I'm 24 now, and I definitely would never want to have sex with a 14 year old, but 10 years ago when I was 14, I definitely enjoyed looking at pictures of bikini models in their mid-20s. There's nothing weird about young teenagers being attracted to older people, though the reverse is wrong.
Yes, but am I to assume that in twenty years, you'll have no interest in those mid-20s models anymore and instead will want to look at photos of bikini models in their mid-40s? Hmm.
Just because your first drafts are what would be the third or fourth for someone who treats a word processor like a typewriter (this includes most people who teach writing btw), doesn't mean they couldn't benefit from revision... just that the work needed would tend to be at the level of rearranging blocks of paragraphs, or structuring entire chapters, and that it would require revision skills you probably lack because you've always done "good enough" with a single version.
FWIW, I write in the manner you do, frequently handed in what was practically a "first draft", and often got better grades on my work in college than many of the students who did the whole first-draft-then-revise-many-times thing they teach you to do. The only real revision work I ever did was reading the whole thing out loud to myself once, and rewriting any passages I tripped over (a good lazy technique for finding awkward phrases or poor grammar).
I believe the original sketch involved a Hungarian phrasebook. However, if I've learned anything from reading/. it is "ignore the details, Monty Python is ALWAYS relevant".
I can't speak for anyone else, but this was certainly my experience. The professors (at least the tenured ones) only seemed to want to talk about supporting the teachers union and encourage us to vote democrat/union/liberal.
Yes, this does happen, though it's not universal, and tends to be more common among professors of the, uhm, shall we say "less rigorous" fields. Just because someone is a leftist (the term "liberal" is too good for such wastes of biomass) doesn't mean they support independent critical thinking.
Unfortunately, the people who complain loudest about this legitimate problem tend to be right-wing assholes who'd rather substitute THEIR particular brand of Received-Wisdom-From-Faux-News dogma than let students come to their own conclusion, which leads more reasonable liberals to dismiss their complains. It's a pity, really.
I always want to add something to the end - "When I became wise, I leanred the value of childish things and turned to them once more"
Try instead quoting a portion of this, written by a very well-known author and Christian apologist:
"Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." -- C. S. Lewis
Yes, but how much paying for American IP can China really support? I can't imagine that most users of pirated software over there could afford to pay full price for a legit license. Eliminating a lot of piracy seems like it would either wreak havoc on China (they won't push it that far, I'm sure) or, to take the typical/. angle, drive people towards other alternatives like open source (or perhaps local IP industries?).
More likely I think is that it's mostly a loud show of effort and piracy in China will continue unabated once the current effort quiets down.
In the end, we still need China more than they need us.:(
If you travel at 80% the speed of light away from an object travelling 80% of the speed of light in the opposite direction, the distance between you is growing at 160% speed of light, so your speed relative to the other object is faster than the speed of light.
Incorrect. In this circumstance, a "stationary" observer sees both travelling at.8c and thus could infer a relative velocity of 1.6c, and from your perspective the stationary observer would be travelling away at.8c, but the other object would be seen to be travelling away at about.98c. No, it doesn't seem to make sense, but yes this is how it works. The rules are different, however, when you're talking about the expansion of space, not actual velocity.
I think you misunderstand. I don't want games to hold your hand or babysit you, just not punish failure excessively. Roughly, if you regard the game as a series of challenges, that failure on one particular challenge should force you to redo it (or find another path), but not send you back to repeat challenges you've already cleared. It's not dificulty I object to, it's wasting the player's time--i.e., dying at a boss battle should make you refight the boss, but probably not the entire level, and certainly not the entire game. I'm suppose I'm more after something like frequent and automatic checkpoints than "continue on the spot immediately", as that goes too far to the point of destroying any challenge.
I actually also feel pretty strongly that games should be challenging and involve as little luck as possible.
Making games so easy you can just mash the buttons and win is clearly silly; games that aren't challenging aren't as rewarding. Without the chance of failure, success means little. However, the one thing I DO ask is that failure not force substantial loss of progress. For example:
- Puzzle adventure games, where missing an item early forces you to restart the entire game to be able to win
- Simple action games, where dying enough times (running out of credits) will force you to start over
In contrast, consider the Monkey Island games where, AFAIK, you can neither "lose" or get into an unwinnable situation; also, Gradius V which (despite being fairly challenging) eventually unlocks a "Free Play" mode that lets you keep playing, picking up from right where you died, as often as you like. Neither game is stupidly easy, nor necessarily "winnable".
