Good point. I get really sick of people explaining themselves after making a statement or a point. Why don't we put a 120 character limit on all posts? Will that keep you from bitching at people who replied to someone else?
Film the class, store the video in case it is needed, destroy the video at the end of the year.
More like a year after it was recorded. Keep a year-long archive destroying the oldest as you create the newest. And I'd make sure the kids know about it, too. Not only might it deter some kids from acting out, but it will also encourage kids to report misbehavior of both teachers and other students, since they don't have to worry about others not believing them. And any incidents that go on anyone's record are accompanied by a video of the event.
Where the heck is this $400 number coming from? I looked all over, and the only price I found was half that. They have a press clippings page, and the most recent link there (October 23, 2006) clearly states an expected price around $200.
Are you trying to say that an entertainment device centered around videogames is the same as a PC? You should tell everyone you know. All of your PC needs met for $400 at most! No wonder almost every house in America has a 360!
Congratulations, genius. We are talking about files ten times the size. The whole point of next-gen media is HD, and at about 5.5 GB / hour you get an 11 GB file for a two hour movie, and as I mentioned before, even 4 Mb/s connections are better than your average broadband. Otherwise the message would be the inane "DVD is Dead" and/. hopefully wouldn't be that myopic to post an article about it.
That would be awesome, but it doesn't change the fact that most people (outside of/.) will still prefer discs to whatever horribly DRMed form of downloadable content that the movie industry decides to use. As long as they can take that BD into the next room or to a friends, thats what they will want to do. If they can't do that, then they would rather just have DVDs. Most people don't want their computer right by their TV, or to have to run cables between rooms from one to the other. And by the way, decent (though maybe not "average") connections of 3-4 Mb/s are good enough for most "rental" scenarios. You just have to decide what to watch the day before and download it overnight. The only problem is with same day decisions to download a movie.
Not in most states. It doubles as a "Keep your license" tax. (For liability, at least. For many, full coverage doubles as a "condition of your loan" fee.)
The process is the most important part. Without it, you can't solve the problem.
The grocery store charges X for gallons of milk, and Y for half-gallons. Which is a better buy? Memorization is totally useless. The process can give you the answer.
The real problem is, these people don't have the critical thinking skills to realize that the half-gallon is cheaper if they only drink that much before the rest of a full gallon will go bad.
Exactly. The whole point was that there wasn't a democracy to overthrow because a corrupt PM had stolen it.
And to your last line I will add: why do we criticize Saddam? After all, he was democratically elected wasn't he?
And I'll also add this quote: "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
- Josef Stalin
and in one case even specifying the name of the individual
That individual aired his own misfortune in the newspaper first. And, like has already been said, he likely got the service for free in exchange for them advertising it.
As for the rest, let me tweak the words of Forrest Gump: "Stupid gets what stupid deserves."
With certain theories, depending on the cause. Really, those theories need to use terms like "climate change" instead to avoid confusion.
Those situations would actually be worse than global warming. With warming, we can just move towards the poles. Maybe things get real bad and Canada is the new Mexico. But with other theories the temperature just gets more extreme, with areas around the equator becoming unlivably hot, areas closer to the poles becoming unlivably cold, and the transition areas becoming more full of violent weather due to the drastic differences in temperature. Decide how likely that is for yourself.
And these icebergs wouldn't have anything to do with any of these theories.
What is all this anti-Thai military crap? They took charge (without violence) to ensure that democracy would prevail. There was reason to believe that the previous election was stolen, and they demanded another. They never planned on keeping control, and did nothing to signify that they did. They even stated that they would end the coup if the monarch (who they didn't support giving power to) willed it.
They essentially said, "The election was a fraud. Give us one that isn't, and we'll step down."
And the most of the people agreed. (Obviously not those who supported the alleged election-thief)
What the heck are you talking about? The Question didn't come from him, he got it from one of the prehistoric humans. And the idea was that he had nothing to do with the Question, since he wasn't descended from Earth (nor were any modern "humans"), but rather from the rejects from another planet. So he got the Question from a source that was long from having the Question finished.
