I've seen this picture a lot of times an it fascinates me.
One question though; why is it an elongated ellipse? Is this supposed to be a "picture" of the entire universe, taken from the vantage point of the 'scope? If so, would it not have to be a 3-d image, with the viewer inside basically a sphere, where the (internal) surface of the sphere is the picture itself?
I'm not doubting what this picture is, I'm just confused over how the 3-d to 2-d projection is done.
Given the demographics of the Fox Sci-Fi viewer (of which I know nothing, but conjecture here with me a second), I'd guess that a good portion of them are savvy enough to record them on DVR of choice and watch them whenever.
IOW, time slots matters less for these kinds of shows.
I agree with the grandparent post. It isn't the God particle. It isn't the be-all-end-all-explain-everything particle. Discovering the particle won't prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Using the term is annoying AND misleading.
> Historically speaking, there haven't been any useful Microsoft technologies that were or are completely interoperable, stable, relatively bugfree, and secure.
Out of curiosity, which NON-Microsoft technologies fit these standards?
> There's always been small tornadoes outside of tropics. They're rare, short-living and too weak to doo much damage besides damaging some roots, but they exist.
I'm sure I'm misreading you, but tornadoes in the Midwest US do quite a bit of damage, and are not rare.
Having used ClearCase*, I'm not sure that one's a typo.
* Mind you, it was a badly architected usage of ClearCase, and even the ClearCase folks told us at the time, "you're doing it wrong". Our company knew better of course, resulting in a lot of suck.
How do we know the thing in the wmv was, in fact, the tool bag? I assume it's tracked or something (based on known orbit/velocity/somethingelseaboutwhichIknownothing)? I.e. we know it should have been there, then? And lo, something was there, then, so that was it?
Slashdot Mirror
Truly fascinating. Thanks so much! (If I could mod + reply I would, but alas...)
I've seen this picture a lot of times an it fascinates me.
One question though; why is it an elongated ellipse? Is this supposed to be a "picture" of the entire universe, taken from the vantage point of the 'scope? If so, would it not have to be a 3-d image, with the viewer inside basically a sphere, where the (internal) surface of the sphere is the picture itself?
I'm not doubting what this picture is, I'm just confused over how the 3-d to 2-d projection is done.
I'm not an astrophysicist, but isn't the [super]nova itself what *produces* heavy elements?
> There's limits to that clause, set by the state, since they're in Texas.
Yeah, at least they can't fu** you outright, since all they allow is "abstinence only" in Texas.
And when you start paying a usage tax to BE on the road with cars (who pays a gas tax for the same purpose), I'll stop trying to run you off them.
...needs a hug.
Given the demographics of the Fox Sci-Fi viewer (of which I know nothing, but conjecture here with me a second), I'd guess that a good portion of them are savvy enough to record them on DVR of choice and watch them whenever.
IOW, time slots matters less for these kinds of shows.
Just my opinion, of course. I'm probably wrong.
> [T]he real danger was created not because any given trader adopted it but because every trader did.
Is this the financial markets equivalent to everyone marrying ones sibling?
TRUE poetic justice would see them incarcerated in the juvenile detention facilities themselves, surrounded by the very kids they sent there.
...with the kids reading poetry, preferably of Vogon origin, to them.
How about testability and falsifiability?
Since it is based on NOT having evidence?
I agree with the grandparent post. It isn't the God particle. It isn't the be-all-end-all-explain-everything particle. Discovering the particle won't prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Using the term is annoying AND misleading.
Amen!
> Historically speaking, there haven't been any useful Microsoft technologies that were or are completely interoperable, stable, relatively bugfree, and secure.
Out of curiosity, which NON-Microsoft technologies fit these standards?
> Remember the big DNS flaw that Dan Kaminsky 'discovered' last year?
Why emphasize "discovered" in sarcastic quote marks? Did he NOT discover it? Was it someone else?
Don't you have to "pre-seed" it with what you want? (Apologies if not, I tried it once but it was long, long ago.)
> There's always been small tornadoes outside of tropics. They're rare, short-living and too weak to doo much damage besides damaging some roots, but they exist.
I'm sure I'm misreading you, but tornadoes in the Midwest US do quite a bit of damage, and are not rare.
Or did you mean something entirely else?
cite? (Not doubting you, honestly curious.)
Having used ClearCase*, I'm not sure that one's a typo.
* Mind you, it was a badly architected usage of ClearCase, and even the ClearCase folks told us at the time, "you're doing it wrong". Our company knew better of course, resulting in a lot of suck.
It didn't used to. That'd be a killer feature, for sure.
Hey, I....
no, dammit, you're right. [sigh]
Wow, I had no idea. That is messed up.
I think that's your gas company's charge, not checkfree's.
How exactly is it "difficult to stop"? From a UI perspective, or from an "I'm addicted" perspective?
If the latter, then the problem isn't with the service.
And guess who BofA's ebill pay provider is.
How do we know the thing in the wmv was, in fact, the tool bag? I assume it's tracked or something (based on known orbit/velocity/somethingelseaboutwhichIknownothing)? I.e. we know it should have been there, then? And lo, something was there, then, so that was it?