Although it doesn't really fit the quote, one theory is that what's actually meant is that six lines is a decent amount on which to base a forgery, with which to condemn.
Because as things changed and the years passed they became more of a hindrance than a help to birds (or their ancestors) and so those offspring born with fewer teeth, or smaller teeth, were better at surviving and having offspring.
how to convince your unborn offspring to do take it to the next step.
Why would any "convincing" be required? The offspring are likely to face the same challenges as their parents. If they've got traits that help them survive better than their peers - such as fewer or smaller teeth - then they'll pass these on to their offspring. Then, in turn, those offspring will be facing the same pressures again. So once again, among those offspring, those with fewer or smaller have a better chance at surviving than their brothers and sisters (and cousins).
You would expect these animals to be superior to us and make conscious decisions to change their DNA, to evolve
What animals are you talking about? No animal needs to make a conscious decision to evolve. It's already taken care of by inheritance and selection pressure.
As long as you've got a mechanism for children to be largely similar to but ever-so-slightly different from their parents, and a reason for some of those offspring to reproduce more successfully than others because of those differences, then evolution is inevitable.
CD's however can (and do) have built in hidden signals that allows the software police to track the origin of any ripped tracks.
Feel free to prove me wrong, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they can't (and don't). CDs are mass produced from glass masters. How could they have "hidden signals"?
Once ripped and compressed, sure, you're going to see differences between files of the same track (unless the same software was used with the same settings, and the rip was error free).
Not sure how practical any "tracking" would be, either - at best, finding the same rip on two computers tells you... well, it tells you that it's the same rip. It doesn't really tell you anything about how it got there, and it certainly doesn't tell you that it came from computer A to computer B.
I assumed you meant that it was contaminated or something, and wasn't safe just to vent from the car, but it seems that...
The Mirai has a button labeled H2O that opens a gate at the rear, dumping the water vapor that forms from the hydrogen-oxygen reaction in the fuel cell.
Compared to the galaxy as a whole, the solar system is very dense. That would (or so something I read said) made it harder to detect because the gravity of all the regular matter in the immediate neighbourhood swamps the signal.
I'm just a lowly engineer, but for me "dark matter" has never passed the sniff test.
And yet it seems like most physicists - of whom I am not one - seem to think it is the simplest explanation for what we see.
The quote in the summary sums up, for me, the somewhat churlish attitude some people adopt when faced with dark matter:
There seems to be a formula for this very specific extraordinary claim: point your high-energy telescope at the center of a galaxy or cluster of galaxies, discover an X-ray or gamma ray signal that you can't account for through conventional, known astrophysics, and claim you've detected dark matter! Only, these results never pan out;
Of course they have never panned out - so far. If one of them had panned out, we would have stopped looking. Your keys are always in the last place you look.
Photons started out their theoretical life as a kludge factor to solve the ultraviolet catastrophe (great band), and people were appalled by the idea.
It's not a bad thing to be extra cautious around buzz words.
Dark matter isn't a buzz word, at least not to the people who are actually trying to discover if it exists, and what it is. It's a hypothesis, or a class of hypotheses.
Dark Matter feels like a fudge factor for our ability to observe the universe or our models of it.
You could say that about anything that was hypothesised before it was confirmed - the atomic nucleus, photons, quantum mechanics.
Hey, these numbers don't add up- just stick in another variable.
And then see if the new model is a better match for observations, work out if there are any other consequences of the new variable, search for experimental evidence of those consequences... AKA science.
Is it more likely that there is a magic unobservable substance that makes our models correct or that our models need tuning?
That the model needs tuning is already given, because we've got observations that the model can't explain, so there's no "or" about it. The "magic unobservable substance" seems to be the best explanation anyone's been able to come up with so far.
I don't think BGP is simple enough for a non-nerd...
Since when did "nerd" only cover people who understand BGP? I don't remember that on the entrance exam...
Heaven forbid anyone should be allowed to come away from reading a story on Slashdot more informed. Can't be having that!
A simple, painless expansion of an acronym would at least give every reader a fighting chance at a rough guess of what it does, or at least what it relates to.
Does this basic principle of scientific inquiry not apply to cosmology????
Go on then, what's the simpler explanation?