There's no excuse for wasting the player's time. That's not to say that I don't, for instance, play single credit games in Gradius V to improve my skill and see how far I can get WITHOUT a continue, but that's my choice, not something forced on me by the game. The game shouldn't allow the player to continue without passing whatever obstacle, but sending the player a long ways back to redo earlier sections for no good reason is just bad design.
GP claims correctness because he was one of the best programmers at his school, and he started school at 17. I started university at 15 and similarly out-performed (most of) the (largely mediocre) students at my (less-than-prestigious) university as well as many of the professors. Ergo, if we assume the GP's correctness, my opinions must carry equal or greater weight than the GP's, by his own arguments.
However, I agree with the parent and think the GP is full of crap. This contradicts the starting assumption that the GP's premise is correct; therefore we see, via proof by contradiction, that the only conclusion able to be drawn is that the parent is correct and the GP is, like myself, a pretentious youth with a crappy education.
Quod erat demonstrandum. (Saying things in Latin TOTALLY clinches an argument!)
Well, yes. I'm not heavily inclined to call Jupiter a "failed star" either, myself, and the mass of public opinion agrees. This is clearly a weighty issue.
On the other hand, Jupiter clearly isn't a star, so it ends up being called a planet by default. However, people have argued that Jupiter should be classified as a "failed" star and, thus, the solar system as a double star system... it's not an unreasonable idea.
Your proposed definition is indeed a good starting point. Coincidentally, that's the same starting point of the new proposed definition, so I guess you agree with it, then?
The problem is that any consistent, non-arbitrary definition will result in either 1) removing Pluto's planetary status, which people don't seem to like for some reason, or 2) adding a lot more "planets" to the solar system.
The new definition is (in summary) that a planet is anything that orbits primarily the sun and is large enough that its shape is determined mostly by self-gravity. How else would you define it without adding lots of "unless" and "except" clauses?
As for the moon "becoming" a planet, that's because the moon meets one criteria (shape determined by self-gravity) but not the other. As the moon drifts away from the Earth, eventually the center of mass would shift until both are orbitting a point in space, instead of a point inside Earth. In that scenario, the moon would then be orbitting the sun more than it orbits the earth, and would be defined as a double planet.
To be fair, it was a reasonable interpretation of your post to think you were saying "it won't be a moon because it will escape and go FLYING INTO SPACE!!1" instead of the intended point "if it no longer fits a definition, it isn't what's defined. This is news?". 'course, the AC was more than a bit condescending about it.
Mostly size, or rather, mass. If you dumped enough hydrogen into Jupiter, it would shine. You just need enough gravitational pressure at the core to sustain hydrogen fusion, which is what the article is discussing.
That said, relative composition IS different; Jupiter has a dense rocky core of heavier elements (the same sort of stuff the inner planets are made of), surrounded by metallic, liquid, and gaseous hydrogen and some helium. The sun is almost completely made of hydrogen and helium, with a reside of heavier elements, and various layers distinguished mostly by density, temperature, and various physical properties (for instance, the 'photosphere' is the layer at which hydrogen ions render the sun's atmosphere opaque to visible light, and hence is the visible 'surface' of the sun.).
With an emphasis on treating people well, in both monetary compensation and personal respect. Corruption and abuse of power are bred when a person's authority and influence exceed their perceived value to the organization. Compare to stories about abuses of power by school teachers/administators or police--both occupations that are given too little value or too much authority.
Slashdot Mirror
On Bit Torrent at 11:05.
Shouldn't that probably be more like:
News at 11:00.
On Bit Torrent at 10:30.
No, man, he's being transcendental. You just gotta open your mind, man!
Ok, I confess I made this entire posting cause I wanted to make a banana analogy.
:D
Would that be a bananalogy?
(After all, when your cat's momentum is known to be precisely zero, it's gotta be somewhere around your PC.)
