Except, it does... Inflation dictates the spatial dimensions occupied by the observable universe and distribution of matter within it.
Inflation does no such thing!! It is ridiculous to even suggest that the most convenient hypothesis thus imaginable, twisted and dressed to match an anthropomorphic observation, from an anthropomorphic vantage point, that is only part of a model within the current accepted paradigm has any authority over long past events, if they even occurred, or any authority whatsoever over the Universe, other than to help deny other ideas and hypothesis from surfacing for mere consideration that do not fit within the accepted current paradigm. Many often make this mistake of getting carried away with the difference between objective reality and the very human attempts to shoehorn it into our larger ideas or understanding, that we're pretty sure are correct, but for all of the arrogance of science, it could in fact just be a very well orchestrated gag.
considered the most prestigious prize in object-oriented computer programming
I won't put it past/. submitters or editors, but why can't the very intelligent, accuracy-blessed computer coders out there, at least, understand this? If you're not doing any science, then it can't be "computer science."
Chinese New Year
Chinese Zodiac
Chinese Opera
Chinese Laundry
Chinese Restaurants
Chinese Checkers
Chinese Doll
Chinese Puzzle Box
Chinese Room
Chinese Medicine
Chinese Handcuffs
Chinese Security Audits
How about a network stack and wifi or 3/4G in a cartridge (and access to endless games from da klowd)? Silly, when you can now probably fit a few supercomputers with all the trimmings in a cartridge that size.
I would expect the average slashdotter to be able to cut through the partisan crap a bit better than this
Nothing I can find above this thread started by AC is even relevant to the story.
To their credit, Scalise's press guy did fess up that it was true, and explained what he was doing there, IIRC, running workshops on being more tolerant (I could be completely wrong, and the press guy could be lying, but no one is talking about this).
Also, its amazing how much of Republican movement is complete negative, unhelpful garbage, putting sticks in the spokes of Democratic movement just because the Dems thought up something good and tried to get it done. Elected Democrats seem to focus on trying to do something, while elected Republicans seem to be obsessed trying to prevent them. The Dems are weak because they get tripped up over the Republicans BS. And when something like this comes up, Dems serving Republicans their own medicine, the Republicans go ape shit. US politics is like slapstick comedy. The absurdity of it all is no more clear once its recognized that the vast majority of those voting Republican are voting against their own political and economic interests. If you make less than $250K/yr, why are you hurting yourself, your family, and your chances of ever reaching that income by voting against your own personal economic interests? Not that all Republicans are dumb, far from it, but without these morons voting agaisnt their interest, there would be no Republican Party.
My cousin explained it well (if I can remember this right). Say there is only $100 and 100 people. Democrats want to give 5 guys $5, and distribute the remaing $75 to the other 90. The Republicans want to give 1 guy $99, and distribute the remaing dollar to the other 99.
I'm anxious to see what the new Republican Congress actually positively accomplishes, new stuff, as opposed to how much time they spend tearing down what was accomplished by the anemic previously Democratic Congress.
I've been unpartisan, independent my entire adult life. I see nothing compelling from either party to lead me to take sides. One side is a bully, the other side is bullied. Both sides, for these reasons, offend me.
More importantly, as opposed to the unarmed, gun owners are far more likely to shoot someone, intentionally, unintentionally, justly, unjustly, or otherwise. For some reason, it seems that individual gun owners always disagree with this obvious fact, because "they know" their weapon better than anyone else. I'll shut up when they stop shooting people.
I think you're missing the point of/.ers coming up with possible solutions. These aren't criminal minds sharing how to do crime. They're compulsive puzzle solvers, and there is no puzzle greater than, no solution more elusive than defeating the well-run FBI investigation. Perhaps they really want to help the FBI be even more effective and irresistable. This pursuit is no different than penetration testing, nor the ability of the logical and clever to come up with solutions for problems in fields which they have absolutely no experience or insight. Let them look for that whistle in their box of cereal, and lets not attempt to disway from nor even verbally punish for hypothetical crime. On second thought, naw, I changed my mind. Stop thinking about that right now!
Designing the antenna to be "hidden" by the 5 "leaves" is absurd.
