Seriously, it's a ridge on the rim casting a shadow (the shadow is so stark because light isn't scattered by the Martian atmosphere to the degree it is on Earth). If you look at 4:00 and 5:00 on the same photo, you'll see similar ridges with different lighting (there's also a tiny one, only a few pixels across, at about 6:00).
There you go, mystery solved by using simple observation.
But who would you get to play Batman? I'm all for shooting Christian Bale, Val Kilmer and Michael Keaton into space at once, but I think they might get suspicious when they see each other on the launch pad...
On new systems Flood fill, heck most filters out perform the old system.
The tests were specifically designed to avoid computationally demanding tasks, as the results would have been blindingly obvious and pretty much reflect standard benchmarks. If there's a reason to take this seriously it's that benchmarks based on raw computing power rather than user habits don't show the whole picture, and that testing methodology should be revised to take this into account if we want a clear idea of a system's overall performance.
Coughing into the microphone will also screw up a recording. I suppose that leads you believe that coughing is a major cause of brain damage as well, huh?
My father recently had to have a stent inserted into his carotid artery because of a sudden blockage triggered by a severe coughing fit (he had all the symptoms of a stroke). So coughing can indeed cause brain damage...not that this validates the GP's logical leap.
I updated 7 Macs here (mix of PPC & Intel) without a problem. I suspect the update was a catalyst, but not the cause of your problem.
I follow two pieces of advice when updating: (1) Unsanity's warning not to touch the machine while updating the prebinding, and (2) everyone else's warning to uninstall anything by Unsanity (a bit of a problem if you use Logitech Control Center, though).
The whole Star Wars fandom thing is just a hobby, and not even the most expensive or anti-social hobby there is. I don't see the point myself (it's just a movie), but then I don't see the point of sailing single-handed around the world, or risking death just to climb some lump of rock that happens to be taller than some other lump of rock (nobody ever needed a costly, dangerous air rescue from a Sci-Fi-Con. Wanted one, maybe).
I have to wonder who is in more need of a life: the fans, or people who feel the need to complain about the fans...
I remember thinking how trashy the film was when I went to see it; still great fun, and completely in character with the old "Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe" serial that people like George Lucas grew up watching (no, I didn't see those at the cinema on their first run).
Besides, Vultan, Prince of the Birdmen was played by Brian Blessed ("Gordons alive!?"). When you look at what he's appeared in (The Avengers, Dr Who, Space:1999 as two different villians, Blake's 7, BlackAdder, MacGuyver, Star Wars ep 1), you know anything non-Shakespearian with his name attached is at least good for a chuckle. Except Disney's "Tarzan"...that just sucked.
A worthy quote, but Jefferson didn't live to see the 20th century. History provides no example of a priest-free people maintaining a free civil government either (in fact, being priest-free usually seems to be the result of the loss of free government and descent into totalitarianism).
I'm not defending religion, I'm saying that the problem is people in general. Unfortunately my doomsday machine isn't quite ready yet...
But cultural relevance is a direct result of the majority being descended from Europeans, so looking at it that way race ultimately plays a part. That's not to say this is intentional racism, more likely it's a result of our tribal history and a tendency to look after "our own people" (family, community, state, country, cultural relations, in that order) first. Thoughtlessness rather than malice.
That said, the regions mentioned in dewke's post lack economically significant natural resources, but that doesn't make us look any better...
Certainly Christianity is the butt of jokes, but the practical result of that is to limit the excesses of the fundamentalists. However, considering events like Kansas public schools attempting to teach creationism, I'd argue that it's more an ongoing battle than a one-sided attack.
Utter rubbish; it is entirely possible to set absolute standards (and I seriously hope you aren't responsible for maintaining any potentially deadly machinery or critical infrastructure). Cherry-picking a worse example than the Smithsonian without acknowledging that other museums are far better is actually totally meaningless and irrelevant, unless you're deliberately trying to justify low intellectual standards by means of low intellectual standards.
We did not go to Iraq to "torture and kill civilians" -- it happened, but it was not the government's real intent.