Wood LED clock doesn't look Photoshopped to me
on
2014 Geek Gift Guide
·
· Score: 1
A faux-wood cube clock ($38). This is interesting mostly for looking like a visual impossibility -- how can the digital numbers appear on the side of a block of wood, even fake wood?
Because it's a fairly thin veneer and the LEDs beneath are extremely bright. Same way my PVR makes text appear on what otherwise looks like an opaque brushed metal surface (though why they have to be brighter than my TV is beyond me - I ended taking the thing apart and putting some ND filter in it).
Unfortunately I think the photo is doctored, because this youtube video shows an undoctored shot of the cube clock, and you can easily see the un-illuminated LEDs on the side, which don't quite blend in with the wood.
I can barely see anything in that 360p overly compressed YouTube video.
Well, if you can't be bothered to help me understand your point...
Incidentally, the question "does flying a drone inside restricted airspace increase the probability of an incident of any kind?" was rhetorical, and not just because flying a drone into restricted airspace probably counts as an "incident" in itself.
You seem to think it's basically no problem at all to have drones flying around in restricted airspace, based solely on the instinct of the pilots to safeguard their toys. There are plenty of good reasons why this wouldn't be a good idea, even if you could trust a drone pilot to try to keep a "safe" distance.
No, they do mean Super Resolution, because that's the basically meaningless but cool-sounding name they've decided to give it. What you mean is super resolution.
Yes, as in the right to decide who gets copies. Also known as "copyright." Not pulled from vacuum, but written down in laws, some of which are admittedly ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
He who smelt it dealt it.
Although it doesn't really fit the quote, one theory is that what's actually meant is that six lines is a decent amount on which to base a forgery, with which to condemn.
All thanks to Burns Slant-Drilling Co.
Tito Puente!
Jeez, I know we've all got super-fast broadband and the like, but is there really any good reason to have a 31 megapixel background image?
Remember, every byte transmitted hastens the heat death of the universe!
Why give up teeth
Because as things changed and the years passed they became more of a hindrance than a help to birds (or their ancestors) and so those offspring born with fewer teeth, or smaller teeth, were better at surviving and having offspring.
how to convince your unborn offspring to do take it to the next step.
Why would any "convincing" be required? The offspring are likely to face the same challenges as their parents. If they've got traits that help them survive better than their peers - such as fewer or smaller teeth - then they'll pass these on to their offspring. Then, in turn, those offspring will be facing the same pressures again. So once again, among those offspring, those with fewer or smaller have a better chance at surviving than their brothers and sisters (and cousins).
You would expect these animals to be superior to us and make conscious decisions to change their DNA, to evolve
What animals are you talking about? No animal needs to make a conscious decision to evolve. It's already taken care of by inheritance and selection pressure.
As long as you've got a mechanism for children to be largely similar to but ever-so-slightly different from their parents, and a reason for some of those offspring to reproduce more successfully than others because of those differences, then evolution is inevitable.
CD's however can (and do) have built in hidden signals that allows the software police to track the origin of any ripped tracks.
Feel free to prove me wrong, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they can't (and don't). CDs are mass produced from glass masters. How could they have "hidden signals"?
Once ripped and compressed, sure, you're going to see differences between files of the same track (unless the same software was used with the same settings, and the rip was error free).
Not sure how practical any "tracking" would be, either - at best, finding the same rip on two computers tells you... well, it tells you that it's the same rip. It doesn't really tell you anything about how it got there, and it certainly doesn't tell you that it came from computer A to computer B.
Mr Rabbit, of course.
You have to dump the resulting water
I assumed you meant that it was contaminated or something, and wasn't safe just to vent from the car, but it seems that...
The Mirai has a button labeled H2O that opens a gate at the rear, dumping the water vapor that forms from the hydrogen-oxygen reaction in the fuel cell.
Is this really not something they could automate?
Compared to the galaxy as a whole, the solar system is very dense. That would (or so something I read said) made it harder to detect because the gravity of all the regular matter in the immediate neighbourhood swamps the signal.
I'm just a lowly engineer, but for me "dark matter" has never passed the sniff test.
And yet it seems like most physicists - of whom I am not one - seem to think it is the simplest explanation for what we see.
