Some people think SpaceX's BFR may get costs to LEO down to $10/kg.
If my math works out, that gets your 100,000 tons of material in LEO for $900 million (transport costs only). Using BFR's estimated 165 tons/launch to LEO, that's about 600 trips.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that chess is solved, but we're still a looong way from solving chess. We have only solved chess with 7 pieces, not the full 32, and unless quantum computers arrive in force, we have no shot at solving it in our lifetimes.
You're dealing with Stanch Atheists. Don't expect them to be rational or intelligent. They've gone tribal, circled the wagons, and are now locked into anti-religious flame wars and are unable to learn better.
Isn't painting with broad stokes fun! There's surely no actual rational, intelligent creatures in these enormous labels!
Simple explanation on this, actually. That article has a ton of comments, so I had to click "Load More Comments" before I could see your reply #46185253.
Nothing. So why did you claim that Evolution does not make falsifiable predictions?
I was speaking tongue-in-cheek about the religion of evolution, not the science of evolution. Certainly, scientifically speaking, evolution has falsifiable predictions; not that it matters to the zealots.
That's not my experience at all [... ] It's not like there's much to teach regarding creationism in any case, from a scientific point of view.
You contradict yourself. You seem to believe by faith that there is no substantive research possible toward creationism.
Tens to hundreds of thousands of scholars throughout the ages have devoted considerable portions of their lives in the study of God and creationism, yet secular scholars of today refuse to even examine the evidence or even acknowledge its existence.
Wow, a rational response in this thread; nice to see.
I don't agree that Intelligent Design (ID) is an argument from ignorance. In fact, it's exceptional to find opponents to ID that have actually investigated the matter with any rigor.
Religious absurdity... failure to think... discredited archaic beliefs... utterly deranged wingnut... alternate-reality
I'm always amazed that those who would consider themselves "quality thought-leaders" need to resort to name-calling to discuss evolution. It's no different than the Slate article; why bother with facts when propaganda will do?
As a creationist with a scientific background, I don't have a problem with either Evolution per se or abiogenesis per se. Science is merely observing and attempting to explain with a best-fit model what is seen -- what's wrong with that?
Instead, I have a problem with the religion of Evolution/abiogenesis and the battle of its priests against the church. I'm not claiming all or even most scientists fall into this realm, but the vast majority of the vocal anti-creationism crowd certainly does.
Shouldn't the opening of the Biology workbook alone be enough to get this squashed?
Who knows that it actually says in the context. You certainly can't expect Slate to be forthcoming when it's trying to incite the masses.
It might say, "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth" is the first sentence of the Bible. In the section below, explain why you do or do not consider this to be a valid theory for how life came to Earth".
When technical stories are posted that have crappy summaries (and articles) like this one, out come the internet sleuths to show that the real story is something altogether different.
But apparently obviously quarter-truth stories like this one get a free pass, because it's always in style to "come for the Socialists/Jews".
Just because this textbook teaches that there exist alternate theories to evolution doesn't make it bad. It's funny that "information wants to be free" until it's information you disagree with.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people think SpaceX's BFR may get costs to LEO down to $10/kg.
If my math works out, that gets your 100,000 tons of material in LEO for $900 million (transport costs only). Using BFR's estimated 165 tons/launch to LEO, that's about 600 trips.
Just found this -- not so bad for Square, it seems: https://squareup.com/emv
"Settled Science"? Is that some new religion? It certainly has little in common with the falsifiable research basis of the science I used in school..
I'm not sure where you got the idea that chess is solved, but we're still a looong way from solving chess. We have only solved chess with 7 pieces, not the full 32, and unless quantum computers arrive in force, we have no shot at solving it in our lifetimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
> That first patient, a 76-year-old man suffering from terminal heat failure, died March 2.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A...
> Worst case is you lose the remote destruct ability if you lose the servers with the remote detonate pads.
More like worst cast is it accidentally is triggering due to component failure or impact from a high-moving projectile/explosive..
I had a similar thought, but I think http://slashdot.org/comments.p... is a more likely explanation.
This seems like the most likely explanation -- thank you coward!
Currently Indigogo says that 2,575 people have contributed $1,175,564 ($457 per person).
But if you add up the people and amounts for the various perks, you get 330 people contributing $73,874 (223 per person).
Can someone explain the difference?
Thanks for the insults.. very informative.
Perhaps this XKCD will be of help: http://xkcd.com/1053/
For those clueless like me, PAC stands for Politicial Action Committee
I can forgive the headline and summary for not defining the acronym, but when the article itself also doesn't say, it's getting ridiculous.
Way to miss the point. According to Wikipedia, in 2012, 73% of Americans self-identified as "Christians".
Applying strong labels like "irrational" and "unintelligent" to that large of group of people is "irrational" and "unintelligent".
You're dealing with Stanch Atheists. Don't expect them to be rational or intelligent. They've gone tribal, circled the wagons, and are now locked into anti-religious flame wars and are unable to learn better.
Isn't painting with broad stokes fun! There's surely no actual rational, intelligent creatures in these enormous labels!
Simple explanation on this, actually. That article has a ton of comments, so I had to click "Load More Comments" before I could see your reply #46185253.
Nothing. So why did you claim that Evolution does not make falsifiable predictions?
I was speaking tongue-in-cheek about the religion of evolution, not the science of evolution. Certainly, scientifically speaking, evolution has falsifiable predictions; not that it matters to the zealots.
That's not my experience at all [ ... ] It's not like there's much to teach regarding creationism in any case, from a scientific point of view.
You contradict yourself. You seem to believe by faith that there is no substantive research possible toward creationism.
Tens to hundreds of thousands of scholars throughout the ages have devoted considerable portions of their lives in the study of God and creationism, yet secular scholars of today refuse to even examine the evidence or even acknowledge its existence.
Wow, a rational response in this thread; nice to see.
I don't agree that Intelligent Design (ID) is an argument from ignorance. In fact, it's exceptional to find opponents to ID that have actually investigated the matter with any rigor.
Religious absurdity ... failure to think ... discredited archaic beliefs ... utterly deranged wingnut ... alternate-reality
I'm always amazed that those who would consider themselves "quality thought-leaders" need to resort to name-calling to discuss evolution. It's no different than the Slate article; why bother with facts when propaganda will do?
As a creationist with a scientific background, I don't have a problem with either Evolution per se or abiogenesis per se. Science is merely observing and attempting to explain with a best-fit model what is seen -- what's wrong with that?
Instead, I have a problem with the religion of Evolution/abiogenesis and the battle of its priests against the church. I'm not claiming all or even most scientists fall into this realm, but the vast majority of the vocal anti-creationism crowd certainly does.
of course it is, only dumbass creationists think its not
A falsifiable theory wouldn't need religious zealots for its defense. Q.E.D.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
What a fitting signature.
How cute, you think evolution is falsifiable.
Shouldn't the opening of the Biology workbook alone be enough to get this squashed?
Who knows that it actually says in the context. You certainly can't expect Slate to be forthcoming when it's trying to incite the masses.
It might say, "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth" is the first sentence of the Bible. In the section below, explain why you do or do not consider this to be a valid theory for how life came to Earth".
When technical stories are posted that have crappy summaries (and articles) like this one, out come the internet sleuths to show that the real story is something altogether different.
But apparently obviously quarter-truth stories like this one get a free pass, because it's always in style to "come for the Socialists/Jews".
Just because this textbook teaches that there exist alternate theories to evolution doesn't make it bad. It's funny that "information wants to be free" until it's information you disagree with.
Wake me when the 4K Oculus Rift is available.