You are correct that in hindsight I see that the OP was talking about eccentricity, however that was not my original interpretation at the time of my first post. I thought the OP was talking about axial tilt. As you also point out, I'd opened with "I'm assuming when you state...." to give the OP an easy way of saying "yes, thats what I mean" which I deemed to be less offensive than "You're wrong, and here's why...". If I had truly believed he was talking about eccentricity, there would've been nothing for me to post about in the first place. I guess it all comes down to my opening sentence "You might want to rephrase that or look at the facts again."; the OP was wooly with his language, so was I, and if I've upset you, then I'm sorry.
I guess this is just differences of interpretation of the sentence. I read it as 'live in the northern hemisphere' meaning the origin of the measurement, rather than as a reference to what time of year 'winter' is.
Seasons are not a result of eccentricity, they are a result of axial tilt. Perhapse the confusion here the phrasing as I suggested earlier. The OP implies that the northern hemisphere is closer to the sun than the southern during northern winter, which is incorrect. If the OP is talking about eccentricity then it's irrelevant to the comment he quoted about seasons being the result of axial tilt.
Not true. Northern hemisphere winters are milder because of the perihelion... I think you're wrong on this one as explained in this article
When I say 'Living in the northern or southern hemisphere would make no difference' I mean the effect of eccentricity is felt equally in both hemispheres. As for the OP, he states that the northern hemisphere (with reference to axial tilt) is closer in winter as a result of axial tilt - which is incorrect. He is not talking about eccentricity, as his quote is in response to the statement "Last time I check... Winter was caused by the angle of the planet".
Oops. Yeah, I didn't state that explicitly, I'd assumed it was implied on the basis of the OP's statement.
Although as a naive European northerner I associate December with christmas holidays, and christmas holidays with winter. I was in Hong Kong for christmas a few years ago - that was quite odd, christmas carols playing in the streets with 30degree heat.
Umm, If you live in the northern hemisphere the sun is closer during the winter than during the summer. You might want to rephrase that or look at the facts again.
I'm assuming when you state that the 'sun is closer during the winter' that you're talking about Earth's orbital eccentricity (non-circular orbit) resulting in the entire planet being about 5 million kilometres closer to the sun during winter. Living in the northern or southern hemisphere would make no difference.
If however you're talking about Earth's rotatational axis then you might want to look at your facts again. Earth axial tilt is ~23degrees which during summer means the North pole is tilted towards the sun, resulting in the northern hemisphere being (on average) closer to the sun.
Wish there was a -1 slightly-wrong tag. Some posts just deserve it. [/joke - but you did ask for it!]
As an aside, just thought I'd mention that the eccentricity results in Earth being about 2 degrees cooler during perihelion (closest point during orbit).
I got that quote from the article. But I'm fairly sure ZDNet is a good news source. Plus I got simmilar information from other sources (I just didn't reference them). I'm not Blu-Ray bashing, I agree that it's technically superior, but it does require substantially different technology with a greater cost to re-tool.
In the end content manufacturers will target their stuff for HD-DVD size, as it fits on both disks. The extra space on Blu-Ray will not be used, and the price point on HD-DVD combined with the fact that its backed by Microsoft and Intel, mean that HD-DVD will probably win out, despite the fact that it's inferior.
Thanks for the Durabis link though - interesting read.
I should point out that "Sony Blu-Ray HD DVDs" is probabyly a bad phrase to use,
as the main competetor to 'Blu-Ray' is 'HD-DVD' (Yes, HD applies to Blu-Ray too).
With regard to the competition, ZDNet has coverage of
Blu-Rays expected cost compared to HD-DVD based on the retooling cost, which experts expect could be up to $1 billion
worldwide for Blu-Ray, and one tenth of that for HD-DVD (Which relies on pretty simmilar technology to existing DVDs).
One other point which may help out HD-DVD is the materiel cost. HD-DVD uses the the same materiels as DVD, whereas Blu-Ray
uses a "high-tech film layer currently produced only by Sony."
What might be most damaging for Blu-Ray however, is Microsoft's direct support for HD-DVD. They've already announced
that Longhorn will support HD-DVD, and the XBox360 will be recieving an HD-DVD addon. (Its in various news sources that
I won't ref here).