Read what I wrote again: I never said we invaded Iraq specifically to kill civilians (a little shy on comprehension skills, I see), though that is the only really predictable consequence of war. What I did say is that whatever justification we have for killing and torturing civilians is an equal moral vacuum to the Japanese's reasoning. The only significant difference is scale; intent makes no difference to the victims, even if it salves your conscience.
But are you trying to convince me that those "extraordinary renditions" to countries like Uzbekistan, Syria and Egypt that are known to use torture were all unintentional, and Abu Grahib and the ongoing reports of torture by Iraqi police are a coincidence? That would have to be the most logistically complex and consistent series of accidents of all time; a cynic might say it looks more like covert policy.
Naive as it may or may not be, we really did (and do) want to make Iraq a democracy.
Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle. It wasn't "about regime change", it was about those WMDs that were so ready to use that we couldn't wait for the UN to reach a resolution, remember? Except they didn't have WMDs after all (though we did find that mobile hydrogen plant) and the intelligence connecting Saddam with Al Qaeda or Nigerian uranium dealers turned out to be fabricated, and that's when it magically metamorphed into a campaign to spread democracy. This isn't saying Saddam was a nice guy (the ever so predictable hawk straw man), this is saying I'M FUCKING FURIOUS THAT MY GOVERNMENT LIED, as any rational person in a representative democracy should be whenever their government lies about something that has cost many, many lives and over $400,000,000,000 to date with no end in sight.
Listen to the samples in this SWF from 2004. Three years later has a single one of these quotes been proven accurate?
So who is revising history now? If revisionism is good enough for you on current issues, its good enough for the Japanese view of history, end of argument, you lose.
Japan's real intent was to capture the lands and the natural resources (ore, coal, oil, rubber, lumber, etc.
And of course it's just a coincidence that an administration with close ties to the oil industry should choose to exploit the nation's grief and fear over a terrorist attack to invade a militarily impotent but oil rich country with no connection to terrorism at all, then put their select corporate buddies to work fixing the critical infrastructure. Nope, that's not even remotely suspicious, and anyone questioning the motives behind it all is an idiot because we're invariably the good guys, right? Or, just maybe, someone has the flag so far up their ass they can't see what's going on for all the stars.
In the six weeks of the course of Nanking Massacre alone, Japanese Army has killed above 100000 Chinese non-combatants. But yes, please, do continue comparing it with, what, 50 victims of American troops' deliberate murder or torture (not all of it of civilians even)
I will, if it helps reinforce my point that selective comparisons are entirely subjective and therefore completely useless, as well as being intellectually dishonest. Not clued in on irony either, are we?
If we spent half the money on battery research that we did trying to make cars run on food, we'd be running silent, emissionless cars before we even ran out of oil.
If we spent one tenth of the money spent on protecting oil supplies, we'd have those batteries today. And if we'd spent the other 90% on fusion research...well, $380,000,000,000 buys a lot of superconductors...
Can anyone produce an economically sound argument to the contrary?
Yes. My doomsday machine, which I guarantee will kill 90% of the world's population, would need the entire output of the US electricity grid for three years to charge (What can I say? If it was economic to run, I would have used it already). Add the methane released from 5,400,000,000 decaying corpses and it won't be carbon-neutral until at least 2147...
Why do they need to do a fscking study about something that's covered in Organic Chemistry 101 ?
Because we can't officially confer "blindingly obvious" status on knowledge until we've independently verified that it is indeed blindingly obvious. And also because the executive summary of a pointless report is as close as most politicians get to Organic Chemistry 101.
1: Modern agriculture is terrible for the environment. Any solution that simply moves environmental damage from one activity to another isn't really a solution at all.
2: If human activity is responsible for climate change, the obvious solution is fewer humans. Higher food prices should help that along nicely (and since it will only affect poor people in countries we've never heard of, why should we worry?).
I don't know this situation, but maybe they failed to mention the million plus that , in all likely hood, would have dies had the bomb not been dropped.
