Indeed. It would be an impossibly large volume of water. That's why it's viewed as one of the miracles in the Bible -- a miracle being something that happens but does not follow natural laws. Something that can only happen if God decides to suspend the laws of nature and make it happen.
I think it's much more likely that some people saw something and utterly misunderstood it. That would appear to be a common human failing, even today.
Perhaps it wasn't 17000 feet tall at the time. Simply because the earth currently has "deep" oceans and "high" mountains doesn't mean that it always did.
I find it even harder to believe that the remains of a wooden boat would remain on a mountain long enough for such radical geological changes to take place.
Car headlights are deliberately trying to not have an even light distribution - that's what all those pretty patterns in the headlamp cover are for.
The "pretty patterns" aren't so much to not get an even light distribution as to shape and focus the beam. I'm pretty sure the designers don't care very much about small irregularities in the headlight beam, so long as the beam is directed in the proper direction and maintains good overall brightness.
There's a reason projectors (overhead or video) use fancy bulbs. They need lots of brightness and even lighting.
My living room needs a lot of brightness and lighting. My car needs a lot of brightness and lighting.
Even lighting. Point your car headlights at a wall or garage door and observe the pattern. It's not even pretending to be an even light distribution. Your living room lights are somewhat similar, but more importantly they don't have the proper spectrum to accurately, consistently represent colors.
Projector bulbs are high-precision instruments. Car headlights and living room lamp bulbs simply aren't.
This is true, but the part of the ice that is above the waterline is entirely made up of the extra "structure that... is less dense than liquid H2O". Hence, when melted it will compact back into liquid and NOT raise the sea level. It's a question of mass, not volume!
Please see my reply to the peer of your comment. This is simply not true. Because seawater is denser than pure (for certain values of "pure") water, melting ice in seawater will take up more volume than the displaced seawater.
The mass of salt water displaced is equal to the total mass of the iceberg (above and beneath the waterline).
True.
So except for the small difference in density between salt water and fresh water, melting an iceberg doesn't raise the sea level.
The masses are equal, not the volumes.
subscript s -> displaced seawater subscript i -> iceberg subscript w -> melted iceberg
Mi = Mw = Ms Vw*Dw = Vs*Ds Vw/Vs = Ds/Dw = (1.026 kg/m3)/(1.000 kg/m3) = 1.026
Thus, the volume of the melted iceberg will be 1.026 times, or 2.6% greater, than the displaced seawater.
A 2.6% increase is non-zero, nor can it be made zero by hand-waving.
Another thing to consider is that this melting ice will reduce density of the surrounding water closer to pure water levels, causing existing ice sheets to require increasing volumes of displaced seawater to support their weight. This must also raise sea levels.
ice from the north pole displaces just as much water when it's ice as when it's water - because it's floating, melting that shouldn't change the level.
BINGO! You are correct. But acknowledging this fact would mess up a perfectly dandy argument in favor of the Kyoto protocol. That's why it tends to get conveniently overlooked...
Actually, as posted elsewhere, this is incorrect. Frozen H2O forms a structure that actually is less dense than liquid H2O, which is why ice floats.
Don't forget that much of this ice is above the waterline, which once melted would transfer below the waterline, raising sea level.
Contrary to popular belief, downloading music (pirated or not) is NOT illegal.
It would be nice if you supported this, but you didn't. All you provided was some scheme for claiming you didn't know what you were doing, which doesn't actually address whether it's legal or not.
Since all you have to rely on is the NAME of the file you are downloading, you can claim negligence. Hey, how are we supposed to know if the song is pirated or not? What if we live in a cave? Brittney Spears, who?
"Honest, your Honor, for all I knew the owner wanted someone to take his car. He left it running with the keys in the ignition..."
[...] Much to my surprise, I got cable feed, and it WASN'T connected, but it ran parallel to a connected cable. I guess induction did it somehow. [...]
If it was a good signal, it's more likely to have actually been connected.
Coaxial cables have coaxial conductors to minimize crosstalk and interference. Good cables would have very low crosstalk, and even really poor ones should only give you a poor signal.
Seeing the article on/., I had the uneasy feeling that this was a late April Fools prank. Unfortunately, reading the article didn't dispell that feeling.
What is the appeal of turning everything into a competitive event? Whether its music, literature or programming, someone somewhere is trying to convert a self-contained creative process into a "Nyah, nyah, my college/school/town I'm better than deal." What happened to the satisfaction of doing something for its own sake?
What is the appeal of complaining about activities that other people enjoy but the complainer doesn't understand?
