I dated a coworker, but I'd hardly consider (after the horrible breakup and subsequent harrassment via nasty e-mail messages sent to me on company equipment) it a friendship any more.
Of course, I know my male charms still disgust her. With a court order.
>Circular orbits are less common than highly elliptical orbits, and are more promising.
Is that true? If so, how do we know?
Yes, it's true for the extrasolar planets we've already found, and also true for the planets in our own solar system.
Remember that the only way we can currently detect planets outside our own solar system is by their gravitational influence on the primary star
Not true. We can also detect extrasolar planets due to the amount of their sun's light they block when they pass between us and their star. Unfortunately, (statistically) less planets will be found with this method (than by gravitational influence), as all probable planetary systems would need to be viewed edge-on from the Earth's vantage point.
We're seeing lots of massive gas giants in orbits that bring them close to their primaries because we can't (yet) detect anything else.
Only due to the fact that we haven't been able to make our instruments sensitive enough to be capable of detecting extrasolar planets further away from those stars that would have smaller gravitational tugs due to the distance. Or perhaps, since studies of the effects of the bodies on the stars are often done over shorter spans of time (days, weeks, or months), and orbital periods of planets further away from the star would more likely be longer than bodies closer to the star - possibly hundreds of years, like Neptune's or Pluto's - the planets are just not being detected because the body has yet to reveal itself to the detection methods.
As I sit here, waiting for my DSL provider's tech support to pick up my call, I'm reading this article and thinking: why do we need another book on how great Linux is?
Before you start writing my off as a half-wit, flame-baiting troll, let me explain myself. Books on how great Linux is have been around for, what, 6 years? I don't think that anybody that's an active part of the Linux community needs to reread yet another tome on the advantages of Linux. In the same vein, no non-Linux user considering a switch to Linux needs to read more than one or two articles (much less books) on the advantages of Linux to understand where the advantages lie in switching.
Instead of seeing talents and efforts "wasted" on writing new books, I believe these individuals could be working towards a greater goal of writing a more intuitive UI for Linux. Or perhaps they would rather be teaching the masses how to use the OS. There are so many better uses for their technical prowess that I'm just left wondering, "Why?"
One word - GREED. Enough is enough. Take your marbles and go home Bill.
Why? Isn't it the goal of every business to make money? Isn't it also a goal to make the public more aware of why you think your products or services is better than what's out there already, all in the hopes that the public will then purchase your goods or services?
Linux advocates might be a little over zealous and rabid at times. But that overwhelming stink of GREED that emanates form Redmond is killing this industry.
OK, so what you're telling me is that being "rabid" or "overzealous" is fine if you don't make money off of it, but being "rabid" or "overzealous" (yes I know that you weren't using those words in this fashion) to make money causes greed? And not only simple greed, but greed that is "killing this industry?" Once again, you prove my point: difference of opinion doesn't make one person right and the other person wrong; it creates a difference of opinion.
The same way that it's stated: Ballmer has a job within Microsoft to relay the business models and plans for the company to try to increase use of their product (and thereby, their sales as well); free softare advocates (i.e. the general readership of this forum) have to take it upon themselves to do the same basic job Ballmer is doing (without pay!) to help increase use of whatever free software the are promoting.
I suspect that if you examine all of the press releases from well known Linux distributions like Red Hat or Debian, you wouldn't find Microsoft-bashing, just as you won't find Linux-bashing in standard Microsoft fare. However, if you were to read forums populated by zealous Windows users, you might very well find "beratement" of Linux.
I couldn't agree with you more. But I wasn't comparing Microsoft or Ballmer to Redhat, Debian, etc. I was trying to portray the fact that Microsoft gets bashed more in this forum than I've ever seen or heard of Microsoft speaking negatively of free software or of Linux, all because most free software supporters do not share the same opinions (not facts) of business models that Microsoft has adopted.
I wonder what is wrong with criticizing something that doesn't "match the ideals of free software beliefs and business models"?
Oh, there's nothing wrong with it. I was just replying to the original post where the author stated that "by stooping to his level, we're playing their game." There is no game, just differences of opinion. Ballmer's opinion is first backed by a boss and a paycheck, and then probably backed by a bit of personal belief. Most people on this forum probably have an opinion first backed by personal belief and then possibly a boss and a paycheck.
