Before they find a genuinely earth-like planet with this technique - with the radial velocity technique you find big close planets first, later big distant planets and medium-sized close planets, etc., and small close but not too close planets last. Not a criticism of the astronomers; it's amazing that they can find even a very close Neptune-sized planet with this. . .
For those who don't know, Fletcher Christian was shot in the back during a period of civil unrest in which the Polynesian male settlers revolted against the European male settlers because, among other things, one of the Europeans had stolen the wife of one of the Polynesians. In the end, only one adult male was left on the island (though several of the men, including Christian, had fathered children before their untimely demises).
You observe a statistically huge number of events and see if the distributions match the theory. Most philosophers of science will, implicitly at least, add "statistical observation" to "controlled experimentation" as the methods of science.
And this differs from the methodology of economics in what way?
Nope, no information travels faster than light. The quantum states remain synchronized until someone tries to interfere with them, in which case the entanglement is broken. Think of it as two atomic clocks that continue to keep exactly the same time even though they are on opposite sides of the solar system - if you reset the time on one of the clocks, it won't change the time on the other one. If I understand this correctly - I am not a quantum physicist. Anyway, no transporter beam, no ansible, nothing of that sort.
Actually, the original poster was using PC in its original meaning, as "personal computer," not the post-IBM meaning "IBM Personal Computer." The Apple II was sold as a "personal computer" before the IBM PC came out - indeed, Apple created the market and IBM capitalized on it.
By "We'll try POP3 access" do they mean letting you get your email via POP3 from gmail accounts, or using the GMail interface to read your existing POP3 accounts (and store your mail). I thought the latter, myself.
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
Clarke's Second Law:
"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."
Clarke's Third Law:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
The sibling post was quicker on the gun with the third law, though it's obviously from memory.
There are two kinds of FOSS people on Slashdot: those who support free software because they support freedom, and those who support free software because it's free. You have just had a run-in with the latter.
The second story, on SF authors, says that Clarke is famous for his three laws. Problem is, the first and second laws are both fakes, as Clarke admits - he came up with the third law first, and decided to call it "Clarke's Third Law" in comparison to Newton's Third Law. Later, because folks didn't get the joke, he felt compelled to come up with the other two laws. And then later he extended it out to more than three.
Let's put it this way. Ok, that's the extreme: and the fact that someone came up with such a service shows how hard librarians work to service their public, especially when there are severe economic hardships.
All I got in Safari was a blank page - no doubt because the author of the site used FrontPage, and I don't use IE, except for deliberately non-accessible pages like his. So I had to find IE to look at your page. The author of the page is not an expert - frankly, I'm astonished that a Microsoft-sponsored site would include content of such low quality, as it doesn't reflect well on the contact between their marketing department and their programmers.
In WordPerfect, if you delete the marker (code) representing the beginning of a container, you also delete the marker representing the end of a container and the program knows enough to lift the rest of the content out of the deleted container and replace the container with the formerly contained content. In other words, you CANNOT delete just the opening code of a style and leave the closing code of that style. The author of that page seems to think that you can. Any programmer would immediately recognize that this is how WordPerfect works, and would have ideas about how to replicate it.
Now, look at this statement:
I am reliably informed that if you open a Word document in a hex editor, you see a forest of gibberish at the beginning and end that represent these codes and pointers (you can get a small idea of this by opening a document using the Recover Text from Any File setting under "Files of type" in the File Open dialog). So Reveal Codes, even if there were such a thing in Word, would not be very helpful.
Umm, do you know what you see if you open a WordPerfect document in a HexEditor? THE SAME THING!!! How do I know? Because I checked! The WordPerfect "codes" are not ascii tags - it does not use a plain-text markup like SGML (unless you choose to use it as an SGML editor). The containers are interpreted by reveal codes as something that can be displayed as tags.
Take a look at the personal note she provides:
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Specialties: General Word use through user interface (no VBA)
Volunteer areas
microsoft.public.word.application.errors
microsoft.public.word.customization.menustoolbars
microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
microsoft.public.word.drawing.graphics
microsoft.public.word.formatting.longdocs
microsoft.public.word.newusers
microsoft.public.word.numbering
microsoft.public.word.pagelayout
microsoft.public.word.printingfonts
microsoft.public.word.tables
Other comments : My knowledge of Word is empirical rather than theoretical. I have no expertise in computer software generally (including Windows); what I know about Word I have learned by using it, and, since I work alone, there are many areas (especially those related to networking and workgroup features) that I have never needed to use.
