Actually, I think not. I believe 'dark matter' was originally thought to be just what the name implies: matter that is not visible to us because it is unlit, e.g. stuff that's far from any star. It was later proven that there couldn't be enough unknown 'ordinary' matter to explain the observations, and so the only possibility left seemed to be that this 'dark matter' was some unknown kind of matter, not accounted for in our existing models.
Has Taiwan asked to rejoin the UN as an independent country? I don't believe they have officially declared independence. Given that, it seems unfair of them to complain if others don't treat them as an independent country.
You seem to have missed the importance of the first eight words of the line you quoted. An ice storm is caused by freezing rain. Freezing rain does not happen when the air temp is 20 degrees F.
Part of the problem, of course, is that the station is still under construction. It's hard to get much research done when half your facilities are still on the ground and you have only a skeleton crew that's just sufficient to maintain the infrastructure.
Keep in mind that the destructive potential of nuclear fusion has largely been already realized. Most of what we have left to learn is how to create controlled fusion.
It probably didn't help, though, that the poverty of pre-WWII Germany was imposed from outside. That doesn't tend to develop warm feelings toward your neighbors...
Unfortunately, for the vast majority of users automatic intervention-free installation of program updates is the only approach that will ensure good overall security on the network. There are just too many people who neither know nor care about patching, and will never do it. Forced updates should be disable-able, for users like you, but should be turned on by default and idiot-proof.
The way Firefox handles update notifications is particularly bad. The little red arrow is way too easy to ignore, particularly if you don't already know what it's for.
If you refuse to pay them, they proceed with their lawsuit against you. Once the suit is filed, you had better defend yourself or you will automatically lose and the court will make sure that you do pay. That's the way the system works: you either pay to satisfy the plaintiff's claim, or you pay to defend yourself (and hope to recover the legal fees if you win).
I'm not even sure they were 'punished'. God seems to have pretty much just disrupted the harmful activity (building the tower) and left it at that. Perhaps the reason is just what you and the gp alluded to: they were trying to do the right thing (be close to God), but in the wrong way. "Half points for effort. Try again, guys. Less pride next time."
The key bit is in verse 4: "...let us build ourselves...a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves..." (Emphasis mine. Fuller quote in gp.)
They tried to build a tower that reached all the way to heaven. Whether they could have actually reached heaven is irrelevant. The issue is that by trying to reach heaven by their own efforts, they distracted themselves from the true path to heaven. Fundamentally, their sin was pride: they tried to 'make a name for themselves', and believed that they were so great that they could get to heaven without God's help. In a theme that is repeated often in the Bible, God brought an end to earthly 'greatness' to remove the distraction and give the people another shot at finding the right path.
Yes, it does seem that they got off rather easy by OT standards. No fire & brimstone, etc. One might suspect that God has a soft spot for builders and creators, even when they go astray.
Actually, you can't patent 'discoveries', only 'inventions'.
As to your suggestion that the two groups won't cooperate only because 'egos have become involved': There's more to it than that. Most people have a hard time cooperating with a thief. You don't agree to share joint ownership of what has been stolen from you. If Ortiz et al. had independently discovered the object, it would be different, but they (apparently) used Brown's own records to find out where the object they knew he was studying was located. That is just not acceptable.
Actually, it does reflect on the quality of the result and the scientific presentation. Ortiz et al. rushed to announce a discovery based on very limited observations, only because they knew from Brown et al.'s abstract that there was indeed an important object there. If they had spotted the object themselves, they would have collected much more data and analyzed it much more carefully before making an announcement. They might have also published a paper, rather than making a press release. This goes beyond a mere breach of professional ethics--it is also shoddy science. Hopefully their superiors and granting agencies will be looking at this incident very carefully...
Well, they didn't really post their data intentionally. It appears that the data was posted inadvertently, perhaps by automated software associated with the telescope. It apparently didn't occur to them that someone could use the ID code of the object being observed, which they had published, as an index to look up their observing records on their telescope's web site.
That said, though, even if they had posted the data deliberately, it would still be unacceptable for the Spanish astronomers to use that data to claim credit for the discovery, without at least acknowledging their use of Brown's data and giving him appropriate credit. Proper credit is very important in science. You can't just use someone else's work and not mention it.