Did you read the article? Hell, did you even read the friggin title of the page?
Yes, I did. And I STILL don't see where Microsoft used the word "evil" to descibe Linux or any other form of free software. All I see is a difference of opinion between Microsoft's PR people and the general opinion of the people on this forum.
By stooping to his level, we're playing their game.
Oh, so now MS is on a level below all Linux advocates? Please explain to me how differences in opinion (in business models and what makes business work) between MS and all free software supporters makes one person right and the other one wrong.
As far back as I can remember, Microsoft has never publically stated that Linux is purely evil; nor that the people who support it spread FUD about other OSes; nor that Linux users were mindless sheep following a set standard; nor that Linux is an unstable OS.
My point is that while MS may offer goods or services that you as a person or you as a user base may not like, want, or use, they have yet to come public saying that you are wrong for those beliefs. However, even this very forum (the general users; not everyone is an MS-basher) is guilty of continual public beratement of MS because their beliefs and business models don't match the ideals of the free software (and Linux) beliefs and business models.
About two years ago, National Geographic released their version of the Virtual Solar System on their web site. It requires a Superscape plugin called Viscape (sorry, Windows and Mac only) to work properly. Download the Viscape plugin, install, and then visit National Geographics "Virtual Solar System" web site to check out a 3D-rendered tour of the solar system with information on all the planets and about 50% of the moons, some asteroids, some comets, and the sun (of course). It not only has a 3D-rendered environment to navigate, but also various information about those same heavenly bodies. Very in-depth and well done, and is a great resource for learning about the various bodies in our solar system and how they interact.
Tell them that you have a finished beta product that needs testing and tweaking for final release. Explain to them that it is your product, and you would be happy to let them license for the use of said product at half the cost you will be licensing it to other companies - in exchange for allowing you the company time to complete the job. Make sure your employers understand that this material is your IP, and any use of it by them, their clients, or any of your other clients, will be under contractual obligations only. They get a hefty discount, and you get a lot of free publicity for your product.
So what you're saying is that God created the universe?
Explain this to me then: who or what created God? Who or what created that "thing?" Who or what created that thing? And so on, and so on, and so on...
There's no clear-cut answer either way you look at it. There is one thing fairly evident, though: creationists have the "easy" explanation, or the one that takes the least amount of reasoning to explain ("It was God's will to do so..."), and scientists work at a feasible explanation, trying to give intellectual reasoning (based on what we know for fact).
According to this Space.com article, there would have been a bigger mass exinction that happened 600 to 700 million years ago, or 350 to 450 million years before the collision described in the article above, which would have killed about 95% of all life forms on the planet. Here's a short version of the Space.com article:
In the 1960's, geologists were unable to explain the evidence of glacial deposits found in the rock strata of every continent, including those at sea level aroung the equator. Was it evidence that ice had covered the entire planet at one time (i.e. a "super ice age")? Continental drift could have been responsible as well. Plus, how could the Earth get so cold as to have ice sheets covering it entirely?
A recent theory suggested that for every drop in global temperature there is an increase in surface snow and ice. As more snow and ice builds, more heat is reflected away, and it gets colder and colder. If ice glaciers had progressed as far as 30 degrees to the equator, a runaway ice age would have frozen the Earth completely. The massive cold snap would easily triggered an extinction like no other. The theory only had one problem, though: how did the Earth eventually thaw?
According to modern-day geologists, the levels of CO2 in the air are directly related to volcanic activity (which puts it there) and global temperature. As volcanoes erupt, they give off CO2 which is washed back to the Earth via rain. In turn, this CO2 is deposited back into the oceans where it settles on the sea floor as carbonate sediment. It is reheated to liquid, then gas, and the process starts anew when it is ejected again by volcanic activity.
If a frozen Earth was still geologically active (tectonic and volcanic action), all the CO2 thrown off my erupting volcanoes would have nowhere to go. As the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rises, the global temperature rises as well. A few million years later, ice begins to melt, the water vaporates into rain where some of the CO2 is redeposited back onto the ice where the process is repeated. Complete thaw would be quick, happening in less than a couple of hundred years due to the excessive amounts of CO2.
