You can't. Even if you nuked it to the point of turning portions to liquid, it wouldn't work. Liquids would release their CO2 into the atmosphere, and solids just won't subduct, because the rest of the crust is still locked together like interlocking pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.
You could put a big-enough planet-killing asteroid into it, strip off the sulphur-dioxide-laden atmosphere, and start over, but the entire surface would be molten at that point, and since the rest of the planet is already "squeezed bone dry", you'd just end up back where you started when things cooled down enough.
Dehydrating a planet looks to be like a one-way process.
Depends on what part of Venus. The surface will melt lead, and there's no plate tectonics (lack of water as a lubricant) because all the H2O is locked up in sulfuric acid clouds. One of the consequences of a locked crust is the inability to recycle the plates (and the chemicals like CO2 that they've pulled out of the atmosphere) via subduction.
You haven't got a clue. Tractors can go a LOT faster than 5-10 mph, and drive on paved roads. Take a look at snow clearing in any industrial country. 20 mph is not a problem, some can go a fair amount faster.
Second, I never said that this was like ABS - I was writing about how there are vehicles that already have individual wheel brake control (which the OP mistakenly said didn't exist).
Third, heart problems still kill only a minority of the population - and the #1 cause of heart disease is smoking. Stop smoking and both heart disease and cancer rates drop. Duh!
Disease, exposure to the elements, starvation, war, accidents... these all killed humans in great numbers.
Wrong again. Before humans became overpopulated and created agriculture, societies, cities, etc., these things weren't major problems
Well, nice way to try to slip in an outright lie. So what killed humans before we started living in cities? Or did they just live forever, never breaking a leg, immune from drought, storms, cold, never having an accident, never fighting with another tribe...
Gee, imagine that - there were no diseases before we invented cities! Nobody ever slipped on a wet rock while crossing a stream. The weather was always perfect. And there were not enough people in the world to fight. Sorry, but the Garden of Eden and similar "creation myths" are just that - myths.
And BTW, ABS sucks if you really know how to drive on ice.
... but for XHTML you would need to namespace it since it would be outside the HTML (default) namespace.
But I guess XHTML is dead now.
First off, it's not XHTML. It's just using the existing tags syntax, but with arbitrary tag names, and styling via css and manipulation via javascript.
Second, yes, happily XHTML has been dead for almost 2 years, according to the W3C - and they would know - they're the ones who killed it.
2009-07-02: XHTML 2 Working Group Expected to Stop Work End of 2009, W3C to Increase Resources on HTML 5. Today the Director announces that when the XHTML 2 Working Group charter expires as scheduled at the end of 2009, the charter will not be renewed. By doing so, and by increasing resources in the HTML Working Group, W3C hopes to accelerate the progress of HTML 5 and clarify W3C's position regarding the future of HTML.
Come to the UK. Books are one of the only things where there is zero VAT, others being children's clothing and some foods.
I guess the Queen's English is well and truly dead, even in the home country, when people in the UK use Americanisms that don't make sense.
1. "one of the few things" == correct, refers to one of several
2. "the only thing" == correct, refers to only one thing
3. "one of the only things" == language fail
Nobody is going to buy a mediocre book for $9.95. That's why I can pick them up at the local bookstore for $2 in the remainder bin. That's a hardcover, edited, printed, by a known author (Harry Turtledove - Settling Accounts, Book 2)
The paperback version of that same hardcover that I paid $2 for is on Amazon for $10.85.
A downloadable version is certainly not worth $9.95. A buck? Sure. But that's about it. Times have changed.
Well, I *could* have said 2 umbilical cords, but bellybuttons are funnier. After all, we all know the purpose of bellybuttons is to collect lint so it doesn't accumulate in the clothes dryer.
Articles of clothing that are too far from the bellybutton accumulate too much lint, and the clothes dryer tries to eat them. Think of it - how many socks does the average dryer consume, compared to shirts?
Can I beg to differ? First, your link says nothing about meta-wishes.
Second, a meta-wish makes about as much sense as the semantic web. Automated agents will never "understand" the web, just as Watson doesn't "understand" the questions on Jeopardy.
I have a dream for the Web [in which computers] become capable of analyzing all the data on the Web – the content, links, and transactions between people and computers. A ‘Semantic Web’, which should make this possible, has yet to emerge, but when it does, the day-to-day mechanisms of trade, bureaucracy and our daily lives will be handled by machines talking to machines. The ‘intelligent agents’ people have touted for ages will finally materialize.
