very true, but the nanotube structure takes care of absorbing the reflected photons... putting in mirrors will just provide a useless surface that won't be able to absorb energy.
Once the light comes in contact with the solar panel, the light is absorbed.
Why rish wasting energy reflecting it when you can just absorb it on first contact?
It was an observation that iDownload would be crushed if they tried their bullshit against a company with the massive amount of resources that Microsoft has.
Yeah, I sent an email to Oscar Controls because I figured he has some financial interest in the case and would atleast have some prior-art claims on the logo.
The reply I got was this:
Hello,
I certainly appreciate your notification, however, I can not lay claim to the MAME name or MAME logo. The original design and a partial history of the MAME logo can be found here: http://www.mame.net/features.html. The MAME logo on my website is only a recreation of the original logo, which I recreated in vector format prior to rasterizing.
I urge you to also notify gridle@mbnet.fi, who is the webmaster for mame.net and may also have additional information that may help this cause.
"
THE ABOVE DOWNLOADABLE IMAGES ARE PROVIDED IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE FOR PERSONAL PRINTING AND ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED NOR COPIED IN WHOLE OR IN PART NOR LOANED OR OTHERWISE COMMUNICATED TO ANY THIRD PARTY, NOR USED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FROM OSCAR CONTROLS.
"Nature has examples of many kinds of animals, and each type of animal has many variations within their kind as is evident by looking at humans who are all very different in many ways."
Nature does indeed have variations within a species, but the structure of the genetic code does not vary.
"I don't see how you can claim that evolution doesn't require increases in the genetic information content that didn't exist before."
What increase are you talking about? You're assuming that evolution states that the first organism had like 2 chromosomes or something. As far as we know the earliest organism could've had large unorganized/unused pieces of genetic information.
"This is what you would expect from a common creator."
Definately not according to the bible. First off, all animal/plant life was created within a small period of time (according to the bible), that would make sense for that to have similar structure. Yet, humans were hand crafted by god from dirt. A completely different method of creation from the rest of the life on Earth. That would warrant a different structure, especially since we're supposedly made in gods image!
in terms of life sciences: "evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a population of interbreeding individuals within a species" (from wikipedia)
I don't ever remember evolution talking about new information arising from nothing though. If by 'new information' you mean 'new species', then nature has provided thousands of examples.
There is no doubt whatsoever that evolution occurs. The theory is on HOW evolution occurs. That is still not perfectly understood. That may not make sense to some so let me provide another example on this sort of idea:
Light consists of photons that travel through space is a FACT. HOW light travels through space is a theory. Does light function as a particle or as a wave? That's still not perfectly known.
Evolution is the same way. Does it happen by natural selection or by some other means? If there {is|are} {a god|gods}, then maybe {he|she|it|they} guides the process of evolution.
Ahhh yes you are right. Allow me to clarify. The Law of evolution... not the Fact of evolution. Thanks.
Oh yes, it's not a theory anymore. Most professors of Anthropology tell you so. To go with your definition, evolution will invariable occur when certain conditions exist.
What discussion on how old the earth is? The earth is roughly 3.7 billion years old. If you'd like to nitpick over a few million years here or there go ahead... I'm sure that's still up for grabs.
Fossils going back billions of years is not true though... millions yes... but not billions. There wasn't complex life billions of years ago.
"Screaming that something is FACT without providing any evidence doesn't make it so."
Just because a poster on/. doesn't provide all the evidence for evolution being a fact in a way thats easy enough for you to understand doesn't mean that it isn't a fact. As a matter of fact, you would never believe that evolution was a fact because of your believe in god. Let alone the silly belief that the bible is the word of god.
"Materialisim and a materialistic explanation must be the only explenation because they have willfully excluded God from the equation."
Yet for you, religion and a religions explanation must be the only explanation because you have willfully excluded evolution from the equation. I see your point... you must be right then.
The plain and simple FACT is that evolution has been argued over and discussed for years amongst scientists, and evolution is indeed a FACT today.
"What an ass hat. When you grow up you'll learn that it doesn't kill you to admit whan you got things wrong."