I have had Rackspace do the same thing when I worked for a company that was a major Rackspace customer. Their PR team provided some quotes and the CEO of our company picked the ones he liked and attached his name to them. It happens all the time.
Probably because some[1] CEOs don't have sufficient diction and grammar to write anything suitable for release.
[1] The reader is free to choose a stronger qualifier if desired.
.zip is vicious too. I've seen several copies of a virus that tries to look like its being sent from the staff of your domain, and says that you have to unlock your email account because of abuse. The instructions are in a.zip archive and the mail provides you with a password to "unlock" the archive.
This is just to prevent anti-virus tools from scanning the compressed archive. If the virus is known and detectable by the ZIP file, once you supply the correct password, the virus should be detected when being extracted from the archive. (Assuming your scanner supports scanning of new files that hit the disk, and this feature is enabled.)
This tactic wouldn't seem to be all that effective. The more manual steps you give the user, the less likely they'll be able to do all of them to completion without goofing up, and the less likely the lazier ones will want to bother.
Instead of trying to make the spammers do something to help us--which they clearly have no incentive to do--why not get spam-lovers to help? We can set up some standard place for people like this guy--say, a specific domain (gimmespam.com? ibuyeverything.com?). Anyone could get an email account there; maybe it would even be a Yahoo! Mail-like webmail service.
And either way, the choice should really be up to the web site owner. I'm sure most would prefer that people see their content versus having their server crushed, but you never know until you ask.
This sounds like something analagous to the Robot Exclusion Protocol. Perhaps a Slashdot Impact Avoidance Protocol? Allow the site maintainer to direct which resources should be cached to avoid massive bandwidth spikes by sites like Slashdot and which should not.
Say, a step motor and some mechanical jiggery-pokery ending with a stiff wire, a hook on its end, the layers would have tabs with holes in them to pull at.
And you could guarantee this would work millions of miles in a hostile low-pressure, low-temperature environment?
Or.. a glue between layers that deteriorates on contact with Martian athmosphere and so the layers will peel off after a fixed (based on chemistry) time.
What, a molting rover?
I mean, give me a break, those took less then 10 seconds to come up with [...]
And that time and attention to detail show, believe me.
Is Junit any way linked with extreme programming? It sound that their goals are quite identical. However their ore informationmore informationsection doesn't mention JUnit anywhere.
Well, JUnit's website has the title, "JUnit, Testing Resources for Extreme Programming".
If you read 'The Light of Other Days' by Arthur C Clarke & Stephen Baxter you'll get a good insight into the possible consequences. While the book is centred around the idea that wormholes can be used to view anyone at any time, knowing what people think would have the same effect of first causing terrible unrest but eventually destroying barriers and allowing everyone to work together. It's a very interesting read and I feel that every day we get closer to that reality.
Indeed, the wormholes eventually allow groups of people to share their thoughts, but the obvious difference there is that the sharing of thoughts is bi-directional and only possible after an implant.
I'm sure once a tool is invented that allows reception of an individual's thoughts or motivations, a small subset of society will monopolize and abuse it before it ever becomes a commonly-available tool.
So I read the article on deuceofclubs - what exactly does that have to do with Free Speech? Sounds to me like Trademark or copyright violation or maybe even fraud...but not free speech.
To me, this particular case illustrates that there's a very nebulous line between intellectual property, trademarks, copyrights, and free speech, at least when it comes to art.
Making a statement in art seems very much like an aspect of free speech. Is that only when the art doesn't cost anything? When you're an artist that actually wants to make a career out of creating art, does that mean you're not allowed to parody, satire, or generally make a statement using aspects of our society that happen to be trademarked or copyrighted?
Part of the point of this was that at the same time, U2 was using other's copyrighted content without reimbursement in their own concerts. They'd no doubt argue that this was done for their art, but apparently other artists aren't allowed to do likewise, not when it involves U2 trademarks an content. (Note that this was mainly a spat between labels, but U2 declined to make a stand on principle when it came to this particular spat.)
Anyway, this is a bit off-topic, so I'll not belabor the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. It would be an impossibly large volume of water. That's why it's viewed as one of the miracles in the Bible -- a miracle being something that happens but does not follow natural laws. Something that can only happen if God decides to suspend the laws of nature and make it happen.
I think it's much more likely that some people saw something and utterly misunderstood it. That would appear to be a common human failing, even today.
Perhaps it wasn't 17000 feet tall at the time. Simply because the earth currently has "deep" oceans and "high" mountains doesn't mean that it always did.
I find it even harder to believe that the remains of a wooden boat would remain on a mountain long enough for such radical geological changes to take place.