– Tim Berners-Lee, 1999
Keep wishing. It will never happen. Computers don't "analyse".
Analysis is the process of observing and breaking down a complex topic or substance into smaller parts to gain a better understanding of it.
Computers cannot "understand." It's only when you realize that it's not possible that you can overcome the problem. And it's certainly not necessary for machines to have any "understanding" of what they're doing when data-mining, any more than your car needs to "understand" how it burns gasoline.
This anthropomorphism of objects, which we seem to have dragged with us from the times when we lived in caves or trees, makes us blind to the real possibilities. It's just one example of trying to classify something by fitting it into a pre-existing framework, "because we can". Same as saying it's a "meta-wish". Wishing for an infinite supply of wishes can be both a "wish about wishes" AND a wish;-p
it's not possible (it'd be like trying to have fully manual antilock brakes, with individual wheelspeed sensing and control, at the driver's feet).
Heavy equipment has had this for decades. Individual brake pedals for left and right sides, and a little slider so you can lock them together if you don't want to "play the brake pedals".
Also, heart failure was far and away from being the major cause of death for most of humanity's existence. Disease, exposure to the elements, starvation, war, accidents... these all killed humans in great numbers.
Imagine if you will, you find a lamp with a genie in it. You get three wishes. Most people wish for selfish things, for which only a bad outcome can happen (or so says TV). But you thought this through...
Yes, I have. I wish for an infinite supply of wishes.
I could never understand why people didn't just do that in the stories.
Our own bodies even have redundancy: lungs, kidneys, eyes, ears, etc
How's that second heart, second liver, second penis, second uterus, second vagina, second mouth, second rectum, second esophagus, second stomach, second large intestine, second small intestine, second gall bladder, second spleen, second pancreas, second spine, second larynx, and second bellybutton coming along?
The heart and liver are good examples of the "all your eggs in one basket" approach - not 100% perfect, but if taken care of, should last the normal warranty period (and until recently, the warranty was "for the life of the owner" by definition).
Write it down when I tell you something! I will not answer the same question more than twice in a lifetime per person!
So the 3rd time you moved in your life, you stopped giving out your new address and phone # when they asked "So, where did you move to?"
I guess that's one way to keep them from asking you to fix things. Kinda harsh, though...
You can use and distribute copyleft software like anyone else.
The expensive part is that you can't (easily/effective) sell it, though to be fair you likely didn't pay for it either.
For users copyleft software can be some of theleast expensive.
I don't have to upgrade, I don't have to pay for it, it doesn't have time bombs in it.
If tehre are problems I can get them fixed without relying on the origional vendor to do it, and my data isn't locked up in proprietary formats.
Not all open-source licenses require you to distribute the source. MIT, BSD, Apache Harmony (which is what portions of the Android libraries are based on) don't require distribution of the source. So sure, you can effectively sell products derived from it. Microsoft has been doing so for decades (look at the license for their ftp program as an example).
As I pointed out, it was obvious that the school already knew who the culprits were. Doesn't take any great brains to figure it out, if they only asked the specific students to log into their accounts.
Of course, that would require people to be able to not only read, but to think... and obviously, from all the knee-jerk responses, most slashdotters aren't exactly great thinkers.
There is no way I'd want my kids in the same classes as these kids. Schools need to be prepared to take disciplinary measures, not only to protect the learning environment, but also to make sure that other students see that this sort of activity is not tolerated.
Only the utterly clueless and the irresponsible would try to portray that as "hating kids".
But that brings us back to why is it that most people read the article, and didn't question HOW the principal knew who to confront? Simple answer - too many slashdotters are into group think, whether it's from Faux Newz, or Apple/Microsoft/Linux fanboi-isms, or Neocons/fundies/terr'rists/global warming deniers... very shallow pseudo-intellectuals.
The facts were clear from the article. The principal didn't confront the whole school, but rather, , started with the student whose facebook account had the posts. But don't trouble your head with facts and ideas and concepts such as teaching kids to be responsible for their actions, or critical reading. Just bail the kids out - after all, everyone else is getting bailed out. It's the new New NEW economy.
I like the way you label all of your core political/religious beliefs as "facts", then complain that people don't check facts. "Everyone who disagrees with me is just stupid or poorly informed, and eveyone who agrees with me agrees with that!"
