My right hand is in front of and slightly above my head, palm facing down. I rapidly move my hand to a position of similar altitude behind my head while saying the following: "Whoosh!"
In case you didn't get that, either, my original (GP) post was meant to be an amusing send-off on comments to ask.slashdot.org that complain that a questioner should use Google to find the answer to his/her question. Since "go" is a common English word, the submitter would be unlikely to be able to find anything informative about the game "Go" simply by using Google to search for it (without heavily qualifying the search). (Note my comment about nearly half a billion page hits, which should have made obvious the humorous nature of my post.)
I expect my GP post to be modded "Funny" any minute now. Once that happens, then perhaps people like you will be able to interpret it correctly.
(In case you are still unable to comprehend my superior sense of humor, I will state here that, in this post, the second sentence in the first paragraph, the first sentence in the third paragraph, and the first phrase of the parenthesized forth paragraph, are all meant to be somewhat amusing.)
Why are you people doing this guy's work for him? Is he too lazy to Google for "Go"? I just did, and it came up with nearly half a billion web sites that mention "Go" in one form or another. He should be able to find something useful on one of them.
if you move about in any direction [...] you change the [...] orbit of the Earth
I think that I sould clarify that the reason that the orbit changes is due to tidal effects of the Sun and Moon. Tidal effects on the Moon due to the Earth's gravity are causing the Moon's orbit to (slowly) increase. A similar tidal effect of Mars on Phobos is causing that moon to decrease its orbit. The Sun causes a tidal effect on the Earth. I don't know whether this effect is decreasing or increasing Eath's orbit, but moving around will (immeasurably) change the tidal effect, thus altering Earth's orbit.
if there was sufficient force applied to the thing pulling against the anchor on earth so that the ribbon connecting it to earth wouldn't twist, wouldn't that force be enough to alter the balance of earth? in fact, wouldn't it eventually change the orbit of earth?
Yes to both questions (if, by "balance", you mean "center of gravity"), but the amount would be so small as to be immeasurable. Note that if you climb a hill (actually, if you move about in any direction), you change the balance and orbit of the Earth. Every day, tons of material (mostly dust-sized meteors) are raining down onto the Earth from Outer Space. This material is altering the balance and orbit of the Earth far more than any Space Elevator would.
if we lower cable from a geostationary point, it will drift eastward, and cable raised from the Earth will drift westward, both due to the conservation of angular momentum. How will this be countered?
Simply reverse the polarity of the plasma relays and reconfigure the deflector dish to emit a tachyon pulse.
Not necessarily. A more accurate statement would be "a real general purpose language must be able to compile itself.". Some languages fulfill narrow requirements that may not include compiling. Adding compiling ability to such a language may make it less efficient for fulfilling its primary purpose. Some examples of languages that would probably be made worse if self-compiling ability were added: SQL, APL, and most "descriptive" languages (e.g., HTML, XML, and other SGML derivatives, POV-Ray source, map source for games, etc.).
you should have the option to say that under no cercumstates is your domain to be transfered.
You do. Many DN registrars have an option to "lock" your domain, to prevent it from being transfered to another registrar. The new ICANN rules specifically state that such a locked domain is not subject to transfer.
I think that most people here are misinterpreting the new rules. From what I can see, they're not to make DNs easier to steal from their owners; they're to make it easier to transfer DNs from one registrar to another. The problem is that the new rules make it easier for one registrar to steal a DN from another (although the owner does not change).
I've opened a zillion tabs and they just get tiny.
Once they get small enough that only the icon is visible, they stop shrinking. (This is on MS-Windows 95; I haven't tried it yet on Linux (because I can't get the stupid serial port to work).) I am also running my monitor at 1600x1200, but don't use the whole screen, only about 1200x800. At that size, the tabs start shrinking and running off the right-hand side once 37 tabs are open.
Thanks for the info. I am going to be giving Firefox another try, first, though. According to other posters, the latest version already has this feature.
Thanks for the info. I am currently using Mozilla, which does not have this feature. The last time that I tried Firefox, it didn't have this feature. I will give it another try.
Thanks for the info. The last time that I tried Firefox, it didn't have this feature. I am currently using Mozilla, which does not have this feature. I will give Firefox another try.
it's incredibly difficult to middle-click the wheel.
I inevitably end up scrolling up or down a line
I have the opposite problem with my Microsoft mouse. I can't scroll up without clicking the MMB. When I scroll down, it's 50/50 whether I click it. (The thing needs either stronger MMB springs or a weaker scroll detent.)
