Yes, so you reduce the extent they reduce the light by, but the important part was the fact that you can get light sensitive welding masks that only cut out light if it gets bright enough.
It's certainly not $1 per message - maybe $1 for the first message - the 250 millionth doesn't add any significant amount to the damage done by the first 249 million. Prehaps a reducing scale would work better - how about the fine be proportional to the log of the number of messages?
Wouldn't something like those welding masks that automatically change the amount of light they cut out depending on how much there is work? Basically you make it so you're always in the same amount of shadow.
I find the same problem when skiing - I'm guessing the high reflectivity of snow means the difference between sun and shadow is greater. It can be quite frightning skiing through shadows because you can't see a thing (you're wearing sunglasses, so even a mild shadow seems very dark).
"That may not seem surprising until you consider that the two edges are nearly 28 billion light years apart and our universe is only 14 billion years old."
28 billion? Closer to 100 billion if my memory serves me - they forgot to take into account expansion. Journalists shouldn't guess scientific data...
In the UK all pint glasses (and other sized glasses) that alcohol is served in are engraved with the size and an official coat of arms - it's illegal to use any non-standard glasses.
If life can propogate across the void of space between earth and Mars, what's to stop it from propogating across solar systems and perhaps even galaxies in astronomical time scales?
The nearest galaxy to ours is 25,000 ly away. Even assuming a speed of 1% of the speed of light, which is very fast, it would take 2.5 million years to get there. Considering 0.01c is over 1000 times faster than the escape velocity of the galaxy at the position of the sun, it's not a very realistic speed, so the actual time will be much larger. If random bits of life go off in random directions they're unlikely to meet anything any time soon, so it will probably take billions of years before something goes in the right direction and then billions of years for it to get there - astronomical time scales would be at most 10 billions years or so(the universe is less than 15 billion years old by the last estimate I read, and it takes some time for galaxies, stars, planets and finally life to form), so the chances are very very slim, although prehaps not impossible.
Life transporting between stars is easy enough though. A meteor hits earth, a bit of rock flies off and ends up in either earth or solar orbit (probably wouldn't fly off fast enough to leave the solar system), the bit of rock then gets hit by a comet on a parabolic course from the oort cloud going in towards the sun and then out towards another star, the rock sticks to the comet, is carried to the other star where it crashes into a planet. Over the 4 billions years or so that life has existed on earth, that could easilly have happened.
The fact that it's relativistic isn't important for a probe, no, it's just the fact that it's very fast that's important and relativistic speeds are the fasted you can get.
When you give someone sugar, you no longer have that sugar. When you give someone a COPY of your music CD, you both have it. There's a very big difference between giving someone what you bought and giving them a copy of what you bought.
And they somehow filter the dust based on its speed? The amount of interstellar dust is presumably far smaller than the amount of interplanetary dust, and I can't see how they could only get the interstellar stuff...
Because the speed of light in a vacuum is more important than just being the speed light travels in a vacuum. It's a fundamental speed that turns up in lots of places - it's the speed of light, the speed of gravity (probably, measurements place it within the margin of error), the "speed limit" of the universe, the square root of the constant of proportionality between mass and energy, and probably a few other things I can't remember/don't know.
The most important reason is the speed limit one - once you start getting close to c strange things start happening, which is interesting and worth thinking about. Once we get to the stage of having space probes travelling at relativistic speeds we can do all kinds of fun stuff, like sending them to other stars, etc.
What would you rather they were doing? If there isn't anything else you want them to do, why not let them do what they like? If there's something else, then actively encorage them to do that, rather than concentrating on a negative approach.
Spending time on the computer doesn't do any harm. Not spending time doing other things can, so that is what you should deal with.
Concentrate on making sure they do other things too - encorage them to do their homework, or some kind of exercise, etc. If they're doing that, they're not on the computer. If they don't need to be doing other things, why not let them decide what to do?
In the UK all ballot papers have to be punched by the officials, and they only punch it when they give it to you, so you couldn't add extra ballots.