One could also argue that if Brown et al. did make the location of the object 'public' by posting the data on their website and releasing an abstract describing the object, that would constitute a public announcement of the discovery (albeit a somewhat obscure one). Brown et al. would then be entitled to claim credit for the discovery regardless of who held the first press conference.
Except, that that is not how credit is supposed to work in the scientific community. If Ortiz used Brown's observing records, he needs to give Dr. Brown appropriate credit.
Hmmm, actually I took the desktop cleanup tool as a big step forward. Yes, users like you and me have no problem pruning the desktop icons down to what we actually need (whether we use them frequently or not). Way too many people, though, have no idea that they can (or should) delete icons from their desktop. Every crappy piece of software they install puts at least one if not several icons on the desktop, and they just all accumulate there in a big disordered (but nicely aligned) jumble. Having a tool that automatically offers to remove the ones that aren't being used is a good step forward. If users either let the tool do its job, or learn from it that they are free to delete desktop icons without ill consequence, they end up with a better, more usable, desktop.
Amen to that. When I'm typing, NOTHING should ever be allowed to change focus until I stop.
Second to that on my list of focus peeves is drop-down menus. If I have a drop-down menu pulled down, absolutely nothing should EVER allow the focus to be changed. I hate being five levels deep in nested drop-down menus, and having some application steal the focus so I have to go back an renavigate through all those menus again.
Doesn't that mean then that you have stored all your important passwords and your credit card number, completely unsecured, in GAIM's text replacement file?
I'm pretty skeptical of this thing too, but it's not quite true that the device needs to be more efficient than generating electricity and refrigerating the old-fashioned way. There is an advantage (especially in a low-tech environment) to a simple device with few moving mechanical parts to wear out. If (hypothetically) they have some low-maintenance means of producing a stream of compressed air, a vortex tube might actually be a good solution. You may just not care if you are wasting 80% of the energy, as long as you keep your medicine fridge cold.
I have seen thermoacoustic refrigeration proposed for third-world use too, and seen a nice demonstration of the technology. With this technology you can power a fridge from almost any heat source, and there are no moving parts to wear out.
Probably not. If you want the cold end to get very cold, you probably want to prevent the hot end from getting very hot, by conducting/convecting the heat away into the environment.
I mostly agree with you, but I still think 'refugee' is the term that best captures the level of desperation in this situation. These people need a lot more than a place to stay and a job to do. They have lost everything they own from their homes to the clothes on their backs, and in some cases have lost family members as well. The thing I don't like about calling them 'survivors' is that it suggests that the horrible experience is over. For these people, their misery is not yet over, and I do not want to see us label them 'survivors' and then forget about them. These people are going to need a lot of help to get back on their feet.
I don't think this country has yet begun to appreciate what it is going to mean to have so many displaced people needing help. We are all going to be dealing with this for quite some time yet.
Your citation does not support your own point. These people are certainly fleeing in search of refuge. While they don't fall into any of the cases cited as examples, they still fit the definition.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think not. I believe 'dark matter' was originally thought to be just what the name implies: matter that is not visible to us because it is unlit, e.g. stuff that's far from any star. It was later proven that there couldn't be enough unknown 'ordinary' matter to explain the observations, and so the only possibility left seemed to be that this 'dark matter' was some unknown kind of matter, not accounted for in our existing models.
Worse, a kludge that grew more and more complex over time.
Has Taiwan asked to rejoin the UN as an independent country? I don't believe they have officially declared independence. Given that, it seems unfair of them to complain if others don't treat them as an independent country.
You seem to have missed the importance of the first eight words of the line you quoted. An ice storm is caused by freezing rain. Freezing rain does not happen when the air temp is 20 degrees F.
Part of the problem, of course, is that the station is still under construction. It's hard to get much research done when half your facilities are still on the ground and you have only a skeleton crew that's just sufficient to maintain the infrastructure.
Keep in mind that the destructive potential of nuclear fusion has largely been already realized. Most of what we have left to learn is how to create controlled fusion.
It probably didn't help, though, that the poverty of pre-WWII Germany was imposed from outside. That doesn't tend to develop warm feelings toward your neighbors...
The way Firefox handles update notifications is particularly bad. The little red arrow is way too easy to ignore, particularly if you don't already know what it's for.
Unfortunately, you really need a lawyer to have much chance of succeeding, hence the awful decision: pay for a lawyer or pay off the RIAA.
