About your sig, you could close the bracket, and then, I think (iirc) that you can do directly return, might take a cast but i don't think it's even needed;-)
funny createSig(witty remark, odd reference)
{
return sigOut = remark + reference;
}//that's how i'd do it;-)
I know they did, they always did, Apple is who I was talking about when I was mentionning my old Macintosh and its keyboard with a built-in mouse port. Anyways, that's not making PC keyboard manufacturers follow their example, and that sucks. That was my point.
People seem to have a tough time telling "all keyboards should have a mouse port" from "you cannot find a keyboard with a mouse port". Sounds like it's your case;-)
So buy a keyboard with a USB hub built-in. They do exist.
My concern is not that I cannot find such a keyboard, it rather is that not all keyboards are made like this. I even wonder why the PS/2 wasn't meant to have the mouse port on the keyboard, in the same fashion as the ADB keyboards and mouses.
Why do you think most of the civilized world switched from wireless television to cable?
We the barbarian people of France rather use satellites, regular radio television or even digital terrestrial television. I agree with anything else you said anyways.
However, when I tried again a wired mouse on my moms computer, I wondered how I could use a wired mouse for all that time on my old Macintosh. Upon using my old Macintosh again, I understood how I could. The mouse cable is much shorter, and connects directly on the keyboard. That's how I've used it for about 8 years without ever having to complain about the cable.
Why didn't manufacturers make USB ports on every of their keyboards to plug the mouse in, I'll never understand. Instead you have the cable directly connected to the motherboard and that's a pain in the arse.
But from the close border, how fast does the universe expand? Doesn't it still expand at the speed of light, even if you're on the edge of the universe?
greping through the data for User 8409862, you can deduce a few likely facts :
-This is a man
-He most likely lives in Colorado
-He is presumably in his 40's or 50's considered he's a fan of Ted Nugent
-He likes going camping
-Due to all of the above we can deduce he fits in the redneck category
-He's a Windows user, probably a X-Box owner and has spyware issues
-He's most likely bisexual
-He's very interested in bestiality, gay porn, MySpace and regular porn
-He has once been attracted on Slashdot because of this comment mentionning his favourite website, farmsex.com
Pretty scary to be able to find all of that about the privacy of this random man, if you ask me. If anyone is wondering how I found this user, I took the first one from this grepped list that attracted my attention
15.8 is not "much older" than 14.3 billion years. It's only about 10% older.
Can someone tell me where the submitter pulled out this 14.3 billion number from? FTFA : "Scientists now estimate the universe to be about 13.7 billion years old (a figure that has seemed firm since 2003, based on measurements of radiation leftover from the Big Bang)"
Now that's 15% older, which is consistant with the 15% change in the Hubble constant estimate.
That should answer your question. Notice that this is explained without using a non-constant speed of light, unlike what some other poster replied to you.
Among their conclusions is that it is less likely that there is some crazy cosmic "hall of mirrors" that would cause one object to be visible in two locations. And they've ruled out the idea that we could peer deep into space and time and see our own planet in its youth.
"Several years ago we showed that any finite universe in which light had time to 'wrap around' since the Big Bang would have the same pattern of cosmic microwave background temperature fluctuations around pairs of circles," Cornish explained. They looked for the most likely patterns that would be evident in a CMB map generated by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP).
They didn't find those patterns.
"if you walk to the edge of the universe", well, if I got it right, you would have to walk faster than the speed of light in the first place.
Imagine the universe just a million years after it was born, Cornish suggests. A batch of light travels for a year, covering one light-year. "At that time, the universe was about 1,000 times smaller than it is today," he said. "Thus, that one light-year has now stretched to become 1,000 light-years."
But I suggest you to read the whole page (no, I'm not new here, thanks for not asking)
Your cursing, poor grammar, spelling, and incorrect vocabulary suggest that your opinions on education can safely be dismissed. Your failure to understand the GP poster's comments and your incoherent response to those comments confirms that your opinion on this subject is stupid.
hehe, looks like the moderators do not agree with you
being treated in school as shoddy parts destined for corporate machines
I totally agree with you, however it seems that making people feel responsible-guilty for the global warming is even cheaper that building nuclear power plants and it gives the opinion the illusion of having found a solution to the problem.
Hey, let's buy a Hybrid car to make ourselves feel better about that problem and let's not even pay attention to the fact that in our country we use coal power plants as some countries use nothing but nuclear power plants and wind mills.
So... you want to homeschool your kids.. because of filtering software at school?