No, it is not. Expecting an antenna to be useful without power is absurd
This provides more evidence supporting ground-based probes shoud be using nuclear power sources. Spirit, Opportunity, Philae... when will we drop the nonsensical arguments about sending nuclear power sources to space?
No, it does not. Solar is proven technology. And when a rocket fails to make it to space and explodes, it doesn't spread Plutonium all over Florida.
When will the nuke-nutters stop trying to bankrupt economies with nonsensical dreams of nuclear power being a panacea, when it is the most expensive power source that humans have ever conceived and accordingly has never been even remotely economically viable?
"Most operating systems designed to run on 64-bit hardware already use signed 64-bit time_t integers. Using a signed 64-bit value introduces a new wraparound date that is over twenty times greater than the estimated age of the universe: approximately 292 billion years from now, at 15:30:08 on Sunday, 4 December 292,277,026,596"
That's just great, right in the middle of the game. If this messes with the broadcast, they're gonna have some pissed off sports fans that day I can tell you.
I think the more offensive uses of it was recently depicted in the movie "Kill the Messenger:" alleged drug dealer is arrested, and all his possessions, including his house, is confiscated; prosecution fails to convict drug dealer, yet the forfeiture is never returned. In this instance we have the benefit of knowing they were not innocent, so we don't care as much. Except that innocent, truly innocent people are tried and some are convicted and some acquitted, and their property is forfeit and never returned. The problem is not that shady people are getting shafted, the problem is that people found not guilty never see their property again if it was forfeit. This is sort of in line with going against Blackstone's ratio.
You almost have a point but that if it's only important for future scientists, let them define it based on better informed notions. I'm positive that the radio or some industrial landmark would make more sense. E.g. first mass pollutions, which do have environmental impact. Medieval deforestation of Europe may be a candidate too.
Considering even today, only about 13% of power globally is nuclear generated, and it is not clear we will still be generating nuclear fission power in 100 years, or any more than we are now, I agree. Though its easy to trace the bombs' effects in the future, the incandescent light bulb had a far greater impact on society and the population explosion, and industrialization of that time had greater impact on the environment.
Then again, an argument could be made that the fulcrum for the advancement of our species occured with the invention/introduction of true perspective in art, which isn't even technology.
Its epistemology. Plato never heard of post-modernism. What you perceive is not truth! Perception only creates belief, which is not truth, yet belief is one truth-bearer. You may need to take an intro to philosophy course before you can understand the nature of truth.
NO. You really need to learn what a strawman argument is.
ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL
no subsidies, no taxes
ABSOLUTE FACT:
Nuclear power is the most expensive way the human race has ever employed to create electricity.
Its great for submarines, and making fuel for bombs, but in commerce, its a dog. Every single other way to manufacture energy is less expensive, given equal development. Yes, even solar. Had 1/10th the resouces been poured into solar energy development, solar would have been at parity with the cost of generating energy with fossil fuels by the early 70's. As it is, we may have to way another 5 years for that to finally happen.
A May 2008 study by the Congressional Budget Office concludes that a carbon tax of $45 per tonne of carbon dioxide would probably make nuclear power cost competitive against conventional fossil fuel for electricity generation
Nuclear power is a dog and always has been. What made it so attractive was the need for fuel for nuclear bombs, not the economics of building and safely operating a plant, nor the cost of the power it produces.
Get your head out of your ass. MONEY is what makes nuclear power crap, on the basis of economics alone, it will never compete with alternative power, and that is especially true today when all alternatives are being developed independently, instead of one single massive and massively expensive development by a government with nearly unlimited resources. Without big government money, nuclear power could never have been developed in the first place. Without big government money, you cannot build a nuclear power plant. Not one nuclear power plant in the entire world was ever built that didn't go at least 50% over estimated cost, and thats dozens of millions of dollars
per plant. It doesn't make good economic sense. It never will.
Your argument is fallacious. The inherent danger of or the damage to the environment of any other power source does not in any way make nuclear more attractive, which has the potential to be far more deadly. We make it safe by making it even more expensive. And you're flat out wrong: Nuclear power is inherently more expensive than other sources of power, and always has been.
I think you mean President Carter, the nuclear engineer.
