An environmentalist might argue that you should be burying the hop and grain in the earth to capture atmospheric carbon and turn it back into fossil carbon.
It would rot and give off methane, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas. Drink it guilt-free, citizen!:-)
That, or give it to feed poor Africans.
A true environmentalist would be looking at what's sustainable. People don't want to admit that it's going to come down to either us getting rid of several billion people, or environmental degradation getting rid of a lot more - probably most - people.
To this end, the nazi Pope has once again shown his true colours, with his claim that condoms don't prevent AIDS. Rather than voluntarily reducing populations via contraception, he's killing them off with over-breeding and disease. Sure, both ways reduce population, but one causes a lot more suffering than the other. Maybe the old Romans got it right - someone should nail this clown to a cross and stick him up there for the public to spit on.
Although, I was just thinking, wouldn't it be possible for the carbon to come from a source other than the atmosphere?
Nope - all the carbon comes from atmospheric carbon dioxide. Photosynthesis.They take in CO2, and give off O2, which we kind of need to breathe... so we drink the beer, give off more CO2, which they then use to repeat the process.
It's not like the CO2 being released by the yeast came from fossil fuels... it came from hops and grains, which took the CO2 out of the atmosphere. If those hops hadn't been grown, the CO2 wouldn't have been sequestered for part of the time. Think of all the undrunk beer as a temporal CO2 storage locker. There's probably a million tons locked up at any given time.
So help fight global warming by popping a cool one.
This is slashdot. Anything with IE in it is dirty and disgusting and offensive and downright immoral.
BTW, next they'll be banning slashdot.ie because it contains the word "slash", which is reminiscent of Jack the Ripper and violence in general. They've already banned OJ's domain - (W - W - W -SLASH - SLASH - BACKSLASH - SLASH DOT EYE EEE).
If you're a developer for the Wii, you're probably doing okay. After all, for every buck Microsoft lost on the XBox360, Nintendo made a buck in pure profit.
Since the Wii is outselling both the XBox360 and the PS3 by a wide margin, and they're getting some more juice with the new DSi, if you have to develop, develop for the largest console market. And since the graphics are only SD, you don't have the same worries as the othe platforms and the PC have... so you can concentrate more of your budget on actual GAMEPLAY.
every game should be a new experience, or at least bring something new to the table. adding a few more polygons, and some better shading algorithms does not make a game more fun.
Nintendo got that right. While most of the games for the other 2 consoles are just retreaded FPSs, and the PC continues to be a combo of shovelware and $GAME_NAME_$YYYY, Nintendo has grown the market tremendously, and the motion sensors on the wireless controllers really make gameplay much better than just moving joysticks and pressing buttons. For example, bowling and tennis on any other platform sucks. On the Wii, you can get tennis elbow. No couch potato for me and my Mii, thanks to the Wii:-)
so what you're saying is that it's professional misconduct for a psychologist to administer this medical diagnostic test for the purpose of disclosing the results to an employer.
half the posters say this test is a "parlour trick" and half say it's "valid research". If it's a trick, then it's full of inapproperiate questions and employers are using science and giving it a bad name as a loophole to break the law. If it's valid research, then the results should be medically confidential, always, especially for employment considerations. There's not really a middle road here.
Sounds reasonable. Actually, most likely, because the shrinks know that the test was not designed to be used "stand-alone", and that it wasn't designed as an employment screening tool... but the issue here is that non-psychologists are mis-using the test, and in an arbitrary manner.
They didn't say it increased the vehicle's total weight.
So, what physics allows a vehicle to increase in weight by 67% when it's going 120mph? Do the individual atoms become more dense, or do they just multiply out of the quantum foam? Or do the lighter elements transmute to lead, making the vehicle denser? Somehow, I don't think the vehicle gets denser, and I don't think that the atoms do an amoeba fission thing - and then miraculously reverse the process when the vehicle slows down. Or does the rapid passage through the "aether" cause the atoms to grab more "gravity" so that the vehicle weighs more? I doubt that as well.