[my emphasis]
Do you know what the first two sentences of "Other comments" mean? That she's pulling this whole "containers" thing out of thin air. She's a "Microsoft Most Valued Professional," and she's made a statement about opening Word files in a hex editor that implies that the results of opening a WordPerfect file in a hex editor would be different, and didn't even check it!!!
Problem is, IMDB skews high on most movies - since the only folks who take the time to rate them are the ones who actually like them. The only real difference between this and the ratings I posted is that ESB is rated higher even than the first Star Wars in the reviews I've seen. Note that my own opinion is actually closer to the IMDB ratings - but then I'm a sappy fan trying to recover my lost youth. I'd go with 8/9/7/6/7 (4/5/6/1/2).
What's the largest class you've had to teach? It is much harder to catch cheating when you have 100 or 150 papers to go through for a single class than it is when you have 20 papers to go through.
And does your institution back its teachers? A friend of mine told me after his grad student teaching seminar at a large state university that he was told that if he intended to count attendance toward a grade, he'd better have students sign their own attendence sheets - because if he just takes a roll in his own attendance book, it will be his word against the students'!
Most plagiarism isn't a matter of simply stealing a paper whole cloth from a website - it's a matter of stitching together paragraphs taken from online sources into a barely coherent sequence. [Note that this would apply to a class on Xenophanes as much as to a class on the Great Gatsby.]
Students then try to claim that this methodolgy constitutes "research" - no matter how many times and how many professors have explained that it doesn't. Students also try to claim that the only definition of "plagiarism" that matters is what they've been told in a specific class - as though what they learned in Composition 101, for instance, doesn't apply to a seminar on the *Defensor Pacis* taken 3 years later.
Most of the professors who use Turnitin.com don't use it to identify cheating - they use it to provide third-party evidence of cheating, beyond stylistics and their own sense of what the student is capable of producing - because those criteria are perceived by outsiders (often inlcuding their own administration) as purely subjective ones. In this kind of environment, the only way to "convict" a plagiarist is to document the fact that the student has had plagiarism explained to him (and that he's signed the explanation!), and to document the source of at least 75% of the paper under dispute.
I think the war that was linked to the whole issue of the contemporary status of Taiwan. You know, the 1949 Revolution? http://www.pitt.edu/~tang/classes/ps1332/guides/Hi story3.htm
Pittsburgh is I believe a good deal further from the Atlantic than Seattle is from the Pacific. Of course, Seattle is much closer to a body of water that lets out into the Pacific than Pittsburgh is to a body of water that lets out into the Atlantic (indeed, the rivers of Pittsburgh empty into the Gulf by way of the Ohio and Mississippi, and the Gulf empties into the Atlantic; Chesapeake Bay is a few hours' drive, though).
No, I'm saying that it's pretty damned hypocritical for some Republicans to pretend to be all in favor of Nader's campaign (please spell the man's name right) when everyone knows it's just posturing because they think he'll do the same thing he did in the last election (when I VOTED FOR NADER), siphon enough votes away from the Democratic candidate to secure a marginal electoral college victory. I think Nader should be on the ballot. I also think he should reconsider his position that Kerry is as bad as GWB (he's not quite as bad as GWB), but Nader isn't exactly known for being a team player (one reason why he's no longer on the Green Party ticket).
Particularly since the parent post he's responding to was posted by a proud American who simply happens to think that the President is a mediocre but decent (in the sense of his intentions) weak-system governor who's way in over his head and being advised mostly by a bunch of poor man's machiavellis.
Phil Singer, a spokesman for Kerry, said Thursday that Cheney was being disingenuous and was twisting Kerry's words. Singer noted that President Bush had also used the word "sensitive."
"Dick Cheney's desperate misleading attacks now have him criticizing George Bush's own words, who called for America to be 'sensitive about expressing our power and influence,'" Singer said.
Let's face it, if it was believed that Ralph Nader would divert 5% of GWB's votes away instead of 5% of Kerry's, the Republican party would be doing everything it could to keep him off the ballot - just as the Democrats are now. Don't believe me? Does the name "H. Ross Perot" remind you of any elections?
Slashdot Mirror
Before they find a genuinely earth-like planet with this technique - with the radial velocity technique you find big close planets first, later big distant planets and medium-sized close planets, etc., and small close but not too close planets last. Not a criticism of the astronomers; it's amazing that they can find even a very close Neptune-sized planet with this. . .
Mod parent up. Way up. Damn.
