Actually, the human eye has peak sensitivity for yellow light.
So why would you want to block it out??
Because the blue wavelengths of light are the ones most scattered by nitrogen. Since nitrogen accounts for 78% of our atmosphere, blue light gets scattered quite a bit, which is why the sky is blue. Since blue light scatters so much, it tends to blur vision. Screening these wavelengths out leads to an overall sharper picture.
I recently saw a GPS locator made for kids to wear...it would attach to their wrist like a bulky wristwatch and continually broadcast its location.
Now here's an idea...tie the two systems together, so if a kid wearing one of these things comes within 50 feet of a known sex offender, it emits an alarm and/or broadcasts a warning to the parents.
Why limit this to just sex offenders? Why not all criminals? Heck...why don't we just tag everyone...after all, odds are everyone will commit a criminal act sometime in their lives, right?
I got a great idea....we'll tag everyone, giving each transmitter a unique frequency....their 'number', if you will.
Honestly, I'm a Christian, and I've never met another Christian who spouted crap like "God put them there to test our faith". That's just flaming stupid.
I too am a Christian, and I have met other Christians (plural) who believe exactly that. As for it being 'flaming stupid', I certainly won't dispute that.
Not being a geologist, I wouldn't know. Some of the geologists present care to elaborate?
...if you're gonna attack Christianity, understand what you're attacking before doing it (If you want to know what that whole sacrifice thing was about, read Hebrews 11:17-20).
I wasn't exactly attacking Christianity...I'm sorry if it appeared that way to you (I never did like that story, though). You invite me to read Hebrews 11:17-20 to understand the sacrifice thing...for the sake of clarity, I've posted it below:
17By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring[a] will be reckoned."[b] 19Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.
I'm sorry, but this is entirely contradictory to the actual account of the sacrifice, as it is described in Genesis 22 (again, I've posed it below for clarity).
20By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future.
1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.
2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."
3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you."
6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"
"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.
"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.
9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.
12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."
13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram [a] caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided."
15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not w
Honestly, just what is the deal with these fundamentalists? I have two issues with these people.
One, if a literal interpretation of the Bible is correct, what about all these fossils? Scientists have clear evidence of the evolutionary process throughout history via these fossils...where exactly did they come from if the planet is in fact only 6000-odd years old? I've asked creationists this question, and they've actually replied that they were placed here by God to test our faith. Now, I don't know about you, but I have a serious problem with this hypothesis. I for one refuse to believe that God would give us brains capable of rational, abstract thought, and then plant fake clues to punish those of us who had the gall to use those brains to attempt to understand the world we live in. Of course, this is the same god who told Abraham to sacrifice his only son to Him, and waited until the knife was actually descending to say "Psych!".
Two, regarding the wider scope of Intellegent Design, why does that necessarily have to conflict with the established theory of evolution? This is like saying that a particular statue could not have possibly been carved by ancient man, because it is clear that it was in fact carved with a stone tool. Can't the ID folks consider the possibility that evolution is the tool God used to create us? Evolution does not disprove the existence of God.
Qrio: "Your alloted time period to posses the violet spheroid has expired, human child. Qrio requests you initialize sharing subroutine." Jeffy: "No! it's mine!" Qrio: "Repeat request to initialize sharing subroutine." Jeffy: "No! Go away!" Qrio: "Call to sharing subroutine failed with unspecified error. Executing threat function." Jeffy: "Huh?" Qrio: "RELINQUISH THE VIOLET SPHEROID, HUMAN. YOU HAVE THIRTY SECONDS TO COMPLY." Jeffy: "Waaaahhhhhhhhhh!" Qrio: "YOU NOW HAVE TWENTY SECONDS." Suzie: "You're mean, robot man! You made Jeffy cry!" {SHOVE} Qrio: "Detected balancing error....executing stand subroutine...stand subroutine failed...executing lie-on-back-helplessly function." Children: "Hhahahhahhahhahhaha {KICK}{KICK} Qrio:Error iin funfjjkejf93442[r-4r::;L0:...NO CARRIER
Re:great result, but not really a "discovery"
on
Nuclear Fusion Discovered
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yup, a dupe from a post not 24 hours old.
Apparently Zonk is shooting for some sort of record.
"Supporting packet sends from simple user-mode raw sockets makes it entirely too trivial for compromised systems under control of hackers to launch massive distributed denial of service attacks," Microsoft warned in a statement to ZDNet Australia.
Interesting that M$ sees fit to lecture us on the dangers of raw sockets now, given their prior stand on the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
So did I...I haven't been this embarassed about laughing about something since Beavis and Butthead.
You can't seriously be this stupid.
Even if your infinitesimal 'correction' had any merit whatsoever, that would mean you're contradicting yourself.
Log off before you hurt yourself.
