Orbit(v): "to move around (a heavenly body) in an orbit " Orbit(n): "the curved path followed by something, such as a heavenly body or spacecraft, in its motion around another body"
Its path is curved, and it moves around the sun, thus the moon can be stated to be in orbit of the sun. It's not a useful definition (as truthfully the moon orbits another body which orbits the sun) but it is a true definition.
How do you get from "This is a new thing and you have to do special stuff to get it to work for you" to "This doesn't cause anymore fragmentation than before"? Having new things you have to code for is the very definition of fragmentation, and adding a new type of browser that specifically requires extra code and could easily gain a significant usermarket is a step towards more fragmentation, not less.
Just because you can code for it or leave it out doesn't mean it doesn't cause fragmentation. You can leave out IE8 code and just code for Mozilla to save fragmentation, but that's not a possibility for most web developers. As soon as Frame becomes popular it'll end up being yet another special case on the list of things you need to write extra code for, and that's a bad thing for a company that's supposed to be about embracing standards.
You really think that the only people who want guns legal are rural? And that the laws are "rural friendly" in that regards? I've got news for you, the vast majority of gun owners and enthusiasts are urban dwellers, and that isn't looking like it's going to change anymore now than it has in the past couple of decades.
In addition, you really think that the majority of murders with weapons wouldn't happen without weapons? People murdered each other before guns were invented, removing them might make a few cases go away but won't impact the vast majority of homicides.
Good luck voting to stop that bear from getting you by the way, I'm sure he'll listen to your excellently thought out democratic system of determining who he should eat next.
-Someone who owns no guns but isn't dumb enough to think guns are the root of problems humanity has had to deal with for centuries before the discovery of gunpowder.
You try that, considering there are no laws against not believing in something (and openly stating it, at least here in the US, I hear there are laws against denying the holocaust in some parts of Europe) there's no grounds for a suit, so Pancake's point still stands.
Topping off? Why do people continue doing that? It's unsafe and it's just plain dumb, there's a better than even chance you'll be paying for gas that goes right back into their system.
Moral, yes. Legal (as far as I know, IANAL), no. A lot of law today is about winning, not about finding out the facts, and there's no legal reason not to try and prevent information harmful to your side from being introduced.
I think you guys are referring to two different we's. The "How much lag we can detect' we was referring to how much on-screen lag players can detect while playing while you seem to be referring to how much mental lag researchers have found in people's responses.
"besides voting for a charismatic leader who promised to improve things"
Get my facts straight? I said in my post that he was elected democratically, and then he used a number of non-democratic methods to turn his country into a dictatorship. You said that he, quote, "used hate speech to turn the country from a democracy to a dictatorship" which is blatantly false, the anti-jew hate speech had as little to do with his rise to power as, say, his like of vegetarianism.
False. Hitler used a number of techniques to gain executive and legislative power, then made the country a dictatorship, the people had little to do with it (besides voting for a charismatic leader who promised to improve things). If anything his popularity came more from decreasing unemployment and increasing public perception of germany's wealth than from hate speech.
Besides even if you were correct that's not a logical argument. It's classic Reductio ad Hitlerum, an ad hominem argument using hitler, which is a logical fallacy. Just because one man used something poorly does not make that evil, the same argument you're making can (and has been) made for banning vegetarians for instance, because hitler supported that.
You have no idea what Rule of Men means do you? Rule of Law is when something is written down as law, immutable (to a certain degree) and applying to everyone. Rule of Men is where the only law is whatever someone says today, and it can change tomorrow.
The Constitution is Rule of Law for the simple reason that if the president (for example) wanted to arrest someone for the crime of having a certain video game he can't do it, because it's not a legal thing to arrest someone for. Under Rule of Men that's entirely possible assuming the President determines the law.
Unit Death, limited time travel energy, limited player time (eventually the event's going to pass off the left side of the timeline, no more undoing when that happens).
You can only mess around with a few minutes, past and future of the present.
That's not even close to how Achron is currently described as working. Instead you'd be playing in the present and you'd notice your opponent was in the past (it displays player's location in time) causing damage (it also displays when in time you take damage). Then you could decide whether to go back and fight him, send some extra units back to help, or just ignore it and push the offensive in the future (the units won't be damaged/destroyed until a 'time wave' arrives, which also show up on the past display).
Units don't disappear when they're killed in the past, the disappear a timewave passes through some time when they don't exist then reaches the present.
Quick! A Lion is roaring and approaching you. You're trapped in a cave with no other exit. What do you do?
