mossoi

PHP is more popular in open source and freelance area. ASP is still the most popular choice for corporate networks and is more likely to get you a stable job should you want one.

I would go for a server side language like PHP or possibly ASP. JavaScript has it's uses but not many on a professional site. It tends to be used for "cool" things that essentially detract from the site. http://www.smartsitecms.net is a content management system that I'm building at the moment using PHP and mySQL. It may help demonstrate what server side scripting can do.

Possibly the tail is still in the process of evolving out of animals although many animals do still use their tails for communication.

It's pretty straight forward if you have the right tools. Take a look at http://www.kustompcs.co.uk

Not really, the point I'm making is that maybe MORE could be defined as the amount of time the criteria can be proven to be true - in this case the sphericity can be proven more often than the blueness. Nobody has yet addressed the question of how do we define MORE in this instance.

We can see the colour of PART of the ball but for all we know the rest of the ball is not blue. This is similarly true for if the ball was at distance. The only way of knowing for sure that the ball is blue is to see all of it. Seeing all of it will also discover the shape.

I'm using the silver XP theme Ok, so we seem to have established that it's easier to achieve blueness than sphericity but does that make the ball MORE spherical? This is only the case if we assume more to mean most accurately. I'll go back to the ball in darkness, while it's easy to feel that it is spherical it is impossible to feel that it is blue. So the ball can be proven to be spherical more of the time than it can be proven to be blue. If we remove the ability to feel the ball, let's say put it behind glass, we can see that is blue but we can also see that it is spherical. Ok, we can't define the shape of those areas of the ball that we cannot see but then neither can we define the colour of those areas. So, whenever the ball can be proven to be blue it can also be proven to be spherical. When the ball can be proven to be spherical it isn't always the case that it can be proven to be blue.

You haven't seen inside my PC

Aha, but once you have achieved perfection within you can turn your attention to without!

If we assume what's stated in the question to be correct then: "the clock on the train slows down to half rate compared to clocks on earth" and "the clock on the rocket slows down to half rate compared to the clock on train" - ie: 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4 The answer is written there regardless of what time dilation tells us. Unless, of course, the information in the question is wrong.

Yep - there's a Cd Writer in there - bottom of the 5" bays. It's just hidden behind the blanking plate. No floppy though, got rid of those a while back.

That's a very common response. My retort would be why not? It's not much different to using desktop wallpaper - it's just something that some people like to do.

That's a very common response. My retort would be why not? It's not much different to using desktop wallpaper - it's just something that some people like to do.

1/4 - but that's not including any time dilation theory just using the numbers you have stated.

1/4 - but that's not including any time dilation theory just using the numbers you have stated.

Found some of my first modded PC:

Found some of my first modded PC:

I've got a couple of modded PC's. I'll take some pics later and post them here.

I've got a couple of modded PC's. I'll take some pics later and post them here.

I don't think it's a game that we're playing as such although I see your point that it's arguing semantics. I do think it's valid to question how an object can be defined as being more blue than spherical when it won't always look blue but will always look spherical (stamping flat excluded). The stamping flat point leads on to another question though; can't we say that the ball is more blue because it is made of blue plastic and as such is intrinsically blue whereas it is in a more temporary state of being spherical?

I don't think it's a game that we're playing as such although I see your point that it's arguing semantics. I do think it's valid to question how an object can be defined as being more blue than spherical when it won't always look blue but will always look spherical (stamping flat excluded). The stamping flat point leads on to another question though; can't we say that the ball is more blue because it is made of blue plastic and as such is intrinsically blue whereas it is in a more temporary state of being spherical?

We've also got to prove the higgs boson exists first.

We've also got to prove the higgs boson exists first.

Is a blue object truly blue though? If you were to try to paint an image of the ball you wouldn't just paint a blue circle. For the ball to look spherical it must have shading and high and low lights. In strong light areas of the ball will appear white, in low light areas will appear black. If the ball is reflective it will adopt colours from its nearby surroundings. Is the colour of something as easily defined as merely the wavelength it reflects?

Is a blue object truly blue though? If you were to try to paint an image of the ball you wouldn't just paint a blue circle. For the ball to look spherical it must have shading and high and low lights. In strong light areas of the ball will appear white, in low light areas will appear black. If the ball is reflective it will adopt colours from its nearby surroundings. Is the colour of something as easily defined as merely the wavelength it reflects?