Actually, IIRC, Fedora isn't actually binary-compatible with RHEL 3.0.
Actually, that was The Hong Kong Cavaliers.
I am a veritable storehouse of useless information.
A car that can't crash...proposed by a software company whose products can't keep from crashing...
Hey! Don't you mod me down! I'm only saying what we're all thinking.
My both losers what?
You mean naked?
If this rule was implemented, the WNBA might become watchable.
Don't you have anything better to do than bitch about my posts?
This is a discussion board. Try discussing something.
Yeah...if I had only invested that $5.00 wisely, instead of blowing it on Slashdot, I'd be in the Fortune 500 by now.
Idiot.
I though human eyes saw blue the best
Actually, the human eye has peak sensitivity for yellow light.
So why would you want to block it out??
Because the blue wavelengths of light are the ones most scattered by nitrogen. Since nitrogen accounts for 78% of our atmosphere, blue light gets scattered quite a bit, which is why the sky is blue. Since blue light scatters so much, it tends to blur vision. Screening these wavelengths out leads to an overall sharper picture.
I recently saw a GPS locator made for kids to wear...it would attach to their wrist like a bulky wristwatch and continually broadcast its location.
Now here's an idea...tie the two systems together, so if a kid wearing one of these things comes within 50 feet of a known sex offender, it emits an alarm and/or broadcasts a warning to the parents.
I should be rich.
I wonder if someday soon we'll be able to log into GoogleMaps and monitor the movements of the registered sex offenders in our community.
<sarcasm>
Why limit this to just sex offenders? Why not all criminals? Heck...why don't we just tag everyone...after all, odds are everyone will commit a criminal act sometime in their lives, right?
I got a great idea....we'll tag everyone, giving each transmitter a unique frequency....their 'number', if you will.
Oh wait....this idea has already been proposed...
(Interesting side note...our president's number seems to be 666.
</sarcasm>
Will the new company name be Namdai or Banco?
("Namco Bandai Holdings Inc." is so weak...)
Please vote for your favorite below:
Beating him won't get your mail to you any faster.
Try plying him with liquor instead.
Our corporate spam filter (which is administered from Japan, BTW) will discard any email message that has the word 'test' somewhere in its title.
This produces considerable frustration amongst the engineers here, as our location happens to be a test facility....
^_^
Unfortunately, it wasn't big enough for the dinosaurs and unicorns.
Big enough for elephants....but not for unicorns?
Just how big do you think unicorns were supposed to be, anyway?
(Also, there were plenty of small dinosaurs, you know...)
^_^
Honestly, I'm a Christian, and I've never met another Christian who spouted crap like "God put them there to test our faith". That's just flaming stupid.
I too am a Christian, and I have met other Christians (plural) who believe exactly that. As for it being 'flaming stupid', I certainly won't dispute that.
Not being a geologist, I wouldn't know. Some of the geologists present care to elaborate?
Here's some information on radiocarbon dating for you.
I wasn't exactly attacking Christianity...I'm sorry if it appeared that way to you (I never did like that story, though). You invite me to read Hebrews 11:17-20 to understand the sacrifice thing...for the sake of clarity, I've posted it below:
I'm sorry, but this is entirely contradictory to the actual account of the sacrifice, as it is described in Genesis 22 (again, I've posed it below for clarity).
Honestly, just what is the deal with these fundamentalists? I have two issues with these people.
One, if a literal interpretation of the Bible is correct, what about all these fossils? Scientists have clear evidence of the evolutionary process throughout history via these fossils...where exactly did they come from if the planet is in fact only 6000-odd years old? I've asked creationists this question, and they've actually replied that they were placed here by God to test our faith. Now, I don't know about you, but I have a serious problem with this hypothesis. I for one refuse to believe that God would give us brains capable of rational, abstract thought, and then plant fake clues to punish those of us who had the gall to use those brains to attempt to understand the world we live in. Of course, this is the same god who told Abraham to sacrifice his only son to Him, and waited until the knife was actually descending to say "Psych!".
Two, regarding the wider scope of Intellegent Design, why does that necessarily have to conflict with the established theory of evolution? This is like saying that a particular statue could not have possibly been carved by ancient man, because it is clear that it was in fact carved with a stone tool. Can't the ID folks consider the possibility that evolution is the tool God used to create us? Evolution does not disprove the existence of God.
Yup, a dupe from a post not 24 hours old.
Apparently Zonk is shooting for some sort of record.
So the 1% of us who do need it are screwed...which was essentially Fyodor's point.
But hey...when has M$ been concerned about anything but the numbers, right?
Funny...if Steve's views were so discredited, why does M$ agree with him now?
From the Article:
Interesting that M$ sees fit to lecture us on the dangers of raw sockets now, given their prior stand on the issue.