Theoretical scenarios are not the domain of history museums. It might deserve a passing mention if it was an official estimate of casualties at the time, but otherwise it is a largely irrelevant point of non-data because it didn't happen, so there is no way of verifying whether the esitmate was correct or simply a convenient justification for testing the new super-weapon on a real target (there are ample examples of the US government "fixing" intelligence to suit an agenda over the last century, so why some regard it as an unquestionable paragon of virtue between 1941 and 1945 escapes me).
Argue the point if you like, but you'd only be giving an example of why museums should stick to the facts and leave out the unverifiable and contentious "what ifs".
Before accusing the US government of polishing up its record, check out what the kind, benign, "Hello Kitty" modern Japan is doing.
Why? What connection is there between how Japan portrays it's military history and whether the Smithsonian's exhibits are correct, other than the word "museum"? Both institutes have a duty to convey accurate information; they both failed to do so, and in my view that makes them both short of the standard.
And that's the point: if your standard is "not as bad as the other guy", you don't grasp what "standards" are. It doesn't matter whether you have 5 tons of bullshit or 50 tons, it's still bullshit, and attempting to justify one quantity with the other is a slow race to the bottom.
Defending the fellow Asians from the racist Europeans.
Pure propaganda to hide the events of 60 years ago. Fortunately, when we torture and kill civilians today, we're "liberating them in the name of democracy", so it's totally different.
It is the justification for the conquests presented in Yasukuni that we should be objecting to...
No, we should be objecting to any distortion of facts by anyone at all, regardless of how trivial it may seem (though I'd argue that unbiased presentations about climate change are more important to the future of the world than Japan acknowledging long past war crimes). Since the majority of/. readers live in the US, it is appropriate for them to be concerned about standards in their own community first and foremost.
Slashdot Mirror
Little green spelunkers.
Seriously, it's a ridge on the rim casting a shadow (the shadow is so stark because light isn't scattered by the Martian atmosphere to the degree it is on Earth). If you look at 4:00 and 5:00 on the same photo, you'll see similar ridges with different lighting (there's also a tiny one, only a few pixels across, at about 6:00).
There you go, mystery solved by using simple observation.
But who would you get to play Batman? I'm all for shooting Christian Bale, Val Kilmer and Michael Keaton into space at once, but I think they might get suspicious when they see each other on the launch pad...
The thin Martian atmosphere makes an Earthly parachute as much use as an anvil. Come to think of it, that would be funny to watch.
Some holes don't need further study.
But the stilts could be computer controlled
In Soviet New Orleans, unhappy home runs away from YOU!
On new systems Flood fill, heck most filters out perform the old system.
The tests were specifically designed to avoid computationally demanding tasks, as the results would have been blindingly obvious and pretty much reflect standard benchmarks. If there's a reason to take this seriously it's that benchmarks based on raw computing power rather than user habits don't show the whole picture, and that testing methodology should be revised to take this into account if we want a clear idea of a system's overall performance.
'Seenin'? Come on, editors. You can do better than that.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence...
A match would burn longer than the genius of Barry Manilow.
literary garbage, even if it has entertaining values
I believe you mean "entertainment value". "Entertaining values" are what you hear when you bait a fundamentalist.
Sorry to be a nazi, but if you're criticising* literature...
*UK spelling.
Coughing into the microphone will also screw up a recording. I suppose that leads you believe that coughing is a major cause of brain damage as well, huh?
My father recently had to have a stent inserted into his carotid artery because of a sudden blockage triggered by a severe coughing fit (he had all the symptoms of a stroke). So coughing can indeed cause brain damage...not that this validates the GP's logical leap.
I updated 7 Macs here (mix of PPC & Intel) without a problem. I suspect the update was a catalyst, but not the cause of your problem.
I follow two pieces of advice when updating: (1) Unsanity's warning not to touch the machine while updating the prebinding, and (2) everyone else's warning to uninstall anything by Unsanity (a bit of a problem if you use Logitech Control Center, though).
The whole Star Wars fandom thing is just a hobby, and not even the most expensive or anti-social hobby there is. I don't see the point myself (it's just a movie), but then I don't see the point of sailing single-handed around the world, or risking death just to climb some lump of rock that happens to be taller than some other lump of rock (nobody ever needed a costly, dangerous air rescue from a Sci-Fi-Con. Wanted one, maybe).