Are you fucking kidding? Going to school is about having a social life and being thaught things by professional teachers, nobody gives a fuck about whatever site the school can filter, actually if the school you'd want to put your kids in had not a single computer, that would be just fine.
How silly can you be to take a decision that heavy of consequences for your hypothetical kids based on such an insignifying detail? I hope I did get something wrong.
For all we know the meteorites seeded life on Earth
So far the theory of panspermia is very far from proven, and the most widely accepted theory about the formation of life on earth is not panspermia but chemical reactions forming aminate acids, or somethnig of this kind.
Why is it so hard for people to believe life exists beyond earth?
When it comes to science, thou shalt ban the verb 'to believe' out of thy vocabulary.
I for one think it would be good for mankind to have a significant first contact with a superior race
Why do people systematically consider that an extraterrestrial race would have to be superior to us in the same way that we are superior to the rest of animals? Keep us occupied while we grow up? What's making you think that we're growing up? Our nature is immuable, the only way we can give ourselves the feeling of evolving is through the evolution of our civilization, but that's not going to make us closer to any hypothetical superior extraterrestrial race, if there even can be such a thing as animals significantly superior to us. It seems that the idea of us being probably the most evolved life form possible has went through relatively few people's minds.
Back to the topic, scientists have no trouble admitting some forms of life might exist or might have existed in the universe, even inside our very own solar system. But the object of this article is about determining whether this precise piece of rock reveals the existence of any actual extraterrestrial form of life, it's not about determining whether there could or could not have been life in the Universe, nor even on Mars.
Slashdot Mirror
my bad I meant return remark + reference; not return sigOut = remark + reference;
About your sig, you could close the bracket, and then, I think (iirc) that you can do directly return, might take a cast but i don't think it's even needed ;-)
funny createSig(witty remark, odd reference) //that's how i'd do it ;-)
{
return sigOut = remark + reference;
}
I know they did, they always did, Apple is who I was talking about when I was mentionning my old Macintosh and its keyboard with a built-in mouse port. Anyways, that's not making PC keyboard manufacturers follow their example, and that sucks. That was my point.
People seem to have a tough time telling "all keyboards should have a mouse port" from "you cannot find a keyboard with a mouse port". Sounds like it's your case ;-)
So buy a keyboard with a USB hub built-in. They do exist.
My concern is not that I cannot find such a keyboard, it rather is that not all keyboards are made like this. I even wonder why the PS/2 wasn't meant to have the mouse port on the keyboard, in the same fashion as the ADB keyboards and mouses.
Hopefully when the NDA on the contract runs out we will see open drivers actively supported from nVIDIA.
Just being curious, when does that NDA run out? :-P
Why do you think most of the civilized world switched from wireless television to cable?
We the barbarian people of France rather use satellites, regular radio television or even digital terrestrial television. I agree with anything else you said anyways.
However, when I tried again a wired mouse on my moms computer, I wondered how I could use a wired mouse for all that time on my old Macintosh. Upon using my old Macintosh again, I understood how I could. The mouse cable is much shorter, and connects directly on the keyboard. That's how I've used it for about 8 years without ever having to complain about the cable.
Why didn't manufacturers make USB ports on every of their keyboards to plug the mouse in, I'll never understand. Instead you have the cable directly connected to the motherboard and that's a pain in the arse.
But from the close border, how fast does the universe expand? Doesn't it still expand at the speed of light, even if you're on the edge of the universe?
greping through the data for User 8409862, you can deduce a few likely facts :
-This is a man
-He most likely lives in Colorado
-He is presumably in his 40's or 50's considered he's a fan of Ted Nugent
-He likes going camping
-Due to all of the above we can deduce he fits in the redneck category
-He's a Windows user, probably a X-Box owner and has spyware issues
-He's most likely bisexual
-He's very interested in bestiality, gay porn, MySpace and regular porn
-He has once been attracted on Slashdot because of this comment mentionning his favourite website, farmsex.com
Pretty scary to be able to find all of that about the privacy of this random man, if you ask me. If anyone is wondering how I found this user, I took the first one from this grepped list that attracted my attention
15.8 is not "much older" than 14.3 billion years. It's only about 10% older.
Can someone tell me where the submitter pulled out this 14.3 billion number from? FTFA : "Scientists now estimate the universe to be about 13.7 billion years old (a figure that has seemed firm since 2003, based on measurements of radiation leftover from the Big Bang)"
Now that's 15% older, which is consistant with the 15% change in the Hubble constant estimate.
