When I stated #2, "enough mass to retain an atmosphere", I meant it hypothetical sense, with disregard to wether or not it actually does.
Although some might wrongly assume that you could just claim that's the same as establishing a specific mass. It isn't because having an atmosphere doesn't depend simply on mass, but rather, density. (so I guess it's less of a mass definition and more of a gravity definition)
I've got a couple possible solutions regarding the debate over labeling something a planet.
1. Why not just call all solid [and liquid?] bodies "satellites"? Asteroid, planet, moon, deathstar, they're all satellites from now on.
OR
2. Redefine "Planet" to mean: Any satellite of a star with enough mass to retain an atmosphere of any [detectable?] pressure.
Rocks come in all sizes, so we ought to ditch the term or define it with respect to something as arbitrary as size.
Our universe is hopelessly complex. Accept it. Part of life as a human is dealing with a world that impossible to fully predict or control. If we didn't have such a world, things would be far less interesting. (we might even be wishing that there would be issues to debate).
(even if you don't respond, I do hope you take the time to carefully read my regrettably long response, especially the last 3 paragraphs).
I do agree with you that a woman's status here is not what it should be (work wages, social expectations, etc).
I'd also like to defend myself regarding the word "abuse", which I never said. Devalue and abuse are quite different meanings. Also, I don't think that India is "cruel" to women (I just think that it's better here than there, thus more preferable).
Regarding "skin", yes it is a problem. I also feel that that was a poor arguing point. If women had the same psychological/sexual mentality as men, we'd see just as many bare, muscly men everywhere. The reason you don't see it is because women aren't easily manipulated by sex (lucky them, eh?).
Besides, my "women" point wasn't even a point, it was an example supporting a lack of incentive to go there. Not the lack of incentive. (I'd like a response regarding more that just the women issue).
As for visiting India, I'm a college student who's future employment is an uncertainty. If I had a taste for either the geography, culture, food, jobs, weather/climate, or language, it might be worth considering. Unfortunately, even if I really wanted to, I don't have the money for it, and my family sure wouldn't be willing to pay for their son to leave, rarely, if ever, to visit. I honestly don't know if I would be able to visit my american family with an indian job (I'm being genuinely curious, if you know, gimme an idea of to what frequency, I know little about indian holidays & wages for foreigners). I'd hate to lose my job to someone else just because he doesn't have to leave on christmas to visit his family. Gimme a feel for Indian employers, rather than just saying "you should work there", or "it's not what you think". If that's the case, then what is it?
Most importantly is this: Assuming India is exactly equal to america in every way, why should I move my entire life just for general equivalence culture, to help the rich get richer? That's my argument. Allowing rich corporate guys to outsource everything will only destroy the middle class.
During the industrial revolution, we were abused by these kinds of employers. We responded with unions. Now unions are powerless because there is no more picket line to cross, it's an ocean. It's moving toward what it used to be, a polarized economy. Our government should be serving its people, which includes keeping them employed.
I do feel americans should be entitled to these jobs first because they are the citizens of the country in which the company is based. If it's a foreign company, let them do whatever they want to their workers.
Is it fair for executives to fire several million people so they can give themselves a 10 million dollar bonus? Will americans in india get hired just because of the cheaper-cost-of-living? In 100 years, how will this hire-the-lowest-bidder attitude help india's people once their nation has been fully industrialized?
I don't want to stay in my sociological/geographical/economical "cocoon". Less than 100 years ago that wouldn't have been an option for the average American, so I'm grateful. I would love to see much of the world before I die.
I just don't want to visit India, especially not live there. Not because I think that it is poor, but because of the society.
For starters: I don't want to be any part of a culture that devalues women versus men. Why should I help support the economy of such a society? So that my daughter could be disrespected throughout her life? I'd much prefer it here, where people can't get away with relying on an abundance of sons to retire on.
Part of why so many indians are moving to America is not just jobs (1), but also quality of life(2), as well as the preferable social structure(3).