I have to wonder who is in more need of a life: the fans, or people who feel the need to complain about the fans...
I remember thinking how trashy the film was when I went to see it; still great fun, and completely in character with the old "Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe" serial that people like George Lucas grew up watching (no, I didn't see those at the cinema on their first run).
Besides, Vultan, Prince of the Birdmen was played by Brian Blessed ("Gordons alive!?"). When you look at what he's appeared in (The Avengers, Dr Who, Space:1999 as two different villians, Blake's 7, BlackAdder, MacGuyver, Star Wars ep 1), you know anything non-Shakespearian with his name attached is at least good for a chuckle. Except Disney's "Tarzan"...that just sucked.
A worthy quote, but Jefferson didn't live to see the 20th century. History provides no example of a priest-free people maintaining a free civil government either (in fact, being priest-free usually seems to be the result of the loss of free government and descent into totalitarianism).
I'm not defending religion, I'm saying that the problem is people in general. Unfortunately my doomsday machine isn't quite ready yet...
But cultural relevance is a direct result of the majority being descended from Europeans, so looking at it that way race ultimately plays a part. That's not to say this is intentional racism, more likely it's a result of our tribal history and a tendency to look after "our own people" (family, community, state, country, cultural relations, in that order) first. Thoughtlessness rather than malice.
That said, the regions mentioned in dewke's post lack economically significant natural resources, but that doesn't make us look any better...
Certainly Christianity is the butt of jokes, but the practical result of that is to limit the excesses of the fundamentalists. However, considering events like Kansas public schools attempting to teach creationism, I'd argue that it's more an ongoing battle than a one-sided attack.
ratings are only meaningful in comparision.
Utter rubbish; it is entirely possible to set absolute standards (and I seriously hope you aren't responsible for maintaining any potentially deadly machinery or critical infrastructure). Cherry-picking a worse example than the Smithsonian without acknowledging that other museums are far better is actually totally meaningless and irrelevant, unless you're deliberately trying to justify low intellectual standards by means of low intellectual standards.
We did not go to Iraq to "torture and kill civilians" -- it happened, but it was not the government's real intent.
Read what I wrote again: I never said we invaded Iraq specifically to kill civilians (a little shy on comprehension skills, I see), though that is the only really predictable consequence of war. What I did say is that whatever justification we have for killing and torturing civilians is an equal moral vacuum to the Japanese's reasoning. The only significant difference is scale; intent makes no difference to the victims, even if it salves your conscience.
But are you trying to convince me that those "extraordinary renditions" to countries like Uzbekistan, Syria and Egypt that are known to use torture were all unintentional, and Abu Grahib and the ongoing reports of torture by Iraqi police are a coincidence? That would have to be the most logistically complex and consistent series of accidents of all time; a cynic might say it looks more like covert policy.
Naive as it may or may not be, we really did (and do) want to make Iraq a democracy.
Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle. It wasn't "about regime change", it was about those WMDs that were so ready to use that we couldn't wait for the UN to reach a resolution, remember? Except they didn't have WMDs after all (though we did find that mobile hydrogen plant) and the intelligence connecting Saddam with Al Qaeda or Nigerian uranium dealers turned out to be fabricated, and that's when it magically metamorphed into a campaign to spread democracy. This isn't saying Saddam was a nice guy (the ever so predictable hawk straw man), this is saying I'M FUCKING FURIOUS THAT MY GOVERNMENT LIED, as any rational person in a representative democracy should be whenever their government lies about something that has cost many, many lives and over $400,000,000,000 to date with no end in sight.
Listen to the samples in this SWF from 2004. Three years later has a single one of these quotes been proven accurate?
http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2004/anthr.shtml
So who is revising history now? If revisionism is good enough for you on current issues, its good enough for the Japanese view of history, end of argument, you lose.
Japan's real intent was to capture the lands and the natural resources (ore, coal, oil, rubber, lumber, etc.