I always figured that it was supposed to be six times seven, and that the reason he got six times nine is that the question was still a million or so years from being completed properly.The only reason I would even doubt that for a second is that Adams never pointed it out to shut up the base 13 people. If something was fundamentally wrong with the universe, then I think the fact that the ultimate question is "WHAT DO YOU GET IF YOU MULTIPLY SIX BY SEVEN" shows that well enough.
What's with the negative moderation? It was a little silly, but he was making a valid point about something being wrong with a law that a vast amount of Americans (though maybe not the majority) are breaking.
If only there were millions upon millions of unwanted children that would otherwise die or lead poor quality lives for these gay couples to adopt so that they could counter your argument.
Oh wait...
And if only having kids wasn't a prerequisite for marriage and licenses weren't being revoked from straight couples who can't produce children.
You have a point to an extent since the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is an enabling act. Though I feel I need to elaborate on a couple of your points:
1. concentration camps: They have been building them for a long time. While they are increasing the number of them regularly, they already have a lot.
3. W. will not stay in power. He is a puppet (It is stupid to argue otherwise. Even if you support him and what he does, it wood be foolish to not think that he is a puppet of others controlling his "good" actions.).
4. We will not declare war on Mexico. We will join them and Canada in an "American Union", like the EU.
Paragraph for paragraph here: So let me get this straight: you seem to be saying that an infinitely large universe isn't possible because it is expanding? Or do you think its expanding has to do with my belief that it is infinite? Because it doesn't. Aside from either of those, I can't believe you would even think to utter the word "discovered" in reference to the "edge of the universe", even if you do follow it up with "or theorized". What is outside of that magical boundary? Is that where the monsters live? Or do the spaceships just fall off this "edge"? What law states that no mass can exist beyond this imaginary line?
The Sun's gravity is negligible? Do you even know what gravity is? The Sun's gravity is plenty strong at our distance. Know why I don't lean towards it in the morning? Because I (and the rest of the Earth) are in a free-fall orbit around it.
As I have already stated, those forces aren't negligible. They just don't apply when you are specifically talking about the frame of reference of the planet Earth.
My comment on the "infinite amount of gravity" was really just an aside, and while we obviously don't agree on it, it doesn't matter when you are talking about physics. The measurements of physics are only definable within a frame of reference.
As far as "frame of reference" is concerned, I used it because it is necessary for a measurement for physics (like gravity) and without using the most appropriate frame of reference those measurements are meaningless. And for the record, I am not an engineer or physics major.
As far as my mentioning my other prior comment, I just meant to point it out to you and mention that it wasn't just added.
"The affect of the earth's gravity is so strong, we can forget about the effects of the moon, sun, planets and stars."
The Earth's gravity is not strong. If you are going to speak in terms of what gravitational forces are acting on a object, then the Earth's gravity is negligible at best. I have news for you: everything has an infinite amount of gravity acting on it.
The gravity of a mass extends outward infinitely, always getting weaker, but never getting to zero. The universe is infinitely large, and can be assumed to have an infinite number of objects with mass. This all adds up to infinite gravity acting on everything. (Note: unlike the rest of my argument, this is not dealing with relativity.)
That is why all gravity is measured from a specific frame of reference. Even Earth's 9.8 m/s^2.
"Gravity is the force that pulls us toward the gravitational center of the earth, wherever that is."
And that shows your problem. You aren't able to think outside of the Earth's frame of reference. Gravity is much more than that.
"Although you are falling rapidly, you feel like there is no gravity so you say there is "zero gravity"."
You need to read my comment a few below yours, posted nearly five hours before yours. Namely, the part that says: ""Feels" is just semantic talk for specifying the frame of reference as that of the free-falling object." (i.e. what you "feel" is what you get: zero gravity)
"Because it's (more or less) exactly balanced by the centripetal acceleration of the earth's orbital motion. That doesn't change the fact that there is an attractive force of gravity acting so as to pull the Earth and the Sun together; it may not feel like it, but I wasn't talking about how it feels."