The simple fact is that the vehicle's weight doesn't change. Stop defending the indefensible.
I'm certain my wife will be most distressed to learn of this most unfortunate development in my health. Thank you for this critical update on my health.
In all seriousness, it's really not funny to joke about this sort of thing. Do you enjoy joking about cancer patients? How about young women who contract cervical cancer via HPV from their partners? Real funny, buddy.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that cannot be turned into a topic of humour. Humans do it with war, with disease, with famine, with pestilence, with poverty... look at the Shakespearean fool for just one example of how the "fool" has always spoken truth to power.
You're currently modded at -1, but upon reading your reply I wondered if you were actually infected and demonstrating a remarkable sense of humor about it. I say that as someone who knows a really remarkable human being (a linguistics guy who speaks and tutors in seven languages) who has been infected for 16 years, and by some miracle is still alive. If you're not infected, that was a pretty bad joke. If you are actually infected, you've earned some respect for being strong enough to be witty about it.
Actually, that WAS the "someone you know" who posted that - but what he really wanted to say was: "I'm gay and infected YOU, you insensitive clod!"
'weight' is also a force, whether that force is from gravity or a wing is simply not important for friction with the tires or stress on the suspension.
Do you also say "mass is a force"?
Also, you're wrong about it not being important - if the vehicle really DID "weigh a ton", instead of 600 kg, the suspension system, frame, and tires would have to be beefier to handle the extra lateral forces generated when not moving in a straight line. Think about it for a minute or two...
I have no problem defining weight away from the surface of a body. Try a thought experiment - a body which is the only one in it's universe. It has mass, but not weight.
Once you add a second body, you are now able to to actually measure the influence of the second body's mass on the first (in other words, get its' weight, as opposed to just its' mass).
And no. they shouldn't have said "apparent weight" - they had already mentioned the down-force generated by the horizontal wings - they could have just said that wing generates up to 400 kg of down-force at speed, rather than the stupid "it weighs a ton" - which it doesn't.
As for "apparent weight" - you already should have learned that is NOT a question you want to get in the habit of answering... watch out the next time someone asks you "Does this dress make me look fat?":-)
I'd rather em just upgrade Opera's Flash Player from the 7.x series to the 10.x series so I can watch South Park via internet on my TV.
I agree wholeheartedly, but I don't know how well the current Wii would be able to handle that... it's got a sub-gigahertz cpu, after all.
I think Nintendo is keeping their eye on the price point, and waiting for tech to catch up so that their next-gen (Wii 2, or maybe the W-II:-) will be able to do full hi-def without breaking the wallet or purse, and will still run cool and quiet. We've seen how heat and noise are real long-term problems for a game console.
If they were REALLY smart, as soon as Wii sales start to tail off, they'd introduce the W-II while keeping up production of the original one. This way, they'd get the people who upgrade, plus they'd get the people who aren't sure, but will spring for the original to "try it out." Now, since Nintendo isn't stupid (they sell more than Microsoft and Sony combined), I'd say look for it for the 2011 holiday season.
Vis the fish: On Jupiter, it would weigh more, but its' mass would be the same. On the moon, it would weigh less, but it would still mass the same. Now, does the mass of the car change while it's in motion? No. The additional "weight" is not weight, it's down-force from air against the spoiler. The article even says as much, then makes the mistake of saying that the vehicle "weighs" 400kg more at speed, when clearly, the down-force is not from the vehicle's mass, but from the spoiler.
If an elephant were to sit on the vehicle, would it weigh more? Nope. But, according to the standard you seem to want to back, it would. Both the elephant and the vehicle maintain their individual weights.
You really are a tiresome pedant. Let it go already.