The quote in the summary sums up, for me, the somewhat churlish attitude some people adopt when faced with dark matter:
There seems to be a formula for this very specific extraordinary claim: point your high-energy telescope at the center of a galaxy or cluster of galaxies, discover an X-ray or gamma ray signal that you can't account for through conventional, known astrophysics, and claim you've detected dark matter! Only, these results never pan out;
Of course they have never panned out - so far. If one of them had panned out, we would have stopped looking. Your keys are always in the last place you look.
Photons started out their theoretical life as a kludge factor to solve the ultraviolet catastrophe (great band), and people were appalled by the idea.
It's not a bad thing to be extra cautious around buzz words.
Dark matter isn't a buzz word, at least not to the people who are actually trying to discover if it exists, and what it is. It's a hypothesis, or a class of hypotheses.
Dark Matter feels like a fudge factor for our ability to observe the universe or our models of it.
You could say that about anything that was hypothesised before it was confirmed - the atomic nucleus, photons, quantum mechanics.
Hey, these numbers don't add up- just stick in another variable.
And then see if the new model is a better match for observations, work out if there are any other consequences of the new variable, search for experimental evidence of those consequences... AKA science.
Is it more likely that there is a magic unobservable substance that makes our models correct or that our models need tuning?
That the model needs tuning is already given, because we've got observations that the model can't explain, so there's no "or" about it. The "magic unobservable substance" seems to be the best explanation anyone's been able to come up with so far.
I don't think BGP is simple enough for a non-nerd...
Since when did "nerd" only cover people who understand BGP? I don't remember that on the entrance exam...
Heaven forbid anyone should be allowed to come away from reading a story on Slashdot more informed. Can't be having that!
A simple, painless expansion of an acronym would at least give every reader a fighting chance at a rough guess of what it does, or at least what it relates to.
I can only wonder how the researchers arrived at their conclusion when there are so very many other sources of X-rays in the universe.
It's probably because they're better qualified in physics than you are.
Does this basic principle of scientific inquiry not apply to cosmology????
Go on then, what's the simpler explanation?
A faux-wood cube clock ($38). This is interesting mostly for looking like a visual impossibility -- how can the digital numbers appear on the side of a block of wood, even fake wood?
Because it's a fairly thin veneer and the LEDs beneath are extremely bright. Same way my PVR makes text appear on what otherwise looks like an opaque brushed metal surface (though why they have to be brighter than my TV is beyond me - I ended taking the thing apart and putting some ND filter in it).
Unfortunately I think the photo is doctored, because this youtube video shows an undoctored shot of the cube clock, and you can easily see the un-illuminated LEDs on the side, which don't quite blend in with the wood.
I can barely see anything in that 360p overly compressed YouTube video.
You've been using your monitor wrong this whole time
No I haven't. I'm using it just how I like it, thanks.
Condescending headline, much?
It's a good test image because it catches both distortions of detail and color damage to areas with a gentle gradient.
There must be better ones. It's washed out with hardly any green or blue.
you can just wipe the Pi and start over.
That's what I said, but she was having none of it.
Well, if you can't be bothered to help me understand your point...
Incidentally, the question "does flying a drone inside restricted airspace increase the probability of an incident of any kind?" was rhetorical, and not just because flying a drone into restricted airspace probably counts as an "incident" in itself.
You seem to think it's basically no problem at all to have drones flying around in restricted airspace, based solely on the instinct of the pilots to safeguard their toys. There are plenty of good reasons why this wouldn't be a good idea, even if you could trust a drone pilot to try to keep a "safe" distance.
No, they do mean Super Resolution, because that's the basically meaningless but cool-sounding name they've decided to give it. What you mean is super resolution.
Another added perk of VSR is the ability to see more content on the screen at once.
What is that supposed to mean?
http://hothardware.com/gallery...
^ Wow, that blurry, dark, downscaled JPEG really shows off the difference, doesn't it?
If you have tried the live images of Ubuntu Next you may worry that Canonical is trying to do a Windows 8 with Ubuntu. That's not true.
Oh, good, so no need to worry then.
There is no need to worry though
You just told me there was no need to worry when you said it wasn't true; now I'm worried that you keep telling me not to worry.
Sometimes this faith involves an old white man with a beard
John Travolta?
How?
"Right to decide?"
Yes, as in the right to decide who gets copies. Also known as "copyright." Not pulled from vacuum, but written down in laws, some of which are admittedly ridiculous.