For those who don't know, Fletcher Christian was shot in the back during a period of civil unrest in which the Polynesian male settlers revolted against the European male settlers because, among other things, one of the Europeans had stolen the wife of one of the Polynesians. In the end, only one adult male was left on the island (though several of the men, including Christian, had fathered children before their untimely demises).
You observe a statistically huge number of events and see if the distributions match the theory. Most philosophers of science will, implicitly at least, add "statistical observation" to "controlled experimentation" as the methods of science.
And this differs from the methodology of economics in what way?
Nope, no information travels faster than light. The quantum states remain synchronized until someone tries to interfere with them, in which case the entanglement is broken. Think of it as two atomic clocks that continue to keep exactly the same time even though they are on opposite sides of the solar system - if you reset the time on one of the clocks, it won't change the time on the other one. If I understand this correctly - I am not a quantum physicist. Anyway, no transporter beam, no ansible, nothing of that sort.
Actually, the original poster was using PC in its original meaning, as "personal computer," not the post-IBM meaning "IBM Personal Computer." The Apple II was sold as a "personal computer" before the IBM PC came out - indeed, Apple created the market and IBM capitalized on it.
You mean like "an historian"?
By "We'll try POP3 access" do they mean letting you get your email via POP3 from gmail accounts, or using the GMail interface to read your existing POP3 accounts (and store your mail). I thought the latter, myself.
Clarke's First Law:
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
Clarke's Second Law:
"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."
Clarke's Third Law:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
The sibling post was quicker on the gun with the third law, though it's obviously from memory.
There are two kinds of FOSS people on Slashdot: those who support free software because they support freedom, and those who support free software because it's free. You have just had a run-in with the latter.
The second story, on SF authors, says that Clarke is famous for his three laws. Problem is, the first and second laws are both fakes, as Clarke admits - he came up with the third law first, and decided to call it "Clarke's Third Law" in comparison to Newton's Third Law. Later, because folks didn't get the joke, he felt compelled to come up with the other two laws. And then later he extended it out to more than three.
Let's put it this way. Ok, that's the extreme: and the fact that someone came up with such a service shows how hard librarians work to service their public, especially when there are severe economic hardships.
All I got in Safari was a blank page - no doubt because the author of the site used FrontPage, and I don't use IE, except for deliberately non-accessible pages like his. So I had to find IE to look at your page. The author of the page is not an expert - frankly, I'm astonished that a Microsoft-sponsored site would include content of such low quality, as it doesn't reflect well on the contact between their marketing department and their programmers.
In WordPerfect, if you delete the marker (code) representing the beginning of a container, you also delete the marker representing the end of a container and the program knows enough to lift the rest of the content out of the deleted container and replace the container with the formerly contained content. In other words, you CANNOT delete just the opening code of a style and leave the closing code of that style. The author of that page seems to think that you can. Any programmer would immediately recognize that this is how WordPerfect works, and would have ideas about how to replicate it.
Now, look at this statement:
I am reliably informed that if you open a Word document in a hex editor, you see a forest of gibberish at the beginning and end that represent these codes and pointers (you can get a small idea of this by opening a document using the Recover Text from Any File setting under "Files of type" in the File Open dialog). So Reveal Codes, even if there were such a thing in Word, would not be very helpful.
Umm, do you know what you see if you open a WordPerfect document in a HexEditor? THE SAME THING!!! How do I know? Because I checked! The WordPerfect "codes" are not ascii tags - it does not use a plain-text markup like SGML (unless you choose to use it as an SGML editor). The containers are interpreted by reveal codes as something that can be displayed as tags.
Take a look at the personal note she provides:
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Specialties: General Word use through user interface (no VBA)
Volunteer areas
microsoft.public.word.application.errors
microsoft.public.word.customization.menustoolbars
microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
microsoft.public.word.drawing.graphics
microsoft.public.word.formatting.longdocs
microsoft.public.word.newusers
microsoft.public.word.numbering
microsoft.public.word.pagelayout
microsoft.public.word.printingfonts
microsoft.public.word.tables
Other comments : My knowledge of Word is empirical rather than theoretical. I have no expertise in computer software generally (including Windows); what I know about Word I have learned by using it, and, since I work alone, there are many areas (especially those related to networking and workgroup features) that I have never needed to use.
[my emphasis]
Do you know what the first two sentences of "Other comments" mean? That she's pulling this whole "containers" thing out of thin air. She's a "Microsoft Most Valued Professional," and she's made a statement about opening Word files in a hex editor that implies that the results of opening a WordPerfect file in a hex editor would be different, and didn't even check it!!!