Because it's (more or less) exactly balanced by the direct acceleration of the object's falling motion. That doesn't change the fact that there is an attractive force of gravity acting so as to pull the object and the Earth together; it may not feel like it, but I wasn't talking about how it feels. I was talking about measuring within a frame of reference, which is how things like this are measured. "Feels" is just semantic talk for specifying the frame of reference as that of the free-falling object.
What you are telling me is like saying that when I am driving east at 60 mph, I am actually going 860 mph due to the speed of the Earth's rotation in Northwestern Ohio relative to the Earth's axis, but you conveniently stop there and ignore the 66,000+ mph I am traveling along the Earth's orbit relative to the Sun. You have to pick the most appropriate frame of reference, and when talking about gravity exerted on an object the most appropriate frame of reference is that of the object (which in this case is moving).
How can you understand physics this well, but not grasp relativity at all?
"The point that I was trying to make, and that you appear to be willfully ignoring, is that no matter how it may *feel* to you, there is still a force acting on you so as to pull you towards the earth's surface. If it were not the case, you wouldn't be accelerating towards it."
Thanks for making my point for me. I am accelerating towards Earth at a rate X which is equal to the Earth's gravity at that position. -X + X = 0 Net force exerted on me: 0 metres per second squared. When someone is pulling 3 G's in a jet, they are experiencing 3 times the force of gravity, 3 G's of force is being exerted on their body, word it however you want to. It is also possible to experience negative G's. In between positive and negative is a little round thing I like to call zero. For all intents and purposes, in this frame of reference gravity has gone away, though it remains unchanged from your fixed position on the Earth.
For the price per gallon (~.45 a gallon), they assume 25 mpg. The cost for the trip at that price would be $50, not "$60 or more". If you are going to compare things, don't do it misleadingly. My brother gets 10 mpg in his truck, so I could say that "At today's gas prices, covering that distance can cost $125." Then I can compare it to my Mom's old Metro which got 50 mpg and say "the EEStor device would power a car for the equivalent of about 18 cents a gallon."
Use a different system, or at least be consistent with what you do use.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess we just see things differently. I say tomato, you say, "OMGWTFBBQ! That guy disagreed with someone, he sux!!!11!11!!one"
Good point. I get really sick of people explaining themselves after making a statement or a point. Why don't we put a 120 character limit on all posts? Will that keep you from bitching at people who replied to someone else?
Where the heck is this $400 number coming from? I looked all over, and the only price I found was half that. They have a press clippings page, and the most recent link there (October 23, 2006) clearly states an expected price around $200.
Are you trying to say that an entertainment device centered around videogames is the same as a PC? You should tell everyone you know. All of your PC needs met for $400 at most! No wonder almost every house in America has a 360!
Congratulations, genius. We are talking about files ten times the size. The whole point of next-gen media is HD, and at about 5.5 GB / hour you get an 11 GB file for a two hour movie, and as I mentioned before, even 4 Mb/s connections are better than your average broadband. Otherwise the message would be the inane "DVD is Dead" and /. hopefully wouldn't be that myopic to post an article about it.
That would be awesome, but it doesn't change the fact that most people (outside of /.) will still prefer discs to whatever horribly DRMed form of downloadable content that the movie industry decides to use. As long as they can take that BD into the next room or to a friends, thats what they will want to do. If they can't do that, then they would rather just have DVDs. Most people don't want their computer right by their TV, or to have to run cables between rooms from one to the other. And by the way, decent (though maybe not "average") connections of 3-4 Mb/s are good enough for most "rental" scenarios. You just have to decide what to watch the day before and download it overnight. The only problem is with same day decisions to download a movie.
Not in most states. It doubles as a "Keep your license" tax. (For liability, at least. For many, full coverage doubles as a "condition of your loan" fee.)
The process is the most important part. Without it, you can't solve the problem.
The grocery store charges X for gallons of milk, and Y for half-gallons. Which is a better buy?
Memorization is totally useless.
The process can give you the answer.
The real problem is, these people don't have the critical thinking skills to realize that the half-gallon is cheaper if they only drink that much before the rest of a full gallon will go bad.