Pratchett built an imaginary world where there were always ways around using violence. In the real world it's sometime the only way to do something. Sometimes there is only one solution to a problem, and sometimes that solution is violence.
The Aluminum powder in the article is nano-scale, good luck with that grinder. Normal Aluminum powder could probably produce a similar (though much less powerful) effect since it's one of the two components in (the most common form of) Thermite.
Free Aluminum is non-inert (that's kind of the entire point of a rocket which uses free aluminum as one of its fuels). Aluminum bound to oxygen (like that which is found in water ice, aluminum's bond is more powerful that hydrogen), on the other hand, can be (depending on formula of course) one of the strongest bonds in the natural world. Bauxite (AL2O3) is very inert compared to most other compounds.
Just because one of the chemicals involved is non-inert doesn't mean the product will be non-inert. Chemistry 101 and the existence of Salt teaches that.
R2-D2 - Meh, I don't see why you'd need a droid who was built to interface with ships directly and only speak to people via the ship's computer to have the ability to speak. C-3P0 - Why is the protocol droid, a droid built for the purpose of translating things without any military coding a coward? I don't know, maybe because he's not stupid? Put yourself in the situations that 3P0 gets into and tell me you wouldn't be scared Lightsabers - There are lightsabers with handguards in the EU, but for the most part there's no need for them. When you can sense your opponent trying to slide the lightsaber down to get your fingers a few seconds before they do there's plenty of time to react. Blasters - I agree with all of his assessments, but he misses the point. Blasters do insane damage, enough to burn through stormtrooper armor (which would almost certainly block a bullet) in a single shot. That's a good enough reason to use them, after all guns are incredibly loud and the muzzle flash reveals your position but I doubt you'll find anyone arguing that arrows are better. Landspeeders - Meh, true enough. I doubt they have safety regulations on Tatooine though, and until recently most cars had none of the stuff that a landspeeder lacks. It's standard sci-fi protocal by now to skip seat-belts:P Stormtrooper Armor - Standing out is the point (they're intimidating) and the helmet doesn't restrict view, it offers 360 degree view to those who are trained in its use. Luke didn't know how to turn it on so he got the standard no peripherals view Death Star II - The path was because the station wasn't finished yet Sarlaac - Tack on the fact that it can eat the same meal for 1000 years. Jabba's sarlacc must have been full all the time Asteroid Worm - It's main foodsources are asteroid minerals (which it gets from being in the asteroid) and mynocks. Ships are just a delicacy that it eats when it can Midi-Chlorians - True enough, that was one of the dumbest things ever introduced to the Star Wars universe (especially since methods of detecting high force-sensitivity already existed in the EU. Why none of them was used is beyond me.
That complaint always bugged me. I know of 4 occasions in Episode IV (I won't get into the other episodes) where the stormtroopers fire at the heroes.
1. 3P0/R2 wander across the field of fire - Troopers shoot past them to get the actual targets (exactly as you would expect from trained marksmen) 2. Falcon takes off - Troopers shoot at AND HIT a vehicle moving at high speed away from them 3. Trash Compactor - Troopers aren't able to hit a group of people taking cover a good distance off down a dark cooridor. Concealment and Camouflage but they're able to get pretty close in the few seconds they have before they escape. 4. Deathstar Escape Scene - Troopers miss every shot at the group of rebels who are going to lead them to the rebellion base...hmm, could it be they were ordered to miss?
Every other time we see the stormtroopers fire they hit their targets perfectly.
Really? You know, if someone walked up to me on the street and told me I had, I don't know, let's say, white skin (when really having white skin is pretty much exclusive to people with albinism) I wouldn't be insulted, heck, go ahead and tell me I have tangerine skin for all I care, it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.
Why would getting someone's skin color wrong be insulting?
"On the one hand, are you under some delusion that your health insurance company is somehow doing a better job? With greater reliability, efficiency, and accountability? Fewer errors, fewer denied valid claims?? Do you just take it on faith, or do you have any evidence at all that your insurance company is doing a better job?"
I don't know, if a health care company was getting >99% of its valid claims denied (much like how 1% of its claims right, so I do know it's doing a better job.
Now if you're asking about it doing a good job, that's another question. The fact is, however, that this is such an absurdly low ratio of correct convictions to false alarms that a cat typing names on a keyboard could do a better job.
Slashdot Mirror
This is informative rather than funny? Okay then...we have some...interesting...editors today...
Orbit(v): "to move around (a heavenly body) in an orbit "
Orbit(n): "the curved path followed by something, such as a heavenly body or spacecraft, in its motion around another body"
Its path is curved, and it moves around the sun, thus the moon can be stated to be in orbit of the sun. It's not a useful definition (as truthfully the moon orbits another body which orbits the sun) but it is a true definition.
