That's one of the worst attempts at humor on/. What's more sad is the 'Insightful' uprating.
Usually if a joke is lame someone can manage a comeback. You've only had all night to think about it.
Granted, you're stuck with trying to defend lynching a guy who hasn't been charged, let alone proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and deliberately deepening racial divisions in America for purely political reasons.
I won't hold my breath waiting for your witty riposte.
Since you're avoiding #2 above, I assume you simply don't drive. What? There's a practical amount of risk you must accept to live? Well, at least you only drive 5 mph, right?
Do you honestly think that the posted speed limit is some magical number above which your risk jumps significantly? There is some science to the posted limit -- traffic engineers know a few things! But in many cases it's there for revenue reasons or political reasons. Think for yourself.
It's usually set by taking some percentile of what people naturally drive at in typical weather. Most drivers have years of experience and know what speeds they feel comfortable driving at, and it's collectively safest if everyone does about the same speed.
(1) Piss off other drivers; (2) Increase chance of killing people.
Yeah, I'll go for (1), thanks. But please feel free to fight like some neanderthal religious nut against the laws of physics/biology and explain to us why collisions at faster speeds aren't much more likely to cause serious injury or death.
It's the difference in speed that causes turbulence in traffic that causes the dangerous situations that get people into collisions. Dramatically slower moving vehicles become obstacles that other vehicles try to flow around. Whether they are right or wrong to do it, people see empty space and they will try to fill it up, that's the laws of psychology at work. They might be bad drivers, but they are quite predictable and you can do some simple things to not contribute to their having an accident.
Don't be an asshole driving super fast. Don't be an asshole driving super slow. Let people get over if they turn on their indicator so they don't do something stupid to get to their exit. Don't drive in the far left lane unless you're passing. Stagger your vehicle when possible so that people around you can change lanes unexpectedly. It's not rocket science, mostly basic courtesy.
Wouldn't that just piss of the other drivers? Why on earth could one want to stick to those ridiculous and arbitrary limits?
Except around a left exit, the far left lane is for passing and all other lanes are the travel lanes. Stay in the travel lanes and no one cares if you do the limit in every state I've driven in. And on most roads, people aren't doing much over the limit to begin with.
Since you have the gun already, landmines for the garden are the obvious next step
Wait, what kind of landmines? Unless you really have a problem with people driving through your garden, anti-vehicular landmines should go in your driveway, to deter those assholes that think they can just park wherever the hell they please. (Aw, man, I got lost and I was just trying to turn around. Well, now you're turned right the fuck around, and you rolled seven times, too!)
And anti-personnel landmines work, kinda sorta. Claymores hooked to a trip wire, are best, as irritating people tend to move in groups. Set the tripwire to catch the lead person and aim it back a few meters. Just remember that when it says, "this side towards enemy," it means it!
Oh, and the pistol grip makes it much more likely you'll be able to get the first shot off first; you can "fire from the hip" instead of taking the time to raise the weapon to your shoulder (not to mention that you don't have to step back from the door to raise the weapon).
I've successfully spun around and fired from the hip using MILES, so it can be done and you can hit a small target, the laser emitter on my rifle had to line up to the sensor within a few cm, but this was when I was in an OPFOR unit and I had been doing it as my full time job for some years. But generally, firing from the hip is useless; our doctrine was to always assume a good stance, line up both sights, and take only well aimed shots. A carefully aimed semi-automatic rifle is by far the most effective way to put rounds on target; that's why the bulk of soldiers carry a rifle or carbine and that's why the first stage on the selector is semi.
We're talking about being indoors, and a defensive situation, so the distances are much smaller, and we're expecting to fire reflexively. Still, in reflexive fire drills, you bring the weapon up and put the front sight post on center mass, make positive determination, and fire. What reflexive fire omits is the time consuming step of lining up the rear sight post. The only difference with regular shooting at the range is that you keep your weapon down and wait for your buddy to announce the target; you might also do the "turn and fire" drills. You should be able to practice it at most pistol ranges.
As is the sound of the shotgun being racked.
If you get a shotgun, most people recommend pump-action. I have never seen any study let alone hard evidence showing that home invaders are scared off by that sound more than a vocal announcement by the homeowner, and I suspect people recommend it because it sounds cool in movies and video games. In contrast, there is a practical, easily verifiable benefit to a semi-automatic shotgun: if you miss, your sights are still on target and you can keep firing.