Problem is, IMDB skews high on most movies - since the only folks who take the time to rate them are the ones who actually like them. The only real difference between this and the ratings I posted is that ESB is rated higher even than the first Star Wars in the reviews I've seen. Note that my own opinion is actually closer to the IMDB ratings - but then I'm a sappy fan trying to recover my lost youth. I'd go with 8/9/7/6/7 (4/5/6/1/2).
the common opinion is
ANH: ****
ESB: *****
ROTJ: ***
TPM: **
AOTC: **/
Which, yes, would suggest that ROTS (what a name!) would be */
and i'm also betting that there will be more star wars movies made after Lucas dies. after all, star trek didn't die with Roddenberry...
You haven't watched Enterprise much, have you?
Hey, someone had to say it...
What's the largest class you've had to teach? It is much harder to catch cheating when you have 100 or 150 papers to go through for a single class than it is when you have 20 papers to go through.
And does your institution back its teachers? A friend of mine told me after his grad student teaching seminar at a large state university that he was told that if he intended to count attendance toward a grade, he'd better have students sign their own attendence sheets - because if he just takes a roll in his own attendance book, it will be his word against the students'!
Most plagiarism isn't a matter of simply stealing a paper whole cloth from a website - it's a matter of stitching together paragraphs taken from online sources into a barely coherent sequence. [Note that this would apply to a class on Xenophanes as much as to a class on the Great Gatsby.]
Students then try to claim that this methodolgy constitutes "research" - no matter how many times and how many professors have explained that it doesn't. Students also try to claim that the only definition of "plagiarism" that matters is what they've been told in a specific class - as though what they learned in Composition 101, for instance, doesn't apply to a seminar on the *Defensor Pacis* taken 3 years later.
Most of the professors who use Turnitin.com don't use it to identify cheating - they use it to provide third-party evidence of cheating, beyond stylistics and their own sense of what the student is capable of producing - because those criteria are perceived by outsiders (often inlcuding their own administration) as purely subjective ones. In this kind of environment, the only way to "convict" a plagiarist is to document the fact that the student has had plagiarism explained to him (and that he's signed the explanation!), and to document the source of at least 75% of the paper under dispute.
I think the war that was linked to the whole issue of the contemporary status of Taiwan. You know, the 1949 Revolution? http://www.pitt.edu/~tang/classes/ps1332/guides/Hi story3.htm
Pittsburgh is I believe a good deal further from the Atlantic than Seattle is from the Pacific. Of course, Seattle is much closer to a body of water that lets out into the Pacific than Pittsburgh is to a body of water that lets out into the Atlantic (indeed, the rivers of Pittsburgh empty into the Gulf by way of the Ohio and Mississippi, and the Gulf empties into the Atlantic; Chesapeake Bay is a few hours' drive, though).
I'm not quite sure when the globe was invented, but I suspect that the biblos, or papyrus scroll book, had long yielded to the codex, or bound book.
They were thinking that Billg@microsoft.com would be happy to give them pensions when it's all over.
IBM simply used COTS parts to make it quicker to market; they thought the proprietary BIOS would be enough to stop cloners. It wasn't.
No, I'm saying that it's pretty damned hypocritical for some Republicans to pretend to be all in favor of Nader's campaign (please spell the man's name right) when everyone knows it's just posturing because they think he'll do the same thing he did in the last election (when I VOTED FOR NADER), siphon enough votes away from the Democratic candidate to secure a marginal electoral college victory. I think Nader should be on the ballot. I also think he should reconsider his position that Kerry is as bad as GWB (he's not quite as bad as GWB), but Nader isn't exactly known for being a team player (one reason why he's no longer on the Green Party ticket).
Particularly since the parent post he's responding to was posted by a proud American who simply happens to think that the President is a mediocre but decent (in the sense of his intentions) weak-system governor who's way in over his head and being advised mostly by a bunch of poor man's machiavellis.
Read this.
Phil Singer, a spokesman for Kerry, said Thursday that Cheney was being disingenuous and was twisting Kerry's words. Singer noted that President Bush had also used the word "sensitive."
"Dick Cheney's desperate misleading attacks now have him criticizing George Bush's own words, who called for America to be 'sensitive about expressing our power and influence,'" Singer said.
Let's face it, if it was believed that Ralph Nader would divert 5% of GWB's votes away instead of 5% of Kerry's, the Republican party would be doing everything it could to keep him off the ballot - just as the Democrats are now. Don't believe me? Does the name "H. Ross Perot" remind you of any elections?