back end database servers. And don't forget that Microsoft purchased Hotmail in 1998 - it's entirely likely that they wouldn't be in any sort of hurry to migrate to a new platform.
Have you tried Mozilla 1.3? It's noticable faster than earlier versions. There is no way that Netscape 6/7 is faster than Mozilla 1.3.
A general purpose dictionary definition is not very helpful in this case. Show me a definition from a computer science dictionary or a legal dictionary and I'll grant it has some weight. Webster's is not an authority on technical meanings.
It is indeed a New Zealand production.
One of my favourites.
Yep, I thought it was a very good flick.
And it worked. They appear to have fixed it.
Unfortunately we don't, and probably never will, know the exact circumstances behind this split in developer ranks. It mirrors Matt Dillon's recent dismissal from the FreeBSD project.
You don't get to say that often.
So you read /. every day, but you don't think you're getting something of value. That doesn't make sense to me. Why do you keep coming back?
What do SGI use to connect those bricks together?
According to this you might be a planet soon.