As with the Permian-Triassic Boundary event (the meteor/comet incident 250 million years ago) that triggered the evolutionary process of the rise of the dinosaurs, the great freeze of 600 million years ago also triggered its own evolutionary growth: the Cambrian explosion. The massive dip in population followed by millions of years of harsh environments would have favored the birth of many new forms of life.
Believe me when I say that, even as we speak, there are many lawyer man-hours preparing for a full blown attack of the GPL being paid for in Redmond.
Doesn't that seem a bit silly? What part of the GPL would they attack? What would they sue for? "Hey, youse guys can't be givin' away no more code. Uhn-uh. We're gonna watch youse guys and make sure you don't do any of that completely legal-type stuff."
You remind me of somebody who checks behind every corner just to make sure there aren't any knife-wielding monkeys waiting for you to turn your back on them.
I disagree. I think that experience is helpful, but many "professional" producers are using extremely different equipment and tools than the "amateur" artists/producers. If you're sitting in front of 3 million knobs, dials, and sliders, it doesn't mean that your level of expertise is any greater than my expertise with a 16-channel sound board, a synth, a drum machine, a guitar, and CakeWalk. Why don't you check out our band's music and tell me whether or not we know any tricks (using our equipment!) that can make our music sound just as good as "professionally" produced music?
What would business students playing strategy games prove? Hey, their first company IPO will be a complete bust, but they'll be able to defeat the Orcs in Warcraft? I don't think there's any similarities between the two. Maybe you'd be better off seeing if there's a stronger correlation between video game players and military personnel. I'd sleep much better knowing that all U.S. servicemen (and -women) can finish Quake 2 in under 15 minutes using nothing but a blaster. On the other hand, you may be able to find games more suited towards those students. Unfortunately, the only viable game I can think of would be Lemonade Stand, but that was only available for my Apple II about 15 years ago...
Slashdot Mirror
I dated a coworker, but I'd hardly consider (after the horrible breakup and subsequent harrassment via nasty e-mail messages sent to me on company equipment) it a friendship any more.
Of course, I know my male charms still disgust her. With a court order.>Circular orbits are less common than highly elliptical orbits, and are more promising.
Is that true? If so, how do we know?
Yes, it's true for the extrasolar planets we've already found, and also true for the planets in our own solar system.
Remember that the only way we can currently detect planets outside our own solar system is by their gravitational influence on the primary star
Not true. We can also detect extrasolar planets due to the amount of their sun's light they block when they pass between us and their star. Unfortunately, (statistically) less planets will be found with this method (than by gravitational influence), as all probable planetary systems would need to be viewed edge-on from the Earth's vantage point.
We're seeing lots of massive gas giants in orbits that bring them close to their primaries because we can't (yet) detect anything else.
Only due to the fact that we haven't been able to make our instruments sensitive enough to be capable of detecting extrasolar planets further away from those stars that would have smaller gravitational tugs due to the distance. Or perhaps, since studies of the effects of the bodies on the stars are often done over shorter spans of time (days, weeks, or months), and orbital periods of planets further away from the star would more likely be longer than bodies closer to the star - possibly hundreds of years, like Neptune's or Pluto's - the planets are just not being detected because the body has yet to reveal itself to the detection methods.
As I sit here, waiting for my DSL provider's tech support to pick up my call, I'm reading this article and thinking: why do we need another book on how great Linux is?
Before you start writing my off as a half-wit, flame-baiting troll, let me explain myself. Books on how great Linux is have been around for, what, 6 years? I don't think that anybody that's an active part of the Linux community needs to reread yet another tome on the advantages of Linux. In the same vein, no non-Linux user considering a switch to Linux needs to read more than one or two articles (much less books) on the advantages of Linux to understand where the advantages lie in switching.
Instead of seeing talents and efforts "wasted" on writing new books, I believe these individuals could be working towards a greater goal of writing a more intuitive UI for Linux. Or perhaps they would rather be teaching the masses how to use the OS. There are so many better uses for their technical prowess that I'm just left wondering, "Why?"
Der Klempner
-------------------------------
One word - GREED. Enough is enough. Take your marbles and go home Bill.
