Besides spamming, this self-described school has, as another reader points out, "awarded an MBA to a cat owned by an undercover Pennsylvania deputy attorney general."
So that makes the school somehow suspect? I mean, come on, Harvard is one of the most respected schools out there, and it awarded an MBA to George Bush.
Something I've never really understood about this: Why do they spend money promoting Java? I mean, they're a business, so presumably they're investing money in hopes of a larger payoff.
But how does that payoff come?
They give away Java for free. It runs on any hardware, not just theirs. Everybody knows that - in fact it's one of Java's main selling points.
It seems like the classic South Park underpants gnomes' reasoning.
Obviously I don't mean that rats, cats and pigs are "maximally adapted". I mean that they are more well-adapted in a general sense than dodos, which were only well-adapted to their particular local - and temporary - conditions.
As to your statement that they "may, by chance, be able to survive in other environments, but this is not a result of adaptation", this is not exactly true, and it is exactly what I'm talking about:
Rats, cats and pigs were faced with much more widespread and generalized competition than the isolated creatures of Madagascar were.
Rats, et cetera, are adapted to general competition, as well as they needed to be, across a wide range of environments.
The native Madagascar creatures were only adapted to Madagascar as well as they needed to be - and they had faced precious little competition for that environment.
So, the general adaptation of rats, when applied to Madagascar specifically, was totally better adapted to Madagascar than the Dodo's Madagascar-specific adaptation was. That was not mere chance.
Honestly, what are the chances that an Earth microbe could survive on Io or Europa (see respondent to this post), especially in the face of competition from a native microbe that was well-adapted to the surroundings?
I understand your point, but frankly, the same question could have been asked in the seventeenth century about bringing rats, cats and pigs to Madagascar. How could they possibly compete with the native and well-adapted dodo?
And that's just an example, of course. There are many such examples, not just that one, of native species being decimated by introduced species.
The problem is that the dodo, for example, was well-adapted in a locally maximal sense, not in a maximal sense. Rats are better adapted for Madagascar than dodos were; they were just never given a chance there until the 1600s.
Any domain on a "quasi" TLD will work without a browser plugin. You just have to point to different root nameservers than most people do.
I'm against this fracturing of DNS authority, but when it boils down to it, on a strictly technical level, accessing new.net's TLDs is no different than accessing ICANN's TLDs.
planet = revolves around star or larger, big enough to hold atmosphere planetoid = revolves around star. NOT big enough to hold atmosphere
Eh. First of all, what do you mean by "atmosphere"? Exactly how much more dense than the immediately surrounding stellar medium?
Second, what if we find some planet - excuse me, I mean "thing" - way out there that would be be big enough to "hold atmosphere", but doesn't actually have an atmosphere?
Then again, lots of people hold on to the outlandish notion that America is a country when in fact it's a whole continent. Remember, it's the United States OF America. To think the two are the same is as silly as saying that France and Europe are the same.
See, here's the thing: Believe it or not, words can, and in fact often do, have multiple meanings.
To say that someone who uses "America" to refer to the USA is being "silly", or that he is saying that the USA and North/South America are "the same thing" is, well, silly.
Kent Brockman: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.
Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to deflect the aster...
Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended asteroid-slash-pervert bill?
(Congress): BOO!
Speaker: Bill defeated.
Kent Brockman: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.
Why do you think it doesn't seem likely that the new planet holds much water? That is is a "rock"?
As far as I know, the new planet could be water. Hell, comets are mostly water - there are even currently postulated theories that Earth's water actually came mostly from comets.
This proposed definition strikes me as being arbitrary without purpose.
Who cares if a body orbiting a star has an atmosphere or not, when it comes time to decide whether it is a "planet" or an "asteroid"?
And if you do care about that, that is, if it's so incredibly important for something orbiting a star to have an atmosphere or not, then why in the world would you not care about whether something orbiting a "planet" (or, frankly, a "ridiculously humungous asteroid") has an atmosphere or not?
Pluto should be labeled an asteroid since it's smaller than even our own moon.
Frankly, I don't understand this line of reasoning. Why does it matter, with regards to whether something is a "planet" or not, whether that thing is bigger than, for example, our moon?
And "asteroid"? Pluto is far, far larger than anything currently considered an "asteroid".
Jupiter and Saturn both have moons that are bigger than Mercury. Do you not consider Mercury to be a "planet", either?
What if Jupiter had a moon bigger than Earth? That's not unimaginable; would Earth then not be a "planet"? In fact, would then nothing be a "planet" except Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune?
I frankly don't see what's wrong with (something like) a "planet" being a non-star that's orbiting (directly) around a star. Sure, that makes for some seriously small "planets" relative to what we're used to, but at least it's not an arbitrary and useless definition like (no offense) yours.
And anyway, if you want to add back in your preferred amount of arbitraryness, you can always start referring to "major planets", "minor planets", and so forth.
SCIENTISTS have found a new world orbiting the solar system - more than 3 billion kilometres further away from the Sun than Pluto and 40 years away from Earth in a space shuttle.