And if it's anything like my cat, it almost always will indeed have a momentum of precisely zero.
I'm 24 now, and I definitely would never want to have sex with a 14 year old, but 10 years ago when I was 14, I definitely enjoyed looking at pictures of bikini models in their mid-20s. There's nothing weird about young teenagers being attracted to older people, though the reverse is wrong.
Yes, but am I to assume that in twenty years, you'll have no interest in those mid-20s models anymore and instead will want to look at photos of bikini models in their mid-40s? Hmm.
Just because your first drafts are what would be the third or fourth for someone who treats a word processor like a typewriter (this includes most people who teach writing btw), doesn't mean they couldn't benefit from revision... just that the work needed would tend to be at the level of rearranging blocks of paragraphs, or structuring entire chapters, and that it would require revision skills you probably lack because you've always done "good enough" with a single version.
FWIW, I write in the manner you do, frequently handed in what was practically a "first draft", and often got better grades on my work in college than many of the students who did the whole first-draft-then-revise-many-times thing they teach you to do. The only real revision work I ever did was reading the whole thing out loud to myself once, and rewriting any passages I tripped over (a good lazy technique for finding awkward phrases or poor grammar).
I believe the original sketch involved a Hungarian phrasebook. However, if I've learned anything from reading /. it is "ignore the details, Monty Python is ALWAYS relevant".
Ya! Ah, uhh... my hovercraft... is full of eels!
I can't speak for anyone else, but this was certainly my experience. The professors (at least the tenured ones) only seemed to want to talk about supporting the teachers union and encourage us to vote democrat/union/liberal.
Yes, this does happen, though it's not universal, and tends to be more common among professors of the, uhm, shall we say "less rigorous" fields. Just because someone is a leftist (the term "liberal" is too good for such wastes of biomass) doesn't mean they support independent critical thinking.
Unfortunately, the people who complain loudest about this legitimate problem tend to be right-wing assholes who'd rather substitute THEIR particular brand of Received-Wisdom-From-Faux-News dogma than let students come to their own conclusion, which leads more reasonable liberals to dismiss their complains. It's a pity, really.
I always want to add something to the end - "When I became wise, I leanred the value of childish things and turned to them once more"
Try instead quoting a portion of this, written by a very well-known author and Christian apologist:
"Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-- C. S. Lewis
Well, we all know Dell has no shortage of bombs... it all makes sense now, doesn't it? :D
Yes, but how much paying for American IP can China really support? I can't imagine that most users of pirated software over there could afford to pay full price for a legit license. Eliminating a lot of piracy seems like it would either wreak havoc on China (they won't push it that far, I'm sure) or, to take the typical /. angle, drive people towards other alternatives like open source (or perhaps local IP industries?).
:(
More likely I think is that it's mostly a loud show of effort and piracy in China will continue unabated once the current effort quiets down.
In the end, we still need China more than they need us.
But with PHP and MySQL, you can hammer screws much faster! :D
If you travel at 80% the speed of light away from an object travelling 80% of the speed of light in the opposite direction, the distance between you is growing at 160% speed of light, so your speed relative to the other object is faster than the speed of light.
.8c and thus could infer a relative velocity of 1.6c, and from your perspective the stationary observer would be travelling away at .8c, but the other object would be seen to be travelling away at about .98c. No, it doesn't seem to make sense, but yes this is how it works. The rules are different, however, when you're talking about the expansion of space, not actual velocity.
Incorrect. In this circumstance, a "stationary" observer sees both travelling at
I think you misunderstand. I don't want games to hold your hand or babysit you, just not punish failure excessively. Roughly, if you regard the game as a series of challenges, that failure on one particular challenge should force you to redo it (or find another path), but not send you back to repeat challenges you've already cleared. It's not dificulty I object to, it's wasting the player's time--i.e., dying at a boss battle should make you refight the boss, but probably not the entire level, and certainly not the entire game. I'm suppose I'm more after something like frequent and automatic checkpoints than "continue on the spot immediately", as that goes too far to the point of destroying any challenge.
I actually also feel pretty strongly that games should be challenging and involve as little luck as possible.
