I tried Audible Basic, but it wasn't very good. Tactile Basic wasn't too bad, but please... please, for the sake of the children, stay away from Olfactory Basic.
What's so hard about it? Most people probably won't care to go into the more advanced topics but for those that do, they can easily participate. Give them a sheet which has the formulas laid out with blank spaces to insert the numbers. Add, multiply, and divide the fixed numbers with the numbers they wrote in the boxes to get the final result. Easier than a tax return.:)
And for those who want to know more than *that*, they can pick up Physics for Dummies in the gift shop.
Which science museums FAKE their data? (I can understand simplifying it, but outright faking it?)
How about explanations of potential energy? Have a ramp 3 meters high with a bowling ball on it. Let the bowling ball go. How fast will it be going once it reaches the bottom of the ramp? Well, calculate the potential energy of the ball at 3 meters. Convert that directly to kinetic energy to achieve a speed at the bottom. Put up a nice little chart for everybody to see. This would be fake data. Unless, of course, you account for friction between the ball and the ramp which uses some of that potential energy to overcome. The energy lost in getting the ball to rotate. Also consider air resistance, experimental error, etc.
Real science is putting up an exhibit where people can start the ball rolling and have the speed automatically calculated at the bottom. Let them do this three times and write down the end speed for each time. Then show why the speed isn't what typical calculations would give because of the reasons mentioned above. For hardcore science, teach them how to calculate the energy lost due to angular momentum, coefficient of friction between the ball and the surface, etc.
You can take advantage of their Perpetual Luncheon, though if the food is really bad, expect long lines at the washrooms as people experience Perpetual Motion.
I'm not crazy about the iPod mini colors either, but they seem to be wildly popular. But I guess the beetle was good for reasons other than pleasing you or I.:)
There's the average standard versions which can stand some abuse, and then there's the hardened rugged versions used by the military, police, and other people who constantly use it out in the field all the time. The standard ones provide a decent level of toughness, but the more rugged ones have every port sealed against dust and water, for example. I've read reviews where you can drive over the rugged versions, but I wouldn't try that with the standard ones.
Yeah, that's at full bore, 6000 RPM. If you're driving it at say 1500 RPM cruising you'll be getting around four times the efficiency. Without the four turbo chargers kicking in, you'll get a hell of a lot better mileage still.
Interesting to note too that VW started out as the car maker for the "volk", ie the unwashed masses. Seems like they've lost their roots.
More interesting is Hitler's involvement with founding it. In case you doubt the source, here's another site. Possibly one of the very few good things to come from that bastard.
What are they teaching kids in school which has rapid turnover? How much has math changed in the several centuries at the level that even a high school senior would be using? Any fundamental errors in Newtonian physics been cropping up that I'm not aware of? The history of western civilization isn't going to change unless someone travels back in time. English will adapt only a little to accomodate cultural changes (like you know... whatever...) but on the whole, English grammar and spelling haven't changed in the last fifty years or so.
Anyone not in high school can make perfectly good use of existing books. The only reason why books change so often is because publishers like to sell more books! I never used a computer at school until grade 12 (Turbo Pascal on the Apple IIgs... w00t!) and given that I know more about computers and programming than most people who have used computers all their lives, I don't think this has been a hindrance. In fact, having started out with simple computers which I could fully understand inside and out, then progressing to more and more powerful ones has probably been the best thing.
These days, starting out with a laptop you can't open up with an operating system so complex that nobody can understand it without years of study must be very daunting. I can imagine it'd cause a lot of kids to just treat it as this big mysterious magic black box that does things when you click the right things with a mouse.
Yes, IE adoped Netscape's convention of using "Mozilla/..." user agent, and added the "... (compatible; IE4...)" or similar tag. Note that Mozilla was the development name for the closed source Netscape browser way back in the browser war years when Netscape was the most popular browser around and the current Mozilla browser wouldn't even be an idea for another four or five years. So the current open sourced Mozilla browser allows users to copy the IE convention of decribing itself as a version of Internet Explorer, compatible with closed source Netscape, and then tacks its own information onto the end.
For example, here's one sample of a possible Netscape 2 user agent string:
Mozilla/2.02 [fr] (WinNT; I)
Then Microsoft developed Internet Explorer. IE versions shared similar user agent strings, but this is one for IE4.0:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; Windows 95)
Now, most open source browsers allow you to copy Internet Explorer and have a user agent such as:
Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows XP) Gecko/whatever
So we have Mozilla/Firefox/etc. which copied Internet Explorer which copied (closed source) Netscape. Clear as mud!
By one shot one kill, I was contrasting this to the typical game scenario where even with multiple gunshot wounds, you're perfectly mobile and unaffected from 100% down to 1% health, after which you're finally dead. As for not killing, modern rounds are supposed to not kill. Taken from this page:
One common myth in this area involves the increasing "deadliness" of modern small arms, which is largely without foundation. For example, the high-velocity, small-caliber (5.56 mm/.223-caliber) ammunition used in most assault rifles today (e.g., the M-16 and the AK-74) were designed to wound rather than kill. The theory is that wounding an enemy soldier is better than killing him because a wounded soldier eliminates three people: the wounded man and two others to evacuate him.