Assuming you live in Florida, start by chasing down passers-by with your car and shooting them with your gun. Given TV interviews afterwards in which you claim that you were simply defending yourself.
It might take some kind of vast racial conspiracy in order to make sure the police release you without charges. You'll have to get together with all the other Hispanic Democrats to pull this off.
If you do it right, though, you should be able to get enraged mobs of idiots to attack some random elderly couple whose son happens to have the same middle name as you!
Obama's "Green" initiatives are about more than implementing a renewable technology such as solar. Just as important in that imitative is "Green Jobs". It is seen as a twofer, ween us off the eeeevil oil and bring manufacturing jobs back.
The reality is that most of that 21 billion was heavily subsidized by the tax payers, the purchase, the manufacturing and the installation.
You say that as if it is some kind of dirty secret. But isn't this what the Obama administration has been saying explicitly from the start? And why would they be ashamed of it? It sounds to me like a good investment of public money.
If it's a good investment, if it's actually "booming", it shouldn't need public money.
No one is claiming that Obama has been quiet about being bullish on green jobs / energy. The dirty secret is that the press has played up these numbers that are wildly inflated by federal spending. The dirty secret is the number of Obama campaign contributors who got this money.
And this is a symptom of the continuing problem with Keynesianism in the modern economy: in the past, the government could dump a ton of money into the economy and investors would believe that there was going to be a lasting surge in demand, and they would invest assuming that it would last. That additional investment would outweigh the contraction in GDP after the stimulus ceased. But now, with the Web and a deluge of financial information, investors know exactly when the economy will contract after the stimulus ends, so they don't make long term investments, and the contraction after the stimulus ends is even worse. This is what we're seeing with the green stimulus falling apart.
So the GP trotting out the line that the government will conspire with The Rich to steal organs from poor people is not a troll? Even though it comes right out of a viciously anti-Semitic blood libel?
"Troll", by this point, is any comment that contradicts the conventional wisdom, and forces people to engage in actual dialog about difficult issues.
We've got a system of donations in which thousands of people die on waiting lists, and those deaths are a-okay because that's the best we can accomplish. That's the conventional wisdom, but just because lots of people accept it doesn't mean that it's remotely sane.
We don't need more emotional testimony dumped into our political and legal processes. It's already fucked up enough from this nonsense. "My cute wonderful 3 year old sweetie who is disabled and just found a way to speak and now a company wants to take that away for profit!"
The moment someone says that such and such a law has "hit home" is the moment we need to tune them out.
Because they're now useless as an even remotely objective source of information. Our worst laws are, by and large, the most popular, usually mandates that accomplish the opposite of what they're intended to do or simply fail miserably with terrible side effects. Which then stirs up another emotional mob that tries to fix the new problem!
We think there are cigar smoking villains in back rooms writing our laws when in fact the real authors are nitwit staffers transcribing the rantings of mobs of emotional idiots. We think that rich villains buy politicians, when, by the numbers, it's almost entirely a case of politicians purchasing voters.
We seriously need to take a deep fucking breath, rip out about 90% of our laws, and start over.
This word, "donations", I do not think it means what you think it means.
I agree. Will the government create a fair system that protects the life of the donor first and foremost? Will the system let doctors make the decisions, and ensure that all incentives encourage saving the patient, not harvesting organs? Will the rich and powerful be treated equally with the poor?
IMO we haven't accomplished this in the west, and I have less faith in China doing the right thing.
Yes, what we really need in medicine is more muddle-headed thinking about "fairness", pejorative, conspiratorial notions of "harvesting", and class warfare.
Because, so far it has only accomplished the absolute ban on being compensated for parts of your body, effectively killing millions of transplant patients on waiting lists. Because, you know, it's far worse to condemn someone to death by bureaucracy, than for someone to be paid for their kidney. And the reasoning is pretty much what you presented: surgical procedures are scary and gross! And poor people are poor and miserable! And corporations are evil and Jewish!
Yup, the idiots have won this round. This will only change when we develop reliable artificial replacements, that is, unless the idiotarians manage to prevent them from getting of the ground by banning the tests and research somehow.
226 byte which I am sure include library calls, only runs on top of the multi megabyte of browser code, may use various other resources as well.
By this standard, I can write Tron in 1 bit.
1
There. Call it the "Run Tron Bit". It runs on top of a full impletation of Tron.