If you refuse to pay them, they proceed with their lawsuit against you. Once the suit is filed, you had better defend yourself or you will automatically lose and the court will make sure that you do pay. That's the way the system works: you either pay to satisfy the plaintiff's claim, or you pay to defend yourself (and hope to recover the legal fees if you win).
I'm not even sure they were 'punished'. God seems to have pretty much just disrupted the harmful activity (building the tower) and left it at that. Perhaps the reason is just what you and the gp alluded to: they were trying to do the right thing (be close to God), but in the wrong way. "Half points for effort. Try again, guys. Less pride next time."
They tried to build a tower that reached all the way to heaven. Whether they could have actually reached heaven is irrelevant. The issue is that by trying to reach heaven by their own efforts, they distracted themselves from the true path to heaven. Fundamentally, their sin was pride: they tried to 'make a name for themselves', and believed that they were so great that they could get to heaven without God's help. In a theme that is repeated often in the Bible, God brought an end to earthly 'greatness' to remove the distraction and give the people another shot at finding the right path.
Yes, it does seem that they got off rather easy by OT standards. No fire & brimstone, etc. One might suspect that God has a soft spot for builders and creators, even when they go astray.
As to your suggestion that the two groups won't cooperate only because 'egos have become involved': There's more to it than that. Most people have a hard time cooperating with a thief. You don't agree to share joint ownership of what has been stolen from you. If Ortiz et al. had independently discovered the object, it would be different, but they (apparently) used Brown's own records to find out where the object they knew he was studying was located. That is just not acceptable.
Actually, it does reflect on the quality of the result and the scientific presentation. Ortiz et al. rushed to announce a discovery based on very limited observations, only because they knew from Brown et al.'s abstract that there was indeed an important object there. If they had spotted the object themselves, they would have collected much more data and analyzed it much more carefully before making an announcement. They might have also published a paper, rather than making a press release. This goes beyond a mere breach of professional ethics--it is also shoddy science. Hopefully their superiors and granting agencies will be looking at this incident very carefully...
That said, though, even if they had posted the data deliberately, it would still be unacceptable for the Spanish astronomers to use that data to claim credit for the discovery, without at least acknowledging their use of Brown's data and giving him appropriate credit. Proper credit is very important in science. You can't just use someone else's work and not mention it.
One could also argue that if Brown et al. did make the location of the object 'public' by posting the data on their website and releasing an abstract describing the object, that would constitute a public announcement of the discovery (albeit a somewhat obscure one). Brown et al. would then be entitled to claim credit for the discovery regardless of who held the first press conference.
Except, that that is not how credit is supposed to work in the scientific community. If Ortiz used Brown's observing records, he needs to give Dr. Brown appropriate credit.
Hmmm, actually I took the desktop cleanup tool as a big step forward. Yes, users like you and me have no problem pruning the desktop icons down to what we actually need (whether we use them frequently or not). Way too many people, though, have no idea that they can (or should) delete icons from their desktop. Every crappy piece of software they install puts at least one if not several icons on the desktop, and they just all accumulate there in a big disordered (but nicely aligned) jumble. Having a tool that automatically offers to remove the ones that aren't being used is a good step forward. If users either let the tool do its job, or learn from it that they are free to delete desktop icons without ill consequence, they end up with a better, more usable, desktop.
Second to that on my list of focus peeves is drop-down menus. If I have a drop-down menu pulled down, absolutely nothing should EVER allow the focus to be changed. I hate being five levels deep in nested drop-down menus, and having some application steal the focus so I have to go back an renavigate through all those menus again.
Doesn't that mean then that you have stored all your important passwords and your credit card number, completely unsecured, in GAIM's text replacement file?
I have seen thermoacoustic refrigeration proposed for third-world use too, and seen a nice demonstration of the technology. With this technology you can power a fridge from almost any heat source, and there are no moving parts to wear out.
Probably not. If you want the cold end to get very cold, you probably want to prevent the hot end from getting very hot, by conducting/convecting the heat away into the environment.
Oops. I did read the definition too fast. My bad.
I don't think this country has yet begun to appreciate what it is going to mean to have so many displaced people needing help. We are all going to be dealing with this for quite some time yet.
Your citation does not support your own point. These people are certainly fleeing in search of refuge. While they don't fall into any of the cases cited as examples, they still fit the definition.