Car headlights are deliberately trying to not have an even light distribution - that's what all those pretty patterns in the headlamp cover are for.
The "pretty patterns" aren't so much to not get an even light distribution as to shape and focus the beam. I'm pretty sure the designers don't care very much about small irregularities in the headlight beam, so long as the beam is directed in the proper direction and maintains good overall brightness.
There's a reason projectors (overhead or video) use fancy bulbs. They need lots of brightness and even lighting.
My living room needs a lot of brightness and lighting. My car needs a lot of brightness and lighting.
Even lighting. Point your car headlights at a wall or garage door and observe the pattern. It's not even pretending to be an even light distribution. Your living room lights are somewhat similar, but more importantly they don't have the proper spectrum to accurately, consistently represent colors.
Projector bulbs are high-precision instruments. Car headlights and living room lamp bulbs simply aren't.
This is true, but the part of the ice that is above the waterline is entirely made up of the extra "structure that ... is less dense than liquid H2O". Hence, when melted it will compact back into liquid and NOT raise the sea level. It's a question of mass, not volume!
Please see my reply to the peer of your comment. This is simply not true. Because seawater is denser than pure (for certain values of "pure") water, melting ice in seawater will take up more volume than the displaced seawater.
The mass of salt water displaced is equal to the total mass of the iceberg (above and beneath the waterline).
True.
So except for the small difference in density between salt water and fresh water, melting an iceberg doesn't raise the sea level.
The masses are equal, not the volumes.
subscript s -> displaced seawater
subscript i -> iceberg
subscript w -> melted iceberg
Mi = Mw = Ms
Vw*Dw = Vs*Ds
Vw/Vs = Ds/Dw = (1.026 kg/m3)/(1.000 kg/m3) = 1.026
Thus, the volume of the melted iceberg will be 1.026 times, or 2.6% greater, than the displaced seawater.
A 2.6% increase is non-zero, nor can it be made zero by hand-waving.
Another thing to consider is that this melting ice will reduce density of the surrounding water closer to pure water levels, causing existing ice sheets to require increasing volumes of displaced seawater to support their weight. This must also raise sea levels.
ice from the north pole displaces just as much water when it's ice as when it's water - because it's floating, melting that shouldn't change the level.
BINGO! You are correct. But acknowledging this fact would mess up a perfectly dandy argument in favor of the Kyoto protocol. That's why it tends to get conveniently overlooked...
Actually, as posted elsewhere, this is incorrect. Frozen H2O forms a structure that actually is less dense than liquid H2O, which is why ice floats.
Don't forget that much of this ice is above the waterline, which once melted would transfer below the waterline, raising sea level.
Contrary to popular belief, downloading music (pirated or not) is NOT illegal.
It would be nice if you supported this, but you didn't. All you provided was some scheme for claiming you didn't know what you were doing, which doesn't actually address whether it's legal or not.
Since all you have to rely on is the NAME of the file you are downloading, you can claim negligence. Hey, how are we supposed to know if the song is pirated or not? What if we live in a cave? Brittney Spears, who?
"Honest, your Honor, for all I knew the owner wanted someone to take his car. He left it running with the keys in the ignition..."
Congratulations, you confused bits and bytes.
Doh.
(Don't ask me why it merited "Interesting", even ignoring that error.)
[...] Much to my surprise, I got cable feed, and it WASN'T connected, but it ran parallel to a connected cable. I guess induction did it somehow. [...]
If it was a good signal, it's more likely to have actually been connected.
Coaxial cables have coaxial conductors to minimize crosstalk and interference. Good cables would have very low crosstalk, and even really poor ones should only give you a poor signal.
At 6.25Gb/s, about 6 seconds. I can hear MPAA quaking in their boots. Or, if you prefer, you could stream about 600 DVDs simultaneously. *drool*
Alas, even RAM-based SAN devices can't keep up with that bandwidth by half. Time to use latency of network loops as a storage mechanism. =)
Seeing the article on /., I had the uneasy feeling that this was a late April Fools prank. Unfortunately, reading the article didn't dispell that feeling.
Would someone really do this?
All software of any complexity is inherently buggy.
Your claim implies that there does not exist any software, of any complexity, that is not correct.
I invite you to prove this, since trivial counter-examples would seem easy to construct using software with complexity of a handful of instructions.
What is the appeal of turning everything into a competitive event? Whether its music, literature or programming, someone somewhere is trying to convert a self-contained creative process into a "Nyah, nyah, my college/school/town I'm better than deal." What happened to the satisfaction of doing something for its own sake?
What is the appeal of complaining about activities that other people enjoy but the complainer doesn't understand?