But your strawman (danger) is irrelevant. Nuclear Power fails because of cost, because there is no more expensive way to produce power, not because of how dangerous the waste is once its forgotten about in 200 years.
Unfuckingbelievable. Reasonably concerned individuals are "ninnies?" It doesn't matter if the entire earth was covered in nuclear waste, absurdists like you will always say "why is this even news?"
WTF is up with nuke-nutters love-affair with this insanely expensive, forever deadly garbage? THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE MORE EXPENSIVE AND MORE DIRTY THAN NUCLEAR -- once you add up development costs and indefinite waste storage costs. Had we not needed fuel for bombs, and grossly overestimated that need by a factor of 100, we never even would have developed commercial fission reactors... because... cost. It would have sat on the drawing board as long as the waste problem was not solved reasonably, which it never can be because it only takes a generation or two before everyone forgets everything about which those earlier generations were concerned. Where did Abraham Lincoln leave his favorite pen? Answer that, definitively, before telling me safely storing waste for 250--> 30K years is even remotely possible.
Oh, but nuclear radiation kills less people than slippery showers? Except that all it takes is one good accident to throw your bullshit stats into chaos.
not sure how long they last but got some good stuff waiting
They'll last longer if stored vertically, and "tails out," i.e. wrapped backwards, so you have to rewind the entire tape before playing (reduces magnetic ghosting). Digitize that as soon as you can. Every time you play it on the tape deck, sound quality degrades slightly and never comes back.
The thing you seem to have failed to grasp is "Truth is objective."
I'm on your side. But even I know that is false except in the pure sciences such as mathematics and logic. You need to brush up on your epistomolgy, perhaps talk to some blind men about what an elephant is. Objective Truth may exist elsewhere, but it is unknowable.
Slashdot Mirror
Except, it does... Inflation dictates the spatial dimensions occupied by the observable universe and distribution of matter within it.
Inflation does no such thing!! It is ridiculous to even suggest that the most convenient hypothesis thus imaginable, twisted and dressed to match an anthropomorphic observation, from an anthropomorphic vantage point, that is only part of a model within the current accepted paradigm has any authority over long past events, if they even occurred, or any authority whatsoever over the Universe, other than to help deny other ideas and hypothesis from surfacing for mere consideration that do not fit within the accepted current paradigm. Many often make this mistake of getting carried away with the difference between objective reality and the very human attempts to shoehorn it into our larger ideas or understanding, that we're pretty sure are correct, but for all of the arrogance of science, it could in fact just be a very well orchestrated gag.
LoT = Lord of Things.
salty things, but only if you subscribe to objectifying women
We need to adapt this energy generation to sweater puppets. This will end the nuclear debates once and for all.
considered the most prestigious prize in object-oriented computer programming
I won't put it past /. submitters or editors, but why can't the very intelligent, accuracy-blessed computer coders out there, at least, understand this? If you're not doing any science, then it can't be "computer science."
Chinese New Year
Chinese Zodiac
Chinese Opera
Chinese Laundry
Chinese Restaurants
Chinese Checkers
Chinese Doll
Chinese Puzzle Box
Chinese Room
Chinese Medicine
Chinese Handcuffs
Chinese Security Audits
How about a network stack and wifi or 3/4G in a cartridge (and access to endless games from da klowd)? Silly, when you can now probably fit a few supercomputers with all the trimmings in a cartridge that size.
I would expect the average slashdotter to be able to cut through the partisan crap a bit better than this
Nothing I can find above this thread started by AC is even relevant to the story.
To their credit, Scalise's press guy did fess up that it was true, and explained what he was doing there, IIRC, running workshops on being more tolerant (I could be completely wrong, and the press guy could be lying, but no one is talking about this).
Also, its amazing how much of Republican movement is complete negative, unhelpful garbage, putting sticks in the spokes of Democratic movement just because the Dems thought up something good and tried to get it done. Elected Democrats seem to focus on trying to do something, while elected Republicans seem to be obsessed trying to prevent them. The Dems are weak because they get tripped up over the Republicans BS. And when something like this comes up, Dems serving Republicans their own medicine, the Republicans go ape shit. US politics is like slapstick comedy. The absurdity of it all is no more clear once its recognized that the vast majority of those voting Republican are voting against their own political and economic interests. If you make less than $250K/yr, why are you hurting yourself, your family, and your chances of ever reaching that income by voting against your own personal economic interests? Not that all Republicans are dumb, far from it, but without these morons voting agaisnt their interest, there would be no Republican Party.
