The thread about the government shutdown got over 1,000 replies, but this thread, about actual science only got 14. Sure, it might not affect our day-to-day lives as much, but finding supervolcanoes on Mars is really interesting. What if there was life, but it was wiped out by a supervolcano. Maybe with Mars' thinner atmosphere the disturbance caused by the supervolcano changed the makeup of the atmosphere enough to completely wipe out life?
OK, there are some racist scientist out there. And when I said that scientists love to be proven wrong, very few of them will actually be happy to find out that there life's work has actually been proven wrong. Maybe "science" as a general idea "loves" to be proven wrong rather than an individual scientist... Science moves forward when people are proven wrong. Einstein replaced Newton's theory of gravity with something better, then Hawking came along and pushed it further. The key part here is the "something better." Something that better fits the data we have, or something that broadens the scope, or just makes the calculations easier (without being less accurate.) My core point still stands, you will not influence the future direction of science by being a dumbass on a message board. Learn what you need to learn, do a study, prove someone wrong, and get your accolades.
I may believe in things that I can't directly observe, but if what I do directly observe indicates to me that what I think is there really isn't I will change my mind. I directly observe people dieing from natural disasters, this does not fit with the idea that God is omnibenevolent, omnicient and omnipotent, hence I conclude that the "God exists" hypothesis is false.
If you make an insane argument I'll call you insane. You're ignoring over 2,000 years of deliberations, experiments and discussions to arrive at your viewpoint. You should not be able to influence others beliefs.
Science isn't a democracy. There are no scientific dissidents. There are jackasses who are too stupid to understand science, and they yell loudly about how it must be wrong. If you think that a conclusion made by scientists is wrong, we would absolutely love it if you could prove them wrong. People being wrong is how science moves forward. Going into the comments section and telling people that the earth isn't really getting warmer does not count as proving anyone wrong.
I thought that it was stopped for the government shutdown?
Serious question, are projects like Voyager, the Mars Rovers and all that still being actively monitored, or are they just being left to fend for themselves during the shutdown?
As much as I like the libertarian ideals, we here in the real world have to make some compromises. Traffic accidents don't just hurt people, they kill people. How do you propose that someone could "take responsibility" for killing someone? We know that people tend to overestimate their abilities (it happens even without laws). We as a species have come to realise that sometimes individual freedoms must be infringed for the benefit of the population as a whole. There is some disagreement about how much personal freedom can be infringed for the benefit of the whole, or how much of a benefit for the whole warrants an infringement of personal liberty, but every sane person acknowledges that the line is not at no infringement.
Accepting that something exists doesn't mean we make it legal. I accept that people speed and plan for it, but I don't think that speed limits should be abolished.
The face that you don't know what an intensive purpose looks like is irregardless of the fact that you're being grammar-trolled. (By me as well as c++0xFF)
Sometime I wonder if I'm being trolled by you grammar guys. The question "Are we winning the war on drugs yet?" has been answered (in the negative, due to the high volume of trade on Silk Road) without anyone asking it. Thus the question has been begged, rather than raised.
We've had nuclear power plants for 40 years or so, and sea water cooled installations for a lot longer than that. Stuff coming up in the last 10 years is still fairly new to developed industries. I realise that a lot of people here are more used to the technology sector where 2 years old is so old you wouldn't even consider it, but heavy industries operate on a much slower time scale.
I read a good analogy yesterday: you can't have a hostage situation unless you have a hostage and a hostage taker. You can't put all the blame on the hostage taker.
There's a difference between being essential and being justified. The coffee I drank this morning wasn't essential: I wouldn't have died without it, but I think it was justified because it tastes good, makes me feel more awake and makes me more productive. If I were tight on cash, I might forgo my coffee: this might not be a good long-term solution as productivity I lose could make me lose my job, or not get a promotion, but as a short-term measure it can help me through a bad time.
Maybe making it cheaper could push the equation from "cheaper to just sell it" to "cheaper to inspect and maintain it." I am fully aware that most companies will do the cheapest thing they can to avoid getting bitch slapped by the government, but if we can make the cheapest thing also the best thing then we're on the road to making the world a better place.
Next time go with informative. Funny doesn't give karma, and then people will get a chuckle at a funny post being marked Informative. Currently being insightful, I'd imagine people are getting the same laugh.
No where did he suggest that the purchase of DSLRs should be legally restricted to professional photographers. My thing is bikes, I have quite an expensive bike, and I am fully aware of what a waste it is. Whenever people ask me about bikes, I tell them not to buy an expensive one. I do not think that they should be prevented from buying an expensive bike if they want one, just that it would be a waste for them. Similarly it would be a waste for you to buy a DSLR.
The thing that creationism and global warming denialism have in common is that they are both believed by stupid people in contrast to the wealth of scientific knowledge showing them to be false.
Big oil may be publicly acknowledging climate change but the big push against it must be coming from somewhere. The oil companies and the coal companies are currently making a lot of money by putting carbon into the atmosphere, so they may have some incentive to reduce or delay measures to prevent carbon from getting into the atmosphere.
Just to be clear, do you think that anthropogenic climate change refers to climate change influenced by humans, or climate change which is occurring naturally.