And of course it's just a coincidence that an administration with close ties to the oil industry should choose to exploit the nation's grief and fear over a terrorist attack to invade a militarily impotent but oil rich country with no connection to terrorism at all, then put their select corporate buddies to work fixing the critical infrastructure. Nope, that's not even remotely suspicious, and anyone questioning the motives behind it all is an idiot because we're invariably the good guys, right? Or, just maybe, someone has the flag so far up their ass they can't see what's going on for all the stars.
In the six weeks of the course of Nanking Massacre alone, Japanese Army has killed above 100000 Chinese non-combatants. But yes, please, do continue comparing it with, what, 50 victims of American troops' deliberate murder or torture (not all of it of civilians even)
I will, if it helps reinforce my point that selective comparisons are entirely subjective and therefore completely useless, as well as being intellectually dishonest. Not clued in on irony either, are we?
OK then, this will scare you: sugar is also an ingredient of beer.
If we spent half the money on battery research that we did trying to make cars run on food, we'd be running silent, emissionless cars before we even ran out of oil.
If we spent one tenth of the money spent on protecting oil supplies, we'd have those batteries today. And if we'd spent the other 90% on fusion research...well, $380,000,000,000 buys a lot of superconductors...
Can anyone produce an economically sound argument to the contrary?
Yes. My doomsday machine, which I guarantee will kill 90% of the world's population, would need the entire output of the US electricity grid for three years to charge (What can I say? If it was economic to run, I would have used it already). Add the methane released from 5,400,000,000 decaying corpses and it won't be carbon-neutral until at least 2147...
Why do they need to do a fscking study about something that's covered in Organic Chemistry 101 ?
Because we can't officially confer "blindingly obvious" status on knowledge until we've independently verified that it is indeed blindingly obvious. And also because the executive summary of a pointless report is as close as most politicians get to Organic Chemistry 101.
Now I don't think of sugar as a food staple, though I could be wrong.
Good luck getting your bread to rise without it.
Heh, the conflict...the conflict.
Not really, for two reasons.
1: Modern agriculture is terrible for the environment. Any solution that simply moves environmental damage from one activity to another isn't really a solution at all.
2: If human activity is responsible for climate change, the obvious solution is fewer humans. Higher food prices should help that along nicely (and since it will only affect poor people in countries we've never heard of, why should we worry?).
I don't know this situation, but maybe they failed to mention the million plus that , in all likely hood, would have dies had the bomb not been dropped.
Theoretical scenarios are not the domain of history museums. It might deserve a passing mention if it was an official estimate of casualties at the time, but otherwise it is a largely irrelevant point of non-data because it didn't happen, so there is no way of verifying whether the esitmate was correct or simply a convenient justification for testing the new super-weapon on a real target (there are ample examples of the US government "fixing" intelligence to suit an agenda over the last century, so why some regard it as an unquestionable paragon of virtue between 1941 and 1945 escapes me).
Argue the point if you like, but you'd only be giving an example of why museums should stick to the facts and leave out the unverifiable and contentious "what ifs".
Before accusing the US government of polishing up its record, check out what the kind, benign, "Hello Kitty" modern Japan is doing.
/. readers live in the US, it is appropriate for them to be concerned about standards in their own community first and foremost.
Why? What connection is there between how Japan portrays it's military history and whether the Smithsonian's exhibits are correct, other than the word "museum"? Both institutes have a duty to convey accurate information; they both failed to do so, and in my view that makes them both short of the standard.
And that's the point: if your standard is "not as bad as the other guy", you don't grasp what "standards" are. It doesn't matter whether you have 5 tons of bullshit or 50 tons, it's still bullshit, and attempting to justify one quantity with the other is a slow race to the bottom.
Defending the fellow Asians from the racist Europeans.
Pure propaganda to hide the events of 60 years ago. Fortunately, when we torture and kill civilians today, we're "liberating them in the name of democracy", so it's totally different.
It is the justification for the conquests presented in Yasukuni that we should be objecting to...
No, we should be objecting to any distortion of facts by anyone at all, regardless of how trivial it may seem (though I'd argue that unbiased presentations about climate change are more important to the future of the world than Japan acknowledging long past war crimes). Since the majority of