some girl on the street asked if i was saved yet
i told her i saved at the checkpoint a couple minutes back
and can reload from there if i die
she was confused
This isn't meant as trolling, but rather the truth; rebrand it with LiveJournal, Myspace, blog X, etc name, tell them they can use it to back up their LJ, edit it offline, view it offline, etc, and soon you'll be rolling in the purchases.
Trust specialist sources: If you want News for Nerds,/. is the place to look. If you want news on hardware, try TomsHardware or Anandtech. I don't look for RIAA news on local channels any more than I look for fuzzy pink slippers on/.
No, a valid comparasion can't be made to "that guy", because he was both getting bad press and not getting bad press simultaneously until he unfurled his newspaper.
Of course, there are still those that wish to know if the cat was alive or not; here's the truth: Schrödinger's cat was...
*End Carrier: Everett Many-Worlds Decoherence Error. Please notify your ISP*
Which the mainstream media takes with a sly wink -- getting things wrong and then burying retractions or simply moving on to the next big scoop is a time honoured tradition. Wikipedia would do well to learn from the example, it is InfoTainment, after all.
And it's not with Wikipedia? Getting things wrong and then changing them over and over again seems to be the big thing...
But on the other hand, they don't bury their retractions (nay, they archive them), and since it's not an online newspaper, they don't exactly have a next big scoop to move on to.
From TFA:
Wikipedia is obviously not the first and only instance of this type of knowing in our history. But the balance of heroic individual knowers and persistent, pseudonymous social processes is sufficiently different that the media generally have gone wrong with this story. After all, reporters are held accountable when they get something wrong, so why shouldn't Wikipedians?
A: Because Wikipedia isn't a newspaper and newspaper practices aren't the only way to knowledge.
Hate to break it to this guy, but he should've known what he was getting in to even in Korea. I'm not justifying the actions of those going against him, nor am I condoning his method of defense, but Stem-Cell research is probably most politcally charged research topic today. Still, I hope that the research can continue.
That 1/300th of the available energy, I assume, means that if we were to convert ALL of our energy to this form, it would be 1/300th, which is.33% of the energy... then again, is this 1/300th figure total (capital) or per year (income)?
That no matter how much energy we "use", it's not as if it disappears. The vast, vast majority just ends up heating things up anyway. Energy can't be created or destroyed (Well, mass-energy, afaik).
That this seems to be essentially NO emission. That's awesome. If it produces fresh water as a byproduct, that's amazing.
This seems to be fine for the environment and a great way to get new energy.
So it basically comes down to density and coef of viscosity, no?
And what if we're comparing a fish to a bird to an earthworm or a mole?
Could we say
1. In general, I'd say fish have more control than most birds, but less than moles 2. Fish can pretty much stop if they like and move very little; almost no birds can (I think the hummingbird may be the only one able to hover), but moles can stop dead whenever they like 3. Birds can dive very quickly because they have gravity to assist them; fishs' climb and descent speeds will be a lot more equal, moles' will be identical 4. A fish needs to expend energy to move forward; some birds have very very high glide ratios and can soar for quite some time while rarely beating their wings (not that sitting there with your wings outspread doesn't take energy), moles expand almost the same amount of energy going in any direction, except probably slightly less when going down and slightly more when going up
So is it possible to expand the Fish:: Bird analogy to Fish:: Bird:: Mole, for example? I don't see why not.
That is a good point - it makes me wonder how much dynamic 3d control an average bird, say, a swallow (That is, an unladen, European swallow) can exercise as compared to say, a goldfish.
See what I said earlier: "Moles and related animals create holes in the solid medium to move through - they don't travel through the solid medium, they make room for them to travel and then they travel through the empty room."
Even if you don't buy that, the medium becomes a liquid by definition if the earthworm/mole/whatever can move through it. I know what you're thinking: "But dirt isn't a liquid!" - True, but earthworms couldn't move through dirt if it were JUST dirt, i.e. no air. The air allows it to act like a liquid when the earthworm moves through it.
Slashdot Mirror
I think calling that INTELLECTUAL property is a travesty to the word.
some girl on the street asked if i was saved yet
i told her i saved at the checkpoint a couple minutes back
and can reload from there if i die
she was confused
The second law of thermodynamics is always true - that's why it's a law. It's true on any scale.
But the key is that entropy in a closed system can never decrease.
The earth is not a closed system.
01010010011001010110000101101100001000000110110101 10010101101110001000000110001101101111011001000110 01010010000001000101010101100100010101010010010110 01010101000100100001001001010011100100011100100000 01101001011011100010000001100010011010010110111001 100001011100100111100100101110
What are you talking about.