Seems you can't take your own advice...:-)
Look, the article is wrong, and it perpetuates a common misunderstanding, one that, oddly enough, seems to be more common today than it was a few decades ago. This is probably more due to the dumbing down of the school curriculum, and people embracing the "don't wanna know" mind-set - the same mind-set, btw, that gives us creationists, Intelligent Design, "dinosaurs walked with humans," "houses never go down in price" - even though history says otherwise, "they have WMDs", etc.
No, because we know that the force of gravity on the object doesn't change, and that the extra force is from the spoilers giving down-thrust. Now, if we didn't know that this down-thrust existed, and were just presented with two measurements (say from on-board sensors) that showed that the total load on the tires, for example, had changed, we might assume that someone just loaded several passengers into the vehicle, so that its' overall weight was more - but, lacking the missing information, we'd be wrong.
Just like wee're wrong to say that the vehicle "weighs" more because of the effect of air providing down-thrust on the spoiler.
Developing for the iPhone used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about money and control and refunds and chargebacks, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can distort reality the longest or get the fanbois to shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a walled-in garden in order to legitimize the "Cult of Stevie.". Individuals notwithstanding, Apple and the iPhone store as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics, money and control.
s/bsd/iphone/gmi; FTW:
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
I guess I should have put the <sarcasm> or <crymeariver> tags around it... because I agree 100% with you that this whole article was a bunch of disinformation. It should be bleedingly obvious that (1) the story itself is highly inaccurate - these terms were in the original dev agreement, so this is not "news", and further, that apple has said that it doesn't apply it that rigorously (probably saving it only as a stick for when some dev. really abuses users, eg: putting out spamware, spyware, or malware). But who sticks to either common sense or actual verification when it's so easy to go "OMG LOOK WE'RE BEING FUX0RED! It's just the nature of the beast:-)
Actually, if the spacecraft were stationary instead of in orbit, you would be able to measure your weight on a scale, no problem. It would be sell, since your mass is further from the center of the earth, but it would still be the measurement of gravity on your mass. If you were at the center of the earth, your weight would be nothing (since there's an equal amount of the earth's mass pulling you in each direction), but your mass would still be the same.
As for your roller-coaster ride, that's the same as claiming you caught a 10-pound fish because you put your 2-pound fish on a scale and bounced it up and down - and one second it "weighs" nothing, and an instant later, it "weighs" 10 pounds. Weight is a static measurement - the measurement of the effect of gravity on a static mass. Force is a dynamic measurement - a measurement of energy, not mass. As I've said before, weight != force. The vehicle still only "weighs" 600 kg, and it generates an additional downforce of 400 kg via a horizontal wing (though why they didn't just call it a spoiler is beyond me).
Weight is what a scale measures. Weight is quite literally the value you get when you weigh something.
So if I stand on a scale, but I'm also lifting up some of my weight on the doorframe, I suddenly weigh less? I don't think so, Clyde.
People would quite accurately point out that I was cheating, that my "weight" did not change.
Ditto with the claim that the vehicle gains 400 pounds of weight at speed - it gets additional down-force. Force != weight, or in this case, downforce != weight. Get over it. If I take a bag of flour, and throw it off the rooftop, it's going to hit with a force that is much higher than its' static weight, or it's weight when dropped only a foot. Again, weight != force.
The downward force on the surface it is sitting has increased, which is the point they are trying to get across.
Stop being a pedantic ass.
Stop being an anonymous coward. Gee, that worked well, didn't it?
Look, it's very simple - for decades, race cars have used wings to generate downforce. Never have they said that it increases their vehicle's weight - to the contrary, they make it clear that it is because the vehicle is so light that they have to counteract the possibility of the vehicle going airborne by adding down-thrust (force - not weight) with a horizontal wing. Then we have slashdot, with its high standards of editorial journalism, repeating a really dumb idea - that the vehicle weighs 400kg more at speed. It doesn't.