I'm glad you like it!:-p
BTW - what "core religious beliefs?" I'm a hard-line atheist. Atheism is not a religion. It is in direct contrast to theism, which is required for a "religious", aka superstitious, belief. I think Richard Dawkins is wishy-washy on the subject. There is no god, and no possibility of god, in this universe. That doesn't mean that I don't believe that other people should become atheists - they have every right to be wrong on something that's of a personal nature. They just don't have the right to tell anyone else that they must live their lives in accordance with their "god" or they're going to hell.
Since this is slashdot, time for a bad car analogy. Saying I have a religious belief because I'm an out-and-out atheist is akin to saying someone has a favorite car because they only take public transit.
Or that someone with no eyesight has a preferred color for their guide dog. Or that someone who doesn't believe in the "supernatural" believes in ghosts.
I would suggest you take your own advice and "get over it already."
What these kids did is criminal behavior. Their parents should be more concerned about that than anything else. So please, swallow a chill pill or do some deep breathing exercises or whatever it is you do when you need to gain some perspective, and realize what's really important here.
The principal didn't need the kids logging into their facebook account to take any action - all facebook postings are discoverable - even deleted ones. All this did was speed up the process of dealing with the issue. Now, before you go on about "cutting corners gathering evidence", the principal is not a law enforcement agent, and was not "gathering evidence" they were dealing with disciplining the students who they already knew had made the posts (otherwise, how would they have known who to single out, Sherlock?).
The students in question were given the opportunity to delete the posts and apologize, rather than be expelled forthwith. If you have a problem with that, then you're not seeing the forest for the trees.
Personally, I would have just expelled them. Problem solved. They need to be in a school that is better equipped to handle sociopathic brats (the parents who are screaming about lawyering up) and their "oh so special" offspring.
If the kids were at home -- or really, if they were anywhere except campus, the bus stop, or a sanctioned event/field trip -- then they should be assumed to be in the custody of their parents.
[citation needed]
Stop making things up just for the sake of argument, please.
To the contrary, there is no legal assumption that they are in their parents custody, even when they're at home. Otherwise, it would be perfectly fine to leave kids alone at home instead of getting them a babysitter while the parents go to work or a night out.
What does that agreement say about the case where they start releasing versions that contain features patented by another company, but which they have an agreement with such that they won't get sued...but nobody else is protected? I'd bet that that counts as releasing an open source version, even if you don't dare use it.
This was one of the considerations in the wording of the GPL3.
That would still be a violation of the GPL v2, as it would be a restriction on downstream recipients ability to do anything they want with the code, including, but not limited to, distribution of the code and compiling and running it for any purpose whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
You could put a big-enough planet-killing asteroid into it, strip off the sulphur-dioxide-laden atmosphere, and start over, but the entire surface would be molten at that point, and since the rest of the planet is already "squeezed bone dry", you'd just end up back where you started when things cooled down enough.
Dehydrating a planet looks to be like a one-way process.
Depends on what part of Venus. The surface will melt lead, and there's no plate tectonics (lack of water as a lubricant) because all the H2O is locked up in sulfuric acid clouds. One of the consequences of a locked crust is the inability to recycle the plates (and the chemicals like CO2 that they've pulled out of the atmosphere) via subduction.
After all, at the pressures we're talking about, water would be liquid well above 100 degrees C.
W3C recommends that people use html syntax only. Expect to see xml dropped at some point, since this is the "usual procedure" for doing that.
Second, I never said that this was like ABS - I was writing about how there are vehicles that already have individual wheel brake control (which the OP mistakenly said didn't exist).
Third, heart problems still kill only a minority of the population - and the #1 cause of heart disease is smoking. Stop smoking and both heart disease and cancer rates drop. Duh!
Disease, exposure to the elements, starvation, war, accidents ... these all killed humans in great numbers.
Wrong again. Before humans became overpopulated and created agriculture, societies, cities, etc., these things weren't major problems
Well, nice way to try to slip in an outright lie. So what killed humans before we started living in cities? Or did they just live forever, never breaking a leg, immune from drought, storms, cold, never having an accident, never fighting with another tribe ...
Gee, imagine that - there were no diseases before we invented cities! Nobody ever slipped on a wet rock while crossing a stream. The weather was always perfect. And there were not enough people in the world to fight. Sorry, but the Garden of Eden and similar "creation myths" are just that - myths.