Why? Isn't it the goal of every business to make money? Isn't it also a goal to make the public more aware of why you think your products or services is better than what's out there already, all in the hopes that the public will then purchase your goods or services?
Linux advocates might be a little over zealous and rabid at times. But that overwhelming stink of GREED that emanates form Redmond is killing this industry.
OK, so what you're telling me is that being "rabid" or "overzealous" is fine if you don't make money off of it, but being "rabid" or "overzealous" (yes I know that you weren't using those words in this fashion) to make money causes greed? And not only simple greed, but greed that is "killing this industry?" Once again, you prove my point: difference of opinion doesn't make one person right and the other person wrong; it creates a difference of opinion.
How can you compare them?
The same way that it's stated: Ballmer has a job within Microsoft to relay the business models and plans for the company to try to increase use of their product (and thereby, their sales as well); free softare advocates (i.e. the general readership of this forum) have to take it upon themselves to do the same basic job Ballmer is doing (without pay!) to help increase use of whatever free software the are promoting.
I suspect that if you examine all of the press releases from well known Linux distributions like Red Hat or Debian, you wouldn't find Microsoft-bashing, just as you won't find Linux-bashing in standard Microsoft fare. However, if you were to read forums populated by zealous Windows users, you might very well find "beratement" of Linux.
I couldn't agree with you more. But I wasn't comparing Microsoft or Ballmer to Redhat, Debian, etc. I was trying to portray the fact that Microsoft gets bashed more in this forum than I've ever seen or heard of Microsoft speaking negatively of free software or of Linux, all because most free software supporters do not share the same opinions (not facts) of business models that Microsoft has adopted.
I wonder what is wrong with criticizing something that doesn't "match the ideals of free software beliefs and business models"?
Oh, there's nothing wrong with it. I was just replying to the original post where the author stated that "by stooping to his level, we're playing their game." There is no game, just differences of opinion. Ballmer's opinion is first backed by a boss and a paycheck, and then probably backed by a bit of personal belief. Most people on this forum probably have an opinion first backed by personal belief and then possibly a boss and a paycheck.
Did you read the article? Hell, did you even read the friggin title of the page?
Yes, I did. And I STILL don't see where Microsoft used the word "evil" to descibe Linux or any other form of free software. All I see is a difference of opinion between Microsoft's PR people and the general opinion of the people on this forum.
By stooping to his level, we're playing their game.
Oh, so now MS is on a level below all Linux advocates? Please explain to me how differences in opinion (in business models and what makes business work) between MS and all free software supporters makes one person right and the other one wrong.
As far back as I can remember, Microsoft has never publically stated that Linux is purely evil; nor that the people who support it spread FUD about other OSes; nor that Linux users were mindless sheep following a set standard; nor that Linux is an unstable OS.
My point is that while MS may offer goods or services that you as a person or you as a user base may not like, want, or use, they have yet to come public saying that you are wrong for those beliefs. However, even this very forum (the general users; not everyone is an MS-basher) is guilty of continual public beratement of MS because their beliefs and business models don't match the ideals of the free software (and Linux) beliefs and business models.
And the pilot episode has the replacement characters, Lady Liberty and BatManuel.
It's Captain Liberty, not Lady Liberty. And to answer the original question, she's being played by Liz Vassey, guest star extraordinaire.About two years ago, National Geographic released their version of the Virtual Solar System on their web site. It requires a Superscape plugin called Viscape (sorry, Windows and Mac only) to work properly. Download the Viscape plugin, install, and then visit National Geographics "Virtual Solar System" web site to check out a 3D-rendered tour of the solar system with information on all the planets and about 50% of the moons, some asteroids, some comets, and the sun (of course). It not only has a 3D-rendered environment to navigate, but also various information about those same heavenly bodies. Very in-depth and well done, and is a great resource for learning about the various bodies in our solar system and how they interact.
Tell them that you have a finished beta product that needs testing and tweaking for final release. Explain to them that it is your product, and you would be happy to let them license for the use of said product at half the cost you will be licensing it to other companies - in exchange for allowing you the company time to complete the job. Make sure your employers understand that this material is your IP, and any use of it by them, their clients, or any of your other clients, will be under contractual obligations only. They get a hefty discount, and you get a lot of free publicity for your product.