Making games so easy you can just mash the buttons and win is clearly silly; games that aren't challenging aren't as rewarding. Without the chance of failure, success means little. However, the one thing I DO ask is that failure not force substantial loss of progress. For example:
- Puzzle adventure games, where missing an item early forces you to restart the entire game to be able to win
- Simple action games, where dying enough times (running out of credits) will force you to start over
In contrast, consider the Monkey Island games where, AFAIK, you can neither "lose" or get into an unwinnable situation; also, Gradius V which (despite being fairly challenging) eventually unlocks a "Free Play" mode that lets you keep playing, picking up from right where you died, as often as you like. Neither game is stupidly easy, nor necessarily "winnable".
There's no excuse for wasting the player's time. That's not to say that I don't, for instance, play single credit games in Gradius V to improve my skill and see how far I can get WITHOUT a continue, but that's my choice, not something forced on me by the game. The game shouldn't allow the player to continue without passing whatever obstacle, but sending the player a long ways back to redo earlier sections for no good reason is just bad design.
GP claims correctness because he was one of the best programmers at his school, and he started school at 17. I started university at 15 and similarly out-performed (most of) the (largely mediocre) students at my (less-than-prestigious) university as well as many of the professors. Ergo, if we assume the GP's correctness, my opinions must carry equal or greater weight than the GP's, by his own arguments.
However, I agree with the parent and think the GP is full of crap. This contradicts the starting assumption that the GP's premise is correct; therefore we see, via proof by contradiction, that the only conclusion able to be drawn is that the parent is correct and the GP is, like myself, a pretentious youth with a crappy education.
Quod erat demonstrandum. (Saying things in Latin TOTALLY clinches an argument!)
Well, yes. I'm not heavily inclined to call Jupiter a "failed star" either, myself, and the mass of public opinion agrees. This is clearly a weighty issue.
Ahem.
No, I'm just saying it was probably an honest mistake. Why be hostile, even if he was? An eye for an eye leaves us all blind.
On the other hand, Jupiter clearly isn't a star, so it ends up being called a planet by default. However, people have argued that Jupiter should be classified as a "failed" star and, thus, the solar system as a double star system... it's not an unreasonable idea.
Your proposed definition is indeed a good starting point. Coincidentally, that's the same starting point of the new proposed definition, so I guess you agree with it, then?
The problem is that any consistent, non-arbitrary definition will result in either 1) removing Pluto's planetary status, which people don't seem to like for some reason, or 2) adding a lot more "planets" to the solar system.
The new definition is (in summary) that a planet is anything that orbits primarily the sun and is large enough that its shape is determined mostly by self-gravity. How else would you define it without adding lots of "unless" and "except" clauses?
As for the moon "becoming" a planet, that's because the moon meets one criteria (shape determined by self-gravity) but not the other. As the moon drifts away from the Earth, eventually the center of mass would shift until both are orbitting a point in space, instead of a point inside Earth. In that scenario, the moon would then be orbitting the sun more than it orbits the earth, and would be defined as a double planet.
To be fair, it was a reasonable interpretation of your post to think you were saying "it won't be a moon because it will escape and go FLYING INTO SPACE!!1" instead of the intended point "if it no longer fits a definition, it isn't what's defined. This is news?". 'course, the AC was more than a bit condescending about it.
Mostly size, or rather, mass. If you dumped enough hydrogen into Jupiter, it would shine. You just need enough gravitational pressure at the core to sustain hydrogen fusion, which is what the article is discussing.
That said, relative composition IS different; Jupiter has a dense rocky core of heavier elements (the same sort of stuff the inner planets are made of), surrounded by metallic, liquid, and gaseous hydrogen and some helium. The sun is almost completely made of hydrogen and helium, with a reside of heavier elements, and various layers distinguished mostly by density, temperature, and various physical properties (for instance, the 'photosphere' is the layer at which hydrogen ions render the sun's atmosphere opaque to visible light, and hence is the visible 'surface' of the sun.).
With an emphasis on treating people well, in both monetary compensation and personal respect. Corruption and abuse of power are bred when a person's authority and influence exceed their perceived value to the organization. Compare to stories about abuses of power by school teachers/administators or police--both occupations that are given too little value or too much authority.
But... I was trying to be funny. :(