Bullshit. The summary itself says that the downforce is generated by wings fixeed to the craft. The craft's weight does not change, you're just adding the force generated by the down-wing. Put a scale under the down-wing, get the 400 kg of force generated there, or are you going to argue that the wing now weighs 400 kg? Think of it -there's a difference between weight and force. We don't say a 10-pound bag of sugar has a force of 10 pounds, we say it has a weight of 10 pounds - if we throw it off a 10-story building, it doesn't weigh more when it crushes the car below, but it strikes with a force that's more than 10 pounds. It didn't suddenly magically weigh a half-ton. Stop mixing force and weight.
Your arm might only weigh a few pounds, but it can generate a lot more than a few pounds of force. When doing so, does it miraculously increase in weight? No.
Both you and the summary, and the original article, confuse mass, weight, and force.
You need free space on your Wii to launch (it copies all or part of it to internal memory as it launches - sounds slow, but it seems much faster than the normal copy/move to SD) - sounds slow, but it seems much faster than the normal copy/move to SD)
So you're saying the article summary is correct, and yet, you agree with me that it has to copy the game first - it doesn't play it directly off the SD card... get real. Even the menu says as much if you click on the SD card menu. Also, the reason it seems so fast is because downloadable games are SMALL. Super Mario fit on one of those old game cartridges back in the day when memory was measured in kilobytes, not gigabytes...
Right - weight is the effect of gravity on an object of a specific mass. The effect of gravity doesn't suddenly change at speed. The vehicle dos NOT weigh more - gravity's effect on it is constant. What changes is the aerodynamic down-thrust. That doesn't change the vehicle's weight, just as an airplane doesn't suddenly weigh less than nothing when it takes off... gravity still has the same effect on its mass.
Slashdot Mirror
It would rot and give off methane, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas. Drink it guilt-free, citizen! :-)
A true environmentalist would be looking at what's sustainable. People don't want to admit that it's going to come down to either us getting rid of several billion people, or environmental degradation getting rid of a lot more - probably most - people.
To this end, the nazi Pope has once again shown his true colours, with his claim that condoms don't prevent AIDS. Rather than voluntarily reducing populations via contraception, he's killing them off with over-breeding and disease. Sure, both ways reduce population, but one causes a lot more suffering than the other. Maybe the old Romans got it right - someone should nail this clown to a cross and stick him up there for the public to spit on.
Nope - all the carbon comes from atmospheric carbon dioxide. Photosynthesis.They take in CO2, and give off O2, which we kind of need to breathe ... so we drink the beer, give off more CO2, which they then use to repeat the process.
It's not like the CO2 being released by the yeast came from fossil fuels ... it came from hops and grains, which took the CO2 out of the atmosphere. If those hops hadn't been grown, the CO2 wouldn't have been sequestered for part of the time. Think of all the undrunk beer as a temporal CO2 storage locker. There's probably a million tons locked up at any given time.
So help fight global warming by popping a cool one.
NASA should say "I for one welcome space's evil tyrant overlord."
This is slashdot. Anything with IE in it is dirty and disgusting and offensive and downright immoral.
BTW, next they'll be banning slashdot.ie because it contains the word "slash", which is reminiscent of Jack the Ripper and violence in general. They've already banned OJ's domain - (W - W - W -SLASH - SLASH - BACKSLASH - SLASH DOT EYE EEE).
You must have a strange definition of "video game." I've bought 20 games so far, and they sure look like video games to me ...
And then there's the downloadable content - since when is Super Mario Bros not a video game?
If you mean a first-person shooter, you can buy Far Cry for around $25, and there are others as well, so I fail to see your point.
If you're a developer for the Wii, you're probably doing okay. After all, for every buck Microsoft lost on the XBox360, Nintendo made a buck in pure profit.
Since the Wii is outselling both the XBox360 and the PS3 by a wide margin, and they're getting some more juice with the new DSi, if you have to develop, develop for the largest console market. And since the graphics are only SD, you don't have the same worries as the othe platforms and the PC have ... so you can concentrate more of your budget on actual GAMEPLAY.