Anything that has a display of some sort has library calls to control that display. If you were writing this on an old C-64, it had a comprehensive sprite library that performed collision detection and perfectly synchronized updates, without you doing more than setting a few registers carefully. If you were playing 6502 machine code golf, you could probably write this in half the bytes. Switching to a graphics mode was (IIRC) a single assignment, clearing the screen was a function provided by the BASIC interpreter, and polling for key events was a simple call. Updating the display, naturally, involved writing to a predesignated area of memory. You could even switch back to text mode to print out GAME OVER when you were done.
In this example, the library calls, which are deliberately designed to be fairly verbose in order to promote readability, chew up much of their byte budget with verbose keywords like onkeyup, getContext, fillRect, etc.
Also, since you're dealing with complex libraries that provide lots features, code has to turn off some of those features. In this case, they actually generate javascript errors and ignore them. They then have to go through handling key events, handling movement and such, and all with some very cleverly compressed techniques. For instance, they grab the mod of the keyvalue and use that as an index to an array of values to update the player's direction.
No, no no. PITA is the kind of bread you wrap your roasted squirrel meat in. _PETA_ is what you're thinking of.
Not sure the real PETA would be against this. They'd probably want one set up on the premises to help them reduce the number of staff needed to euthanize 97% of all the animals brought in.
The demo presents this as the only system you're going to want, which is very trollish, frankly, but I can't really fault them for being enthusiastic about their idea, especially when they've implemented an actual version of it.
Typically, editing usage will fall into the two use cases of writing brand new markup, or editing existing markup.
This looks like it will be far more effective for editing existing markup, and that a live preview will be more effective for writing new material. And you'd clearly want the display to show you all your errors and such. This is simply another (very clever, and probably very useful in many cases) application of the idea that the IDE should aggregate information from continuous integration directly in the editing pane, or as close to it as possible.
The larger problem, I think, is that these systems are billed as being for large, complex documents, but that's precisely the case where they fall apart. As an example, I've got a few LaTeX document that is a clunky system of: -- source managed on git -- build scripts written with waf -- a multi-file structure using the subfiles package -- some latex is literate haskell that is preprocessed through lhs2tex (which looks pretty, but is surprisingly unreadable compared to naïvely typeset haskell, and I'll probably tear it out at some point) -- some latex is generated by Perl scripts -- some graphics are generated by Perl scripts -- tons of macro definitions for common words and symbols -- indices based on the macros
As soon as you introduce a few layers of indirection, all these sorts of systems completely choke, so the best I've managed is to have all the scripts run in Jenkins so at least I hear it reading out the bugs a few minutes after I commit. I'll also put in visible markers indicating where files begin and end, but that's the LaTeX equivalent of sprinkling print statements throughout my code...
As a marketing convention, this equivalence of HTML and code is almost as pretentious as Wordpress' notion of equating code with "poetry."
So, remind me, what does the C in ASCII stand for?
"Code" has never indicated that something has any particular mathematical properties (such as, say, Turing completeness), or that writing it was a particularly challenging task.
But it had as much to do with Kennedy's skill as an orator and a desire to build some unifying non-military national mission so we could lay off the killing foreigners thing for a while.
Ah, so it was a national direction chosen to redirect the competitive energy of the nation towards an end that elevated national prestige and strategic aerospace technology while avoiding direct militaristic actions that could inflame tensions.
Except in that case most people will realize they don't have an use for one. At least that's my experience of iPad users. Past the "it's so cool" period, they pretty much only use it in the toilet. I don't think Apple will like this.
Yup, definitely on the shitter, plus on the train, or when I'm waiting for someone. Getting half and hour back here or there adds up.
So the chance of meeting one of those unbound planets should be pretty high.
It takes 80 years for Haley's comet to traverse our solar system, and that's a distance of light-minutes. The nearest stars are light-years out.
We found Pluto because it caused a wobble in Neptune's orbit... unless a planet was actually in our solar system we're not going to get any clues as to its existence.
Slashdot Mirror
That's one of the worst attempts at humor on /. What's more sad is the 'Insightful' uprating.
Usually if a joke is lame someone can manage a comeback. You've only had all night to think about it.
Granted, you're stuck with trying to defend lynching a guy who hasn't been charged, let alone proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and deliberately deepening racial divisions in America for purely political reasons.
I won't hold my breath waiting for your witty riposte.