Having paper ballots means it's extremely easy to recount - it's impossibly to recount if a machine has done it, because all you have is the number stored.
All ballot papers are counted by multiple people, so one predujiced person wouldn't be able to do anything. A whole group of them is very unlikely.
"I don't like the idea that the buttons change function though - I can think of nothing more annoying than when I'm about to click something and I suddenly find my email opening instead!"
You might do. Not everyone wuold all the time, certainly, but there are plenty of situations where it would be useful.
Prehaps you're doing some paperwork while you wait for someone to reply to your email so you can carry on with something else, so want instant notification.
Because I for one am constantly staring at my mouse when I have a gigantic monitor right in front of me.
As long as it has a long enough range, it could be useful to just take your mouse with you when you go away from the computer - to work on some paper based thing, prehaps.
Easier to win the lawsuit, maybe, but harder to get a meaningful punishment. A judge is likely to reduce any punishment because they've seen the error of their ways and tried to correct the issue.
$10 million cash payment by Microsoft to Daum, $10 million in advertising deals and unspecified business terms worth a further $10 million.
So that's only really $10mil. The advertising probably won't cost MS much (they probably couldn't sell it for $10mil to anyone else - they wouldn't advertise a competitor anywhere noticeable anyway), and "unspecified business terms"? That's just giving MS more business - even if they don't make money from it, they won't lose much (they have to employ all their people anyway - might as well keep them busy).
So Daum gain $30mil, prehaps, but MS don't lose anywhere near that much. I don't know South Korean law, but I expect they could have won far more if they'd gone to court.
I would assume it means 70k now, yes - which is useful information. It's makes a big difference if it's doubling from 1 to 2, or from 1 billion to 2 billion, so it's useful to have some absolute values as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, so you reduce the extent they reduce the light by, but the important part was the fact that you can get light sensitive welding masks that only cut out light if it gets bright enough.
It's certainly not $1 per message - maybe $1 for the first message - the 250 millionth doesn't add any significant amount to the damage done by the first 249 million. Prehaps a reducing scale would work better - how about the fine be proportional to the log of the number of messages?
Wouldn't something like those welding masks that automatically change the amount of light they cut out depending on how much there is work? Basically you make it so you're always in the same amount of shadow.
I find the same problem when skiing - I'm guessing the high reflectivity of snow means the difference between sun and shadow is greater. It can be quite frightning skiing through shadows because you can't see a thing (you're wearing sunglasses, so even a mild shadow seems very dark).
Correct list link:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Domain_Names
"That may not seem surprising until you consider that the two edges are nearly 28 billion light years apart and our universe is only 14 billion years old."
28 billion? Closer to 100 billion if my memory serves me - they forgot to take into account expansion. Journalists shouldn't guess scientific data...
In the UK all pint glasses (and other sized glasses) that alcohol is served in are engraved with the size and an official coat of arms - it's illegal to use any non-standard glasses.
If life can propogate across the void of space between earth and Mars, what's to stop it from propogating across solar systems and perhaps even galaxies in astronomical time scales?
The nearest galaxy to ours is 25,000 ly away. Even assuming a speed of 1% of the speed of light, which is very fast, it would take 2.5 million years to get there. Considering 0.01c is over 1000 times faster than the escape velocity of the galaxy at the position of the sun, it's not a very realistic speed, so the actual time will be much larger. If random bits of life go off in random directions they're unlikely to meet anything any time soon, so it will probably take billions of years before something goes in the right direction and then billions of years for it to get there - astronomical time scales would be at most 10 billions years or so(the universe is less than 15 billion years old by the last estimate I read, and it takes some time for galaxies, stars, planets and finally life to form), so the chances are very very slim, although prehaps not impossible.
Life transporting between stars is easy enough though. A meteor hits earth, a bit of rock flies off and ends up in either earth or solar orbit (probably wouldn't fly off fast enough to leave the solar system), the bit of rock then gets hit by a comet on a parabolic course from the oort cloud going in towards the sun and then out towards another star, the rock sticks to the comet, is carried to the other star where it crashes into a planet. Over the 4 billions years or so that life has existed on earth, that could easilly have happened.
