Considering some of the undergrads I've known, I'm surprised they were able to get them all to sit still long enough to administer the test. It must have been like herding cats.
Large corporations very rarely apologize for anything they do, no matter how vile. Expecting an apology from Viacom is like expecting a tiger to tear your throat open gently.
Despite the fact that many people call the sun a "yellow dwarf" or an "average star", it's actually in the top 10%, by brightness. That also probably puts it in the top 10% by mass, radius, etc. Find the Gliese 3.0 catalog if you don't believe me.
Generating text with a Markov process and posting it to a forum was first done 20 years ago. You're not doing anything new and you're not impressing anyone. Please stop it.
What's the difference between an object like Jupiter and a brown dwarf or star? As I said earlier, what makes a brown dwarf "brown"? What spectrum range defines a star? What I'm saying is that if it puts out energy, why is it not a star? Counter proposal: is a black hole putting out energy? Is it a subset of "star"? What sort of energy need a "star" emit? How much of this energy? How often? Is a faded old white dwarf still a star? Define your terms, sirs.
These are things you don't understand, by your own admission. You say, "Define your terms, sirs," as if people were failing to clarify what they mean. But the onus was actually on you, because any layman's text on astronomy will clearly describe, for example, the difference between a brown dwarf and a star.
Your ignorance wasn't what bothered me: no one knows everything. It just irks me when I see someone with a confident but uninformed opinion.
It looks like someone else has already answered your questions, so I'll end here.
'Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.'
That doesn't make it okay to be the one imposing the injustice.
> Not really that interesting of a comment to me. More like, "Hey Bob, > look, proof that fire is hot!"
Sure, it's obvious to you, and it's obvious to me, but there are some very vocal holdouts. They have power not because they're right, but because they're louder than the thoughtful among us. So I think it's important to keep declaring what I believe and why.
To all of you who say science is faith-based as much as any religion, this article is an example of why you're wrong.
1. Scientist has an idea. 2. Scientist checks out that idea with experiments. 3. Experiment refutes scientist's idea. 4. Scientist scratches head and says, "I guess I was wrong."
This pattern happens over and over and over again, and that's what people mean when they say science is not faith-based.
Since the distance to this object is about 27 million light years, and since it lies facing our point of view, everything in it is at the same distance from us to within a fraction of a percent.
Me too. I still remember the first time I ventured beyond the home star system. What would I find orbiting the neighboring O-class star? How exciting it was to be able to land on far away planets and roam around on them. As great a game as SCII was, it didn't match Starflight's sense of scale.
Re:Star Control 2: The Ur-Quan Masters
on
What Game Do You Love?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"I read the manual through about 20 times. And finally, got to play it."
What a shock the first few minutes of play must have been. I remember seeing Earth under the slave shield, being approached by that Ur-Quan drone, with that apocalyptic theme playing in the background... That was quite a moment.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering some of the undergrads I've known, I'm surprised they were able to get them all to sit still long enough to administer the test. It must have been like herding cats.
Call me cynical, but the wider the audience is, the dumber the game will be.
I see some confiscations in this blogger's future.
Nah, even *those* are deterministic.
Please tell us exactly what you mean by living "in accelerated time".
I use my fingers and arm more than my wrist when moving the mouse around. Never have any problems.
"Expect an apology soon."
Large corporations very rarely apologize for anything they do, no matter how vile. Expecting an apology from Viacom is like expecting a tiger to tear your throat open gently.
You'll have to give some actual proof if you want to say with certainty that I'm wrong.
If Mauna Loa is a valid terrestrial analog, then Mars will soon be providing us with delicious macadamia nuts.
Despite the fact that many people call the sun a "yellow dwarf" or an "average star", it's actually in the top 10%, by brightness. That also probably puts it in the top 10% by mass, radius, etc. Find the Gliese 3.0 catalog if you don't believe me.
No, it's because geeks understand that world unity is a nobler goal than national superiority.
You aren't thinking fourth-dimensionally!
Generating text with a Markov process and posting it to a forum was first done 20 years ago. You're not doing anything new and you're not impressing anyone. Please stop it.
Hold on now, you work in pharmacy and don't know how to spell "prescribe"?
What's the difference between an object like Jupiter and a brown dwarf or star? As I said earlier, what makes a brown dwarf "brown"? What spectrum range defines a star? What I'm saying is that if it puts out energy, why is it not a star? Counter proposal: is a black hole putting out energy? Is it a subset of "star"? What sort of energy need a "star" emit? How much of this energy? How often? Is a faded old white dwarf still a star? Define your terms, sirs.
These are things you don't understand, by your own admission. You say, "Define your terms, sirs," as if people were failing to clarify what they mean. But the onus was actually on you, because any layman's text on astronomy will clearly describe, for example, the difference between a brown dwarf and a star.
Your ignorance wasn't what bothered me: no one knows everything. It just irks me when I see someone with a confident but uninformed opinion.
It looks like someone else has already answered your questions, so I'll end here.
So you're arguing science without understanding it? Shame on you.
'Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.'
That doesn't make it okay to be the one imposing the injustice.
> Not really that interesting of a comment to me. More like, "Hey Bob,
> look, proof that fire is hot!"
Sure, it's obvious to you, and it's obvious to me, but there are some very vocal holdouts. They have power not because they're right, but because they're louder than the thoughtful among us. So I think it's important to keep declaring what I believe and why.
Where are my mod points?
To all of you who say science is faith-based as much as any religion, this article is an example of why you're wrong.
1. Scientist has an idea.
2. Scientist checks out that idea with experiments.
3. Experiment refutes scientist's idea.
4. Scientist scratches head and says, "I guess I was wrong."
This pattern happens over and over and over again, and that's what people mean when they say science is not faith-based.
When these fabrication machines can be used to build fabrication machines, then we'll really be getting somewhere.
Since the distance to this object is about 27 million light years, and since it lies facing our point of view, everything in it is at the same distance from us to within a fraction of a percent.
Seems like the other parts of the song are more topical:
"Sex jibe husband murders wife
Bomb blast victim fights for life
Girl, thirteen, attacked with knife
Princess Di is wearing a new dress
"Jet airliner shot from sky
Famine horror, millions die
Earthquake terror, figures rise
Princess Di is wearing a new dress
"In black townships, fires blaze
Prospects better, Premiere says
Within sight are golden days
Princess Di is wearing a new dress"
Me too. I still remember the first time I ventured beyond the home star system. What would I find orbiting the neighboring O-class star? How exciting it was to be able to land on far away planets and roam around on them. As great a game as SCII was, it didn't match Starflight's sense of scale.
"I read the manual through about 20 times. And finally, got to play it."
What a shock the first few minutes of play must have been. I remember seeing Earth under the slave shield, being approached by that Ur-Quan drone, with that apocalyptic theme playing in the background... That was quite a moment.