Shouldn't that be our Decepticon overlords? From what I hear, the Autobots don't really have many overlordish tendencies.
Well that's a really good question. But I figured, the Decepticons only want to kill the humans, and it would be pretty difficult to be overlords if all your subjects are dead. I would much prefer to have the Autobots as my overlords. ALL HAIL AUTOBOTS.
Actually, I wonder if wind farms could be the solution to Global Warming. I mean, energy can be neither created nor destroyed, right? If they take energy out of the atmosphere, doesn't that absorb at least some of the energy the additional CO2 retains?
Not likely. All weather phenomena are fueled by heat from the sun, so in essence this is just harnessing a product of solar power. And besides, TFA gives an estimate that 1% of the power in the jet stream would be more than what we need, so if we use less than that, we're barely effecting the jet stream systems at all.
Also, data analysis for research projects (physics, astro, etc.) require a LOT of number crunching... most of the time you pretty much write your own software, or adapt software that lets you code (e.g. matlab, root, ide). In my current research project we have 4 dual processor G5 xserves, and crunching a single dataset can take days. So yeah, an 8-core xeon would be badass. And this is nothing compared to number crunching the big particle-collider experiments require. I recently saw a talk about the computing systems they're developing for the LHC at CERN... just as a TEST (since the accelerator isn't running yet), they've already processed something like 12 PB of data. I'm not saying they'll use Macs, but you can ALWAYS find research applications for big computers.
you are first against the wall when the cataclysm comes and we need a donor.
No no no, if we kill him, we only get a finite amount from him. Better to keep him sedated in a bed, slowly extract blood and let his body produce more.
Exhibit B... wow. I think the caption says it best: "Boring until the 7 minute mark when the production is taken over by crack-smoking monkeys." Seriously, wtf is going on? And why does she change into those hideous clothes and then change back? I'm so confused...
I find it impossible to avoid the ad hominem response because the stupidity reflected in the parent's comment is astounding. But I will try.
Only 51% of physical scientists believe in any form of Darwinian evolution.
Which filthy orifice did you pull this number out of? I assume most/.'ers realize how bogus that is.
Embryology as a whole cannot be made to fit ANY part of evolution, and is one field of science where evolution is ignored.
Well, apart from stating that this comment is factually incorrect, let me offer an example which supports consistency. The embryos of all organisms are extremely similar. The untrained eye would find it very difficult to note differences between, say, a frog embryo and a human embryo. One would not expect this to be the case if we didn't all share common ancestors at some point.
When asked for proof the boosters usually say something like "It used to happen but does not happen anymore", or "it happens so slowly as to be beyond detection" or my favorite "its happening all the time".
It is happening all the time. Why do you think you can catch a cold twice? Of course, this 'microevolution' is quite impossible to deny, so most creationist say they oppose 'macroevolution'. Yes, macroevolution is something we don't see day-to-day, but based on the measured rate of DNA mutation, we expect this to happen. The whole mechanism of how evolution works implies that large populations of macroscopic organisms see very little evolution. But fortunately we have a large fossil record, so we can see how organisms have evolved over time.
I say believe because no one can make it happen in the lab
Actually, you can make it happen in the lab with viruses and bacteria. The only difference between micro and macro evolution is that microbes reproduce at vastly higher rate than multi-celled organisms (and they're asexual).
it has to be taken as an article of faith because no one can prove it.
This is a falacy actually, because nothing in science can ever be proven. But we can say that evolution is the only theory available that actually agrees with the evidence.
CREATE LIFE IN THE LAB
I think someone else already pointed out that evolution, as its name implies, deals with how organisms change over time, not with how life began.
I'm sorry, but that is stupid, for the simple reason that everyone is not deserving of equal criticism.
My statement was stupid, but your blatant circular reasoning isn't? OF COURSE everyone is deserving of equal criticism. The whole point is that it shows who can actually survive the criticism, and in fact it's at the very core of the scientific method. But ok, if you say that's stupid "for the simple reason that it's stupid" I guess I can't argue with that.
They're not a complete basis, except for the angular dependence of solutions to Laplace's equation
No no, you were right the first time: spherical harmonics do form a complete basis. It's essentially the 2-D spherical analog of a Fourier series (given, as you said, proper continuity conditions, etc.). They're used to describe, for example, the angular dependence of the wave function of the electron in a hydrogen atom (not a solution to Laplace's equation), and the spherical map of the Cosmic Microwave Background (which is completely emprical, so it's certainly not by default a solution to the Laplace equation).
I'm just saying that relying on calculations to assert that dark matter is or isn't blah blah blah is the wrong approach.