How do you get from "This is a new thing and you have to do special stuff to get it to work for you" to "This doesn't cause anymore fragmentation than before"? Having new things you have to code for is the very definition of fragmentation, and adding a new type of browser that specifically requires extra code and could easily gain a significant usermarket is a step towards more fragmentation, not less.
Just because you can code for it or leave it out doesn't mean it doesn't cause fragmentation. You can leave out IE8 code and just code for Mozilla to save fragmentation, but that's not a possibility for most web developers. As soon as Frame becomes popular it'll end up being yet another special case on the list of things you need to write extra code for, and that's a bad thing for a company that's supposed to be about embracing standards.
You really think that the only people who want guns legal are rural? And that the laws are "rural friendly" in that regards? I've got news for you, the vast majority of gun owners and enthusiasts are urban dwellers, and that isn't looking like it's going to change anymore now than it has in the past couple of decades.
In addition, you really think that the majority of murders with weapons wouldn't happen without weapons? People murdered each other before guns were invented, removing them might make a few cases go away but won't impact the vast majority of homicides.
Good luck voting to stop that bear from getting you by the way, I'm sure he'll listen to your excellently thought out democratic system of determining who he should eat next.
-Someone who owns no guns but isn't dumb enough to think guns are the root of problems humanity has had to deal with for centuries before the discovery of gunpowder.
You try that, considering there are no laws against not believing in something (and openly stating it, at least here in the US, I hear there are laws against denying the holocaust in some parts of Europe) there's no grounds for a suit, so Pancake's point still stands.
Topping off? Why do people continue doing that? It's unsafe and it's just plain dumb, there's a better than even chance you'll be paying for gas that goes right back into their system.
Moral, yes. Legal (as far as I know, IANAL), no. A lot of law today is about winning, not about finding out the facts, and there's no legal reason not to try and prevent information harmful to your side from being introduced.
Who said anything about money? Rewarded != Monetary compensation, although paying minimum wage for jury duty would be a nice start.
I think you guys are referring to two different we's. The "How much lag we can detect' we was referring to how much on-screen lag players can detect while playing while you seem to be referring to how much mental lag researchers have found in people's responses.
"besides voting for a charismatic leader who promised to improve things"
Get my facts straight? I said in my post that he was elected democratically, and then he used a number of non-democratic methods to turn his country into a dictatorship. You said that he, quote, "used hate speech to turn the country from a democracy to a dictatorship" which is blatantly false, the anti-jew hate speech had as little to do with his rise to power as, say, his like of vegetarianism.
False. Hitler used a number of techniques to gain executive and legislative power, then made the country a dictatorship, the people had little to do with it (besides voting for a charismatic leader who promised to improve things). If anything his popularity came more from decreasing unemployment and increasing public perception of germany's wealth than from hate speech.
Besides even if you were correct that's not a logical argument. It's classic Reductio ad Hitlerum, an ad hominem argument using hitler, which is a logical fallacy. Just because one man used something poorly does not make that evil, the same argument you're making can (and has been) made for banning vegetarians for instance, because hitler supported that.
Which requires low confidence in your current security professional.
And how does its protection against bullets compare?
You have no idea what Rule of Men means do you? Rule of Law is when something is written down as law, immutable (to a certain degree) and applying to everyone. Rule of Men is where the only law is whatever someone says today, and it can change tomorrow.
The Constitution is Rule of Law for the simple reason that if the president (for example) wanted to arrest someone for the crime of having a certain video game he can't do it, because it's not a legal thing to arrest someone for. Under Rule of Men that's entirely possible assuming the President determines the law.
a) Observing the past doesn't cost any energy but they're repeatedly said that you regenerate energy faster the closer you are to the present.
Unit Death, limited time travel energy, limited player time (eventually the event's going to pass off the left side of the timeline, no more undoing when that happens).
You can only mess around with a few minutes, past and future of the present.
That's not even close to how Achron is currently described as working. Instead you'd be playing in the present and you'd notice your opponent was in the past (it displays player's location in time) causing damage (it also displays when in time you take damage). Then you could decide whether to go back and fight him, send some extra units back to help, or just ignore it and push the offensive in the future (the units won't be damaged/destroyed until a 'time wave' arrives, which also show up on the past display).
Units don't disappear when they're killed in the past, the disappear a timewave passes through some time when they don't exist then reaches the present.
