That's quite an oversimplification. If you take into account both the moon's orbit and the distribution of the Earth's population, I think you would find it's far less than 50% of the time. There are angles between "up" for Shaq and "up" for whichever individual you select, and a third angle with wherever the Moon is in its orbit.
Hahahahahha. Good point, though you didn't "fix the grammar." The amount of effort required to fix an entire column of that kind of crap is definitely greater than the effort required to simply create original ideas. Especially, I would hope, for someone who has been writing columns for more than two decades.
I have a feeling that the wikipedia editor who recognized the suspicious similarities would have still noticed them if the columnist had tried something like that. I'm not sure how plagiarism works at wikipedia, though. If he had actually edited that wikipedia page prior to using it in the column, would he have been alright, since he contributed to the original page? I'm sure someone here knows the answer.
As far as I understand it, no one has proposed FORCING sites to switch to.xxx, just encourage them. After all, don't you think all the long and difficult to remember sex/pr0n domains might like to switch to more memorable.xxx domains anyhow? People have protested this move from both sides. The moralites claim it's pandering to the pornography industry and the freedomites cry censorship. Anything those two extremists can agree to hate is fine by me.
This would be very useful in space industries. If a robot could make itself and a number of very similar models that could each also make a different component of some larger structure (a refinery perhaps?), this would be an efficient way to mine asteroids or other similar objects.
I think that fears about safety and attempts to reduce risk are a huge part of the reason NASA is failing. Space exploration & innovation needs to have a high risk or nothing new and worthwhile will be attempted.
On that About Us page, separated by a mere 2 sentences, are these contradicting lines:
Founded in January 2004 in USA... and
In October 2003, our research team...
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't a fine-tuned sense of irony have used http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=yhoo
That's quite an oversimplification. If you take into account both the moon's orbit and the distribution of the Earth's population, I think you would find it's far less than 50% of the time. There are angles between "up" for Shaq and "up" for whichever individual you select, and a third angle with wherever the Moon is in its orbit.
Just sayin'.
You're right. Since our current explanation is incomplete, it must prove God's Creation.
Hahahahahha. Good point, though you didn't "fix the grammar." The amount of effort required to fix an entire column of that kind of crap is definitely greater than the effort required to simply create original ideas. Especially, I would hope, for someone who has been writing columns for more than two decades.
I have a feeling that the wikipedia editor who recognized the suspicious similarities would have still noticed them if the columnist had tried something like that. I'm not sure how plagiarism works at wikipedia, though. If he had actually edited that wikipedia page prior to using it in the column, would he have been alright, since he contributed to the original page? I'm sure someone here knows the answer.
and the coral cache of the mirrordot gets /.ed!
bah, nevermind. no linux client yet, i see
And how hard would it be to get an invitation to imeem?
As far as I understand it, no one has proposed FORCING sites to switch to .xxx, just encourage them. After all, don't you think all the long and difficult to remember sex/pr0n domains might like to switch to more memorable .xxx domains anyhow? People have protested this move from both sides. The moralites claim it's pandering to the pornography industry and the freedomites cry censorship. Anything those two extremists can agree to hate is fine by me.
And you can be sure that if no one else becomes interested, the military will pick this one up.
This would be very useful in space industries. If a robot could make itself and a number of very similar models that could each also make a different component of some larger structure (a refinery perhaps?), this would be an efficient way to mine asteroids or other similar objects.
This friend of yours should publish his story online... if it (or he) really exists, that is.
I think that fears about safety and attempts to reduce risk are a huge part of the reason NASA is failing. Space exploration & innovation needs to have a high risk or nothing new and worthwhile will be attempted.
On that About Us page, separated by a mere 2 sentences, are these contradicting lines:
Founded in January 2004 in USA...
and
In October 2003, our research team...
I wonder how similar the output would be to the original image if you go image->sound->image.