And BTW, ABS sucks if you really know how to drive on ice.
... but for XHTML you would need to namespace it since it would be outside the HTML (default) namespace.
But I guess XHTML is dead now.
First off, it's not XHTML. It's just using the existing tags syntax, but with arbitrary tag names, and styling via css and manipulation via javascript.
Second, yes, happily XHTML has been dead for almost 2 years, according to the W3C - and they would know - they're the ones who killed it .
The only people who cared are the XML nazis.
So you can already have a <photo>photo tag</photo>, a <crap>crap tag</crap>a <slashvertisement>slashvertisement tag</slashvertisement> etc.
Come to the UK. Books are one of the only things where there is zero VAT, others being children's clothing and some foods.
I guess the Queen's English is well and truly dead, even in the home country, when people in the UK use Americanisms that don't make sense.
1. "one of the few things" == correct, refers to one of several
2. "the only thing" == correct, refers to only one thing
3. "one of the only things" == language fail
The paperback version of that same hardcover that I paid $2 for is on Amazon for $10.85.
A downloadable version is certainly not worth $9.95. A buck? Sure. But that's about it. Times have changed.
Articles of clothing that are too far from the bellybutton accumulate too much lint, and the clothes dryer tries to eat them. Think of it - how many socks does the average dryer consume, compared to shirts?
Second, a meta-wish makes about as much sense as the semantic web. Automated agents will never "understand" the web, just as Watson doesn't "understand" the questions on Jeopardy.
Keep wishing. It will never happen. Computers don't "analyse".
Computers cannot "understand." It's only when you realize that it's not possible that you can overcome the problem. And it's certainly not necessary for machines to have any "understanding" of what they're doing when data-mining, any more than your car needs to "understand" how it burns gasoline.
This anthropomorphism of objects, which we seem to have dragged with us from the times when we lived in caves or trees, makes us blind to the real possibilities. It's just one example of trying to classify something by fitting it into a pre-existing framework, "because we can". Same as saying it's a "meta-wish". Wishing for an infinite supply of wishes can be both a "wish about wishes" AND a wish ;-p
it's not possible (it'd be like trying to have fully manual antilock brakes, with individual wheelspeed sensing and control, at the driver's feet).
Heavy equipment has had this for decades. Individual brake pedals for left and right sides, and a little slider so you can lock them together if you don't want to "play the brake pedals".
Also, heart failure was far and away from being the major cause of death for most of humanity's existence. Disease, exposure to the elements, starvation, war, accidents ... these all killed humans in great numbers.
Or how about these snapshots:Murder being the #1 cause of death for pregnant women in Maryland, and the #2 cause nationally, behind accidents, or the #2 cause of death for infants/a
Imagine if you will, you find a lamp with a genie in it. You get three wishes. Most people wish for selfish things, for which only a bad outcome can happen (or so says TV). But you thought this through...
Yes, I have. I wish for an infinite supply of wishes.
I could never understand why people didn't just do that in the stories.
Our own bodies even have redundancy: lungs, kidneys, eyes, ears, etc
How's that second heart, second liver, second penis, second uterus, second vagina, second mouth, second rectum, second esophagus, second stomach, second large intestine, second small intestine, second gall bladder, second spleen, second pancreas, second spine, second larynx, and second bellybutton coming along?
The heart and liver are good examples of the "all your eggs in one basket" approach - not 100% perfect, but if taken care of, should last the normal warranty period (and until recently, the warranty was "for the life of the owner" by definition).
Write it down when I tell you something! I will not answer the same question more than twice in a lifetime per person!
So the 3rd time you moved in your life, you stopped giving out your new address and phone # when they asked "So, where did you move to?" ...
I guess that's one way to keep them from asking you to fix things. Kinda harsh, though
Just the same, I don't just "recommend" linux. Most people aren't capable of dealing with something that requires command line.
The Clinton Era called - they want the other troll back.
You can use and distribute copyleft software like anyone else.
The expensive part is that you can't (easily/effective) sell it, though to be fair you likely didn't pay for it either.
For users copyleft software can be some of theleast expensive. I don't have to upgrade, I don't have to pay for it, it doesn't have time bombs in it. If tehre are problems I can get them fixed without relying on the origional vendor to do it, and my data isn't locked up in proprietary formats.
Not all open-source licenses require you to distribute the source. MIT, BSD, Apache Harmony (which is what portions of the Android libraries are based on) don't require distribution of the source. So sure, you can effectively sell products derived from it. Microsoft has been doing so for decades (look at the license for their ftp program as an example).
