I'm as interested as the next geek in seeing the final release of DNF but having just had a quick look at the screenshots on Game Spot I can't see this game doing very well. I admit that good graphics do not a good game make but if you aren't playing in the same league as HL2 you aren't playing. This project should have been cut loose (or perhaps I should say lose as it's/.) a long time ago.
Isn't is sad that we consider a static ip address a "sweet feature". Roll on IPv6. Personally I want reasonable upstream speeds on residential connections.
I don't think zeolite would necessarly make that great a nucleator. Most of it's surface area is inside pores where there would be poor fluid exchange (although this might be improved by bubbles forcing their way out). Personally I would go for ground glass (ranging in sizes from 0.05mm to 1mm). Good surface area, nice and spikey to make bubbles and heavy enough to sink. The range of sizes should also help activate bubbles through the whole hight of the flask.
I'm not a trained fireman but I second what the parent said don't ever pour water into hot / burning oil. Our local fire station took over part of the high street to put on a display of what happens when you pour water into burning oil. To make it more realistic they performed the 'experiment' in a mocked up caravan. Just one egg cup of water filled the caravan with flames and smoke. What was most amazing though was how tame the oil fire was before they poured water on it. They even showed us how quite often just turning the ring off is enough to put the pan out.
Back when I was doing chemistry we were told about a lab that was destroyed by a tank of super-heated ultra-pure water (not quite the same as being super-saturated with a gas but similar). The chemists (physical of course) were heating their ultra-pure water in a specially made container. The container was designed not to contaminate the water and had been mirror finished. Of course this lead to a problem when the water was boiled. The container provided no nucleation points and the water, due to its purity, couldn't provide any. At an estimated 105 to 110 deg C the water finally gave up. On small bubble formed which caused the formation of many more and the whole batch of water boiled in one go destroying the lab. I forget how much water exploded but it wasn't much - a few litres.
I for one welcome my new Java.debs. IMVVHO Sun should have made these changes a long time ago. At the end of the day I (and I suspect the vast majority of people) don't care all that much if Java is OSS I care about how easy it is to install and use.
Sure, it would be nice if Java was OSS but in the real world I don't think Java being closed source has slowed it's adoption. Java being a pig to install probably has.
IIRC hydrogen is easier to store than helium because it doesn't leak as much. While you are correct in you assertion that a hydrogen atom is smaller than a helium atom hydrogen is generally paired (h2). The hydrogen molecule is larger than helium (I can't find figures just now but I am confident this is the case).
With the correct systems in place it would be possible to make it very difficult to impossible to steal radioactive materials from power plants I believe. I really don't think that the posibility of theft is good reason for not building fast breeder reactors and other reactors that can potentially make weaponizable material. I suspect the reason we aren't building them is because currently it would be political suicide.
Lets face it, most people fall into the phobically scared of nuclear power to generally wary about it. I think that's fair enough because the first round of reactors were built with very little foresight. Technology has improved so that we don't necessarly have the same problems but how do we convice Joe Sixpack of that?
Funny you should ask about BSOD on Windows. I got my first one from XP last week after running it since it was in beta. As you could probably guess it was driver (video) related.
True enough but I can't help feeling they have lost focus. They developed IE ot "take over the web" but that's failed. What are they developing IE for now? I think they developed IE7 simply to save face.
The resident evil movies. IMHO they are a couple of the best modern action movies around. The tomb raider movies were fair as well. I admit that many of the early game moves were very poor but they have been getting better as film producers realize that they can't just rely on people watching the film because they played the game they need to add at least a bit of story.
Personally I always thought the best definition of a planet would be a body with enough mass to pull itself into roughly a sphere. That would discount pluto for now at least. The actual mass doesn't need to be accurately defined - if it's round it's a planet. I don't think we even need to specify that it must orbit a star. If it doesn't have enough mass to pull itself round then it's just a big lump of rock.
Email is everywhere, it has a low overhead, it's quick and it's simple. Most of all though you don't need to know anything about the tool you are using - it's like talking to someone.
Most of these types of tools I have tried force you to do more than is required to get the job done such as cataloguing each message. Sometimes that type of functionality is useful but most of the time it just gets in the way.
If my site is anything to go by msnbot has been doing a lot more crawling than the googlebot. The msnbot hammers my site practically everyday. I sometimes (in moments of weakness) wish more people would use MSN search because as far as my listings go that would be a really big improvement.
