Are you saying that you can't sit for 2 hours without eating and/or drinking?
I frequently (twice a week) go to the cinema, thanks to the great offer by UGC Cinemas in the UK, where you can pay a tenner a month and watch an unlimited (and that's really unlimited, not ISP-speak unlimited) number of showings. I don't think I've bought ANYTHING in the cinema in the last 6 months. I'm quite content to sit and watch a film without food or drink.
How, pray tell, would the bottom of the lake warm up? All that's below the water is a pipe.
At some point warmer water will have to replace colder water in the lake. If you remove cold water, then the amount of cold water in the lake decreases. For the layer that the water is being removed from to remain at the same temperature it was before removal, either the layer must become smaller (and leave less for removal) or surrounding water must cool, meaning that other water must then warm to conserve energy.
Removing cold water will increase the lake's overall temperature. The question is by how much, and whether that change is significant.
So I contacted my ISP's technical support, and they added reverse lookup support as standard on all their packages. Its nice to know that there are companies that'll go that extra mile.
Note that I am a home user on f2s's cheapest subscription, and it took less than 24 hours from my enquiry to full support.
Non-sequitur.
For Taoism to point to the creation of Good and Evil, there must already exist the concept of Good and Evil. To make claims that Good triggers Evil, one must be aware of the existence, or the possibility, of both.
He could just operate under a whitelist - every address gets blocked unless its specifically allowed. If you're just throwing an address into say, a website for registration, no need to whitelist it, but anything important or known to be secure is whitelisted.
Its the same this side of the pond (UK).
I learnt pretty quickly in Secondary school (age 11 and up) that telling the teacher you'd finished the questions only got you more of the same, and so sitting and chatting to the people next to me or helping them out with their work was a better use of my time. I wasn't about to volunteer for tedium.
Everyone knew I was bright, but I got sick of proving it to every new teacher by jumping through hoops. Hoops that weren't particularly high or narrow.
Part of the problem, I think, is that if you complain about not being challenged enough, you're seen as elitist or that somehow you're insulting those that can't keep up, or are holding you back.
You would never expect someone with an IQ of 25 to cope in a "normal" class, so why expect it of someone with an IQ of 175?
I don't think the parent was suggesting that Russians don't care when a cosmonaut dies, only that they are not afflicted with the Mourning Sickness and preoccupation with high-profile investigations and commitees that seem to pervade the rest of the Western world.
I have one the Trackmans with the ball under the fingers, and use it maybe 8 hours a day and have never had any trouble with RSI or other discomfort. Then again I've never had any trouble with any other mouse either, so maybe I'm just resilient;)
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Eugenics is one possible product of "Darwinism", but not the only possible product. If you consider "fitness" as "the ability to survive", that being the only logical definition in evolutionary terms, then "survival of the fittest" means "survival of those best able to survive". Belonging to a society that increases your chances of survival despite your genetic defects is an effective evolutionary strategy, the equal and opposite of eugenics. As long as the ability to treat and minimise the effects of these defects remains effective, eugenics is unnecessary.
You cannot simply pump resources into a goal such as "world peace" and expect it to come about. If and when world peace happens, it will be because of some scientific or social revolution, and not because someone saved a few billion dollars/pounds on a space mission.
My point is that the Vikings DIDN'T kill the natives. If they had, I wouldn't be here. Yes, they liked a good rape and pillage, but no, that wasn't their main occupation, and their image is due to bad PR and the distaste of the Church. They weren't conquerors - they weren't out to expand their empire. They were assimilated into the society's they encountered; they didn't overthrow them. How can you say you would not respect someone who is illiterate? Literacy is a product of education; of social status. I find it sour that someone so apparently bent on world peace and the equality of man would judge someone simply because they didn't have access to a college education.
So you're saying that because in the past, exploration meant expansion, that in the future that will continue to be true?
My metaphor wasn't intended to stretch to abstract notions like "world peace". Man has a strong urge to expand his PHYSICAL horizons.
The distinction between trader and pirate is not recent. It has only recently become widely accepted as people have become better educated, but they always were traders and settlers more predominantly than pirates. Just because people chose to believe a different story doesn't make the truth any less true.