Exactly. The whole point was that there wasn't a democracy to overthrow because a corrupt PM had stolen it.
And to your last line I will add: why do we criticize Saddam? After all, he was democratically elected wasn't he?
And I'll also add this quote:
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
- Josef Stalin
As for the rest, let me tweak the words of Forrest Gump: "Stupid gets what stupid deserves."
Your future self is a dick! My future self dropped mine off when I was 8 , along with all of the games I would want to play.
Wasn't your future self smart enough to do that?
Mod parent up.
I know no one read the article, so let me relate this to you from the article:
"Scientists had said earlier that it was not unusual to see icebergs so far from the Antarctic coastal region"
The whole point of the article is the danger this poses to ships in the area.
With certain theories, depending on the cause. Really, those theories need to use terms like "climate change" instead to avoid confusion.
Those situations would actually be worse than global warming. With warming, we can just move towards the poles. Maybe things get real bad and Canada is the new Mexico. But with other theories the temperature just gets more extreme, with areas around the equator becoming unlivably hot, areas closer to the poles becoming unlivably cold, and the transition areas becoming more full of violent weather due to the drastic differences in temperature. Decide how likely that is for yourself.
And these icebergs wouldn't have anything to do with any of these theories.
What is all this anti-Thai military crap? They took charge (without violence) to ensure that democracy would prevail. There was reason to believe that the previous election was stolen, and they demanded another. They never planned on keeping control, and did nothing to signify that they did. They even stated that they would end the coup if the monarch (who they didn't support giving power to) willed it.
They essentially said, "The election was a fraud. Give us one that isn't, and we'll step down."
And the most of the people agreed. (Obviously not those who supported the alleged election-thief)
What the heck are you talking about? The Question didn't come from him, he got it from one of the prehistoric humans. And the idea was that he had nothing to do with the Question, since he wasn't descended from Earth (nor were any modern "humans"), but rather from the rejects from another planet. So he got the Question from a source that was long from having the Question finished.
I always figured that it was supposed to be six times seven, and that the reason he got six times nine is that the question was still a million or so years from being completed properly.The only reason I would even doubt that for a second is that Adams never pointed it out to shut up the base 13 people. If something was fundamentally wrong with the universe, then I think the fact that the ultimate question is "WHAT DO YOU GET IF YOU MULTIPLY SIX BY SEVEN" shows that well enough.
What's with the negative moderation? It was a little silly, but he was making a valid point about something being wrong with a law that a vast amount of Americans (though maybe not the majority) are breaking.
If only there were millions upon millions of unwanted children that would otherwise die or lead poor quality lives for these gay couples to adopt so that they could counter your argument.
Oh wait...
And if only having kids wasn't a prerequisite for marriage and licenses weren't being revoked from straight couples who can't produce children.
Oh wait...
You have a point to an extent since the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is an enabling act. Though I feel I need to elaborate on a couple of your points:
1. concentration camps: They have been building them for a long time. While they are increasing the number of them regularly, they already have a lot.
3. W. will not stay in power. He is a puppet (It is stupid to argue otherwise. Even if you support him and what he does, it wood be foolish to not think that he is a puppet of others controlling his "good" actions.).
4. We will not declare war on Mexico. We will join them and Canada in an "American Union", like the EU.
5. This is covered by #4.
Paragraph for paragraph here: So let me get this straight: you seem to be saying that an infinitely large universe isn't possible because it is expanding? Or do you think its expanding has to do with my belief that it is infinite? Because it doesn't. Aside from either of those, I can't believe you would even think to utter the word "discovered" in reference to the "edge of the universe", even if you do follow it up with "or theorized". What is outside of that magical boundary? Is that where the monsters live? Or do the spaceships just fall off this "edge"? What law states that no mass can exist beyond this imaginary line?
The Sun's gravity is negligible? Do you even know what gravity is? The Sun's gravity is plenty strong at our distance. Know why I don't lean towards it in the morning? Because I (and the rest of the Earth) are in a free-fall orbit around it.