While it would be great if we could launch people (and things) into space cheaply I don't see widespread investment in it any time soon. Yeah it would be great to travel in space but is there actually any point? It's not like there is really actually anywhere to go. It would be cool to be able to go from one side of the Earth to the other in a few hours but that only requires sub-orbital flight not full blow wizzing between planets collecting asteroids flight.
You joke but the British Library (and I presume other libraries) has a special room that the general public is not allowed access to which contains all the very disturbing works that have been published over the years. Most of them are S&M and that sort of thing and many are technically illegal under current laws. The library has to keep them because they are legally bound to keep a copy of every book published in the UK.
Hard work, imagination and business practices also matters if you don't have trained people to do the science in the first place. Science has all but become a dirty word in the west and is associated with odd balls and hard work.
I was aware of the ruling that Google was within the guidelines (at least in the US). Doesn't mean I have to agree with it though:o) and I feel the judge failed to understand the subtle difference between transparent and non-transparent caches.
As for tangible loss there is, at least potentially, some. Pages in Googles cache are treated by the Google AdSense system as completely independent from the orignating site. The AdSense system is weighted such that popular sites get more and better (paying) ads than less popular sites which of course makes perfect sense from a business point of view. The down side for me however is that because the cached page is treated separately it doesn't benifit from my sites popularity and therefore doesn't get anywhere near the same number of nor quality of adverts. Anyone viewing the cached page is essentially a lost customer to me.
I admit that my loss is probably tiny but it is there and multiplied by all the people that are losing out this way it potentially adds up to big numbers. Hopefully it is now clear how Googles cache is fundamentally different to a transparent ISP cache and how content producers can lose out. The ISP cache doesn't reduce my income the Google cache can / does.
It's not so much the monetary loss that makes me cross, because it's probably small, it's the principal of the thing. By saying that this is acceptible under the caching clause it is giving anyone permission to simply copy and re-display any website. They would simply have to claim that what they are displaying is a cached copy. Further more, Google modify the cached content (highlighting, less ads and often different styles) so what's to stop people copying a page claiming it's a cached version and simply inserting their own ads or content. After all Google can modify a page so why can't everyone?
Public domain describes a work on which the copyright has expired it does not describe a work which is given away for free. No distinction is made in copyright law between the Internet and more traditional media.
I agree that there is no problem with Google searching and indexing the work. I never said there was. I disagree with them making copies of the work freely available from their private cache - that is not searching and indexing.
Just be cause a work is freely viewable it does not mean it is free to copy. Please look up the difference between free as in beer and free as in speech. It is a subtle difference and one you seem to have missed.
This case has absolutely nothing to do with your metaphor of buying a magazine and making illegal copies; why? Because Google is neither selling anything they cache, nor did they pay for it in the first place.
So what you are trying to say is because they are givng it away the cached copy for free it is alright? Would it be alright to copy a book if you gave it away for free? Don't be so foolish and try thinking beofre you speak.
That's a very good point and well made but a transparent ISP cache and what Google is doing are quite different. Googles cache contains pages that were removed months or even years ago - an ISPs cache could contain very old pages but generally doesn't. Googles cache, or at least the display of the cached information, modifies the content - a banner across the top, keyword highlighting and a reduced number of adverts if you use AdWords.
I'm not against caching - I'm against the specific way Google uses it's cache. If an end user couldn't tell that the content was coming from Googles server farm rather than my clapped out old box then I wouldn't have a problem with it as I don't lose out (in the same way I don't have a problem with transparent ISP caches). If I lose out - I have a problem with it.
I'm not supprised you have trouble finding work - you seem to have some serious attitude problems that you need to work on. If you want to let anyone republish your work for any reason that's fine by me - release it under CC or some such license. I prefere to maintain some control in who publishes my work.
One file or a million files makes no difference. The way copyright currently works means that content may not be copied unless permission is given. You don't even need to put (c) on a work to enforce copyright - it's only recommended that you do.
Whether people view the cached copy or not is irrelevant. If anyone does view it Google has published the work without permission. They may only be a few pages for each site viewed each month but multiply that by the billion or so sites Google probably has cached and you have a big problem.
Personally, I use the cache quite a lot as I find the search phrase highlighting useful. I still don't think that is a reason to allow Google to side step copyright law though.