The literacy of the times can be the only measure of the literacy of any people in that time. Calling them illiterate implies some weakness or inferiority on their part - a sense of inferiority which is not justified.
Exploring new territories does not mean expanding to new territories. Exploration is not expansion.
With regards to horizons, either you're being obtuse, or you do not understand metaphor.
As for Vikings, the image of the pillaging invader from the North is nice and all, but in reality they were colonists and traders who were happily integrated into society. The church didn't like them (well, their religion) much, and much of their image is due to that influence. As to their literacy, they were probably as literate as anyone else at that time.
We don't need territory that much any more and your stone age preconceptions about optimal strategies are no longer as useful as they used to be.
I never said anything about territory. My comments were about human ambition and our natural urge to further ourselves. If your preconceptions see any exploration as expansionist, I cannot help that.
This talk of trips to the moon and Mars makes me ask: why?
Because man always has and always will seek to further his horizons. We've run out of horizons on Earth.
What can people on the moon or Mars do that a robot can't?"
Experience it first hand. Describe being there in a qualitative as well as a quantitative manner. In short, FEEL what its like to be there. If you fly a kite, you can hardly say you flew, can you? Similarly, putting a robot on the moon or Mars does not justify the statement that man has been there.
Robots are even better suited because, well, they can be specially built to be suited.
No, robots are actually LESS well suited becuase they MUST be built to suit. Being specialised is not a good trait when you are unsure of the circumstances in which you might find yourself. The ability to adapt to changing circumstance is not one that the field of robotics has yet mastered. Thankfully nature has done the work for us, and we are natural adaptors.
Why would someone aware of the existence of XFree86 be searching on MSN anyway?
Because they're aware of its existence, but don't know anything about it. Just because you've heard of an open source project doesn't mean you are a Linux nut. People who are SEARCHING for XFree86 rather than just going to XFree86.org are more likely to be searching on MSN than a "better" search engine due to the fact that they're not savvy.
Put a keypad on the other side of the door that will only let you out if you enter a different code to the one you used to get in. That code is then the code you use to get in next time.
Of course, this is weak to people who will just use alternating codes, but security is always inversely proportional to convenience.
Slashdot Mirror
Tautologous as it sounds (and is), yes. But that is not the full extent of evolutionary theory.
I frequently (twice a week) go to the cinema, thanks to the great offer by UGC Cinemas in the UK, where you can pay a tenner a month and watch an unlimited (and that's really unlimited, not ISP-speak unlimited) number of showings. I don't think I've bought ANYTHING in the cinema in the last 6 months. I'm quite content to sit and watch a film without food or drink.
At some point warmer water will have to replace colder water in the lake. If you remove cold water, then the amount of cold water in the lake decreases. For the layer that the water is being removed from to remain at the same temperature it was before removal, either the layer must become smaller (and leave less for removal) or surrounding water must cool, meaning that other water must then warm to conserve energy.
Removing cold water will increase the lake's overall temperature. The question is by how much, and whether that change is significant.
I'd like to see how any film can be more faithful than that one, because it pretty much reproduces the story word for word.
So I contacted my ISP's technical support, and they added reverse lookup support as standard on all their packages. Its nice to know that there are companies that'll go that extra mile. Note that I am a home user on f2s's cheapest subscription, and it took less than 24 hours from my enquiry to full support.
Non-sequitur. For Taoism to point to the creation of Good and Evil, there must already exist the concept of Good and Evil. To make claims that Good triggers Evil, one must be aware of the existence, or the possibility, of both.
We should organise a mass protest. On 31 May everybody should submit the above ask slashdot. Start campaigning now.
You can't replace all linear nets with a single neuron. A single neuron cannot perform XOR.
He could just operate under a whitelist - every address gets blocked unless its specifically allowed. If you're just throwing an address into say, a website for registration, no need to whitelist it, but anything important or known to be secure is whitelisted.
Its the same this side of the pond (UK). I learnt pretty quickly in Secondary school (age 11 and up) that telling the teacher you'd finished the questions only got you more of the same, and so sitting and chatting to the people next to me or helping them out with their work was a better use of my time. I wasn't about to volunteer for tedium. Everyone knew I was bright, but I got sick of proving it to every new teacher by jumping through hoops. Hoops that weren't particularly high or narrow. Part of the problem, I think, is that if you complain about not being challenged enough, you're seen as elitist or that somehow you're insulting those that can't keep up, or are holding you back. You would never expect someone with an IQ of 25 to cope in a "normal" class, so why expect it of someone with an IQ of 175?
