Comment Re:Fear mongering? (Score 1) 384
likely.
likely.
The destruction would have been far less than that of Nagasaki or Hiroshima, since it would have detonated on the ground, instead of high in the air over the cities in Japan.
The only reason he didn't die is that there weren't any bullets around.
Equivocate much?
But what would be really useful is a snooze button for emails that would archive them for a few days (or whatever time you specify for that email) and then have it pop up in your inbox as if new after that.
Why does it need to be this cloth? How about dumping 500 tons of cement on top of it?
Mammals and birds have a better chance, and it seems like a skimmer like this gets them into the boat and gives rescuers a chance to wash them. They're probably better off in the boat than out of it.
I'm not entirely sure - for two reasons:
1) Nets are huge. If you get dragged into one, even one that floats on top, and more and more oil is dumped onto you, I think you're going to die unless you're the last thing to get dragged in
2) I'm rather curious about the survival rate of birds, mammals, turtles etc., after they have been cleaned. It might look really nice, that you start with an oil covered pelican and end up with a shiny white and clean pelican, but if it dies a week after you set it free, because it's swallowed too much oil, infections or whatever, that doesn't bode well for the creature. Might be more humane to kill it instead of cleaning it off.
Yeah, once the oil is on the birds, they'll likely die.
Of course, if money is no object, more of everything will certainly improve things.
Nope. Increasing resolution without first increasing light gathering ability will make the image worse. In fact, most digital cameras would produce better pictures if they decreased the resolution. Manufacturers put a higher pixel density than is useful because megapixels sell: the salesman and your mom, and even you see two cameras, one with 6mp, and one with 12mp, and you assume the 12mp camera is better. If they're similar in other respects, the one with a smaller pixel density (the 6mp one) is guaranteed to be better.
Agreed. This is why browser sniffing is bad. Just design it to be standards compliant, and let the browsers that can't follow the standards fail, hopefully gracefully. Blocking IE6 users completely is just pointless.
He was doubting that a hardcore Slashdot reader has any female acquaintances, not that the AC was you.
...on a fresh install, anyway. The percentage increases the older your computer gets!
And if in 2035 we redo the calculations and find it has no chance of impacting the earth, maybe we can keep the thing around and ready to stop other asteroids with some modification. Seems like a handy thing to have lying around.
Nice attempt to give your creationist/Intelligent design beliefs credibility but the world doesn't work that way. It's an interesting twist on argument from authority though.
WTF?
On the 6th birthday of Firefox, let's have a funeral for the 6th version of Internet Explorer. It's about time. 9 years is too long for a version of a browser to live.
When it's really windy, use the energy to lift huge quantities of weight to the top of a deep shaft. Then when electricity is needed, allow the weights to fall down the shaft, with the cables they are suspended from driving generators on the way down. Won't wear out like a chemical battery, plus it's not toxic and can be made out of almost anything.
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