Why should I move to their jobs, quality of life, and less desirable social structure? To fill a richer American's wallet? That's why we're pissed, not because Indians are taking our jobs, but because American-employers are giving them away. It's not like these employers are going broke. These people seem to feel "We need to cut costs because I'm not getting richer as quickly as I used to".
I'd like to see the lands outside America, just not that one.
First, I'd like to note the heat and electrical efficiency of Macs has been traditionally good, wether or not it's an XServe (Although the leg hairs of many Powerbook owners may disagree).
I would consider an iPod much more environmentally sound than a comparable mp3 player that uses typical AA or AAA batteries. Consider how many AA or AAA batteries those other mp3 players use up per 2 years (probably quite a few). Next, consider just how many internal iPod batteries are thrown away per 2 years (just one).
Yes, the iPod cells are bigger, but by the time it is dead, it will have been reused so many times.
Please note though, that I make no claims regarding rechargable AA or AAA cells. I'm not addressing that because so few people use them. Where I live, I don't see any rechargeable cells in the grocery stores. It's sad that most people don't have to worry about the environmental impact of what they buy simply because battery manufacturers want to sell as much as possible, so most prefer to sell non-rechargeable cells.
I have no information regarding the chemicals in each kind of battery. Regardless, I'm willing to bet that while the indian might cry over seeing iPod cells, it's nothing compared to the conniption he'd have seeing the comparable number of AA & AAA's. - - - - - - - - -
Going back to the overall topic of the Environment... Economic legislation to push for less disposable goods is important, but education is at least as vital, otherwise no one knows why to bother. Despite Captain Planet having been a crappy cartoon, at least when it was on kids would police their parents to sort the recycling (if recycle at all). Without such education, the population, programmed to be consumer-whores, will side with the laws accommodating less expensive products.
I personally think that the greatest cause of our population's environmental-apathy is the fact that all of our garbage is whimsically taken away by the elusive garbage-gnomes twice a week, to a faraway magical place called a "the dump"; a place of legend that many folk claim exists yet almost no one knows where. A place to where trash is whisked away from our perfect suburban lives, where everything should be as close as possible to life on television. Whenever something comes along that doesn't taste sweet, tell it to go away or ignore it. Isn't the meaning of modern life to be as liberated from responsibilities and as happy as possible? People like Guy Montag should just shut-up and pill-up.
After all, we didn't have to calculate, design, or construct our massive, colorful, biologically rich, magnificently-complex-yet-somehow-life-sustaining, perfect blue machine, Earth. We don't even know about everything in it yet, and even less about how much of it works. It was just a gift. Why should we be responsible for it? - - - - - - - - - - - To the Americans in the audience, PLEASE VOTE !!! It's better to have lost an election to a bad president than to have just handed it to him.
Just in case you didn't already know, the general consensus is that Aaron Hillegass's "Cocoa Programming for Mac OSX" is the best Cocoa book out there.
Just as important as the the Cocoa book, is bookmarking the Apple Developer Documentation in Safari
file:///Developer/Documentation/Cocoa/Reference/ Ap plicationKit/ObjC_classic/index.html#//apple_ref/d oc/uid/20001093
I wasted money on a couple other books before I found that one. If you're still having trouble learning, just ask someone for the source code to a finished app that isn't too big and study it. (If you're really desperate, I've got some code you can study). - - - - - Caffeine is not a substitute for sleep
"If you compile a program, and it ends up different, then the one you downloaded, then something is very wrong indeed.".
Not always true. If I were to steal MacOSX's source code and fire up my compiler, the binary would probably not match. I highly doubt everyone uses the same compiler. Different compilers produce different optimizations (which is why XCode+gcc3.3 is free and CodeWarrior is $500). Also worth considering is that one could use a different version of the same compiler (newer versions tend to optimize better). Lastly, not everyone uses the same compiler flags & optimization settings.
Slashdot Mirror
When I stated #2, "enough mass to retain an atmosphere", I meant it hypothetical sense, with disregard to wether or not it actually does.