Tabbed browsing (I don't use this my self) 3rd button triggers new tab when on a link, or triggers fast/slow scroll Bookmarks better defined
Mozilla has tabbed browsing and middle-button-opens-new-tab.
Now, what I want (among other things) is:
Clicking on bookmark link opens link in new tab.
Ability to scroll the tab bar, so that when I have 50 or so tabs open, I can see the ones on the right-hand side.
Have a download queue, so that only two or three files are downloading at once. Also, save the queue across sessions.
Saving file saves to file hierarchy based on link name (yes, I am one of those people who saves files to, for example, "basedir/http/207.200.85.49/pub/mozilla.org/firefo x/releases/1.0/source/firefox-1.0-source.tar.bz2") . And, finally,
Can display mangled HTML (e.g., Slashdot pages) in a somewhat reasonable way (without having to type ^+ ^0 each time).
There are other things that I would like, but those will do for a start.
People know (or should know) what these people are like. You know what Bush is like. You know what he is going to (try to) do to this country in the next four years. You know what Kerry would have done in the next four years. Now, if he changes direction, or does something totally outrageous (like covering up connections to a third-rate burglary, blaming the citizens of the country for a recession, trading arms for hostages, invading a sovereign nation and kidnapping its president because he is suspected of having ties to a drug-smuggling operation, committing perjury, invading a sovereign nation because its leader once tried to have his father killed), then, yes, go ahead and complain, but not if he does what he said he'd do. I mean, what did you expect? What did you expect?
Someone once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result[*]. By this measure, most of the people in the U.S. are insane (or happy with the way things are, which, IMO, is insane).
[*] I don't necessarily agree with this definition, but I am using it to try to change the subject and obscure any weaknesses in my prior argument.)
Any Libertarian who says that only some people have the right to complain isn't really a Libertarian. Everyone has the right to complain.
OK, I phrased that badly. I should have written something like "have no cause to complain" or "shouldn't be complaining" rather than "have no right to complain". By "right", I did not mean "inalienable right" or "constitutionally guaranteed right"; I meant moral or ethical right, in the manner of "If you didn't study for the test, you have no right to complain if you failed it.".
BTW, I am not a Libertarian (at least, not a big "L" Libertarian); I just (usually) vote that way.
"intrested" should be "interested". Also, "Those who voted for the winning candidate" should be "Those of us who voted" etc. Finally, "in the next four years" should probably be "during the next four years".
I would prefer that people who aren't intrested in voting stay away from the polls. They shouldn't complain afterwords, of course. Those of us who voted for the winning candidate also have no right to complain. Only those of us who voted, and whose candidate lost, have any right to complain, and I have a feeling that a lot of people will be complaining in the next four years. (As a person who almost always votes Libertarian, I have spent nearly 25 years complaining.)
A more important question is "Should it be governed?".
The Internet has flourished precisely because it was not under governmental control. It should remain so. Now, some would argue that lack of governmental control has led to things like spam, online kiddie porn, libel, etc., that governments need to control. I would argue that some of these things (e.g., spam) have a technological solution, and others (e.g., kiddie porn) are already illegal in the "real" world. Questions of jurisdiction can be handled similarly to those of the telephone or TV.
There are two overriding reasons that governments want to control the Internet: censorship and taxation. We should resist governmental control of the Internet (or of most things, for that matter) as much as we can.
Back then different computer models couldn't use the same keyboards, printers
Most computers could use the same printer, because pretty much everyone (that provided printer support) supported the Centronics parallel interface. This interface has been around since at least 1975 (when I first used it), and is the same interface that the parallel port on your PC uses (except that the plug is different; the original had 36 contacts). I even used this interface to print to a printer from my KIM-II (6502, 1K RAM 2K ROM, hex keypad input, 6-digit 7-segment LED output).
It's not "America", it's the "United States of America"
I agree. I usually use the abbreviation "U.S." or one of the acronyms "US" or "USA" to refer to the United States of America. (Yes, I know that there is more than one country that is named the "United States" (e.g., the "United States of Mexico" (and since Mexico is part of North America, then technically, the "United States of America" should include all American States, including Mexico's)). It's kind of weird that my country doesn't have a name so much as a description.) However, "America" is the name that the U.S. Congress used when naming the Act.
Looking at the moon can easily be done with some modded mars rovers, which is a much cheaper and easier way than creating all new robots.