Since you're avoiding #2 above, I assume you simply don't drive. What? There's a practical amount of risk you must accept to live? Well, at least you only drive 5 mph, right?
Do you honestly think that the posted speed limit is some magical number above which your risk jumps significantly? There is some science to the posted limit -- traffic engineers know a few things! But in many cases it's there for revenue reasons or political reasons. Think for yourself.
It's usually set by taking some percentile of what people naturally drive at in typical weather. Most drivers have years of experience and know what speeds they feel comfortable driving at, and it's collectively safest if everyone does about the same speed.
Options:
(1) Piss off other drivers;
(2) Increase chance of killing people.
Yeah, I'll go for (1), thanks. But please feel free to fight like some neanderthal religious nut against the laws of physics/biology and explain to us why collisions at faster speeds aren't much more likely to cause serious injury or death.
It's the difference in speed that causes turbulence in traffic that causes the dangerous situations that get people into collisions. Dramatically slower moving vehicles become obstacles that other vehicles try to flow around. Whether they are right or wrong to do it, people see empty space and they will try to fill it up, that's the laws of psychology at work. They might be bad drivers, but they are quite predictable and you can do some simple things to not contribute to their having an accident.
Don't be an asshole driving super fast. Don't be an asshole driving super slow. Let people get over if they turn on their indicator so they don't do something stupid to get to their exit. Don't drive in the far left lane unless you're passing. Stagger your vehicle when possible so that people around you can change lanes unexpectedly. It's not rocket science, mostly basic courtesy.
Wouldn't that just piss of the other drivers? Why on earth could one want to stick to those ridiculous and arbitrary limits?
Except around a left exit, the far left lane is for passing and all other lanes are the travel lanes. Stay in the travel lanes and no one cares if you do the limit in every state I've driven in. And on most roads, people aren't doing much over the limit to begin with.
Since you have the gun already, landmines for the garden are the obvious next step
Wait, what kind of landmines? Unless you really have a problem with people driving through your garden, anti-vehicular landmines should go in your driveway, to deter those assholes that think they can just park wherever the hell they please. (Aw, man, I got lost and I was just trying to turn around. Well, now you're turned right the fuck around, and you rolled seven times, too!)
And anti-personnel landmines work, kinda sorta. Claymores hooked to a trip wire, are best, as irritating people tend to move in groups. Set the tripwire to catch the lead person and aim it back a few meters. Just remember that when it says, "this side towards enemy," it means it!
Oh, and the pistol grip makes it much more likely you'll be able to get the first shot off first; you can "fire from the hip" instead of taking the time to raise the weapon to your shoulder (not to mention that you don't have to step back from the door to raise the weapon).
I've successfully spun around and fired from the hip using MILES, so it can be done and you can hit a small target, the laser emitter on my rifle had to line up to the sensor within a few cm, but this was when I was in an OPFOR unit and I had been doing it as my full time job for some years. But generally, firing from the hip is useless; our doctrine was to always assume a good stance, line up both sights, and take only well aimed shots. A carefully aimed semi-automatic rifle is by far the most effective way to put rounds on target; that's why the bulk of soldiers carry a rifle or carbine and that's why the first stage on the selector is semi.
We're talking about being indoors, and a defensive situation, so the distances are much smaller, and we're expecting to fire reflexively. Still, in reflexive fire drills, you bring the weapon up and put the front sight post on center mass, make positive determination, and fire. What reflexive fire omits is the time consuming step of lining up the rear sight post. The only difference with regular shooting at the range is that you keep your weapon down and wait for your buddy to announce the target; you might also do the "turn and fire" drills. You should be able to practice it at most pistol ranges.
As is the sound of the shotgun being racked.
If you get a shotgun, most people recommend pump-action. I have never seen any study let alone hard evidence showing that home invaders are scared off by that sound more than a vocal announcement by the homeowner, and I suspect people recommend it because it sounds cool in movies and video games. In contrast, there is a practical, easily verifiable benefit to a semi-automatic shotgun: if you miss, your sights are still on target and you can keep firing.
Assuming you live in Florida, start by chasing down passers-by with your car and shooting them with your gun. Given TV interviews afterwards in which you claim that you were simply defending yourself.
It might take some kind of vast racial conspiracy in order to make sure the police release you without charges. You'll have to get together with all the other Hispanic Democrats to pull this off.
If you do it right, though, you should be able to get enraged mobs of idiots to attack some random elderly couple whose son happens to have the same middle name as you!