Although some might wrongly assume that you could just claim that's the same as establishing a specific mass. It isn't because having an atmosphere doesn't depend simply on mass, but rather, density. (so I guess it's less of a mass definition and more of a gravity definition)
Just an idea...
I've got a couple possible solutions regarding the debate over labeling something a planet.
1. Why not just call all solid [and liquid?] bodies "satellites" ? Asteroid, planet, moon, deathstar, they're all satellites from now on.
OR
2. Redefine "Planet" to mean: Any satellite of a star with enough mass to retain an atmosphere of any [detectable?] pressure.
Rocks come in all sizes, so we ought to ditch the term or define it with respect to something as arbitrary as size.
Our universe is hopelessly complex. Accept it. Part of life as a human is dealing with a world that impossible to fully predict or control. If we didn't have such a world, things would be far less interesting. (we might even be wishing that there would be issues to debate).
(even if you don't respond, I do hope you take the time to carefully read my regrettably long response, especially the last 3 paragraphs).
I do agree with you that a woman's status here is not what it should be (work wages, social expectations, etc).
I'd also like to defend myself regarding the word "abuse", which I never said. Devalue and abuse are quite different meanings. Also, I don't think that India is "cruel" to women (I just think that it's better here than there, thus more preferable).
Regarding "skin", yes it is a problem. I also feel that that was a poor arguing point. If women had the same psychological/sexual mentality as men, we'd see just as many bare, muscly men everywhere. The reason you don't see it is because women aren't easily manipulated by sex (lucky them, eh?).
Besides, my "women" point wasn't even a point, it was an example supporting a lack of incentive to go there. Not the lack of incentive. (I'd like a response regarding more that just the women issue).
As for visiting India, I'm a college student who's future employment is an uncertainty. If I had a taste for either the geography, culture, food, jobs, weather/climate, or language, it might be worth considering. Unfortunately, even if I really wanted to, I don't have the money for it, and my family sure wouldn't be willing to pay for their son to leave, rarely, if ever, to visit. I honestly don't know if I would be able to visit my american family with an indian job (I'm being genuinely curious, if you know, gimme an idea of to what frequency, I know little about indian holidays & wages for foreigners). I'd hate to lose my job to someone else just because he doesn't have to leave on christmas to visit his family. Gimme a feel for Indian employers, rather than just saying "you should work there", or "it's not what you think". If that's the case, then what is it?
Most importantly is this: Assuming India is exactly equal to america in every way, why should I move my entire life just for general equivalence culture, to help the rich get richer? That's my argument. Allowing rich corporate guys to outsource everything will only destroy the middle class.
During the industrial revolution, we were abused by these kinds of employers. We responded with unions. Now unions are powerless because there is no more picket line to cross, it's an ocean. It's moving toward what it used to be, a polarized economy. Our government should be serving its people, which includes keeping them employed.
I do feel americans should be entitled to these jobs first because they are the citizens of the country in which the company is based.
If it's a foreign company, let them do whatever they want to their workers.
Is it fair for executives to fire several million people so they can give themselves a 10 million dollar bonus? Will americans in india get hired just because of the cheaper-cost-of-living? In 100 years, how will this hire-the-lowest-bidder attitude help india's people once their nation has been fully industrialized?
I don't want to stay in my sociological/geographical/economical "cocoon". Less than 100 years ago that wouldn't have been an option for the average American, so I'm grateful. I would love to see much of the world before I die.
I just don't want to visit India, especially not live there. Not because I think that it is poor, but because of the society.
For starters: I don't want to be any part of a culture that devalues women versus men. Why should I help support the economy of such a society? So that my daughter could be disrespected throughout her life? I'd much prefer it here, where people can't get away with relying on an abundance of sons to retire on.
Part of why so many indians are moving to America is not just jobs (1), but also quality of life(2), as well as the preferable social structure(3).
Why should I move to their jobs, quality of life, and less desirable social structure?