It's a perfectly cromulent article that embiggens us all.
Perhaps that's due to a problem with the battery, or something...
My point is that we're perfectly capable of making electronics that run quite well in the sub-freezing cold.
What devices would need to stay heated?
Afaik, electronics wouldn't - they'd just run faster in the cold.
And I'm willing to bet that by the time we're ready to send people to pluto, we'll laugh at a toasty 43k.
This isn't meant as trolling, but rather the truth; rebrand it with LiveJournal, Myspace, blog X, etc name, tell them they can use it to back up their LJ, edit it offline, view it offline, etc, and soon you'll be rolling in the purchases.
You've OBVIOUSLY never played Shadowbane.
Trust specialist sources: If you want News for Nerds, /. is the place to look. If you want news on hardware, try TomsHardware or Anandtech. I don't look for RIAA news on local channels any more than I look for fuzzy pink slippers on /.
It doesn't even have to retain more - if it retains the same amount, we'll have global warming. The sun's constantly giving us energy, after all.
No, a valid comparasion can't be made to "that guy", because he was both getting bad press and not getting bad press simultaneously until he unfurled his newspaper.
Of course, there are still those that wish to know if the cat was alive or not; here's the truth: Schrödinger's cat was...
*End Carrier: Everett Many-Worlds Decoherence Error. Please notify your ISP*
And it's not with Wikipedia? Getting things wrong and then changing them over and over again seems to be the big thing...
But on the other hand, they don't bury their retractions (nay, they archive them), and since it's not an online newspaper, they don't exactly have a next big scoop to move on to.
From TFA:
Hate to break it to this guy, but he should've known what he was getting in to even in Korea. I'm not justifying the actions of those going against him, nor am I condoning his method of defense, but Stem-Cell research is probably most politcally charged research topic today. Still, I hope that the research can continue.
Keep in mind:
.33% of the energy... then again, is this 1/300th figure total (capital) or per year (income)?
That 1/300th of the available energy, I assume, means that if we were to convert ALL of our energy to this form, it would be 1/300th, which is
That no matter how much energy we "use", it's not as if it disappears. The vast, vast majority just ends up heating things up anyway. Energy can't be created or destroyed (Well, mass-energy, afaik).
That this seems to be essentially NO emission. That's awesome. If it produces fresh water as a byproduct, that's amazing.
This seems to be fine for the environment and a great way to get new energy.
Ah, but every vote on one of these babies is a vote for open source ;)
Vive la france!
Or you could set .torrent files to autodownload to a specific location, and then set your client to autoload torrents in that folder.
One click and your DL starts. Hard to get better than that.
If the server crashes, I've got an extremely weak mirror up here: http://www.baseballbros.com/words.htm
/. that too.
Feel free to
acacias? carnies? fireboats? lanners? samisens? tawer?
What a nonesevently cromulent enumeration!
It's America, we love rogues - Han Solo, Einstein, etc...
So it basically comes down to density and coef of viscosity, no?
:: Bird analogy to Fish :: Bird :: Mole, for example? I don't see why not.
And what if we're comparing a fish to a bird to an earthworm or a mole?
Could we say
1. In general, I'd say fish have more control than most birds, but less than moles
2. Fish can pretty much stop if they like and move very little; almost no birds can (I think the hummingbird may be the only one able to hover), but moles can stop dead whenever they like
3. Birds can dive very quickly because they have gravity to assist them; fishs' climb and descent speeds will be a lot more equal, moles' will be identical
4. A fish needs to expend energy to move forward; some birds have very very high glide ratios and can soar for quite some time while rarely beating their wings (not that sitting there with your wings outspread doesn't take energy), moles expand almost the same amount of energy going in any direction, except probably slightly less when going down and slightly more when going up
So is it possible to expand the Fish
That is a good point - it makes me wonder how much dynamic 3d control an average bird, say, a swallow (That is, an unladen, European swallow) can exercise as compared to say, a goldfish.
How would one measure that, anyway?
A soviet russia joke is quite accurate here:
In Soviet Russia, Physics predicts YOU!
See what I said earlier: "Moles and related animals create holes in the solid medium to move through - they don't travel through the solid medium, they make room for them to travel and then they travel through the empty room."
Even if you don't buy that, the medium becomes a liquid by definition if the earthworm/mole/whatever can move through it. I know what you're thinking: "But dirt isn't a liquid!" - True, but earthworms couldn't move through dirt if it were JUST dirt, i.e. no air. The air allows it to act like a liquid when the earthworm moves through it.