Nintendo got that right. While most of the games for the other 2 consoles are just retreaded FPSs, and the PC continues to be a combo of shovelware and $GAME_NAME_$YYYY, Nintendo has grown the market tremendously, and the motion sensors on the wireless controllers really make gameplay much better than just moving joysticks and pressing buttons. For example, bowling and tennis on any other platform sucks. On the Wii, you can get tennis elbow. No couch potato for me and my Mii, thanks to the Wii :-)
Sounds reasonable. Actually, most likely, because the shrinks know that the test was not designed to be used "stand-alone", and that it wasn't designed as an employment screening tool ... but the issue here is that non-psychologists are mis-using the test, and in an arbitrary manner.
So, what physics allows a vehicle to increase in weight by 67% when it's going 120mph? Do the individual atoms become more dense, or do they just multiply out of the quantum foam? Or do the lighter elements transmute to lead, making the vehicle denser? Somehow, I don't think the vehicle gets denser, and I don't think that the atoms do an amoeba fission thing - and then miraculously reverse the process when the vehicle slows down. Or does the rapid passage through the "aether" cause the atoms to grab more "gravity" so that the vehicle weighs more? I doubt that as well.
The simple fact is that the vehicle's weight doesn't change. Stop defending the indefensible.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that cannot be turned into a topic of humour. Humans do it with war, with disease, with famine, with pestilence, with poverty ... look at the Shakespearean fool for just one example of how the "fool" has always spoken truth to power.
So, what topics do you think are taboo?
Actually, that WAS the "someone you know" who posted that - but what he really wanted to say was: "I'm gay and infected YOU, you insensitive clod!"
Do you also say "mass is a force"?
Also, you're wrong about it not being important - if the vehicle really DID "weigh a ton", instead of 600 kg, the suspension system, frame, and tires would have to be beefier to handle the extra lateral forces generated when not moving in a straight line. Think about it for a minute or two ...
Once you add a second body, you are now able to to actually measure the influence of the second body's mass on the first (in other words, get its' weight, as opposed to just its' mass).
And no. they shouldn't have said "apparent weight" - they had already mentioned the down-force generated by the horizontal wings - they could have just said that wing generates up to 400 kg of down-force at speed, rather than the stupid "it weighs a ton" - which it doesn't.
As for "apparent weight" - you already should have learned that is NOT a question you want to get in the habit of answering ... watch out the next time someone asks you "Does this dress make me look fat?" :-)
I agree wholeheartedly, but I don't know how well the current Wii would be able to handle that ... it's got a sub-gigahertz cpu, after all.
I think Nintendo is keeping their eye on the price point, and waiting for tech to catch up so that their next-gen (Wii 2, or maybe the W-II :-) will be able to do full hi-def without breaking the wallet or purse, and will still run cool and quiet. We've seen how heat and noise are real long-term problems for a game console.
If they were REALLY smart, as soon as Wii sales start to tail off, they'd introduce the W-II while keeping up production of the original one. This way, they'd get the people who upgrade, plus they'd get the people who aren't sure, but will spring for the original to "try it out." Now, since Nintendo isn't stupid (they sell more than Microsoft and Sony combined), I'd say look for it for the 2011 holiday season.
If an elephant were to sit on the vehicle, would it weigh more? Nope. But, according to the standard you seem to want to back, it would. Both the elephant and the vehicle maintain their individual weights.
Seems you can't take your own advice ... :-)
Look, the article is wrong, and it perpetuates a common misunderstanding, one that, oddly enough, seems to be more common today than it was a few decades ago. This is probably more due to the dumbing down of the school curriculum, and people embracing the "don't wanna know" mind-set - the same mind-set, btw, that gives us creationists, Intelligent Design, "dinosaurs walked with humans," "houses never go down in price" - even though history says otherwise, "they have WMDs", etc.
Just like wee're wrong to say that the vehicle "weighs" more because of the effect of air providing down-thrust on the spoiler.
Actually, I agre 100% with you - the article is fud. Read further.