My cousin explained it well (if I can remember this right). Say there is only $100 and 100 people. Democrats want to give 5 guys $5, and distribute the remaing $75 to the other 90. The Republicans want to give 1 guy $99, and distribute the remaing dollar to the other 99.
I'm anxious to see what the new Republican Congress actually positively accomplishes, new stuff, as opposed to how much time they spend tearing down what was accomplished by the anemic previously Democratic Congress.
I've been unpartisan, independent my entire adult life. I see nothing compelling from either party to lead me to take sides. One side is a bully, the other side is bullied. Both sides, for these reasons, offend me.
At least one study suggests that gun owners are more likely to be racist.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
More importantly, as opposed to the unarmed, gun owners are far more likely to shoot someone, intentionally, unintentionally, justly, unjustly, or otherwise. For some reason, it seems that individual gun owners always disagree with this obvious fact, because "they know" their weapon better than anyone else. I'll shut up when they stop shooting people.
Well the thing is, cylingers are a bit like testicles. Real men have 6, not 4.
But at what expense? I'm serious and not just torking you around.
I think you're missing the point of /.ers coming up with possible solutions. These aren't criminal minds sharing how to do crime. They're compulsive puzzle solvers, and there is no puzzle greater than, no solution more elusive than defeating the well-run FBI investigation. Perhaps they really want to help the FBI be even more effective and irresistable. This pursuit is no different than penetration testing, nor the ability of the logical and clever to come up with solutions for problems in fields which they have absolutely no experience or insight. Let them look for that whistle in their box of cereal, and lets not attempt to disway from nor even verbally punish for hypothetical crime. On second thought, naw, I changed my mind. Stop thinking about that right now!
Designing the antenna to be "hidden" by the 5 "leaves" is absurd.
No, it is not. Expecting an antenna to be useful without power is absurd
This provides more evidence supporting ground-based probes shoud be using nuclear power sources. Spirit, Opportunity, Philae... when will we drop the nonsensical arguments about sending nuclear power sources to space?
No, it does not. Solar is proven technology. And when a rocket fails to make it to space and explodes, it doesn't spread Plutonium all over Florida.
When will the nuke-nutters stop trying to bankrupt economies with nonsensical dreams of nuclear power being a panacea, when it is the most expensive power source that humans have ever conceived and accordingly has never been even remotely economically viable?
Soft landing is a much harder problem than launch.
I don't see what the problem is. Its isn't brain surgery.
"Most operating systems designed to run on 64-bit hardware already use signed 64-bit time_t integers. Using a signed 64-bit value introduces a new wraparound date that is over twenty times greater than the estimated age of the universe: approximately 292 billion years from now, at 15:30:08 on Sunday, 4 December 292,277,026,596"
That's just great, right in the middle of the game. If this messes with the broadcast, they're gonna have some pissed off sports fans that day I can tell you.
I think the more offensive uses of it was recently depicted in the movie "Kill the Messenger:" alleged drug dealer is arrested, and all his possessions, including his house, is confiscated; prosecution fails to convict drug dealer, yet the forfeiture is never returned. In this instance we have the benefit of knowing they were not innocent, so we don't care as much. Except that innocent, truly innocent people are tried and some are convicted and some acquitted, and their property is forfeit and never returned. The problem is not that shady people are getting shafted, the problem is that people found not guilty never see their property again if it was forfeit. This is sort of in line with going against Blackstone's ratio.
You almost have a point but that if it's only important for future scientists, let them define it based on better informed notions. I'm positive that the radio or some industrial landmark would make more sense. E.g. first mass pollutions, which do have environmental impact. Medieval deforestation of Europe may be a candidate too.