Forty years away from Earth in a space shuttle that somehow mysteriously made it away from Earth in the first place?
You might as well say it's 200,000 years away from Earth by unicycle.
We were lucky this time, but it is clear that we need to do something about such threats. Here is what I propose:
We build a nondescript isosceles triangular spaceship, controlled by one man with a joystick. Left and right rotate the ship, up thrusts the ship forward, and down, well, down depends upon your configuration. Optionally, it could throw the ship through hyperspace to some other random point in space, or else it could put deflector shields up around the ship.
In addition to the joystick, the ship's pilot should have access to a red button (it must be red). Pressing the button should cause balls of energy to shoot out of the front of the ship, capable of breaking apart large asteroids, and destroying small ones. Pressing the button should also make a "PCHOW!" sound.
I am always sickened when I hear of one of my fellow Americans kneeling before some supposed king or queen in order to supposedly become some supposed knight. Especially the supposed king or queen of England.
They believe that god told them to get circumcised, sort of as a handshake on their pact with their god. Genesis 17:9-14:
And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my convenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
He that is born in they house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
So remember, kids, next time you buy a slave, God wants you to chop his foreskin off.
Well, no, actually, something that flows is a "fluid", not a liquid. Liquids, generally, are fluids, but fluids are not necessarily liquids.
An example closer to home than this "supersolid" they're talking about is sand. Sand is a fluid (not individual grains of it, of course). It is not a liquid.
If something can flow then its liquid NOT a solid. I'm not arguing the physics, I'm arguing the definition of the english words.
If something swims in the water and has fins, then it's a fish, not a mammal. I'm not arguing the biology, I'm arguing the definition of English words.
Though I have to admit I tried original Halo on the PC and was terribly disappointed. I think xbox owners are wowed by it cause they don't have much to compare to on that platform.
I have Halo on the XBox, and I was wowed by it. Like you said, I haven't found much to compare it to on that platform - I tried several other first person shooters for the XBox, and they all paled in comparison to Halo. These included Medal of Honor, Brute Force, and Unreal Championship, plus some others that I tried only briefly before deciding that they were no Halo.
So now, you have me curious: If I switched to playing such games on the PC, could you give me some examples of "If you liked Halo, then you'll love..." ?
Slashdot Mirror
Besides spamming, this self-described school has, as another reader points out, "awarded an MBA to a cat owned by an undercover Pennsylvania deputy attorney general."
So that makes the school somehow suspect? I mean, come on, Harvard is one of the most respected schools out there, and it awarded an MBA to George Bush.
Something I've never really understood about this: Why do they spend money promoting Java? I mean, they're a business, so presumably they're investing money in hopes of a larger payoff.
But how does that payoff come?
They give away Java for free. It runs on any hardware, not just theirs. Everybody knows that - in fact it's one of Java's main selling points.
It seems like the classic South Park underpants gnomes' reasoning.
Obviously I don't mean that rats, cats and pigs are "maximally adapted". I mean that they are more well-adapted in a general sense than dodos, which were only well-adapted to their particular local - and temporary - conditions.
As to your statement that they "may, by chance, be able to survive in other environments, but this is not a result of adaptation", this is not exactly true, and it is exactly what I'm talking about:
Rats, cats and pigs were faced with much more widespread and generalized competition than the isolated creatures of Madagascar were.
Rats, et cetera, are adapted to general competition, as well as they needed to be, across a wide range of environments.
The native Madagascar creatures were only adapted to Madagascar as well as they needed to be - and they had faced precious little competition for that environment.
So, the general adaptation of rats, when applied to Madagascar specifically, was totally better adapted to Madagascar than the Dodo's Madagascar-specific adaptation was. That was not mere chance.
Honestly, what are the chances that an Earth microbe could survive on Io or Europa (see respondent to this post), especially in the face of competition from a native microbe that was well-adapted to the surroundings?
I understand your point, but frankly, the same question could have been asked in the seventeenth century about bringing rats, cats and pigs to Madagascar. How could they possibly compete with the native and well-adapted dodo?
And that's just an example, of course. There are many such examples, not just that one, of native species being decimated by introduced species.
The problem is that the dodo, for example, was well-adapted in a locally maximal sense, not in a maximal sense. Rats are better adapted for Madagascar than dodos were; they were just never given a chance there until the 1600s.
Any domain on a "quasi" TLD will work without a browser plugin. You just have to point to different root nameservers than most people do.
I'm against this fracturing of DNS authority, but when it boils down to it, on a strictly technical level, accessing new.net's TLDs is no different than accessing ICANN's TLDs.
Yeah, I know, sorry, my bad. I promise I won't do it again - or at least not to Sedna.
planet = revolves around star or larger, big enough to hold atmosphere
planetoid = revolves around star. NOT big enough to hold atmosphere
Eh. First of all, what do you mean by "atmosphere"? Exactly how much more dense than the immediately surrounding stellar medium?
Second, what if we find some planet - excuse me, I mean "thing" - way out there that would be be big enough to "hold atmosphere", but doesn't actually have an atmosphere?