To fill a richer American's wallet? That's why we're pissed, not because Indians are taking our jobs, but because American-employers are giving them away. It's not like these employers are going broke. These people seem to feel "We need to cut costs because I'm not getting richer as quickly as I used to".
I'd like to see the lands outside America, just not that one.
First, I'd like to note the heat and electrical efficiency of Macs has been traditionally good, wether or not it's an XServe (Although the leg hairs of many Powerbook owners may disagree).
, perfect blue machine, Earth. We don't even know about everything in it yet, and even less about how much of it works. It was just a gift. Why should we be responsible for it?
I would consider an iPod much more environmentally sound than a comparable mp3 player that uses typical AA or AAA batteries. Consider how many AA or AAA batteries those other mp3 players use up per 2 years (probably quite a few). Next, consider just how many internal iPod batteries are thrown away per 2 years (just one).
Yes, the iPod cells are bigger, but by the time it is dead, it will have been reused so many times.
Please note though, that I make no claims regarding rechargable AA or AAA cells. I'm not addressing that because so few people use them. Where I live, I don't see any rechargeable cells in the grocery stores. It's sad that most people don't have to worry about the environmental impact of what they buy simply because battery manufacturers want to sell as much as possible, so most prefer to sell non-rechargeable cells.
I have no information regarding the chemicals in each kind of battery. Regardless, I'm willing to bet that while the indian might cry over seeing iPod cells, it's nothing compared to the conniption he'd have seeing the comparable number of AA & AAA's.
- - - - - - - - -
Going back to the overall topic of the Environment...
Economic legislation to push for less disposable goods is important, but education is at least as vital, otherwise no one knows why to bother. Despite Captain Planet having been a crappy cartoon, at least when it was on kids would police their parents to sort the recycling (if recycle at all). Without such education, the population, programmed to be consumer-whores, will side with the laws accommodating less expensive products.
I personally think that the greatest cause of our population's environmental-apathy is the fact that all of our garbage is whimsically taken away by the elusive garbage-gnomes twice a week, to a faraway magical place called a "the dump"; a place of legend that many folk claim exists yet almost no one knows where. A place to where trash is whisked away from our perfect suburban lives, where everything should be as close as possible to life on television. Whenever something comes along that doesn't taste sweet, tell it to go away or ignore it. Isn't the meaning of modern life to be as liberated from responsibilities and as happy as possible? People like Guy Montag should just shut-up and pill-up.
After all, we didn't have to calculate, design, or construct our massive, colorful, biologically rich, magnificently-complex-yet-somehow-life-sustaining
- - - - - - - - - - -
To the Americans in the audience, PLEASE VOTE !!! It's better to have lost an election to a bad president than to have just handed it to him.
Just in case you didn't already know, the general consensus is that Aaron Hillegass's "Cocoa Programming for Mac OSX" is the best Cocoa book out there.
/ Ap plicationKit/ObjC_classic/index.html#//apple_ref/d oc/uid/20001093
/ Fo undation/ObjC_classic/index.html#//apple_ref/doc/u id/20001091
Just as important as the the Cocoa book, is bookmarking the Apple Developer Documentation in Safari
file:///Developer/Documentation/Cocoa/Reference
file:///Developer/Documentation/Cocoa/Reference
I wasted money on a couple other books before I found that one.
If you're still having trouble learning, just ask someone for the source code to a finished app that isn't too big and study it. (If you're really desperate, I've got some code you can study).
- - - - -
Caffeine is not a substitute for sleep
"If you compile a program, and it ends up different, then the one you downloaded, then something is very wrong indeed.".
Not always true.
If I were to steal MacOSX's source code and fire up my compiler, the binary would probably not match. I highly doubt everyone uses the same compiler. Different compilers produce different optimizations (which is why XCode+gcc3.3 is free and CodeWarrior is $500). Also worth considering is that one could use a different version of the same compiler (newer versions tend to optimize better). Lastly, not everyone uses the same compiler flags & optimization settings.