Considering even today, only about 13% of power globally is nuclear generated, and it is not clear we will still be generating nuclear fission power in 100 years, or any more than we are now, I agree. Though its easy to trace the bombs' effects in the future, the incandescent light bulb had a far greater impact on society and the population explosion, and industrialization of that time had greater impact on the environment.
Then again, an argument could be made that the fulcrum for the advancement of our species occured with the invention/introduction of true perspective in art, which isn't even technology.
Its epistemology. Plato never heard of post-modernism. What you perceive is not truth! Perception only creates belief, which is not truth, yet belief is one truth-bearer. You may need to take an intro to philosophy course before you can understand the nature of truth.
NO. You really need to learn what a strawman argument is.
ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL
no subsidies, no taxes
ABSOLUTE FACT:
Nuclear power is the most expensive way the human race has ever employed to create electricity.
Its great for submarines, and making fuel for bombs, but in commerce, its a dog. Every single other way to manufacture energy is less expensive, given equal development. Yes, even solar. Had 1/10th the resouces been poured into solar energy development, solar would have been at parity with the cost of generating energy with fossil fuels by the early 70's. As it is, we may have to way another 5 years for that to finally happen.
Again, keep saying it. It'll keep NOT being true.
What makes it true is economics.
Nuclear power is a dog and always has been. What made it so attractive was the need for fuel for nuclear bombs, not the economics of building and safely operating a plant, nor the cost of the power it produces.
Get your head out of your ass. MONEY is what makes nuclear power crap, on the basis of economics alone, it will never compete with alternative power, and that is especially true today when all alternatives are being developed independently, instead of one single massive and massively expensive development by a government with nearly unlimited resources. Without big government money, nuclear power could never have been developed in the first place. Without big government money, you cannot build a nuclear power plant. Not one nuclear power plant in the entire world was ever built that didn't go at least 50% over estimated cost, and thats dozens of millions of dollars
per plant. It doesn't make good economic sense. It never will.
Your argument is fallacious. The inherent danger of or the damage to the environment of any other power source does not in any way make nuclear more attractive, which has the potential to be far more deadly. We make it safe by making it even more expensive. And you're flat out wrong: Nuclear power is inherently more expensive than other sources of power, and always has been.
I think you mean President Carter, the nuclear engineer.
But your strawman (danger) is irrelevant. Nuclear Power fails because of cost, because there is no more expensive way to produce power, not because of how dangerous the waste is once its forgotten about in 200 years.
Quite a bit later I was able to get into Sun hardware
CDE is ok, but SunDew?
Best
console
evar.
I need true 3D and textures or my brain just doesn't get out of bed.
Obviously, you've never played ESB Textures? Where we're vectoring, we don't need textures.
Nuke-ninnies
Unfuckingbelievable. Reasonably concerned individuals are "ninnies?" It doesn't matter if the entire earth was covered in nuclear waste, absurdists like you will always say "why is this even news?"
WTF is up with nuke-nutters love-affair with this insanely expensive, forever deadly garbage? THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE MORE EXPENSIVE AND MORE DIRTY THAN NUCLEAR -- once you add up development costs and indefinite waste storage costs. Had we not needed fuel for bombs, and grossly overestimated that need by a factor of 100, we never even would have developed commercial fission reactors... because... cost. It would have sat on the drawing board as long as the waste problem was not solved reasonably, which it never can be because it only takes a generation or two before everyone forgets everything about which those earlier generations were concerned. Where did Abraham Lincoln leave his favorite pen? Answer that, definitively, before telling me safely storing waste for 250--> 30K years is even remotely possible.
Oh, but nuclear radiation kills less people than slippery showers? Except that all it takes is one good accident to throw your bullshit stats into chaos.
not sure how long they last but got some good stuff waiting
They'll last longer if stored vertically, and "tails out," i.e. wrapped backwards, so you have to rewind the entire tape before playing (reduces magnetic ghosting). Digitize that as soon as you can. Every time you play it on the tape deck, sound quality degrades slightly and never comes back.
The thing you seem to have failed to grasp is "Truth is objective."
I'm on your side. But even I know that is false except in the pure sciences such as mathematics and logic. You need to brush up on your epistomolgy, perhaps talk to some blind men about what an elephant is. Objective Truth may exist elsewhere, but it is unknowable.