Obama's "Green" initiatives are about more than implementing a renewable technology such as solar. Just as important in that imitative is "Green Jobs". It is seen as a twofer, ween us off the eeeevil oil and bring manufacturing jobs back.
The reality is that most of that 21 billion was heavily subsidized by the tax payers, the purchase, the manufacturing and the installation.
You say that as if it is some kind of dirty secret. But isn't this what the Obama administration has been saying explicitly from the start? And why would they be ashamed of it? It sounds to me like a good investment of public money.
If it's a good investment, if it's actually "booming", it shouldn't need public money.
No one is claiming that Obama has been quiet about being bullish on green jobs / energy. The dirty secret is that the press has played up these numbers that are wildly inflated by federal spending. The dirty secret is the number of Obama campaign contributors who got this money.
And this is a symptom of the continuing problem with Keynesianism in the modern economy: in the past, the government could dump a ton of money into the economy and investors would believe that there was going to be a lasting surge in demand, and they would invest assuming that it would last. That additional investment would outweigh the contraction in GDP after the stimulus ceased. But now, with the Web and a deluge of financial information, investors know exactly when the economy will contract after the stimulus ends, so they don't make long term investments, and the contraction after the stimulus ends is even worse. This is what we're seeing with the green stimulus falling apart.
I can only assume this is a troll.
So the GP trotting out the line that the government will conspire with The Rich to steal organs from poor people is not a troll? Even though it comes right out of a viciously anti-Semitic blood libel?
"Troll", by this point, is any comment that contradicts the conventional wisdom, and forces people to engage in actual dialog about difficult issues.
We've got a system of donations in which thousands of people die on waiting lists, and those deaths are a-okay because that's the best we can accomplish. That's the conventional wisdom, but just because lots of people accept it doesn't mean that it's remotely sane.
An interesting thought, but one that seems to go against most of modern history, in which the rich have almost all of the power.
You mean it goes against your class warfare which is responsible for some of the most viciously destructive laws.
We already know that patent laws are fucked up.
We don't need more emotional testimony dumped into our political and legal processes. It's already fucked up enough from this nonsense. "My cute wonderful 3 year old sweetie who is disabled and just found a way to speak and now a company wants to take that away for profit!"
The moment someone says that such and such a law has "hit home" is the moment we need to tune them out.
Because they're now useless as an even remotely objective source of information. Our worst laws are, by and large, the most popular, usually mandates that accomplish the opposite of what they're intended to do or simply fail miserably with terrible side effects. Which then stirs up another emotional mob that tries to fix the new problem!
We think there are cigar smoking villains in back rooms writing our laws when in fact the real authors are nitwit staffers transcribing the rantings of mobs of emotional idiots. We think that rich villains buy politicians, when, by the numbers, it's almost entirely a case of politicians purchasing voters.
We seriously need to take a deep fucking breath, rip out about 90% of our laws, and start over.
This word, "donations", I do not think it means what you think it means.
I agree. Will the government create a fair system that protects the life of the donor first and foremost? Will the system let doctors make the decisions, and ensure that all incentives encourage saving the patient, not harvesting organs? Will the rich and powerful be treated equally with the poor?
IMO we haven't accomplished this in the west, and I have less faith in China doing the right thing.
Yes, what we really need in medicine is more muddle-headed thinking about "fairness", pejorative, conspiratorial notions of "harvesting", and class warfare.
Because, so far it has only accomplished the absolute ban on being compensated for parts of your body, effectively killing millions of transplant patients on waiting lists. Because, you know, it's far worse to condemn someone to death by bureaucracy, than for someone to be paid for their kidney. And the reasoning is pretty much what you presented: surgical procedures are scary and gross! And poor people are poor and miserable! And corporations are evil and Jewish!
Yup, the idiots have won this round. This will only change when we develop reliable artificial replacements, that is, unless the idiotarians manage to prevent them from getting of the ground by banning the tests and research somehow.
226 byte which I am sure include library calls, only runs on top of the multi megabyte of browser code, may use various other resources as well.
By this standard, I can write Tron in 1 bit.
1
There.
Call it the "Run Tron Bit". It runs on top of a full impletation of Tron.