This may be a Betamax type thing where the technically superiour device doesn't win due to corporate
activity.
As Microsoft became bigger (read : multisector monopoly), consumers liked Microsoft less, and companies liked Microsoft more.
As Google becomes bigger (read : multisector monopoly), consumers liked Google more, and companies Google them less.
The difference?
Microsoft's user products generate their own sector where third parties can create products for the Windows platform. Google's products do not.
Google's user products are (currently) free, if you don't count the ads. Microsoft's are not.
My conclusion:
Microsoft provides most benefit to companies, Google provides most benefit to consumers.
Microsoft relies (mostly) on consumers for its revenue. Google relies mostly on companies for its revenue.
Both are currently antagonising their customers, but an individual Google customer is more important than
and individual Microsoft customer.
This is all just my observation and opinion, so I'd be interested to see what others think about it....
Ok, my hands are up, I admin I skimmed the article, as it's so tediously simmilar to other minor tweaks in Standard model theorys. However, I stand by my first and third statements. The second is in error, however the other two are correct (IMO) [I disagree with TripMaster below about the gravitons]
They've had to utilize the theoretical particle, called a graviton, which appears from the vacuum of space wherever stars are densely packed, making gravity stronger.
Nearly right : The theory posits that gravitons are created by all (massive) matter, it's just that near densely packed stars the effect is more significant.
a theory of modified gravity, which has no need of dark matter......although in dispensing with dark matter
Plain wrong : From TFA "critics point out that MOND cannot explain the observed masses of clusters of galaxies without invoking dark matter"
A more interesting article in NewScientist recently was their coverage of Heim Theory (a potential GUT, which includes Gravity Theory), Previously discusssed on Slashdot (With reference to another news source, not NewScientist).
Not quite. In the period since 1995 Pixar's box office returns totalled $1,453million, where Disney's totalled $1,122million. (Pixar come out $331 million up, which isn't to be sniffed at), however (and crucially) Disney's recepts are in decline, whereas Pixar's are not.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct that in hindsight I see that the OP was talking about eccentricity, however that was not my original interpretation at the time of my first post. I thought the OP was talking about axial tilt. As you also point out, I'd opened with "I'm assuming when you state...." to give the OP an easy way of saying "yes, thats what I mean" which I deemed to be less offensive than "You're wrong, and here's why...". If I had truly believed he was talking about eccentricity, there would've been nothing for me to post about in the first place. I guess it all comes down to my opening sentence "You might want to rephrase that or look at the facts again."; the OP was wooly with his language, so was I, and if I've upset you, then I'm sorry.
I guess this is just differences of interpretation of the sentence. I read it as 'live in the northern hemisphere' meaning the origin of the measurement, rather than as a reference to what time of year 'winter' is.
When I say 'Living in the northern or southern hemisphere would make no difference' I mean the effect of eccentricity is felt equally in both hemispheres. As for the OP, he states that the northern hemisphere (with reference to axial tilt) is closer in winter as a result of axial tilt - which is incorrect. He is not talking about eccentricity, as his quote is in response to the statement "Last time I check... Winter was caused by the angle of the planet".
Oops. Yeah, I didn't state that explicitly, I'd assumed it was implied on the basis of the OP's statement.
Although as a naive European northerner I associate December with christmas holidays, and christmas holidays with winter. I was in Hong Kong for christmas a few years ago - that was quite odd, christmas carols playing in the streets with 30degree heat.
I'm assuming when you state that the 'sun is closer during the winter' that you're talking about Earth's orbital eccentricity (non-circular orbit) resulting in the entire planet being about 5 million kilometres closer to the sun during winter. Living in the northern or southern hemisphere would make no difference.
If however you're talking about Earth's rotatational axis then you might want to look at your facts again. Earth axial tilt is ~23degrees which during summer means the North pole is tilted towards the sun, resulting in the northern hemisphere being (on average) closer to the sun.
Wish there was a -1 slightly-wrong tag. Some posts just deserve it. [/joke - but you did ask for it!]
As an aside, just thought I'd mention that the eccentricity results in Earth being about 2 degrees cooler during perihelion (closest point during orbit).
How long before I can get my 802.11 sensing fingertip implants?