I don't think the parent was suggesting that Russians don't care when a cosmonaut dies, only that they are not afflicted with the
Mourning Sickness and preoccupation with high-profile investigations and commitees that seem to pervade the rest of the Western world.
I have one the Trackmans with the ball under the fingers, and use it maybe 8 hours a day and have never had any trouble with RSI or other discomfort. Then again I've never had any trouble with any other mouse either, so maybe I'm just resilient ;)
Eugenics is one possible product of "Darwinism", but not the only possible product. If you consider "fitness" as "the ability to survive", that being the only logical definition in evolutionary terms, then "survival of the fittest" means "survival of those best able to survive". Belonging to a society that increases your chances of survival despite your genetic defects is an effective evolutionary strategy, the equal and opposite of eugenics. As long as the ability to treat and minimise the effects of these defects remains effective, eugenics is unnecessary.
A*, Hill-climbing, Current-Best. Perhaps too much Planning and Search coursework...
My point is that the Vikings DIDN'T kill the natives. If they had, I wouldn't be here. Yes, they liked a good rape and pillage, but no, that wasn't their main occupation, and their image is due to bad PR and the distaste of the Church. They weren't conquerors - they weren't out to expand their empire. They were assimilated into the society's they encountered; they didn't overthrow them.
How can you say you would not respect someone who is illiterate? Literacy is a product of education; of social status. I find it sour that someone so apparently bent on world peace and the equality of man would judge someone simply because they didn't have access to a college education.
My metaphor wasn't intended to stretch to abstract notions like "world peace". Man has a strong urge to expand his PHYSICAL horizons.
The distinction between trader and pirate is not recent. It has only recently become widely accepted as people have become better educated, but they always were traders and settlers more predominantly than pirates. Just because people chose to believe a different story doesn't make the truth any less true.
The literacy of the times can be the only measure of the literacy of any people in that time. Calling them illiterate implies some weakness or inferiority on their part - a sense of inferiority which is not justified.
I don't think the mods get it. A shame.
Exploring new territories does not mean expanding to new territories. Exploration is not expansion. With regards to horizons, either you're being obtuse, or you do not understand metaphor. As for Vikings, the image of the pillaging invader from the North is nice and all, but in reality they were colonists and traders who were happily integrated into society. The church didn't like them (well, their religion) much, and much of their image is due to that influence. As to their literacy, they were probably as literate as anyone else at that time.
You obviously know very little about Vikings.
We don't need territory that much any more and your stone age preconceptions about optimal strategies are no longer as useful as they used to be. I never said anything about territory. My comments were about human ambition and our natural urge to further ourselves. If your preconceptions see any exploration as expansionist, I cannot help that.
Because man always has and always will seek to further his horizons. We've run out of horizons on Earth.
What can people on the moon or Mars do that a robot can't?"
Experience it first hand. Describe being there in a qualitative as well as a quantitative manner. In short, FEEL what its like to be there. If you fly a kite, you can hardly say you flew, can you? Similarly, putting a robot on the moon or Mars does not justify the statement that man has been there.
Robots are even better suited because, well, they can be specially built to be suited.
No, robots are actually LESS well suited becuase they MUST be built to suit. Being specialised is not a good trait when you are unsure of the circumstances in which you might find yourself. The ability to adapt to changing circumstance is not one that the field of robotics has yet mastered. Thankfully nature has done the work for us, and we are natural adaptors.
ONLY savvy people run XFree86. Perhaps you are using a previously unknown (ie made up) definition of "savvy".
Because they're aware of its existence, but don't know anything about it. Just because you've heard of an open source project doesn't mean you are a Linux nut. People who are SEARCHING for XFree86 rather than just going to XFree86.org are more likely to be searching on MSN than a "better" search engine due to the fact that they're not savvy.
Of course, this is weak to people who will just use alternating codes, but security is always inversely proportional to convenience.
Doesn't change the fact that our beer's better, though ;)