The problem isn't spawn camping, the problem is with the games themselves not being designed well enough to have more intelligent and varied spawning rules and play options. Soldiers landing on the beaches of Normandy sure as shit had to deal with spawn camping. Every Nazi machine gun and mortar was aimed at the landing points, hoping to kill soldiers when the gates of their landing craft dropped. In real war, the defending troops generally have a 3:1 advantage precisely because they *can* camp the likely "spawn points".
I don't think temporary invincibility is necessarily the only way to go. There should be strategic ways to deal with spawn camping. Someone got a sniper rifle trained on your spawn point? Call in an air strike, get your own snipers out there, or provide some other means of cover and concealment. Having a game 100% reflect reality (one shot one kill) doesn't always make for a fun game, but you shouldn't have to completely dumb down the game so that everything is totally balanced out.
Right, as it always has because it mimicked the original closed source Netscape browser. Internet Explorer was using the "Mozilla/... " tag YEARS before the current Mozilla browser project got going. In a delicious bit of irony, now open source browsers are pretending to be the closed source Internet Explorer by spoofing IE's user agent string.
As far as spoofing the GPL string, what's the problem here? Do you hear Open Source advocates decrying browsers such as Mozilla for spoofing the user agent string and claiming to be Internet Explorer? "But websites won't display properly unless we lie about it and claim to be Internet Explorer!" Right. Just as their drivers won't work properly unless they lie about it and claim to be GPL?
Which one is the pot and which is the kettle here?
Your eye is approximately equal to a 100 megapixel camera, only instead of an evenly distributed rectangular grid, it's more of a bullseye with the greatest density of rods/cones near the center. So that's the theoretical limit of resolution possible, but of course the electronics governing the laser movement will be the limiting factor here.
You have *got* to be shitting me. You're claiming this article debunks the talk.origins one? It doesn't even cover a tenth of the evidence against a global flood. And what it does cover is all done with hand-waving arguments with little to no cited material for independent study. "Well, Woodmorappe covered that in his book too, but I guess Isaak didn't want to mention it so nya nya nya."
You get an "A" for zealotry, but an "F" for accuracy.
Slashdot Mirror
I tried Audible Basic, but it wasn't very good. Tactile Basic wasn't too bad, but please... please, for the sake of the children, stay away from Olfactory Basic.
Yeah, and if you had a Slashdot subscription, you would have been one of the first to see this article. :)
...try this one from the good old boys at .com.com.com.com.
Er... the ISS orbit isn't geosynchronous, so should the orbit paths matter? Or is the Hubble required to be on a specific orbit for some reason?
What's so hard about it? Most people probably won't care to go into the more advanced topics but for those that do, they can easily participate. Give them a sheet which has the formulas laid out with blank spaces to insert the numbers. Add, multiply, and divide the fixed numbers with the numbers they wrote in the boxes to get the final result. Easier than a tax return. :)
And for those who want to know more than *that*, they can pick up Physics for Dummies in the gift shop.
Which science museums FAKE their data?
(I can understand simplifying it, but outright faking it?)
How about explanations of potential energy? Have a ramp 3 meters high with a bowling ball on it. Let the bowling ball go. How fast will it be going once it reaches the bottom of the ramp? Well, calculate the potential energy of the ball at 3 meters. Convert that directly to kinetic energy to achieve a speed at the bottom. Put up a nice little chart for everybody to see. This would be fake data. Unless, of course, you account for friction between the ball and the ramp which uses some of that potential energy to overcome. The energy lost in getting the ball to rotate. Also consider air resistance, experimental error, etc.
Real science is putting up an exhibit where people can start the ball rolling and have the speed automatically calculated at the bottom. Let them do this three times and write down the end speed for each time. Then show why the speed isn't what typical calculations would give because of the reasons mentioned above. For hardcore science, teach them how to calculate the energy lost due to angular momentum, coefficient of friction between the ball and the surface, etc.
You can take advantage of their Perpetual Luncheon, though if the food is really bad, expect long lines at the washrooms as people experience Perpetual Motion.
Yes, a hypocracy government is one where all the hypocrats have taken the hypocritical oath. Come to think of it, don't we have that already?
I'm not crazy about the iPod mini colors either, but they seem to be wildly popular. But I guess the beetle was good for reasons other than pleasing you or I. :)
There's the average standard versions which can stand some abuse, and then there's the hardened rugged versions used by the military, police, and other people who constantly use it out in the field all the time. The standard ones provide a decent level of toughness, but the more rugged ones have every port sealed against dust and water, for example. I've read reviews where you can drive over the rugged versions, but I wouldn't try that with the standard ones.
Thanks for the clarification! I knew Hitler was somehow involved, but not much more. Google provided the rest. :)
Just imagine a beowulf... oh, never mind.