After reading some of your other posts, I believe that this was a post of self-reflection. I forgive you for accidentally posting it online.
I'm not exactly sure how you're lack of understanding of statistics relates to me not being able to admit defeat, but I don't care to know. Somebody once said that you can never beat an idiot in an argument. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
"And you just quoted him and the tale link without actaully looking at the figures yourself."
Oh, maybe you just didn't read my post. First off, you're analysis of the table made no sense. It's statistically invalid due to the reasons I stated. I assumed that most people would be intelligent enough to understand what the table meant, for that I apologize.
Secondly, I never said that linux and mac OS weren't rising. But their grown is anemic to the growth of Windows XP.
Third, it's bogus to consider windows as a whole from that table because it's counting legacy systems that are on their way out.
I'm absolutely amazed at how dumbfounded you are by what I'm saying. Next thing you'll tell me is that since OSX is based on Linux, those numbers should be combined as 322.8% of the market share.
Slashdot Mirror
very true, but the nanotube structure takes care of absorbing the reflected photons... putting in mirrors will just provide a useless surface that won't be able to absorb energy.
You should start up a company that does just that!
Imagine the great things you could bring about in the world!
Or did you mean that somebody else should do it?
I doubt the enemy will be carrying tricorders with them to pick up the energy signal. They'll probably be using eyes just like the other soldiers.
Once the light comes in contact with the solar panel, the light is absorbed. Why rish wasting energy reflecting it when you can just absorb it on first contact?
I've never had to show an ID to ride a bus or a train... Of course my experience is limited to between NJ/NY so I can't say elsewhere.
Except the post wasn't anti-Microsoft.
It was an observation that iDownload would be crushed if they tried their bullshit against a company with the massive amount of resources that Microsoft has.
First line of the article:
A U.S teenager has become the first person to be arrested on suspicion of sending unsolicited instant messages--or spim.
There is no profit in having one master race...
Yeah, I sent an email to Oscar Controls because I figured he has some financial interest in the case and would atleast have some prior-art claims on the logo.
The reply I got was this:
Hello,
I certainly appreciate your notification, however, I can not lay claim
to the MAME name or MAME logo. The original design and a partial
history of the MAME logo can be found here:
http://www.mame.net/features.html. The MAME logo on my website is only
a recreation of the original logo, which I recreated in vector format
prior to rasterizing.
I urge you to also notify gridle@mbnet.fi, who is the webmaster for
mame.net and may also have additional information that may help this
cause.
here is some prior art found in commerce: http://www.oscarcontrols.com/gallery01.htm
Note the info at the bottom:
"
THE ABOVE DOWNLOADABLE IMAGES ARE PROVIDED IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE FOR PERSONAL PRINTING AND ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED NOR COPIED IN WHOLE OR IN PART NOR LOANED OR OTHERWISE COMMUNICATED TO ANY THIRD PARTY, NOR USED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FROM OSCAR CONTROLS.
Copyright © 2003 All Rights Reserved. All images and contents are copyrighted and may not be copied or distributed in any way. Custom graphics and custom MAME designs are copyrighted and may not be used on other web sites without prior written consent from Oscar Controls.
"
"Nature has examples of many kinds of animals, and each type of animal has many variations within their kind as is evident by looking at humans who are all very different in many ways."
Nature does indeed have variations within a species, but the structure of the genetic code does not vary.
"I don't see how you can claim that evolution doesn't require increases in the genetic information content that didn't exist before."
What increase are you talking about? You're assuming that evolution states that the first organism had like 2 chromosomes or something. As far as we know the earliest organism could've had large unorganized/unused pieces of genetic information.
"This is what you would expect from a common creator."
Definately not according to the bible. First off, all animal/plant life was created within a small period of time (according to the bible), that would make sense for that to have similar structure. Yet, humans were hand crafted by god from dirt. A completely different method of creation from the rest of the life on Earth. That would warrant a different structure, especially since we're supposedly made in gods image!
in terms of life sciences: "evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a population of interbreeding individuals within a species" (from wikipedia)
I don't ever remember evolution talking about new information arising from nothing though. If by 'new information' you mean 'new species', then nature has provided thousands of examples.