So what you're saying is that God created the universe?
Explain this to me then: who or what created God? Who or what created that "thing?" Who or what created that thing? And so on, and so on, and so on...
There's no clear-cut answer either way you look at it. There is one thing fairly evident, though: creationists have the "easy" explanation, or the one that takes the least amount of reasoning to explain ("It was God's will to do so..."), and scientists work at a feasible explanation, trying to give intellectual reasoning (based on what we know for fact).
According to this Space.com article, there would have been a bigger mass exinction that happened 600 to 700 million years ago, or 350 to 450 million years before the collision described in the article above, which would have killed about 95% of all life forms on the planet. Here's a short version of the Space.com article:
In the 1960's, geologists were unable to explain the evidence of glacial deposits found in the rock strata of every continent, including those at sea level aroung the equator. Was it evidence that ice had covered the entire planet at one time (i.e. a "super ice age")? Continental drift could have been responsible as well. Plus, how could the Earth get so cold as to have ice sheets covering it entirely?
A recent theory suggested that for every drop in global temperature there is an increase in surface snow and ice. As more snow and ice builds, more heat is reflected away, and it gets colder and colder. If ice glaciers had progressed as far as 30 degrees to the equator, a runaway ice age would have frozen the Earth completely. The massive cold snap would easily triggered an extinction like no other. The theory only had one problem, though: how did the Earth eventually thaw?
According to modern-day geologists, the levels of CO2 in the air are directly related to volcanic activity (which puts it there) and global temperature. As volcanoes erupt, they give off CO2 which is washed back to the Earth via rain. In turn, this CO2 is deposited back into the oceans where it settles on the sea floor as carbonate sediment. It is reheated to liquid, then gas, and the process starts anew when it is ejected again by volcanic activity.
If a frozen Earth was still geologically active (tectonic and volcanic action), all the CO2 thrown off my erupting volcanoes would have nowhere to go. As the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rises, the global temperature rises as well. A few million years later, ice begins to melt, the water vaporates into rain where some of the CO2 is redeposited back onto the ice where the process is repeated. Complete thaw would be quick, happening in less than a couple of hundred years due to the excessive amounts of CO2.
As with the Permian-Triassic Boundary event (the meteor/comet incident 250 million years ago) that triggered the evolutionary process of the rise of the dinosaurs, the great freeze of 600 million years ago also triggered its own evolutionary growth: the Cambrian explosion. The massive dip in population followed by millions of years of harsh environments would have favored the birth of many new forms of life.
Believe me when I say that, even as we speak, there are many lawyer man-hours preparing for a full blown attack of the GPL being paid for in Redmond.
Doesn't that seem a bit silly? What part of the GPL would they attack? What would they sue for? "Hey, youse guys can't be givin' away no more code. Uhn-uh. We're gonna watch youse guys and make sure you don't do any of that completely legal-type stuff."
You remind me of somebody who checks behind every corner just to make sure there aren't any knife-wielding monkeys waiting for you to turn your back on them.
I disagree. I think that experience is helpful, but many "professional" producers are using extremely different equipment and tools than the "amateur" artists/producers. If you're sitting in front of 3 million knobs, dials, and sliders, it doesn't mean that your level of expertise is any greater than my expertise with a 16-channel sound board, a synth, a drum machine, a guitar, and CakeWalk.
Why don't you check out our band's music and tell me whether or not we know any tricks (using our equipment!) that can make our music sound just as good as "professionally" produced music?
What's to stop the hackers, crackers, and script kiddies from finding a way onto the mailing lists?
What would business students playing strategy games prove? Hey, their first company IPO will be a complete bust, but they'll be able to defeat the Orcs in Warcraft? I don't think there's any similarities between the two. Maybe you'd be better off seeing if there's a stronger correlation between video game players and military personnel. I'd sleep much better knowing that all U.S. servicemen (and -women) can finish Quake 2 in under 15 minutes using nothing but a blaster.
On the other hand, you may be able to find games more suited towards those students. Unfortunately, the only viable game I can think of would be Lemonade Stand, but that was only available for my Apple II about 15 years ago...
...to annoy all the Goths by getting rid of Halloween. I say let's do it!