That should answer your question. Notice that this is explained without using a non-constant speed of light, unlike what some other poster replied to you.
I trust them
Don't ;-). From this article :
Among their conclusions is that it is less likely that there is some crazy cosmic "hall of mirrors" that would cause one object to be visible in two locations. And they've ruled out the idea that we could peer deep into space and time and see our own planet in its youth.
"Several years ago we showed that any finite universe in which light had time to 'wrap around' since the Big Bang would have the same pattern of cosmic microwave background temperature fluctuations around pairs of circles," Cornish explained. They looked for the most likely patterns that would be evident in a CMB map generated by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP).
They didn't find those patterns.
"if you walk to the edge of the universe", well, if I got it right, you would have to walk faster than the speed of light in the first place.
What gets me going though is what is outside of those 180 billion light years of width? What happens when you hit the border?
How could you hit the border since you would need to go faster than light to hit it? (right?)
Explanation here.
Imagine the universe just a million years after it was born, Cornish suggests. A batch of light travels for a year, covering one light-year. "At that time, the universe was about 1,000 times smaller than it is today," he said. "Thus, that one light-year has now stretched to become 1,000 light-years."
But I suggest you to read the whole page (no, I'm not new here, thanks for not asking)
Your cursing, poor grammar, spelling, and incorrect vocabulary suggest that your opinions on education can safely be dismissed. Your failure to understand the GP poster's comments and your incoherent response to those comments confirms that your opinion on this subject is stupid.
hehe, looks like the moderators do not agree with you
being treated in school as shoddy parts destined for corporate machines
heh, hippie.
I'm not seeing the tragedy there.
I didn't say there were any ;-). Nah just kidding, I like George Bush, it's just that he's such an aweful president.
I totally agree with you, however it seems that making people feel responsible-guilty for the global warming is even cheaper that building nuclear power plants and it gives the opinion the illusion of having found a solution to the problem.
Hey, let's buy a Hybrid car to make ourselves feel better about that problem and let's not even pay attention to the fact that in our country we use coal power plants as some countries use nothing but nuclear power plants and wind mills.
Convinced = belief based on evidence.
Maybe, but you should still avoid using the verb to believe.
So... you want to homeschool your kids.. because of filtering software at school?
Are you fucking kidding? Going to school is about having a social life and being thaught things by professional teachers, nobody gives a fuck about whatever site the school can filter, actually if the school you'd want to put your kids in had not a single computer, that would be just fine.
How silly can you be to take a decision that heavy of consequences for your hypothetical kids based on such an insignifying detail? I hope I did get something wrong.
Scientists just do not believe, they are convinced.
For all we know the meteorites seeded life on Earth
So far the theory of panspermia is very far from proven, and the most widely accepted theory about the formation of life on earth is not panspermia but chemical reactions forming aminate acids, or somethnig of this kind.
Why is it so hard for people to believe life exists beyond earth?
When it comes to science, thou shalt ban the verb 'to believe' out of thy vocabulary.
I for one think it would be good for mankind to have a significant first contact with a superior race
Why do people systematically consider that an extraterrestrial race would have to be superior to us in the same way that we are superior to the rest of animals? Keep us occupied while we grow up? What's making you think that we're growing up? Our nature is immuable, the only way we can give ourselves the feeling of evolving is through the evolution of our civilization, but that's not going to make us closer to any hypothetical superior extraterrestrial race, if there even can be such a thing as animals significantly superior to us. It seems that the idea of us being probably the most evolved life form possible has went through relatively few people's minds.
Back to the topic, scientists have no trouble admitting some forms of life might exist or might have existed in the universe, even inside our very own solar system. But the object of this article is about determining whether this precise piece of rock reveals the existence of any actual extraterrestrial form of life, it's not about determining whether there could or could not have been life in the Universe, nor even on Mars.
It's all about this precise rock.
I really thought the article was "RIP GGW" for a minute. That would be a real tragedy.
Same for me, except that I thought it was GWB
Oh and by the way there's never been a 80187
except then it will be for 1/8/7, 2/8/7, and 3/8/7.
I think 1/8/7 will rather be celebrated by gangsta rap fans ;-)
You're not correcting his grammar, you're correcting his syntax.
Actually syntax is the arrangement of words. But you got a point, I should call myself an Orthograph Nazi rather than a Grammer Nazi.
Uh, then explain 'Beauty'. Its not pronounced 'boty'.
Except that Beauty is not a french word... Bureau is, period.