That's simply not correct. Allow me to clarify.
Evolution is a FACT.
Evolution by Natural Selection is a theory.
There is no doubt whatsoever that evolution occurs. The theory is on HOW evolution occurs. That is still not perfectly understood. That may not make sense to some so let me provide another example on this sort of idea:
Light consists of photons that travel through space is a FACT. HOW light travels through space is a theory. Does light function as a particle or as a wave? That's still not perfectly known.
Evolution is the same way. Does it happen by natural selection or by some other means? If there {is|are} {a god|gods}, then maybe {he|she|it|they} guides the process of evolution.
Ahhh yes you are right. Allow me to clarify. The Law of evolution... not the Fact of evolution. Thanks.
Oh yes, it's not a theory anymore. Most professors of Anthropology tell you so. To go with your definition, evolution will invariable occur when certain conditions exist.
I believe the method of dating ice cores is different that those for dating fossil records.
The age of fossil records are general numbers with large ranges based on chemistry.
Evolution is based on the structure and chemical makeup of fossils and modern creatures... less so on the age of fossil records.
That's just awesome... I wish I could get me one of those!
they should start selling core samples on ebay... $1 for every 10 years old.
What discussion on how old the earth is? The earth is roughly 3.7 billion years old. If you'd like to nitpick over a few million years here or there go ahead... I'm sure that's still up for grabs.
Fossils going back billions of years is not true though... millions yes... but not billions. There wasn't complex life billions of years ago.
"Screaming that something is FACT without providing any evidence doesn't make it so."
/. doesn't provide all the evidence for evolution being a fact in a way thats easy enough for you to understand doesn't mean that it isn't a fact. As a matter of fact, you would never believe that evolution was a fact because of your believe in god. Let alone the silly belief that the bible is the word of god.
Just because a poster on
"Materialisim and a materialistic explanation must be the only explenation because they have willfully excluded God from the equation."
Yet for you, religion and a religions explanation must be the only explanation because you have willfully excluded evolution from the equation. I see your point... you must be right then.
The plain and simple FACT is that evolution has been argued over and discussed for years amongst scientists, and evolution is indeed a FACT today.
and sometimes it's a big brown dick...
How are zombies faith based?
Ahhh yes, but here's a list of the stuff that you don't have that longhorn will require once released:
Markup-Chip Demodulator
Andium coated flux capacitor
DXRDG Drive
Enough Keltic Cycles
Ultimate Power Booster
Process Certification
It's not being cast/scattered anywhere.
It's sitting in one place and everybody has to go there to get it.
The RSS feed tells the clients program that there's a new file to download and then it downloads it.
It's like being a paper delivery boy and calling each customer in the morning telling them to stop by and pick up the paper.
"What an ass hat. When you grow up you'll learn that it doesn't kill you to admit whan you got things wrong."
After reading some of your other posts, I believe that this was a post of self-reflection. I forgive you for accidentally posting it online.
I'm not exactly sure how you're lack of understanding of statistics relates to me not being able to admit defeat, but I don't care to know. Somebody once said that you can never beat an idiot in an argument. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
"P.S. I'll assume you know that OS X isn't based on Linux."
Yes, OS X is based on FreeBSD's core. http://developer.apple.com/unix/.
I no longer have the time or the energy to go into a statistics lesson for you. Enjoy you ideas and opinions.
"And you just quoted him and the tale link without actaully looking at the figures yourself."
Oh, maybe you just didn't read my post.
First off, you're analysis of the table made no sense. It's statistically invalid due to the reasons I stated. I assumed that most people would be intelligent enough to understand what the table meant, for that I apologize.
Secondly, I never said that linux and mac OS weren't rising. But their grown is anemic to the growth of Windows XP.
Third, it's bogus to consider windows as a whole from that table because it's counting legacy systems that are on their way out.
I'm absolutely amazed at how dumbfounded you are by what I'm saying. Next thing you'll tell me is that since OSX is based on Linux, those numbers should be combined as 322.8% of the market share.