They'd have to be modded more than you may think. For example, since the Moon is (effectively) airless, the craft can't use aerobraking and parachutes to help it land. Also, the gravity on the surface of the Moon is one-half that on the surface of Mars, so bits of the structure will be shaved off to take advantage of this and to save weight. In addition, since there is no effective Lunar atmosphere, any air-sampling instrumentation will be useless. Finally, because the Moon rotates more slowly than Mars, a Lunar rover will spend about 14 days in darkness, so it can't use solar cells for power/recharge unless it wants to be inactive half the time. The long Lunar day also means that the temperature range that the rover must endure is much higher than that on Mars.
By the time all of this is taken into account, it would probably be better to design a Lunar rover from scratch, using the experience gained from the Martian rovers (and other sources), than it would be to modifiy a Martian rover to perform on the Moon.
if you're going back to Luna to stay, then there's no point in sending robots... since you'll send yourself along to do all the exploring, surveying and construction.
I see nothing wrong with sending up robots first, to build the habitats in which humans will live, to plant the farms that will produce the food that humans will eat, to do some initial scientific research, and so forth. As long as a major goal of the program is to get people there, I have no problem with robots going there first.
Slashdot Mirror
My right hand is in front of and slightly above my head, palm facing down.
I rapidly move my hand to a position of similar altitude behind my head while saying the following: "Whoosh!"
In case you didn't get that, either, my original (GP) post was meant to be an amusing send-off on comments to ask.slashdot.org that complain that a questioner should use Google to find the answer to his/her question.
Since "go" is a common English word, the submitter would be unlikely to be able to find anything informative about the game "Go" simply by using Google to search for it (without heavily qualifying the search).
(Note my comment about nearly half a billion page hits, which should have made obvious the humorous nature of my post.)
I expect my GP post to be modded "Funny" any minute now.
Once that happens, then perhaps people like you will be able to interpret it correctly.
(In case you are still unable to comprehend my superior sense of humor, I will state here that, in this post, the second sentence in the first paragraph, the first sentence in the third paragraph, and the first phrase of the parenthesized forth paragraph, are all meant to be somewhat amusing.)
Why are you people doing this guy's work for him?
Is he too lazy to Google for "Go"?
I just did, and it came up with nearly half a billion web sites that mention "Go" in one form or another.
He should be able to find something useful on one of them.
Tidal effects on the Moon due to the Earth's gravity are causing the Moon's orbit to (slowly) increase.
A similar tidal effect of Mars on Phobos is causing that moon to decrease its orbit.
The Sun causes a tidal effect on the Earth.
I don't know whether this effect is decreasing or increasing Eath's orbit, but moving around will (immeasurably) change the tidal effect, thus altering Earth's orbit.
Note that if you climb a hill (actually, if you move about in any direction), you change the balance and orbit of the Earth.
Every day, tons of material (mostly dust-sized meteors) are raining down onto the Earth from Outer Space.
This material is altering the balance and orbit of the Earth far more than any Space Elevator would.
A more accurate statement would be "a real general purpose language must be able to compile itself.".
Some languages fulfill narrow requirements that may not include compiling.
Adding compiling ability to such a language may make it less efficient for fulfilling its primary purpose.
Some examples of languages that would probably be made worse if self-compiling ability were added: SQL, APL, and most "descriptive" languages (e.g., HTML, XML, and other SGML derivatives, POV-Ray source, map source for games, etc.).
Many DN registrars have an option to "lock" your domain, to prevent it from being transfered to another registrar.
The new ICANN rules specifically state that such a locked domain is not subject to transfer.
I think that most people here are misinterpreting the new rules.
From what I can see, they're not to make DNs easier to steal from their owners; they're to make it easier to transfer DNs from one registrar to another.
The problem is that the new rules make it easier for one registrar to steal a DN from another (although the owner does not change).
(This is on MS-Windows 95; I haven't tried it yet on Linux (because I can't get the stupid serial port to work).)
I am also running my monitor at 1600x1200, but don't use the whole screen, only about 1200x800.
At that size, the tabs start shrinking and running off the right-hand side once 37 tabs are open.
Thanks for the info.
I am going to be giving Firefox another try, first, though.
According to other posters, the latest version already has this feature.
Thanks for the info.
I am currently using Mozilla, which does not have this feature.
The last time that I tried Firefox, it didn't have this feature.
I will give it another try.
Thanks for the info.
The last time that I tried Firefox, it didn't have this feature.
I am currently using Mozilla, which does not have this feature.
I will give Firefox another try.
I can't scroll up without clicking the MMB.
When I scroll down, it's 50/50 whether I click it.
(The thing needs either stronger MMB springs or a weaker scroll detent.)