The fact that it's relativistic isn't important for a probe, no, it's just the fact that it's very fast that's important and relativistic speeds are the fasted you can get.
When you give someone sugar, you no longer have that sugar. When you give someone a COPY of your music CD, you both have it. There's a very big difference between giving someone what you bought and giving them a copy of what you bought.
And they somehow filter the dust based on its speed? The amount of interstellar dust is presumably far smaller than the amount of interplanetary dust, and I can't see how they could only get the interstellar stuff...
What's the definition of interstellar dust? Wouldn't the probe have to leave the solar system to get it, which it obviously didn't?
I would have thought interstellar dust was what's beyond the heliopause, anything inside is interplanetary at best.
Because the speed of light in a vacuum is more important than just being the speed light travels in a vacuum. It's a fundamental speed that turns up in lots of places - it's the speed of light, the speed of gravity (probably, measurements place it within the margin of error), the "speed limit" of the universe, the square root of the constant of proportionality between mass and energy, and probably a few other things I can't remember/don't know.
The most important reason is the speed limit one - once you start getting close to c strange things start happening, which is interesting and worth thinking about. Once we get to the stage of having space probes travelling at relativistic speeds we can do all kinds of fun stuff, like sending them to other stars, etc.
Looks like a weekend dip, yes.
The summary calls her Sarah, the article calls her Susan...
A few mistakes in a summary is to be expected here, but at least get the name right...
What would you rather they were doing? If there isn't anything else you want them to do, why not let them do what they like? If there's something else, then actively encorage them to do that, rather than concentrating on a negative approach.
Spending time on the computer doesn't do any harm. Not spending time doing other things can, so that is what you should deal with.
Why limit their time?
Concentrate on making sure they do other things too - encorage them to do their homework, or some kind of exercise, etc. If they're doing that, they're not on the computer. If they don't need to be doing other things, why not let them decide what to do?
In the UK all ballot papers have to be punched by the officials, and they only punch it when they give it to you, so you couldn't add extra ballots.
Having paper ballots means it's extremely easy to recount - it's impossibly to recount if a machine has done it, because all you have is the number stored.
All ballot papers are counted by multiple people, so one predujiced person wouldn't be able to do anything. A whole group of them is very unlikely.
"I don't like the idea that the buttons change function though - I can think of nothing more annoying than when I'm about to click something and I suddenly find my email opening instead!"
They're different buttons...
You might do. Not everyone wuold all the time, certainly, but there are plenty of situations where it would be useful.
Prehaps you're doing some paperwork while you wait for someone to reply to your email so you can carry on with something else, so want instant notification.
Because I for one am constantly staring at my mouse when I have a gigantic monitor right in front of me.
As long as it has a long enough range, it could be useful to just take your mouse with you when you go away from the computer - to work on some paper based thing, prehaps.
"You mean like those guys that blew themselves up in the London Underground or these who burn cars and shops in France?"
Did they achieve anything? I think not...
What's the point of a revolution in a democracy? You're more likely to persuade people to vote for you than fight for you.
Easier to win the lawsuit, maybe, but harder to get a meaningful punishment. A judge is likely to reduce any punishment because they've seen the error of their ways and tried to correct the issue.
$10 million cash payment by Microsoft to Daum, $10 million in advertising deals and unspecified business terms worth a further $10 million.
So that's only really $10mil. The advertising probably won't cost MS much (they probably couldn't sell it for $10mil to anyone else - they wouldn't advertise a competitor anywhere noticeable anyway), and "unspecified business terms"? That's just giving MS more business - even if they don't make money from it, they won't lose much (they have to employ all their people anyway - might as well keep them busy).
So Daum gain $30mil, prehaps, but MS don't lose anywhere near that much. I don't know South Korean law, but I expect they could have won far more if they'd gone to court.
I would assume it means 70k now, yes - which is useful information. It's makes a big difference if it's doubling from 1 to 2, or from 1 billion to 2 billion, so it's useful to have some absolute values as well.