No. An instance variable is specific to an object. Each object that is created within a class will get a seperate instance variable to work with (example: if I have a class called 'Apple' and a boolean instance variable 'private boolean ripe'; 'ripe' can be true for one Apple class object and false for another). By making the variable a static one, it becomes a class variable (as opposed to an object variable). There is only one of that variable, no matter how many Apple objects are created. Obviously 'ripe' would be a very poor candidate for declaring static (if you wanted to track how many apples were created, however, 'applesCreated' would be a prime choice for 'static status' -- sorry, had to!). You will realize, soon enough, the importance of parameters (and why we pass them). In a nutshell, the information that is passed would be information that the method might (or absolutely) need to complete a task within it. (example, let us say we wanted to create some apples; some ripe, and some, well. We can create a constructor for the Apple class to create the kind we want by allowing it to recieve the information that is required. The 'this(Greenfoot.getRand...' statement calls the other constructor that takes a boolean parameter to create a random apple (that may or may not be ripe). Now you can call 'new Apple()' to create a random apple, or you can call 'new Apple(false)' to create an unripe apple, or you can call 'new Apple(true)' to create a ripe apple (red and delicious).

Let me qualify the static part. If the variable is in the world class, it is pretty much the same. Non-static variable, one per world instance; and static variable, one world class variable (I will not even say 'per', here; and I guess that would be considered 'global'). The values of non-static world variables are lost at 'reset', where static world variables retain their values until re-compiled. The reason I started with 'No' above is that you can never call an instance variable a global one; so, logically speaking, 'No' is correct.