You mean this one? http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1178961&cid=27369677
s/bsd/iphone/gmi; FTW:
Source: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/BSD_is_Dying
I guess I should have put the <sarcasm> or <crymeariver> tags around it ... because I agree 100% with you that this whole article was a bunch of disinformation. It should be bleedingly obvious that (1) the story itself is highly inaccurate - these terms were in the original dev agreement, so this is not "news", and further, that apple has said that it doesn't apply it that rigorously (probably saving it only as a stick for when some dev. really abuses users, eg: putting out spamware, spyware, or malware). But who sticks to either common sense or actual verification when it's so easy to go "OMG LOOK WE'RE BEING FUX0RED! It's just the nature of the beast :-)
Actually, if the spacecraft were stationary instead of in orbit, you would be able to measure your weight on a scale, no problem. It would be sell, since your mass is further from the center of the earth, but it would still be the measurement of gravity on your mass. If you were at the center of the earth, your weight would be nothing (since there's an equal amount of the earth's mass pulling you in each direction), but your mass would still be the same.
As for your roller-coaster ride, that's the same as claiming you caught a 10-pound fish because you put your 2-pound fish on a scale and bounced it up and down - and one second it "weighs" nothing, and an instant later, it "weighs" 10 pounds. Weight is a static measurement - the measurement of the effect of gravity on a static mass. Force is a dynamic measurement - a measurement of energy, not mass. As I've said before, weight != force. The vehicle still only "weighs" 600 kg, and it generates an additional downforce of 400 kg via a horizontal wing (though why they didn't just call it a spoiler is beyond me).
So if I stand on a scale, but I'm also lifting up some of my weight on the doorframe, I suddenly weigh less? I don't think so, Clyde.
People would quite accurately point out that I was cheating, that my "weight" did not change.
Ditto with the claim that the vehicle gains 400 pounds of weight at speed - it gets additional down-force. Force != weight, or in this case, downforce != weight. Get over it. If I take a bag of flour, and throw it off the rooftop, it's going to hit with a force that is much higher than its' static weight, or it's weight when dropped only a foot. Again, weight != force.
(obligatory spaceballs references)
It depends - did they go plaid yet?
I'm still combing the desert looking for the answer to that one, and I ain't found shit yet!
That will be answered in Spaceballs: The Lost Sequel - The Search For More Weight.
Just use the schwartz to get this statue off my PAW!!!! I don't give a shit about mass, all I know is it weights a fr****ing ton!!!
(closing scene) Related? To spaceballs? Oh shit, there goes the neighborhood!
Stop being an anonymous coward. Gee, that worked well, didn't it?
Look, it's very simple - for decades, race cars have used wings to generate downforce. Never have they said that it increases their vehicle's weight - to the contrary, they make it clear that it is because the vehicle is so light that they have to counteract the possibility of the vehicle going airborne by adding down-thrust (force - not weight) with a horizontal wing. Then we have slashdot, with its high standards of editorial journalism, repeating a really dumb idea - that the vehicle weighs 400kg more at speed. It doesn't.
Your arm might only weigh a few pounds, but it can generate a lot more than a few pounds of force. When doing so, does it miraculously increase in weight? No.
Both you and the summary, and the original article, confuse mass, weight, and force.
So you're saying the article summary is correct, and yet, you agree with me that it has to copy the game first - it doesn't play it directly off the SD card ... get real. Even the menu says as much if you click on the SD card menu. Also, the reason it seems so fast is because downloadable games are SMALL. Super Mario fit on one of those old game cartridges back in the day when memory was measured in kilobytes, not gigabytes ...
Right - weight is the effect of gravity on an object of a specific mass. The effect of gravity doesn't suddenly change at speed. The vehicle dos NOT weigh more - gravity's effect on it is constant. What changes is the aerodynamic down-thrust. That doesn't change the vehicle's weight, just as an airplane doesn't suddenly weigh less than nothing when it takes off ... gravity still has the same effect on its mass.