Anything that has a display of some sort has library calls to control that display. If you were writing this on an old C-64, it had a comprehensive sprite library that performed collision detection and perfectly synchronized updates, without you doing more than setting a few registers carefully. If you were playing 6502 machine code golf, you could probably write this in half the bytes. Switching to a graphics mode was (IIRC) a single assignment, clearing the screen was a function provided by the BASIC interpreter, and polling for key events was a simple call. Updating the display, naturally, involved writing to a predesignated area of memory. You could even switch back to text mode to print out GAME OVER when you were done.
In this example, the library calls, which are deliberately designed to be fairly verbose in order to promote readability, chew up much of their byte budget with verbose keywords like onkeyup, getContext, fillRect, etc.
Also, since you're dealing with complex libraries that provide lots features, code has to turn off some of those features. In this case, they actually generate javascript errors and ignore them. They then have to go through handling key events, handling movement and such, and all with some very cleverly compressed techniques. For instance, they grab the mod of the keyvalue and use that as an index to an array of values to update the player's direction.
No, no no. PITA is the kind of bread you wrap your roasted squirrel meat in. _PETA_ is what you're thinking of.
Not sure the real PETA would be against this. They'd probably want one set up on the premises to help them reduce the number of staff needed to euthanize 97% of all the animals brought in.
China Plans To End Executed Prisoner Organ Donations Within 5 Years
This word, "donations", I do not think it means what you think it means.
The demo presents this as the only system you're going to want, which is very trollish, frankly, but I can't really fault them for being enthusiastic about their idea, especially when they've implemented an actual version of it.
Typically, editing usage will fall into the two use cases of writing brand new markup, or editing existing markup.
This looks like it will be far more effective for editing existing markup, and that a live preview will be more effective for writing new material. And you'd clearly want the display to show you all your errors and such. This is simply another (very clever, and probably very useful in many cases) application of the idea that the IDE should aggregate information from continuous integration directly in the editing pane, or as close to it as possible.
The larger problem, I think, is that these systems are billed as being for large, complex documents, but that's precisely the case where they fall apart. As an example, I've got a few LaTeX document that is a clunky system of:
-- source managed on git
-- build scripts written with waf
-- a multi-file structure using the subfiles package
-- some latex is literate haskell that is preprocessed through lhs2tex (which looks pretty, but is surprisingly unreadable compared to naïvely typeset haskell, and I'll probably tear it out at some point)
-- some latex is generated by Perl scripts
-- some graphics are generated by Perl scripts
-- tons of macro definitions for common words and symbols
-- indices based on the macros
As soon as you introduce a few layers of indirection, all these sorts of systems completely choke, so the best I've managed is to have all the scripts run in Jenkins so at least I hear it reading out the bugs a few minutes after I commit. I'll also put in visible markers indicating where files begin and end, but that's the LaTeX equivalent of sprinkling print statements throughout my code...
...and all I saw in the demo was marked-up text.
As a marketing convention, this equivalence of HTML and code is almost as pretentious as Wordpress' notion of equating code with "poetry."
So, remind me, what does the C in ASCII stand for?
"Code" has never indicated that something has any particular mathematical properties (such as, say, Turing completeness), or that writing it was a particularly challenging task.
here's your non-slashdotted link, editors, is that really so hard?
Maybe the cats who are working on the Battleship movie could work on it?
But it had as much to do with Kennedy's skill as an orator and a desire to build some unifying non-military national mission so we could lay off the killing foreigners thing for a while.
Ah, so it was a national direction chosen to redirect the competitive energy of the nation towards an end that elevated national prestige and strategic aerospace technology while avoiding direct militaristic actions that could inflame tensions.
Clearly, little to do with any cold war.
Be careful what you say AC, or he might shoot you with his needle gun.
Kinda hard to win against the omnipresent 0-UIDer.
I'll have to try that.
Except in that case most people will realize they don't have an use for one.
At least that's my experience of iPad users. Past the "it's so cool" period, they pretty much only use it in the toilet.
I don't think Apple will like this.
Yup, definitely on the shitter, plus on the train, or when I'm waiting for someone. Getting half and hour back here or there adds up.
Let's all just give a big shout-out to Apple for helping make this the year of BSD on the Tablet!
FTFY.
So the chance of meeting one of those unbound planets should be pretty high.
It takes 80 years for Haley's comet to traverse our solar system, and that's a distance of light-minutes. The nearest stars are light-years out.
We found Pluto because it caused a wobble in Neptune's orbit... unless a planet was actually in our solar system we're not going to get any clues as to its existence.