I hate it when someone sends me a html file. Normally it is a copy of a webpage, and a url would have been smaller, and better (pictures, links, etc. break if you don't know what you are doing). I think people should be told not to open html files sent by email as well as more obvious things like exes.
Did you read the article? (Stupid question, i know) The links don't link the the company's website, they link to an advert. That is much easier to detect and block.
It will be less than a month before popular browsers have plug-ins to stop this ads, they are too easy to stop. Depending on how it's done they may be stopped by conventional pop-up blockers.
BTW, I think the ads down the side of that article show how a good ad's system works. Google has given 4 (nicely subtle) ads, all about stopping (not so subtle) ads. Great!
No, in the USA some words are spelt differently. It's our language. (and yes, I know that "differently" doesn't refer to which was original, but do I care?)
a) good idea b) you have to be kidding c) won't help d) you make good points, but how is it going to help? I personally like the idea of a computer license, to stop people who don't know what they are doing from connecting the the net, but it's way to problematic to implement...
I think we should certainly learn from maritime law when talking about space law, but if no-one is allowed weapons in space, then there is no need to be able to defend yourself. If one person has weapons, everyone needs them, if no-one has them, no-one needs them.
Your state and federal rights apply inside your state and federation, not in space. If international law decides that a craft is governed by it's owners nations laws, then you might have a point, but as far as i know, there are no such laws.
Firstly, yes, living on land is a good survival mechanisim, because all your predators, all your competitors for food, etc, are living in the water. Evolution is not about animals getting "better", it's about them suiting their environment more.
Of course evolution is possible, what you are trying to say is that it is very unlikely, and that is the only arguement against evolution that I've heard that actually makes some sort of sense. I'm in favour of the solar radiation burst stimulating large numbers of mutations theory, which should make the probabilities high enough.
Also, just because something is unlikely, doesn't mean it is impossible. This is a very unusual part of the universe, but that fact that we can realise that means that we are in such an unusual place, so the chances of us being in such a place are almost 100%. The same idea can apply to evolution.
And lastly, a tiny survival increase is enough to make a huge difference in extreme conditions, over a few generations. Most new species take off when those around them die for some reason, rather than because they live better.
I don't assume anything. Just because English isn't your first language doesn't change the definitions of words. I am always more tolerant of mistakes if it looks like they aren't a native speaker, but in that case, I guessed he was (or at least an extremely good speaker).
Re:when asked if the methane was biological in ori
on
Methane on Mars?
·
· Score: 1
If he were talking to scientists, then yes, informed speculation is a good description, but saying something like that to the media is just going to create a frenzy.
Since when has methane on mars had anything to do with evolution? If like could have come into being on Earth by other means, it could have come into being on Mars by the same means.
Re:when asked if the methane was biological in ori
on
Methane on Mars?
·
· Score: 1
How reliable is that source? It seems like a very reckless thing to say at this stage, which makes me doubt he said it.
No, it is was not literally like it. It was metaphorically like it, or proverbially like it. Literally means it actually was that thing, so it can't be used in conjunction with similies.
" it's literally looking for a grain of pepper in a sea of salt."
You can't use the word "literally" when refering to an analogy... it's complete nonsense.
"If this is 'science for the masses', then the masses are very, very stupid."
You've got it in one. It never ceases to amaze me how stupid people can be... That's why democracy will never work.
The salty bit isn't important (well it is, but you know what I mean), it's the fact that they was a large body of water, rather than just the small amounts in the ground that they previously announced.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate it when someone sends me a html file. Normally it is a copy of a webpage, and a url would have been smaller, and better (pictures, links, etc. break if you don't know what you are doing). I think people should be told not to open html files sent by email as well as more obvious things like exes.
From the same inputs:
"Your position is in the region which collapses into the final crater.
Your position is beneath the continuous ejecta deposit."
So you're in a big hole, covered by rock. Are you going to care about:
"Sound Intensity: 112 dB (May cause ear pain)"
"IX. General panic."
That's one tall high-rise building if there's enough air between the top of it, and the ground, for it to vapourise...
Did you read the article? (Stupid question, i know) The links don't link the the company's website, they link to an advert. That is much easier to detect and block.
It will be less than a month before popular browsers have plug-ins to stop this ads, they are too easy to stop. Depending on how it's done they may be stopped by conventional pop-up blockers.
BTW, I think the ads down the side of that article show how a good ad's system works. Google has given 4 (nicely subtle) ads, all about stopping (not so subtle) ads. Great!
No, in the USA some words are spelt differently. It's our language. (and yes, I know that "differently" doesn't refer to which was original, but do I care?)
All mediums are used for porn almost as soon as they are made, and AFAIK none has every stopped being used. No laws are going to stop it.
a) good idea
b) you have to be kidding
c) won't help
d) you make good points, but how is it going to help? I personally like the idea of a computer license, to stop people who don't know what they are doing from connecting the the net, but it's way to problematic to implement...
2 hours is WAY too long. The point of the internet is that everything happens fast. If a single email takes 2 hours to deliver, what's the point?
I think we should certainly learn from maritime law when talking about space law, but if no-one is allowed weapons in space, then there is no need to be able to defend yourself. If one person has weapons, everyone needs them, if no-one has them, no-one needs them.
And the obvious follow on: ground-to-space and air-to-space weapons. If space is shooting at us, we are going to shoot back, no?
Your state and federal rights apply inside your state and federation, not in space. If international law decides that a craft is governed by it's owners nations laws, then you might have a point, but as far as i know, there are no such laws.
Firstly, yes, living on land is a good survival mechanisim, because all your predators, all your competitors for food, etc, are living in the water. Evolution is not about animals getting "better", it's about them suiting their environment more. Of course evolution is possible, what you are trying to say is that it is very unlikely, and that is the only arguement against evolution that I've heard that actually makes some sort of sense. I'm in favour of the solar radiation burst stimulating large numbers of mutations theory, which should make the probabilities high enough. Also, just because something is unlikely, doesn't mean it is impossible. This is a very unusual part of the universe, but that fact that we can realise that means that we are in such an unusual place, so the chances of us being in such a place are almost 100%. The same idea can apply to evolution. And lastly, a tiny survival increase is enough to make a huge difference in extreme conditions, over a few generations. Most new species take off when those around them die for some reason, rather than because they live better.
I don't assume anything. Just because English isn't your first language doesn't change the definitions of words. I am always more tolerant of mistakes if it looks like they aren't a native speaker, but in that case, I guessed he was (or at least an extremely good speaker).
If he were talking to scientists, then yes, informed speculation is a good description, but saying something like that to the media is just going to create a frenzy.
Since when has methane on mars had anything to do with evolution? If like could have come into being on Earth by other means, it could have come into being on Mars by the same means.
How reliable is that source? It seems like a very reckless thing to say at this stage, which makes me doubt he said it.
Insightful? Wake up mods, that was just a poor joke, it wasn't an insight into anything...
No, it is was not literally like it. It was metaphorically like it, or proverbially like it. Literally means it actually was that thing, so it can't be used in conjunction with similies.
" it's literally looking for a grain of pepper in a sea of salt." You can't use the word "literally" when refering to an analogy... it's complete nonsense.
That would all depend on what the hell you're talking about.
The important thing is, this book is written by a scientist, not a scientific correspondent.
"If this is 'science for the masses', then the masses are very, very stupid." You've got it in one. It never ceases to amaze me how stupid people can be... That's why democracy will never work.
Yes, but it's a surface body of water, that's the point. "large" is a relative term anyway.
The salty bit isn't important (well it is, but you know what I mean), it's the fact that they was a large body of water, rather than just the small amounts in the ground that they previously announced.