You misunderstand. You don't attack the countries that actually have nukes, because they'll just nuke you (as a final act of desperation if not before). You attack anyone who doesn't have them, that you can trick people into thinking does. (normally because you gave nukes to them in the first place, then took them all back)
If they don't know what it is, then it is a UFO, by definition. Why should we avoid using the correct terminology, just because some people jump to conclusions?
A lot of people can tell when they are going to have a fit (NB: a fit is very different from a stroke), it's not suprising that dogs can pick up on that.
They will not reach near human intelligence. Mice start off with too small brains.
And don't start trying to bring God into it. No-one will(should) listen to you. (Even/.ers have better things to do than get into that debate)
Simply? No. If you are reading this, you are too late to improve your intelligence this way. (You're brain has already developed) You could try having smart kids by altering those genes, though.
The mutations in primates produced us (apparently), by increasing brain size. However, primates already had fairly large brains, so a 50% increase (or whatever it is) leads to many extra brain cells. Mice have very small brains to start with, so even if they get 50% bigger they are very unlikely to become anywhere near human intelligence. However, the next logical step is to perform these experiments on chimps and try and repeat evolution. That could cause serious ethical issues.
That reminds me of the "If a tree falls in a wood where there is no-one to hear it, does it make a sound?" question. "If space is somewhere where we can't see it, is it part of the Universe?"
It's all in how you define universe, really. If you say the universe is everything that effects us, then what you say is right. (It's all to do with light cones and things)
Of course. No scientist would ever argue that they will never be found to be wrong at some point in the future. We can only come up with theories based on the information we have, and that information makes it very clear that the local universe is almost flat.
You make an interesting point. It is human nature to say what suits you best, but that doesn't make it logical, you're right. I guess it's more a matter of the regulations for the real world are wrong, so/.ers aren't saying the rules should be different on the net than in the real world, but that they should be the same on both, but just different from what they currently are in the real world. The other issue is that real world rules are made by countries, but the net is international (ie. You don't like the US regulations, you simply base your server in the UK, and you can (sometimes) get round it).
You're running Win98 with 256MB of RAM? Of course it's going to be fast. 256 was top of the range when 98 was made. I turned on a Win95 machine with 16 meg of ram this weekend... not a pleasant experience.
To you and me (and the rest of/.), that might make sense, because we are used to thinking of the internet as just another part of life. For some (most) people, that isn't yet the case. They seem to think that something happening online is inherently different from the same thing happening IRL. That will probably change over the next decade, but until then laws will have to be tested twice, once for real life, and then again for the net.
LOTR in Klingon... Eru help us! Does anyone actually own the "original" Hamlet they published? (I must confess to owning the Klingon dictionary, and having downloaded a Quenya course...)
Slashdot Mirror
Ah! 1% of 53b, or 0.53b... all makes sense now!
53b? Where did you get that from? It's more like 0.53b...
You misunderstand. You don't attack the countries that actually have nukes, because they'll just nuke you (as a final act of desperation if not before). You attack anyone who doesn't have them, that you can trick people into thinking does. (normally because you gave nukes to them in the first place, then took them all back)
No. Email is used to help send snail mail, not the other way round. Did you even read the article?
Even if the universe is curved (which is still a matter for debate, AFAIK), it certainly isn't THAT curved.
If they don't know what it is, then it is a UFO, by definition. Why should we avoid using the correct terminology, just because some people jump to conclusions?
Your calculations are sound... I guess it must be a coincidence...
I was more refering to the dogs picking up on the fact that the person has (prehaps subconciously) picked up on it, then them picking it up directly.
A lot of people can tell when they are going to have a fit (NB: a fit is very different from a stroke), it's not suprising that dogs can pick up on that.
Touche
And whoever submitted it to /., and the editor that accepted it...
I think the time scales involved are very large. It would be like pouring water into a sieve with very small holes.
They will not reach near human intelligence. Mice start off with too small brains. And don't start trying to bring God into it. No-one will(should) listen to you. (Even /.ers have better things to do than get into that debate)
Simply? No. If you are reading this, you are too late to improve your intelligence this way. (You're brain has already developed) You could try having smart kids by altering those genes, though.
The mutations in primates produced us (apparently), by increasing brain size. However, primates already had fairly large brains, so a 50% increase (or whatever it is) leads to many extra brain cells. Mice have very small brains to start with, so even if they get 50% bigger they are very unlikely to become anywhere near human intelligence. However, the next logical step is to perform these experiments on chimps and try and repeat evolution. That could cause serious ethical issues.
How about child birth? The head is the widest part of a baby's body.
How significant are these hydrocarbon findings? Are similar spectrums detected in other places (eg. the rest of our Galaxy)?
That reminds me of the "If a tree falls in a wood where there is no-one to hear it, does it make a sound?" question. "If space is somewhere where we can't see it, is it part of the Universe?" It's all in how you define universe, really. If you say the universe is everything that effects us, then what you say is right. (It's all to do with light cones and things)
Isn't that what the parent said?
Of course. No scientist would ever argue that they will never be found to be wrong at some point in the future. We can only come up with theories based on the information we have, and that information makes it very clear that the local universe is almost flat.
You make an interesting point. It is human nature to say what suits you best, but that doesn't make it logical, you're right. I guess it's more a matter of the regulations for the real world are wrong, so /.ers aren't saying the rules should be different on the net than in the real world, but that they should be the same on both, but just different from what they currently are in the real world. The other issue is that real world rules are made by countries, but the net is international (ie. You don't like the US regulations, you simply base your server in the UK, and you can (sometimes) get round it).
You're running Win98 with 256MB of RAM? Of course it's going to be fast. 256 was top of the range when 98 was made. I turned on a Win95 machine with 16 meg of ram this weekend... not a pleasant experience.
Is there any news on what the name of this version will be? (I'm assuming "longhorn" is purely a working title)
To you and me (and the rest of /.), that might make sense, because we are used to thinking of the internet as just another part of life. For some (most) people, that isn't yet the case. They seem to think that something happening online is inherently different from the same thing happening IRL. That will probably change over the next decade, but until then laws will have to be tested twice, once for real life, and then again for the net.
LOTR in Klingon... Eru help us! Does anyone actually own the "original" Hamlet they published? (I must confess to owning the Klingon dictionary, and having downloaded a Quenya course...)