I have had Rackspace do the same thing when I worked for a company that was a major Rackspace customer. Their PR team provided some quotes and the CEO of our company picked the ones he liked and attached his name to them. It happens all the time.
Probably because some[1] CEOs don't have sufficient diction and grammar to write anything suitable for release.
[1] The reader is free to choose a stronger qualifier if desired.
you must be new here, but if you must know, the joke is in your hands.
You have missed the joke. Perhaps this is due to it not being tired, overused, and easily-spotted, but it's funny all the same.
This is just to prevent anti-virus tools from scanning the compressed archive. If the virus is known and detectable by the ZIP file, once you supply the correct password, the virus should be detected when being extracted from the archive. (Assuming your scanner supports scanning of new files that hit the disk, and this feature is enabled.)
This tactic wouldn't seem to be all that effective. The more manual steps you give the user, the less likely they'll be able to do all of them to completion without goofing up, and the less likely the lazier ones will want to bother.
Detecting USB controller...
Detecting peripheral: PC104 Keyboard...
Detecting untrusted user at Keyboard!
20000 volts sent to keyboard...
Thus frying my cat.
Instead of trying to make the spammers do something to help us--which they clearly have no incentive to do--why not get spam-lovers to help? We can set up some standard place for people like this guy--say, a specific domain (gimmespam.com? ibuyeverything.com?). Anyone could get an email account there; maybe it would even be a Yahoo! Mail-like webmail service.
Only one problem: who will pay for this?
Die-hard spammers have already tried to divert spam to willing recipients, paying people to receive advertisements, and it failed. So long as cost-shifting their advertisements makes them money, spammers will continue to spew unsolicited junk to unwilling recipients.
And either way, the choice should really be up to the web site owner. I'm sure most would prefer that people see their content versus having their server crushed, but you never know until you ask.
This sounds like something analagous to the Robot Exclusion Protocol. Perhaps a Slashdot Impact Avoidance Protocol? Allow the site maintainer to direct which resources should be cached to avoid massive bandwidth spikes by sites like Slashdot and which should not.
Say, a step motor and some mechanical jiggery-pokery ending with a stiff wire, a hook on its end, the layers would have tabs with holes in them to pull at.
And you could guarantee this would work millions of miles in a hostile low-pressure, low-temperature environment?
Or.. a glue between layers that deteriorates on contact with Martian athmosphere and so the layers will peel off after a fixed (based on chemistry) time.
What, a molting rover?
I mean, give me a break, those took less then 10 seconds to come up with [...]
And that time and attention to detail show, believe me.
Is Junit any way linked with extreme programming? It sound that their goals are quite identical. However their ore informationmore informationsection doesn't mention JUnit anywhere.
Well, JUnit's website has the title, "JUnit, Testing Resources for Extreme Programming".
[possible spoilers]
If you read 'The Light of Other Days' by Arthur C Clarke & Stephen Baxter you'll get a good insight into the possible consequences. While the book is centred around the idea that wormholes can be used to view anyone at any time, knowing what people think would have the same effect of first causing terrible unrest but eventually destroying barriers and allowing everyone to work together. It's a very interesting read and I feel that every day we get closer to that reality.
Indeed, the wormholes eventually allow groups of people to share their thoughts, but the obvious difference there is that the sharing of thoughts is bi-directional and only possible after an implant.
I'm sure once a tool is invented that allows reception of an individual's thoughts or motivations, a small subset of society will monopolize and abuse it before it ever becomes a commonly-available tool.
So I read the article on deuceofclubs - what exactly does that have to do with Free Speech? Sounds to me like Trademark or copyright violation or maybe even fraud...but not free speech.
To me, this particular case illustrates that there's a very nebulous line between intellectual property, trademarks, copyrights, and free speech, at least when it comes to art.
Making a statement in art seems very much like an aspect of free speech. Is that only when the art doesn't cost anything? When you're an artist that actually wants to make a career out of creating art, does that mean you're not allowed to parody, satire, or generally make a statement using aspects of our society that happen to be trademarked or copyrighted?
Part of the point of this was that at the same time, U2 was using other's copyrighted content without reimbursement in their own concerts. They'd no doubt argue that this was done for their art, but apparently other artists aren't allowed to do likewise, not when it involves U2 trademarks an content. (Note that this was mainly a spat between labels, but U2 declined to make a stand on principle when it came to this particular spat.)
Anyway, this is a bit off-topic, so I'll not belabor the issue.
I don't know why he bothers. U2 isn't exactly giving their music away for free... Seems like a conflict of interest to me.
I know this was meant as a joke, but U2 isn't exactly into free speech anyway.