You can't say it's the 'wrong' approach, because it's the only approach we have. The problem we're faced with is: in order for something to produce the effects we see today, what properties must it have, and what properties must it not have? Science history has demonstrated time and again that whenever we see some observations that seem to contradict a theory, 99% of the time the theory is correct, it just needs to be modified slightly. For example, when they noticed a 'wobble' in Uranus' orbit that seemed to contradict the orbit predicted by Newtonian theory, it turned out that Newton's theory was fine, they just needed to modify their model of the solar system to include the effects of [previously unknown planet] Neptune. Of course our calculations could be wrong, but that doesn't mean we can't make correct calculations.
If it doesn't interact by the strong force, it cannot cause nuclear reactions.
Well no, the weak force is also a nuclear interaction. The indirect evidence for dark matter so far invokes only its gravitational effects, but all but the most exotic theories for it's production (in order for it to have the properties we observe today) require that it is also weakly interacting.
So there are at least two completely different, totally unrelated dark matter problems.
You're right that the universal baryon density doesn't specifically constrain galactic dark matter. But Occam's Razor suggests there is only one dark matter problem. Besides, you would have to explain why galaxies would have one type of dark matter while galaxy clusters have a completely different kind (and we know intra-cluster dark matter is non baryonic). It's much easier to explain the dark matter evidence at all scales by postulating just one culprit.
Slashdot Mirror
Parent -> mod -1, overnerdification
/. audience.
and yes, i mean that even relative to a
Shouldn't that be our Decepticon overlords? From what I hear, the Autobots don't really have many overlordish tendencies.
Well that's a really good question. But I figured, the Decepticons only want to kill the humans, and it would be pretty difficult to be overlords if all your subjects are dead. I would much prefer to have the Autobots as my overlords. ALL HAIL AUTOBOTS.
No one has said it yet!?? Ok, I guess I'll have to:
I, for one, welcome our new Autobot overlords!
Dell's move is huge for Linux as a jumping-off point, and MS (imho) is trying to keep it from looking like Linux is a real competitor.
Yeah, and the ironic thing is that, by making all these spurious accusations, M$ is only validating Linux as a viable competitor.
Mod, why the 0-score of parent? Seriously, that's a good response!
My favorite line:
Nothing changes by staying the same.
I would like to also point out that up is not down, the Pope is Catholic, firetrucks are red, and Ron Jeremy is not a virgin.
Black holes are where god divided by zero
Actually, I wonder if wind farms could be the solution to Global Warming. I mean, energy can be neither created nor destroyed, right? If they take energy out of the atmosphere, doesn't that absorb at least some of the energy the additional CO2 retains?
Not likely. All weather phenomena are fueled by heat from the sun, so in essence this is just harnessing a product of solar power. And besides, TFA gives an estimate that 1% of the power in the jet stream would be more than what we need, so if we use less than that, we're barely effecting the jet stream systems at all.
Also, data analysis for research projects (physics, astro, etc.) require a LOT of number crunching... most of the time you pretty much write your own software, or adapt software that lets you code (e.g. matlab, root, ide). In my current research project we have 4 dual processor G5 xserves, and crunching a single dataset can take days. So yeah, an 8-core xeon would be badass. And this is nothing compared to number crunching the big particle-collider experiments require. I recently saw a talk about the computing systems they're developing for the LHC at CERN... just as a TEST (since the accelerator isn't running yet), they've already processed something like 12 PB of data. I'm not saying they'll use Macs, but you can ALWAYS find research applications for big computers.
you are first against the wall when the cataclysm comes and we need a donor.
No no no, if we kill him, we only get a finite amount from him. Better to keep him sedated in a bed, slowly extract blood and let his body produce more.
Exhibit B... wow. I think the caption says it best: "Boring until the 7 minute mark when the production is taken over by crack-smoking monkeys." Seriously, wtf is going on? And why does she change into those hideous clothes and then change back? I'm so confused...
Well maybe if Steve Ballmer went this crazy more often more people would be interested in Vista.
...or maybe that could go the other way too.
I find it impossible to avoid the ad hominem response because the stupidity reflected in the parent's comment is astounding. But I will try.
/.'ers realize how bogus that is.
Only 51% of physical scientists believe in any form of Darwinian evolution.
Which filthy orifice did you pull this number out of? I assume most
Embryology as a whole cannot be made to fit ANY part of evolution, and is one field of science where evolution is ignored.
Well, apart from stating that this comment is factually incorrect, let me offer an example which supports consistency. The embryos of all organisms are extremely similar. The untrained eye would find it very difficult to note differences between, say, a frog embryo and a human embryo. One would not expect this to be the case if we didn't all share common ancestors at some point.
