But it doesn't fit the data -- the dark matter theory is constantly being revised. First it's "90%" of the mass of the universe, then it's "70%", then we're back to "98%", then there's dark energy, then the fractions change again, and again, and again.
About the changing numbers, I'd like to see citations.
Dark energy is a completely different concept than dark matter, completely independent of it, and used to explain completely different phenomena. The only thing dark matter and dark energy have in common is the adjective "dark".
Note that we already know particles which have exactly the properties needed for dark matter: neutrinos. They are not massive enough to explain the observations, but they are a proof that particles of that kind can exist. It is of course not a proof that they do exist, but it shows that the idea is not as stupid as you want to make us believe.
A classic example is the double-slit experiment [wikipedia.org]. Every textbook states a formula for the spacing of the interference fringes that disregards a bunch of things, handwaving them away as "unimportant".
99% of all descriptions of the double slit experiment (and 100% of those in textbooks) are for explaining the properties of quantum mechanics, not for a quantitative description of an actual experiment. The unimportant parts are unimportant for understanding. It's like complaining that text books introducing free fall don't take into account air friction in their equations, despite the fact that air friction can even dominate a free fall.
Dark matter, too, has never been observed, and possesses properties of matter previous unseen or indeed thought impossible
No, the properties of dark matter are known to be possible. It's exactly the properties of neutrinos. The only reason why neutrinos cannot account for dark matter is that they don't have enough mass.
The passwords you set on the servers are completely independent of the domain name. You could as well put a password on a server only accessible via IP address. And if you lose the domain name, you don't lose the server.
You do not put your server's access permission into the domain name system. You put it on the server.
Interesting. I own a domain for personal use and my soon to be ex-wife has an email account with this domain name. If this were valid in the US then I could just shutdown her email account and remove all of her web pages she created as part of the divorce since this would have been "property" that I owned before our marriage and I still have the "property". Maybe I should push this issue in the divorce case instead of maintaining everything of hers on my domain for the next year per her request.
The domain name is not the mail or web server addressed with it. If I own a direction sign, I do not acquire additional rights to whatever it points to.
I first read the domain name as "canadians exacts" and wondered if there's also a canadiansapproximates.org:-) Then I noted that you can also split it in three words, and it started to make sense...
I guess it depends on who owns the domain name. Since I don't know the entities mentioned int he article, nor the case it speaks about, I can't tell. Now if the domain name is property of ICANN or the registrar, I guess not much changes. However if the domain name is owned by whoever registered it, I don't see how the registrar could legally reclaim the domain name, or demand continued payment for it.
Note that NaCl code is only cross-platform in the sense that it's OS-independent. Being true native code, it's not processor-independent; if you want NaCl modules to run on x86, x64, and ARM, for example, you need to have compiled three separate versions of your NaCl binary, one for each architecture.
That's what traditionally is meant with cross-platform code: You can compile it for several platforms.
You know that gas mantles contain thorium? Thorium has very low radioactivity, and it's an alpha emitter, which means you can shield the radiation with a piece of paper. You just shouldn't eat it.
So what? If it has no other negative consequences, it just means it buys you another 100 years to find the optimal solution. And who knows, maybe in 100 years we will have fusion.
If you go to the page and wonder where the text is: You have to enable JavaScript for the site to even get it displayed. Of course all the other stuff gets displayed even without JavaScript...
I still think if you've learned a few programming languages, then any new one is rather easy to pick up, its usually just a matter of syntax, the IDEs and certain best practices and frameworks.
If you think so, try to learn Prolog.
Oh, and the IDEs are completely separate from the language. It's like saying learning English includes learning to use a word processor.
Slashdot Mirror
If Aether doesn't exist then what's in all that cat5 cable? Admin tears?
Ether.
About the changing numbers, I'd like to see citations.
Dark energy is a completely different concept than dark matter, completely independent of it, and used to explain completely different phenomena. The only thing dark matter and dark energy have in common is the adjective "dark".
Note that we already know particles which have exactly the properties needed for dark matter: neutrinos. They are not massive enough to explain the observations, but they are a proof that particles of that kind can exist. It is of course not a proof that they do exist, but it shows that the idea is not as stupid as you want to make us believe.
99% of all descriptions of the double slit experiment (and 100% of those in textbooks) are for explaining the properties of quantum mechanics, not for a quantitative description of an actual experiment. The unimportant parts are unimportant for understanding. It's like complaining that text books introducing free fall don't take into account air friction in their equations, despite the fact that air friction can even dominate a free fall.
No, the properties of dark matter are known to be possible. It's exactly the properties of neutrinos. The only reason why neutrinos cannot account for dark matter is that they don't have enough mass.
But domain names are not there for investment. They are there for simplifying access to internet resources.
The passwords you set on the servers are completely independent of the domain name. You could as well put a password on a server only accessible via IP address. And if you lose the domain name, you don't lose the server.
You do not put your server's access permission into the domain name system. You put it on the server.
Interesting. I own a domain for personal use and my soon to be ex-wife has an email account with this domain name. If this were valid in the US then I could just shutdown her email account and remove all of her web pages she created as part of the divorce since this would have been "property" that I owned before our marriage and I still have the "property". Maybe I should push this issue in the divorce case instead of maintaining everything of hers on my domain for the next year per her request.
Or just demand a fee for continued maintenance?
The domain name is not the mail or web server addressed with it. If I own a direction sign, I do not acquire additional rights to whatever it points to.
I first read the domain name as "canadians exacts" and wondered if there's also a canadiansapproximates.org :-) ...
Then I noted that you can also split it in three words, and it started to make sense
Why do we need liquidity for domain names?
I guess it depends on who owns the domain name. Since I don't know the entities mentioned int he article, nor the case it speaks about, I can't tell. Now if the domain name is property of ICANN or the registrar, I guess not much changes. However if the domain name is owned by whoever registered it, I don't see how the registrar could legally reclaim the domain name, or demand continued payment for it.
Who owns the domain name?
Well, I'm sure they'll find a way to tax you for not leaving your house as well.
Note that NaCl code is only cross-platform in the sense that it's OS-independent. Being true native code, it's not processor-independent; if you want NaCl modules to run on x86, x64, and ARM, for example, you need to have compiled three separate versions of your NaCl binary, one for each architecture.
That's what traditionally is meant with cross-platform code: You can compile it for several platforms.
You know that gas mantles contain thorium? Thorium has very low radioactivity, and it's an alpha emitter, which means you can shield the radiation with a piece of paper. You just shouldn't eat it.
So what? If it has no other negative consequences, it just means it buys you another 100 years to find the optimal solution. And who knows, maybe in 100 years we will have fusion.
Is this a phishing site - I see no review but a bunch of ads...
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/review/2099409/ibm-pc-original-review-personal-model-5150
The review can only be seen with JavaScript enabled.
If you go to the page and wonder where the text is: You have to enable JavaScript for the site to even get it displayed. ...
Of course all the other stuff gets displayed even without JavaScript
There are always exceptions to every rule.
Even to that one? :-)
Of course the best is if you developed both a lower and a higher level mental model, and have no problems moving between the two.
ABAP is only similar to C0807 if you're incompetent at at least one of them.
What's this COBOT you are speaking of? :-)
If you think so, try to learn Prolog.
Oh, and the IDEs are completely separate from the language. It's like saying learning English includes learning to use a word processor.
But if they manage to build a car which doesn't cause accidents for 140,000 miles under those conditions, I guess you can say it's really safe.
Soylent Graphene?
Switching the default search engine is much easier than switching the browser.
Maybe he thinks Mozilla should rewrite Firefox to use Webkit.