Stuff like the apache harmony libraries - you know, that stuff google and oracle are fighting over? The one that doesn't require making the source available?
2. They offer to sell developers scanning software so devs can make sure their apps are in compliance.
3. PROFIT!?!
Color me skeptical.
Of course, that would require people to be able to not only read, but to think ... and obviously, from all the knee-jerk responses, most slashdotters aren't exactly great thinkers.
There is no way I'd want my kids in the same classes as these kids. Schools need to be prepared to take disciplinary measures, not only to protect the learning environment, but also to make sure that other students see that this sort of activity is not tolerated.
Only the utterly clueless and the irresponsible would try to portray that as "hating kids".
But that brings us back to why is it that most people read the article, and didn't question HOW the principal knew who to confront? Simple answer - too many slashdotters are into group think, whether it's from Faux Newz, or Apple/Microsoft/Linux fanboi-isms, or Neocons/fundies/terr'rists/global warming deniers ... very shallow pseudo-intellectuals.
The facts were clear from the article. The principal didn't confront the whole school, but rather, , started with the student whose facebook account had the posts. But don't trouble your head with facts and ideas and concepts such as teaching kids to be responsible for their actions, or critical reading. Just bail the kids out - after all, everyone else is getting bailed out. It's the new New NEW economy.
I like the way you label all of your core political/religious beliefs as "facts", then complain that people don't check facts. "Everyone who disagrees with me is just stupid or poorly informed, and eveyone who agrees with me agrees with that!"
I'm glad you like it! :-p
BTW - what "core religious beliefs?" I'm a hard-line atheist. Atheism is not a religion. It is in direct contrast to theism, which is required for a "religious", aka superstitious, belief. I think Richard Dawkins is wishy-washy on the subject. There is no god, and no possibility of god, in this universe. That doesn't mean that I don't believe that other people should become atheists - they have every right to be wrong on something that's of a personal nature. They just don't have the right to tell anyone else that they must live their lives in accordance with their "god" or they're going to hell.
Since this is slashdot, time for a bad car analogy. Saying I have a religious belief because I'm an out-and-out atheist is akin to saying someone has a favorite car because they only take public transit.
Or that someone with no eyesight has a preferred color for their guide dog. Or that someone who doesn't believe in the "supernatural" believes in ghosts.
What these kids did is criminal behavior. Their parents should be more concerned about that than anything else. So please, swallow a chill pill or do some deep breathing exercises or whatever it is you do when you need to gain some perspective, and realize what's really important here.
The principal didn't need the kids logging into their facebook account to take any action - all facebook postings are discoverable - even deleted ones. All this did was speed up the process of dealing with the issue. Now, before you go on about "cutting corners gathering evidence", the principal is not a law enforcement agent, and was not "gathering evidence" they were dealing with disciplining the students who they already knew had made the posts (otherwise, how would they have known who to single out, Sherlock?) .
The students in question were given the opportunity to delete the posts and apologize, rather than be expelled forthwith. If you have a problem with that, then you're not seeing the forest for the trees.
Personally, I would have just expelled them. Problem solved. They need to be in a school that is better equipped to handle sociopathic brats (the parents who are screaming about lawyering up) and their "oh so special" offspring.
To be influential you have to both be liked and be convincing.
The fact that both Hitler (1938) and Stalin (1939, 1942) were voted Time Magazine's Person of the Year would tend to argue against your thesis.
If the kids were at home -- or really, if they were anywhere except campus, the bus stop, or a sanctioned event/field trip -- then they should be assumed to be in the custody of their parents.
[citation needed]
Stop making things up just for the sake of argument, please.
To the contrary, there is no legal assumption that they are in their parents custody, even when they're at home. Otherwise, it would be perfectly fine to leave kids alone at home instead of getting them a babysitter while the parents go to work or a night out.
What does that agreement say about the case where they start releasing versions that contain features patented by another company, but which they have an agreement with such that they won't get sued...but nobody else is protected? I'd bet that that counts as releasing an open source version, even if you don't dare use it.
This was one of the considerations in the wording of the GPL3.
That would still be a violation of the GPL v2, as it would be a restriction on downstream recipients ability to do anything they want with the code, including, but not limited to, distribution of the code and compiling and running it for any purpose whatsoever.