Now, what I want (among other things) is:
- Clicking on bookmark link opens link in new tab.
- Ability to scroll the tab bar, so that when I have 50 or so tabs open, I can see the ones on the right-hand side.
- Have a download queue, so that only two or three files are downloading at once. Also, save the queue across sessions.
- Saving file saves to file hierarchy based on link name (yes, I am one of those people who saves files to, for example, "basedir/http/207.200.85.49/pub/mozilla.org/firef
o x/releases/1.0/source/firefox-1.0-source.tar.bz2") . And, finally, - Can display mangled HTML (e.g., Slashdot pages) in a somewhat reasonable way (without having to type ^+ ^0 each time).
There are other things that I would like, but those will do for a start.People know (or should know) what these people are like.
You know what Bush is like.
You know what he is going to (try to) do to this country in the next four years.
You know what Kerry would have done in the next four years.
Now, if he changes direction, or does something totally outrageous (like covering up connections to a third-rate burglary, blaming the citizens of the country for a recession, trading arms for hostages, invading a sovereign nation and kidnapping its president because he is suspected of having ties to a drug-smuggling operation, committing perjury, invading a sovereign nation because its leader once tried to have his father killed), then, yes, go ahead and complain, but not if he does what he said he'd do.
I mean, what did you expect?
What did you expect?
Someone once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result[*].
By this measure, most of the people in the U.S. are insane (or happy with the way things are, which, IMO, is insane).
[*] I don't necessarily agree with this definition, but I am using it to try to change the subject and obscure any weaknesses in my prior argument.)
I should have written something like "have no cause to complain" or "shouldn't be complaining" rather than "have no right to complain".
By "right", I did not mean "inalienable right" or "constitutionally guaranteed right"; I meant moral or ethical right, in the manner of "If you didn't study for the test, you have no right to complain if you failed it.".
BTW, I am not a Libertarian (at least, not a big "L" Libertarian); I just (usually) vote that way.
"intrested" should be "interested".
Also, "Those who voted for the winning candidate" should be "Those of us who voted" etc.
Finally, "in the next four years" should probably be "during the next four years".
They shouldn't complain afterwords, of course.
Those of us who voted for the winning candidate also have no right to complain.
Only those of us who voted, and whose candidate lost, have any right to complain, and I have a feeling that a lot of people will be complaining in the next four years.
(As a person who almost always votes Libertarian, I have spent nearly 25 years complaining.)
The Internet has flourished precisely because it was not under governmental control.
It should remain so.
Now, some would argue that lack of governmental control has led to things like spam, online kiddie porn, libel, etc., that governments need to control.
I would argue that some of these things (e.g., spam) have a technological solution, and others (e.g., kiddie porn) are already illegal in the "real" world.
Questions of jurisdiction can be handled similarly to those of the telephone or TV.
There are two overriding reasons that governments want to control the Internet: censorship and taxation.
We should resist governmental control of the Internet (or of most things, for that matter) as much as we can.
This interface has been around since at least 1975 (when I first used it), and is the same interface that the parallel port on your PC uses (except that the plug is different; the original had 36 contacts).
I even used this interface to print to a printer from my KIM-II (6502, 1K RAM 2K ROM, hex keypad input, 6-digit 7-segment LED output).
Falling into their trap only encourages them.
I usually use the abbreviation "U.S." or one of the acronyms "US" or "USA" to refer to the United States of America.
(Yes, I know that there is more than one country that is named the "United States" (e.g., the "United States of Mexico" (and since Mexico is part of North America, then technically, the "United States of America" should include all American States, including Mexico's)).
It's kind of weird that my country doesn't have a name so much as a description.)
However, "America" is the name that the U.S. Congress used when naming the Act.
For example, since the Moon is (effectively) airless, the craft can't use aerobraking and parachutes to help it land.
Also, the gravity on the surface of the Moon is one-half that on the surface of Mars, so bits of the structure will be shaved off to take advantage of this and to save weight.
In addition, since there is no effective Lunar atmosphere, any air-sampling instrumentation will be useless.
Finally, because the Moon rotates more slowly than Mars, a Lunar rover will spend about 14 days in darkness, so it can't use solar cells for power/recharge unless it wants to be inactive half the time.
The long Lunar day also means that the temperature range that the rover must endure is much higher than that on Mars.
By the time all of this is taken into account, it would probably be better to design a Lunar rover from scratch, using the experience gained from the Martian rovers (and other sources), than it would be to modifiy a Martian rover to perform on the Moon.
As long as a major goal of the program is to get people there, I have no problem with robots going there first.