our location in the universe (which it has been shown is the center given the concentric circles of variation within the CMB radiation)
WTF? What twisted logic made this ridiculous statement come about? If we accept the big bang theory (which we should, it's pretty well established by now) and an infinite universe, everywhere is in the center of the universe.
Look here or here for easy-to-understand explanations.
I was staying with an incredibly dull family who didn't organise any events
I don't get this part - is there some law in Germany against exchange students coming up with ideas or organizing events (whatever that might entail - I have no clue) themselves? Did you stay in a remote isolated village? Why did you expect your host family to organize events, and what types of events were you expecting?
I'm not trying to offend you (much), I just don't understand the attitude that your comment seemingly contains. Maybe it just triggered my "All younglings are lazy bastards who wants everything handed to them on a silver platter"-reflex. If so, I apologize in advance.
Personally I love ultraportables (or palmtops, or subnotebooks or whatever the nome du jour is). For me, it's more important that the device is very portable than that it is equipped with a multi-GHz CPU and a top-of-the-line GPU.
What you're saying IS: Obey the rules, don't think for yourself. Put it in however nice a way you'd like, that is still the bottom line.
You'd make a good little goose-stepping [Godwin Violation Detected - Deleting], you know that. "I was only following orders" has NEVER been an excuse for not thinking for yourself. Go on -- do some research into how many flights has crashed because of cellphone interference. Then do some more into who gets paid for the regular in-flight phones. And, to top it off, ask yourself if this rule that you so proudly and valiantly defended is there for your protection or for some other purpose altogether.
And that is not even what pisses me off about your attitude. Not only do you not question the rules, you say that even if you did and found them wanting, you'd STILL follow them -- because they're the rules? You're a sheep if I ever saw one... A ruleslawyer sheep to boot.
"Baah! Do not question authority! Baah! Obey any rule, no matter how stupid it seems! Baah! It's a rule, it must be followed without question! Baah! Baah!"
... And the sheep moved quietly on to the slaughterhouse floor, never questioning why.
I'd expect that there is at least some sort of indication that the star is nearing the end of its life.
We can try to figure out what it's burning. The star can burn hydrogen and helium happily for millions and millions of years, but when it runs out of that it's gonna start on carbon, which might last it a thousand years or so, and then it's on to neon for a couple of years, and then oxygen for a few months before finally burning silicon for a few hours before the big show.
In a stars lifetime, the collapse and supernova event may be nearly 'instant', but 10,000 years is nothing when compared to the overall lifetime of a star.
I fear that you are mistaken. The collapse and supernova event is for all intents and purposes instant even in our timeframe. The core collapses in as little as a quarter of a second, the core bounce is over in a millisecond and the explosion lasts for about ten seconds. Quote Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
When the core's size exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit, degeneracy pressure can no longer support it, and catastrophic collapse ensues. The outer part of the core reaches velocities of up to 70,000 km/s (23% of the speed of light) as it collapses toward the center of the star. The rapidly shrinking core heats up, producing high-energy gamma rays that decompose iron nuclei into helium nuclei and free neutrons (via photodisintegration). As the core's density increases, it becomes energetically favorable for electrons and protons to merge (via inverse beta decay), producing neutrons and elementary particles called neutrinos. Because neutrinos rarely interact with normal matter they can escape from the core, carrying away energy and further accelerating the collapse, which proceeds over a timescale of milliseconds. As the core detaches from the outer layers of the star, some of these neutrinos are absorbed by the star's outer layers, beginning the supernova explosion.
So no, a star doesn't just randomly explode, but when it's time to go it goes. And if it's not too small, it's going to go with a really interesting lightshow.
I would imagine that a supernova is similar. Instantaneous from the 'point-of-view' of a star, but aeons to a human.
No, a supernova is most certainly a very brief event. The remnants of that event might linger on for "aeons", but the event itself is surprisingly quick even for a distant observer. Wikipedia again: "A supernova causes a burst of radiation that may briefly outshine its entire host galaxy before fading from view over several weeks or months."
Current cosmology seems to be like a house of cards, a religion pretending to be science, built on some unproven and perhaps unprovable fundamental assumptions (beliefs).
What is this now? Current cosmology (e.g. big bang theory) is arguably one of the most observationally validated theories in the history of science. I recommend reading an easy primer like Simon SinghsBig Bang to get yourself started.
Aye, that's the trick alright. And what a trick it is. Short of forcing people not to play (which, of course, would be to play) there doesn't seem to be a way to stop it. There's always incentives for individuals to step outside the rules (c.f. the tragedy of the commons), and with a bit of demagogy they'll soon get a following and the ball is rolling again. Everyone loses. Again.
Yes, it's better here than it is in Iran. You know what? That's not good enough. I'd like to think that our country is being held to a higher standard than "better than Iran and Afghanistan."
Thank you. It's good to see that common sense is still out there, even if it's not as common as one would think.
Show me ONE EXAMPLE of someone held in Gitmo who WAS NOT an ununiformed combatant fighting our troops or implementing terror attacks.
Well, I'll give you three:
From Wikipedia: "In late January 2004, US officials released three children aged 13 to 15 and returned them to Afghanistan."
Now tell me these children were "ununiformed combatant fighting our troops or implementing terror attacks", you brain-washed moron.