If you disabled the warning alarm you wouldn't be breaking the law unlike if you disable the content protection on a DVD. Further more it is easy to argue that the warning is helping you where as the adverts aren't.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm as interested as the next geek in seeing the final release of DNF but having just had a quick look at the screenshots on Game Spot I can't see this game doing very well. I admit that good graphics do not a good game make but if you aren't playing in the same league as HL2 you aren't playing. This project should have been cut loose (or perhaps I should say lose as it's /.) a long time ago.
Their they're itll all be alot better soon.
Isn't is sad that we consider a static ip address a "sweet feature". Roll on IPv6. Personally I want reasonable upstream speeds on residential connections.
I don't think zeolite would necessarly make that great a nucleator. Most of it's surface area is inside pores where there would be poor fluid exchange (although this might be improved by bubbles forcing their way out). Personally I would go for ground glass (ranging in sizes from 0.05mm to 1mm). Good surface area, nice and spikey to make bubbles and heavy enough to sink. The range of sizes should also help activate bubbles through the whole hight of the flask.
I'm not a trained fireman but I second what the parent said don't ever pour water into hot / burning oil. Our local fire station took over part of the high street to put on a display of what happens when you pour water into burning oil. To make it more realistic they performed the 'experiment' in a mocked up caravan. Just one egg cup of water filled the caravan with flames and smoke. What was most amazing though was how tame the oil fire was before they poured water on it. They even showed us how quite often just turning the ring off is enough to put the pan out.
Back when I was doing chemistry we were told about a lab that was destroyed by a tank of super-heated ultra-pure water (not quite the same as being super-saturated with a gas but similar). The chemists (physical of course) were heating their ultra-pure water in a specially made container. The container was designed not to contaminate the water and had been mirror finished. Of course this lead to a problem when the water was boiled. The container provided no nucleation points and the water, due to its purity, couldn't provide any. At an estimated 105 to 110 deg C the water finally gave up. On small bubble formed which caused the formation of many more and the whole batch of water boiled in one go destroying the lab. I forget how much water exploded but it wasn't much - a few litres.
I for one welcome my new Java .debs. IMVVHO Sun should have made these changes a long time ago. At the end of the day I (and I suspect the vast majority of people) don't care all that much if Java is OSS I care about how easy it is to install and use.
Sure, it would be nice if Java was OSS but in the real world I don't think Java being closed source has slowed it's adoption. Java being a pig to install probably has.
IIRC hydrogen is easier to store than helium because it doesn't leak as much. While you are correct in you assertion that a hydrogen atom is smaller than a helium atom hydrogen is generally paired (h2). The hydrogen molecule is larger than helium (I can't find figures just now but I am confident this is the case).
With the correct systems in place it would be possible to make it very difficult to impossible to steal radioactive materials from power plants I believe. I really don't think that the posibility of theft is good reason for not building fast breeder reactors and other reactors that can potentially make weaponizable material. I suspect the reason we aren't building them is because currently it would be political suicide.
Lets face it, most people fall into the phobically scared of nuclear power to generally wary about it. I think that's fair enough because the first round of reactors were built with very little foresight. Technology has improved so that we don't necessarly have the same problems but how do we convice Joe Sixpack of that?
Funny you should ask about BSOD on Windows. I got my first one from XP last week after running it since it was in beta. As you could probably guess it was driver (video) related.
True enough but I can't help feeling they have lost focus. They developed IE ot "take over the web" but that's failed. What are they developing IE for now? I think they developed IE7 simply to save face.
The resident evil movies. IMHO they are a couple of the best modern action movies around. The tomb raider movies were fair as well. I admit that many of the early game moves were very poor but they have been getting better as film producers realize that they can't just rely on people watching the film because they played the game they need to add at least a bit of story.
Personally I always thought the best definition of a planet would be a body with enough mass to pull itself into roughly a sphere. That would discount pluto for now at least. The actual mass doesn't need to be accurately defined - if it's round it's a planet. I don't think we even need to specify that it must orbit a star. If it doesn't have enough mass to pull itself round then it's just a big lump of rock.
Email is everywhere, it has a low overhead, it's quick and it's simple. Most of all though you don't need to know anything about the tool you are using - it's like talking to someone.
Most of these types of tools I have tried force you to do more than is required to get the job done such as cataloguing each message. Sometimes that type of functionality is useful but most of the time it just gets in the way.
If my site is anything to go by msnbot has been doing a lot more crawling than the googlebot. The msnbot hammers my site practically everyday. I sometimes (in moments of weakness) wish more people would use MSN search because as far as my listings go that would be a really big improvement.