As I have already stated, those forces aren't negligible. They just don't apply when you are specifically talking about the frame of reference of the planet Earth.
My comment on the "infinite amount of gravity" was really just an aside, and while we obviously don't agree on it, it doesn't matter when you are talking about physics. The measurements of physics are only definable within a frame of reference.
As far as "frame of reference" is concerned, I used it because it is necessary for a measurement for physics (like gravity) and without using the most appropriate frame of reference those measurements are meaningless. And for the record, I am not an engineer or physics major.
As far as my mentioning my other prior comment, I just meant to point it out to you and mention that it wasn't just added.
"The affect of the earth's gravity is so strong, we can forget about the effects of the moon, sun, planets and stars."
The Earth's gravity is not strong. If you are going to speak in terms of what gravitational forces are acting on a object, then the Earth's gravity is negligible at best. I have news for you: everything has an infinite amount of gravity acting on it.
The gravity of a mass extends outward infinitely, always getting weaker, but never getting to zero. The universe is infinitely large, and can be assumed to have an infinite number of objects with mass. This all adds up to infinite gravity acting on everything. (Note: unlike the rest of my argument, this is not dealing with relativity.)
That is why all gravity is measured from a specific frame of reference. Even Earth's 9.8 m/s^2.
"Gravity is the force that pulls us toward the gravitational center of the earth, wherever that is."
And that shows your problem. You aren't able to think outside of the Earth's frame of reference. Gravity is much more than that.
"Although you are falling rapidly, you feel like there is no gravity so you say there is "zero gravity"."
You need to read my comment a few below yours, posted nearly five hours before yours. Namely, the part that says: ""Feels" is just semantic talk for specifying the frame of reference as that of the free-falling object." (i.e. what you "feel" is what you get: zero gravity)
"Because it's (more or less) exactly balanced by the centripetal acceleration of the earth's orbital motion. That doesn't change the fact that there is an attractive force of gravity acting so as to pull the Earth and the Sun together; it may not feel like it, but I wasn't talking about how it feels."
Because it's (more or less) exactly balanced by the direct acceleration of the object's falling motion. That doesn't change the fact that there is an attractive force of gravity acting so as to pull the object and the Earth together; it may not feel like it, but I wasn't talking about how it feels. I was talking about measuring within a frame of reference, which is how things like this are measured. "Feels" is just semantic talk for specifying the frame of reference as that of the free-falling object.
What you are telling me is like saying that when I am driving east at 60 mph, I am actually going 860 mph due to the speed of the Earth's rotation in Northwestern Ohio relative to the Earth's axis, but you conveniently stop there and ignore the 66,000+ mph I am traveling along the Earth's orbit relative to the Sun. You have to pick the most appropriate frame of reference, and when talking about gravity exerted on an object the most appropriate frame of reference is that of the object (which in this case is moving).
How can you understand physics this well, but not grasp relativity at all?
"The point that I was trying to make, and that you appear to be willfully ignoring, is that no matter how it may *feel* to you, there is still a force acting on you so as to pull you towards the earth's surface. If it were not the case, you wouldn't be accelerating towards it."
Thanks for making my point for me. I am accelerating towards Earth at a rate X which is equal to the Earth's gravity at that position. -X + X = 0 Net force exerted on me: 0 metres per second squared. When someone is pulling 3 G's in a jet, they are experiencing 3 times the force of gravity, 3 G's of force is being exerted on their body, word it however you want to. It is also possible to experience negative G's. In between positive and negative is a little round thing I like to call zero. For all intents and purposes, in this frame of reference gravity has gone away, though it remains unchanged from your fixed position on the Earth.
For the price per gallon (~.45 a gallon), they assume 25 mpg. The cost for the trip at that price would be $50, not "$60 or more". If you are going to compare things, don't do it misleadingly. My brother gets 10 mpg in his truck, so I could say that "At today's gas prices, covering that distance can cost $125." Then I can compare it to my Mom's old Metro which got 50 mpg and say "the EEStor device would power a car for the equivalent of about 18 cents a gallon."
Use a different system, or at least be consistent with what you do use.