Your FF is bugged. Clear Private Data removes everything but the bookmarks from my awesomebar.
That's not the intended functionality.
Quick! A Lion is roaring and approaching you. You're trapped in a cave with no other exit. What do you do?
Pratchett built an imaginary world where there were always ways around using violence. In the real world it's sometime the only way to do something. Sometimes there is only one solution to a problem, and sometimes that solution is violence.
The Aluminum powder in the article is nano-scale, good luck with that grinder. Normal Aluminum powder could probably produce a similar (though much less powerful) effect since it's one of the two components in (the most common form of) Thermite.
Free Aluminum is non-inert (that's kind of the entire point of a rocket which uses free aluminum as one of its fuels). Aluminum bound to oxygen (like that which is found in water ice, aluminum's bond is more powerful that hydrogen), on the other hand, can be (depending on formula of course) one of the strongest bonds in the natural world. Bauxite (AL2O3) is very inert compared to most other compounds.
Just because one of the chemicals involved is non-inert doesn't mean the product will be non-inert. Chemistry 101 and the existence of Salt teaches that.
R2-D2 - Meh, I don't see why you'd need a droid who was built to interface with ships directly and only speak to people via the ship's computer to have the ability to speak. :P
C-3P0 - Why is the protocol droid, a droid built for the purpose of translating things without any military coding a coward? I don't know, maybe because he's not stupid? Put yourself in the situations that 3P0 gets into and tell me you wouldn't be scared
Lightsabers - There are lightsabers with handguards in the EU, but for the most part there's no need for them. When you can sense your opponent trying to slide the lightsaber down to get your fingers a few seconds before they do there's plenty of time to react.
Blasters - I agree with all of his assessments, but he misses the point. Blasters do insane damage, enough to burn through stormtrooper armor (which would almost certainly block a bullet) in a single shot. That's a good enough reason to use them, after all guns are incredibly loud and the muzzle flash reveals your position but I doubt you'll find anyone arguing that arrows are better.
Landspeeders - Meh, true enough. I doubt they have safety regulations on Tatooine though, and until recently most cars had none of the stuff that a landspeeder lacks. It's standard sci-fi protocal by now to skip seat-belts
Stormtrooper Armor - Standing out is the point (they're intimidating) and the helmet doesn't restrict view, it offers 360 degree view to those who are trained in its use. Luke didn't know how to turn it on so he got the standard no peripherals view
Death Star II - The path was because the station wasn't finished yet
Sarlaac - Tack on the fact that it can eat the same meal for 1000 years. Jabba's sarlacc must have been full all the time
Asteroid Worm - It's main foodsources are asteroid minerals (which it gets from being in the asteroid) and mynocks. Ships are just a delicacy that it eats when it can
Midi-Chlorians - True enough, that was one of the dumbest things ever introduced to the Star Wars universe (especially since methods of detecting high force-sensitivity already existed in the EU. Why none of them was used is beyond me.
That complaint always bugged me. I know of 4 occasions in Episode IV (I won't get into the other episodes) where the stormtroopers fire at the heroes.
1. 3P0/R2 wander across the field of fire - Troopers shoot past them to get the actual targets (exactly as you would expect from trained marksmen)
2. Falcon takes off - Troopers shoot at AND HIT a vehicle moving at high speed away from them
3. Trash Compactor - Troopers aren't able to hit a group of people taking cover a good distance off down a dark cooridor. Concealment and Camouflage but they're able to get pretty close in the few seconds they have before they escape.
4. Deathstar Escape Scene - Troopers miss every shot at the group of rebels who are going to lead them to the rebellion base...hmm, could it be they were ordered to miss?
Every other time we see the stormtroopers fire they hit their targets perfectly.
"that surely is an insult"
Really? You know, if someone walked up to me on the street and told me I had, I don't know, let's say, white skin (when really having white skin is pretty much exclusive to people with albinism) I wouldn't be insulted, heck, go ahead and tell me I have tangerine skin for all I care, it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.
Why would getting someone's skin color wrong be insulting?
"On the one hand, are you under some delusion that your health insurance company is somehow doing a better job? With greater reliability, efficiency, and accountability? Fewer errors, fewer denied valid claims?? Do you just take it on faith, or do you have any evidence at all that your insurance company is doing a better job?"
I don't know, if a health care company was getting >99% of its valid claims denied (much like how 1% of its claims right, so I do know it's doing a better job.
Now if you're asking about it doing a good job, that's another question. The fact is, however, that this is such an absurdly low ratio of correct convictions to false alarms that a cat typing names on a keyboard could do a better job.