Then again, lots of people hold on to the outlandish notion that America is a country when in fact it's a whole continent. Remember, it's the United States OF America. To think the two are the same is as silly as saying that France and Europe are the same.
See, here's the thing: Believe it or not, words can, and in fact often do, have multiple meanings.
To say that someone who uses "America" to refer to the USA is being "silly", or that he is saying that the USA and North/South America are "the same thing" is, well, silly.
Won't work:
Kent Brockman: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.
Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to deflect the aster...
Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended asteroid-slash-pervert bill?
(Congress): BOO!
Speaker: Bill defeated.
Kent Brockman: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.
Why do you think it doesn't seem likely that the new planet holds much water? That is is a "rock"?
As far as I know, the new planet could be water. Hell, comets are mostly water - there are even currently postulated theories that Earth's water actually came mostly from comets.
The way astrology works is ... not at all?
This proposed definition strikes me as being arbitrary without purpose.
Who cares if a body orbiting a star has an atmosphere or not, when it comes time to decide whether it is a "planet" or an "asteroid"?
And if you do care about that, that is, if it's so incredibly important for something orbiting a star to have an atmosphere or not, then why in the world would you not care about whether something orbiting a "planet" (or, frankly, a "ridiculously humungous asteroid") has an atmosphere or not?
Pluto should be labeled an asteroid since it's smaller than even our own moon.
Frankly, I don't understand this line of reasoning. Why does it matter, with regards to whether something is a "planet" or not, whether that thing is bigger than, for example, our moon?
And "asteroid"? Pluto is far, far larger than anything currently considered an "asteroid".
Jupiter and Saturn both have moons that are bigger than Mercury. Do you not consider Mercury to be a "planet", either?
What if Jupiter had a moon bigger than Earth? That's not unimaginable; would Earth then not be a "planet"? In fact, would then nothing be a "planet" except Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune?
I frankly don't see what's wrong with (something like) a "planet" being a non-star that's orbiting (directly) around a star. Sure, that makes for some seriously small "planets" relative to what we're used to, but at least it's not an arbitrary and useless definition like (no offense) yours.
And anyway, if you want to add back in your preferred amount of arbitraryness, you can always start referring to "major planets", "minor planets", and so forth.
From the Australian article:
SCIENTISTS have found a new world orbiting the solar system - more than 3 billion kilometres further away from the Sun than Pluto and 40 years away from Earth in a space shuttle.
Forty years away from Earth in a space shuttle that somehow mysteriously made it away from Earth in the first place?
You might as well say it's 200,000 years away from Earth by unicycle.
We were lucky this time, but it is clear that we need to do something about such threats. Here is what I propose:
We build a nondescript isosceles triangular spaceship, controlled by one man with a joystick. Left and right rotate the ship, up thrusts the ship forward, and down, well, down depends upon your configuration. Optionally, it could throw the ship through hyperspace to some other random point in space, or else it could put deflector shields up around the ship.
In addition to the joystick, the ship's pilot should have access to a red button (it must be red). Pressing the button should cause balls of energy to shoot out of the front of the ship, capable of breaking apart large asteroids, and destroying small ones. Pressing the button should also make a "PCHOW!" sound.
It is our clearest and best long-term option.
High Bandwidth Version
or
Low Bandwidth Version
I am always sickened when I hear of one of my fellow Americans kneeling before some supposed king or queen in order to supposedly become some supposed knight. Especially the supposed king or queen of England.
Errrrr, I mean, "Louisiana has parishes, not counties."
Louisiana has counties, not parishes.
They believe that god told them to get circumcised, sort of as a handshake on their pact with their god. Genesis 17:9-14:
And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my convenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
He that is born in they house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
So remember, kids, next time you buy a slave, God wants you to chop his foreskin off.
Well, no, actually, something that flows is a "fluid", not a liquid. Liquids, generally, are fluids, but fluids are not necessarily liquids.
An example closer to home than this "supersolid" they're talking about is sand. Sand is a fluid (not individual grains of it, of course). It is not a liquid.
If something can flow then its liquid NOT a solid. I'm not arguing the physics, I'm arguing the definition of the english words.
If something swims in the water and has fins, then it's a fish, not a mammal. I'm not arguing the biology, I'm arguing the definition of English words.
Well, do you want graphics or gameplay/story?
Gameplay/story. Definitely. By far. I am not terribly concerned with graphical realism.
I take it that you never completed the original Halo on "Legendary" level, because if you had, you would have already seen a marine hugging an Elite.
It actually made some sense in context, and was funny, in a way.
Though I have to admit I tried original Halo on the PC and was terribly disappointed. I think xbox owners are wowed by it cause they don't have much to compare to on that platform.
..." ?
I have Halo on the XBox, and I was wowed by it. Like you said, I haven't found much to compare it to on that platform - I tried several other first person shooters for the XBox, and they all paled in comparison to Halo. These included Medal of Honor, Brute Force, and Unreal Championship, plus some others that I tried only briefly before deciding that they were no Halo.
So now, you have me curious: If I switched to playing such games on the PC, could you give me some examples of "If you liked Halo, then you'll love