To parahprase a poster from a previous story: "It makes one very upset to think that the army who liberated Buchenwald could implement Guantanamo".
Sure. Not by me, though, so that's inconsequential to the argument.
If you and everybody else illegally download something from the net, then the author never gets paid.
So, if I and everybody else lend something form the library, then the author only gets paid once. Not much difference, is it?
I guess it boils down to the much chewed-over question - are libraries stealing profits from authors? Every book on loan is a missed sale, right? Theft, plain and simple?
Or, is it possible that illegal downloads - as well as libraries - are in another category altogether, one that has no bearing on author profits?
Okay, somebody pays. If it's me through taxes, it's a negligible sum for what I get out of it. If it's privately funded I don't care what the cost is. Bottom line is this: I get access to a wealth of books, music, audiobooks, e-books etc. without paying anything much. Fact is, downloading from the Internet probably costs me more in hard cash, seeing as I pay for my broadband.
So tell me again how this was supposed to work? As I see it, if I want it, I _don't_ have to pay for it. The author's views really doesn't factor into it. If he's pissed off at me downloading his work off the Internet, he should be pissed off at me for lending it from the library. Either way I'm not buying his work, right?
Strangely enough, I don't hear many authors advocating the immediate closing of all public libraries. Then again, I don't hear many authors complaining about people illegaly downloading their books either:)
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, unless you're one of the "few dozen", who cares, right? No skin off _your_ nose. Nice attitude.
Retrogaming, eh? (Civ II was released in 1996 and re-released in 2002)
0 Kelvin = -273.15 Celsius http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin
WTF? What twisted logic made this ridiculous statement come about? If we accept the big bang theory (which we should, it's pretty well established by now) and an infinite universe, everywhere is in the center of the universe.
Look here or here for easy-to-understand explanations.
I'm not trying to offend you (much), I just don't understand the attitude that your comment seemingly contains. Maybe it just triggered my "All younglings are lazy bastards who wants everything handed to them on a silver platter"-reflex. If so, I apologize in advance.
Maybe if formfactor is more important than power?
Personally I love ultraportables (or palmtops, or subnotebooks or whatever the nome du jour is). For me, it's more important that the device is very portable than that it is equipped with a multi-GHz CPU and a top-of-the-line GPU.
What you're saying IS: Obey the rules, don't think for yourself. Put it in however nice a way you'd like, that is still the bottom line.
You'd make a good little goose-stepping [Godwin Violation Detected - Deleting], you know that. "I was only following orders" has NEVER been an excuse for not thinking for yourself. Go on -- do some research into how many flights has crashed because of cellphone interference. Then do some more into who gets paid for the regular in-flight phones. And, to top it off, ask yourself if this rule that you so proudly and valiantly defended is there for your protection or for some other purpose altogether.
And that is not even what pisses me off about your attitude. Not only do you not question the rules, you say that even if you did and found them wanting, you'd STILL follow them -- because they're the rules? You're a sheep if I ever saw one... A ruleslawyer sheep to boot.
"Baah! Do not question authority! Baah! Obey any rule, no matter how stupid it seems! Baah! It's a rule, it must be followed without question! Baah! Baah!"
... And the sheep moved quietly on to the slaughterhouse floor, never questioning why.
jpegs or you're lying!
Betelgeuse is a big star, yes, and close (relatively speaking). But just to keep things in perspective: There are much bigger stars out there.
Unless I just fed the troll, that is.
Chris McKinstry? Is that you? I thought you were dead?
Aye, that's the trick alright. And what a trick it is. Short of forcing people not to play (which, of course, would be to play) there doesn't seem to be a way to stop it. There's always incentives for individuals to step outside the rules (c.f. the tragedy of the commons), and with a bit of demagogy they'll soon get a following and the ball is rolling again. Everyone loses. Again.
If you play it you lose. Remember, the only winning move is not to play.
"Satanic Federates, I'm Out" is the full anagram. Problem solved?
Putting all of your eggs in one basket always seemed like a good idea...
I misread that as "Bread and cruise missiles, a very old principle"...
From Wikipedia: "In late January 2004, US officials released three children aged 13 to 15 and returned them to Afghanistan."
Now tell me these children were "ununiformed combatant fighting our troops or implementing terror attacks", you brain-washed moron.
To parahprase a poster from a previous story: "It makes one very upset to think that the army who liberated Buchenwald could implement Guantanamo".
I guess it boils down to the much chewed-over question - are libraries stealing profits from authors? Every book on loan is a missed sale, right? Theft, plain and simple?
Or, is it possible that illegal downloads - as well as libraries - are in another category altogether, one that has no bearing on author profits?
Okay, somebody pays. If it's me through taxes, it's a negligible sum for what I get out of it. If it's privately funded I don't care what the cost is. Bottom line is this: I get access to a wealth of books, music, audiobooks, e-books etc. without paying anything much. Fact is, downloading from the Internet probably costs me more in hard cash, seeing as I pay for my broadband.
:)
So tell me again how this was supposed to work? As I see it, if I want it, I _don't_ have to pay for it. The author's views really doesn't factor into it. If he's pissed off at me downloading his work off the Internet, he should be pissed off at me for lending it from the library. Either way I'm not buying his work, right?
Strangely enough, I don't hear many authors advocating the immediate closing of all public libraries. Then again, I don't hear many authors complaining about people illegaly downloading their books either