Yeah, that's at full bore, 6000 RPM. If you're driving it at say 1500 RPM cruising you'll be getting around four times the efficiency. Without the four turbo chargers kicking in, you'll get a hell of a lot better mileage still.
This is similar to the ultimate pimp daddy car, the Cadillac Sixteen. Engine is also 1000hp.
Interesting to note too that VW started out as the car maker for the "volk", ie the unwashed masses. Seems like they've lost their roots.
More interesting is Hitler's involvement with founding it. In case you doubt the source, here's another site. Possibly one of the very few good things to come from that bastard.
Apologies for obliquely invoking Godwin's Law.
What are they teaching kids in school which has rapid turnover? How much has math changed in the several centuries at the level that even a high school senior would be using? Any fundamental errors in Newtonian physics been cropping up that I'm not aware of? The history of western civilization isn't going to change unless someone travels back in time. English will adapt only a little to accomodate cultural changes (like you know... whatever...) but on the whole, English grammar and spelling haven't changed in the last fifty years or so.
Anyone not in high school can make perfectly good use of existing books. The only reason why books change so often is because publishers like to sell more books! I never used a computer at school until grade 12 (Turbo Pascal on the Apple IIgs... w00t!) and given that I know more about computers and programming than most people who have used computers all their lives, I don't think this has been a hindrance. In fact, having started out with simple computers which I could fully understand inside and out, then progressing to more and more powerful ones has probably been the best thing.
These days, starting out with a laptop you can't open up with an operating system so complex that nobody can understand it without years of study must be very daunting. I can imagine it'd cause a lot of kids to just treat it as this big mysterious magic black box that does things when you click the right things with a mouse.
Yes, IE adoped Netscape's convention of using "Mozilla/..." user agent, and added the "... (compatible; IE4...)" or similar tag. Note that Mozilla was the development name for the closed source Netscape browser way back in the browser war years when Netscape was the most popular browser around and the current Mozilla browser wouldn't even be an idea for another four or five years. So the current open sourced Mozilla browser allows users to copy the IE convention of decribing itself as a version of Internet Explorer, compatible with closed source Netscape, and then tacks its own information onto the end.
For example, here's one sample of a possible Netscape 2 user agent string:
Mozilla/2.02 [fr] (WinNT; I)
Then Microsoft developed Internet Explorer. IE versions shared similar user agent strings, but this is one for IE4.0:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; Windows 95)
Now, most open source browsers allow you to copy Internet Explorer and have a user agent such as:
Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows XP) Gecko/whatever
So we have Mozilla/Firefox/etc. which copied Internet Explorer which copied (closed source) Netscape. Clear as mud!
The problem isn't spawn camping, the problem is with the games themselves not being designed well enough to have more intelligent and varied spawning rules and play options. Soldiers landing on the beaches of Normandy sure as shit had to deal with spawn camping. Every Nazi machine gun and mortar was aimed at the landing points, hoping to kill soldiers when the gates of their landing craft dropped. In real war, the defending troops generally have a 3:1 advantage precisely because they *can* camp the likely "spawn points".
I don't think temporary invincibility is necessarily the only way to go. There should be strategic ways to deal with spawn camping. Someone got a sniper rifle trained on your spawn point? Call in an air strike, get your own snipers out there, or provide some other means of cover and concealment. Having a game 100% reflect reality (one shot one kill) doesn't always make for a fun game, but you shouldn't have to completely dumb down the game so that everything is totally balanced out.
Right, as it always has because it mimicked the original closed source Netscape browser. Internet Explorer was using the "Mozilla/... " tag YEARS before the current Mozilla browser project got going. In a delicious bit of irony, now open source browsers are pretending to be the closed source Internet Explorer by spoofing IE's user agent string.
Or suppose that a website doesn't work in Mozilla unless you have Mozilla identify itself as Internet Explorer.
As far as spoofing the GPL string, what's the problem here? Do you hear Open Source advocates decrying browsers such as Mozilla for spoofing the user agent string and claiming to be Internet Explorer? "But websites won't display properly unless we lie about it and claim to be Internet Explorer!" Right. Just as their drivers won't work properly unless they lie about it and claim to be GPL?
Which one is the pot and which is the kettle here?
If the kernel is slower, then I guess it has gained wait. On the other hand, I don't know how to measure the weight of a kernel.
Your eye is approximately equal to a 100 megapixel camera, only instead of an evenly distributed rectangular grid, it's more of a bullseye with the greatest density of rods/cones near the center. So that's the theoretical limit of resolution possible, but of course the electronics governing the laser movement will be the limiting factor here.
You have *got* to be shitting me. You're claiming this article debunks the talk.origins one? It doesn't even cover a tenth of the evidence against a global flood. And what it does cover is all done with hand-waving arguments with little to no cited material for independent study. "Well, Woodmorappe covered that in his book too, but I guess Isaak didn't want to mention it so nya nya nya."
You get an "A" for zealotry, but an "F" for accuracy.