I got that quote from the article. But I'm fairly sure ZDNet is a good news source. Plus I got simmilar information from other sources (I just didn't reference them). I'm not Blu-Ray bashing, I agree that it's technically superior, but it does require substantially different technology with a greater cost to re-tool.
In the end content manufacturers will target their stuff for HD-DVD size, as it fits on both disks. The extra space on Blu-Ray will not be used, and the price point on HD-DVD combined with the fact that its backed by Microsoft and Intel, mean that HD-DVD will probably win out, despite the fact that it's inferior.
Thanks for the Durabis link though - interesting read.
I should point out that "Sony Blu-Ray HD DVDs" is probabyly a bad phrase to use, as the main competetor to 'Blu-Ray' is 'HD-DVD' (Yes, HD applies to Blu-Ray too).
With regard to the competition, ZDNet has coverage of Blu-Rays expected cost compared to HD-DVD based on the retooling cost, which experts expect could be up to $1 billion worldwide for Blu-Ray, and one tenth of that for HD-DVD (Which relies on pretty simmilar technology to existing DVDs).
One other point which may help out HD-DVD is the materiel cost. HD-DVD uses the the same materiels as DVD, whereas Blu-Ray uses a "high-tech film layer currently produced only by Sony."
What might be most damaging for Blu-Ray however, is Microsoft's direct support for HD-DVD. They've already announced that Longhorn will support HD-DVD, and the XBox360 will be recieving an HD-DVD addon. (Its in various news sources that I won't ref here).
This may be a Betamax type thing where the technically superiour device doesn't win due to corporate activity.
Obligitory wikipedia links:
Blu-Ray
HD DVD
Betamax
As Microsoft became bigger (read : multisector monopoly), consumers liked Microsoft less, and companies liked Microsoft more.
As Google becomes bigger (read : multisector monopoly), consumers liked Google more, and companies Google them less.
The difference?
Microsoft's user products generate their own sector where third parties can create products for the Windows platform. Google's products do not. Google's user products are (currently) free, if you don't count the ads. Microsoft's are not.
My conclusion:
Microsoft provides most benefit to companies, Google provides most benefit to consumers. Microsoft relies (mostly) on consumers for its revenue. Google relies mostly on companies for its revenue. Both are currently antagonising their customers, but an individual Google customer is more important than and individual Microsoft customer.
This is all just my observation and opinion, so I'd be interested to see what others think about it....
...on eBay.....
(This isn't me by the way)
Ok, my hands are up, I admin I skimmed the article, as it's so tediously simmilar to other minor tweaks in Standard model theorys. However, I stand by my first and third statements. The second is in error, however the other two are correct (IMO) [I disagree with TripMaster below about the gravitons]
Plain wrong : From TFA "critics point out that MOND cannot explain the observed masses of clusters of galaxies without invoking dark matter"
A more interesting article in NewScientist recently was their coverage of Heim Theory (a potential GUT, which includes Gravity Theory), Previously discusssed on Slashdot (With reference to another news source, not NewScientist).
Does this affect Star Trek : Online already under development by Prepetual?
Not quite. In the period since 1995 Pixar's box office returns totalled $1,453million, where Disney's totalled $1,122million. (Pixar come out $331 million up, which isn't to be sniffed at), however (and crucially) Disney's recepts are in decline, whereas Pixar's are not.
Pixar
Disney
Can you guys spot the trend too?
(Data from Wikipedia/www.boxofficemojo.com)
No, it's a dynamic page, which according to the site does several pattern matching algorithms (hence the severe slashdot effect - see my below post)
This site includes an IP counter. I'm guessing 20,000 IPs in the first hour (or the server crashes...)
14:10GMT - 1951 IP's
14:21GMT - 3170 IP's
14:27GMT - Sorry non-subscribers. We broke it before you got here....
Sorry, I didn't realise you wanted an offtopic mod. You get Redundant now....
www.penny-arcade.com
C'mon guys, its easy <a href="...">...</a>
I saw this as a thin bar at the top of the list. (Without the text - Just the link and the comment info in a grey curved box (lower style)).
Don't forget to use mirrordot.
Quote corret, and needs modding up IMO (Re: Drive failure destroying array)
I suppose so, I'm just so used to upgrading a drive before it dies. I can't remember the last time one of my drives (at home) failed.