When asked for proof the boosters usually say something like "It used to happen but does not happen anymore", or "it happens so slowly as to be beyond detection" or my favorite "its happening all the time".
It is happening all the time. Why do you think you can catch a cold twice? Of course, this 'microevolution' is quite impossible to deny, so most creationist say they oppose 'macroevolution'. Yes, macroevolution is something we don't see day-to-day, but based on the measured rate of DNA mutation, we expect this to happen. The whole mechanism of how evolution works implies that large populations of macroscopic organisms see very little evolution. But fortunately we have a large fossil record, so we can see how organisms have evolved over time.
I say believe because no one can make it happen in the lab
Actually, you can make it happen in the lab with viruses and bacteria. The only difference between micro and macro evolution is that microbes reproduce at vastly higher rate than multi-celled organisms (and they're asexual).
it has to be taken as an article of faith because no one can prove it.
This is a falacy actually, because nothing in science can ever be proven. But we can say that evolution is the only theory available that actually agrees with the evidence.
CREATE LIFE IN THE LAB
I think someone else already pointed out that evolution, as its name implies, deals with how organisms change over time, not with how life began.
What about open-source porn? What!? Oh... I guess if that were the case, all you'd see would be nerdy couples doing it in front of their computer.
I'm sorry, but that is stupid, for the simple reason that everyone is not deserving of equal criticism.
My statement was stupid, but your blatant circular reasoning isn't? OF COURSE everyone is deserving of equal criticism. The whole point is that it shows who can actually survive the criticism, and in fact it's at the very core of the scientific method. But ok, if you say that's stupid "for the simple reason that it's stupid" I guess I can't argue with that.
Perhaps I shouldn't snub those that are fighting the 'good fight'.
I agree we shouldn't snub the good guys, but at the same time, it wouldn't be the 'good fight' if we didn't subject everyone to criticism equally.
They're not a complete basis, except for the angular dependence of solutions to Laplace's equation
No no, you were right the first time: spherical harmonics do form a complete basis. It's essentially the 2-D spherical analog of a Fourier series (given, as you said, proper continuity conditions, etc.). They're used to describe, for example, the angular dependence of the wave function of the electron in a hydrogen atom (not a solution to Laplace's equation), and the spherical map of the Cosmic Microwave Background (which is completely emprical, so it's certainly not by default a solution to the Laplace equation).
projects designed to increase cognition or decrease the need for sleep
Yeah, it's called 'meth', and Nazi soldiers used it while conducting Blitzkrieg. Not a new development.
Yeah, I agree. Besides, `anonymity where prudent' isn't really anonymity, is it. That's like saying `you are free as long as you do everything i say'.
If they start limiting free speech and the like then we can stop supporting them.
The whole point is that this feature [limiting free speech] is in their design plan, so you can `stop supporting them' now.
So... what do the scientists do while they're waiting for the darn thing to get there?
A watched-probe never gets to pluto.
Damn you! you seem to be the only other commenter who knows a thing or two about cosmology, and you got here before I did :-P
I'm just saying that relying on calculations to assert that dark matter is or isn't blah blah blah is the wrong approach.
You can't say it's the 'wrong' approach, because it's the only approach we have. The problem we're faced with is: in order for something to produce the effects we see today, what properties must it have, and what properties must it not have? Science history has demonstrated time and again that whenever we see some observations that seem to contradict a theory, 99% of the time the theory is correct, it just needs to be modified slightly. For example, when they noticed a 'wobble' in Uranus' orbit that seemed to contradict the orbit predicted by Newtonian theory, it turned out that Newton's theory was fine, they just needed to modify their model of the solar system to include the effects of [previously unknown planet] Neptune. Of course our calculations could be wrong, but that doesn't mean we can't make correct calculations.
If it doesn't interact by the strong force, it cannot cause nuclear reactions.
Well no, the weak force is also a nuclear interaction. The indirect evidence for dark matter so far invokes only its gravitational effects, but all but the most exotic theories for it's production (in order for it to have the properties we observe today) require that it is also weakly interacting.
So there are at least two completely different, totally unrelated dark matter problems.
You're right that the universal baryon density doesn't specifically constrain galactic dark matter. But Occam's Razor suggests there is only one dark matter problem. Besides, you would have to explain why galaxies would have one type of dark matter while galaxy clusters have a completely different kind (and we know intra-cluster dark matter is non baryonic). It's much easier to explain the dark matter evidence at all scales by postulating just one culprit.