While it would be great if we could launch people (and things) into space cheaply I don't see widespread investment in it any time soon. Yeah it would be great to travel in space but is there actually any point? It's not like there is really actually anywhere to go. It would be cool to be able to go from one side of the Earth to the other in a few hours but that only requires sub-orbital flight not full blow wizzing between planets collecting asteroids flight.
You joke but the British Library (and I presume other libraries) has a special room that the general public is not allowed access to which contains all the very disturbing works that have been published over the years. Most of them are S&M and that sort of thing and many are technically illegal under current laws. The library has to keep them because they are legally bound to keep a copy of every book published in the UK.
Hard work, imagination and business practices also matters if you don't have trained people to do the science in the first place. Science has all but become a dirty word in the west and is associated with odd balls and hard work.
I was aware of the ruling that Google was within the guidelines (at least in the US). Doesn't mean I have to agree with it though :o) and I feel the judge failed to understand the subtle difference between transparent and non-transparent caches.
As for tangible loss there is, at least potentially, some. Pages in Googles cache are treated by the Google AdSense system as completely independent from the orignating site. The AdSense system is weighted such that popular sites get more and better (paying) ads than less popular sites which of course makes perfect sense from a business point of view. The down side for me however is that because the cached page is treated separately it doesn't benifit from my sites popularity and therefore doesn't get anywhere near the same number of nor quality of adverts. Anyone viewing the cached page is essentially a lost customer to me.
I admit that my loss is probably tiny but it is there and multiplied by all the people that are losing out this way it potentially adds up to big numbers. Hopefully it is now clear how Googles cache is fundamentally different to a transparent ISP cache and how content producers can lose out. The ISP cache doesn't reduce my income the Google cache can / does.
It's not so much the monetary loss that makes me cross, because it's probably small, it's the principal of the thing. By saying that this is acceptible under the caching clause it is giving anyone permission to simply copy and re-display any website. They would simply have to claim that what they are displaying is a cached copy. Further more, Google modify the cached content (highlighting, less ads and often different styles) so what's to stop people copying a page claiming it's a cached version and simply inserting their own ads or content. After all Google can modify a page so why can't everyone?
Public domain describes a work on which the copyright has expired it does not describe a work which is given away for free. No distinction is made in copyright law between the Internet and more traditional media.
I agree that there is no problem with Google searching and indexing the work. I never said there was. I disagree with them making copies of the work freely available from their private cache - that is not searching and indexing.
Just be cause a work is freely viewable it does not mean it is free to copy. Please look up the difference between free as in beer and free as in speech. It is a subtle difference and one you seem to have missed.
This case has absolutely nothing to do with your metaphor of buying a magazine and making illegal copies; why? Because Google is neither selling anything they cache, nor did they pay for it in the first place.
So what you are trying to say is because they are givng it away the cached copy for free it is alright? Would it be alright to copy a book if you gave it away for free? Don't be so foolish and try thinking beofre you speak.
That's a very good point and well made but a transparent ISP cache and what Google is doing are quite different. Googles cache contains pages that were removed months or even years ago - an ISPs cache could contain very old pages but generally doesn't. Googles cache, or at least the display of the cached information, modifies the content - a banner across the top, keyword highlighting and a reduced number of adverts if you use AdWords.
I'm not against caching - I'm against the specific way Google uses it's cache. If an end user couldn't tell that the content was coming from Googles server farm rather than my clapped out old box then I wouldn't have a problem with it as I don't lose out (in the same way I don't have a problem with transparent ISP caches). If I lose out - I have a problem with it.
I'm not supprised you have trouble finding work - you seem to have some serious attitude problems that you need to work on. If you want to let anyone republish your work for any reason that's fine by me - release it under CC or some such license. I prefere to maintain some control in who publishes my work.
One file or a million files makes no difference. The way copyright currently works means that content may not be copied unless permission is given. You don't even need to put (c) on a work to enforce copyright - it's only recommended that you do.
Whether people view the cached copy or not is irrelevant. If anyone does view it Google has published the work without permission. They may only be a few pages for each site viewed each month but multiply that by the billion or so sites Google probably has cached and you have a big problem.
Personally, I use the cache quite a lot as I find the search phrase highlighting useful. I still don't think that is a reason to allow Google to side step copyright law though.
If you disabled the warning alarm you wouldn't be breaking the law unlike if you disable the content protection on a DVD. Further more it is easy to argue that the warning is helping you where as the adverts aren't.