Slashdot Mirror
The thread about the government shutdown got over 1,000 replies, but this thread, about actual science only got 14. Sure, it might not affect our day-to-day lives as much, but finding supervolcanoes on Mars is really interesting. What if there was life, but it was wiped out by a supervolcano. Maybe with Mars' thinner atmosphere the disturbance caused by the supervolcano changed the makeup of the atmosphere enough to completely wipe out life?
OK, there are some racist scientist out there. And when I said that scientists love to be proven wrong, very few of them will actually be happy to find out that there life's work has actually been proven wrong. Maybe "science" as a general idea "loves" to be proven wrong rather than an individual scientist... Science moves forward when people are proven wrong. Einstein replaced Newton's theory of gravity with something better, then Hawking came along and pushed it further. The key part here is the "something better." Something that better fits the data we have, or something that broadens the scope, or just makes the calculations easier (without being less accurate.) My core point still stands, you will not influence the future direction of science by being a dumbass on a message board. Learn what you need to learn, do a study, prove someone wrong, and get your accolades.
I may believe in things that I can't directly observe, but if what I do directly observe indicates to me that what I think is there really isn't I will change my mind. I directly observe people dieing from natural disasters, this does not fit with the idea that God is omnibenevolent, omnicient and omnipotent, hence I conclude that the "God exists" hypothesis is false.
If you make an insane argument I'll call you insane. You're ignoring over 2,000 years of deliberations, experiments and discussions to arrive at your viewpoint. You should not be able to influence others beliefs.
Science isn't a democracy. There are no scientific dissidents. There are jackasses who are too stupid to understand science, and they yell loudly about how it must be wrong. If you think that a conclusion made by scientists is wrong, we would absolutely love it if you could prove them wrong. People being wrong is how science moves forward. Going into the comments section and telling people that the earth isn't really getting warmer does not count as proving anyone wrong.
I thought that it was stopped for the government shutdown?
Serious question, are projects like Voyager, the Mars Rovers and all that still being actively monitored, or are they just being left to fend for themselves during the shutdown?
As much as I like the libertarian ideals, we here in the real world have to make some compromises. Traffic accidents don't just hurt people, they kill people. How do you propose that someone could "take responsibility" for killing someone? We know that people tend to overestimate their abilities (it happens even without laws). We as a species have come to realise that sometimes individual freedoms must be infringed for the benefit of the population as a whole. There is some disagreement about how much personal freedom can be infringed for the benefit of the whole, or how much of a benefit for the whole warrants an infringement of personal liberty, but every sane person acknowledges that the line is not at no infringement.
I think SNAFU is a more appropriate acronym, but that's probably just because I'm a socialist.
I'm used to having techno-words sail over my head here, but when did /. become a drug den?
Accepting that something exists doesn't mean we make it legal. I accept that people speed and plan for it, but I don't think that speed limits should be abolished.
The face that you don't know what an intensive purpose looks like is irregardless of the fact that you're being grammar-trolled. (By me as well as c++0xFF)
Sometime I wonder if I'm being trolled by you grammar guys. The question "Are we winning the war on drugs yet?" has been answered (in the negative, due to the high volume of trade on Silk Road) without anyone asking it. Thus the question has been begged, rather than raised.
Man, you need to be less stingy with your toppings if a slice of pizza only weighs 4 grams...
We've had nuclear power plants for 40 years or so, and sea water cooled installations for a lot longer than that. Stuff coming up in the last 10 years is still fairly new to developed industries. I realise that a lot of people here are more used to the technology sector where 2 years old is so old you wouldn't even consider it, but heavy industries operate on a much slower time scale.
I read a good analogy yesterday: you can't have a hostage situation unless you have a hostage and a hostage taker. You can't put all the blame on the hostage taker.
There's a difference between being essential and being justified. The coffee I drank this morning wasn't essential: I wouldn't have died without it, but I think it was justified because it tastes good, makes me feel more awake and makes me more productive. If I were tight on cash, I might forgo my coffee: this might not be a good long-term solution as productivity I lose could make me lose my job, or not get a promotion, but as a short-term measure it can help me through a bad time.
Maybe making it cheaper could push the equation from "cheaper to just sell it" to "cheaper to inspect and maintain it." I am fully aware that most companies will do the cheapest thing they can to avoid getting bitch slapped by the government, but if we can make the cheapest thing also the best thing then we're on the road to making the world a better place.
Next time go with informative. Funny doesn't give karma, and then people will get a chuckle at a funny post being marked Informative. Currently being insightful, I'd imagine people are getting the same laugh.
Being only vaguely familiar with hacker jargon, I was expecting an actual sinkhole: in the ground, into which computers were literally falling.
No where did he suggest that the purchase of DSLRs should be legally restricted to professional photographers. My thing is bikes, I have quite an expensive bike, and I am fully aware of what a waste it is. Whenever people ask me about bikes, I tell them not to buy an expensive one. I do not think that they should be prevented from buying an expensive bike if they want one, just that it would be a waste for them. Similarly it would be a waste for you to buy a DSLR.
Tolerance of intolerance is just pandering.
The thing that creationism and global warming denialism have in common is that they are both believed by stupid people in contrast to the wealth of scientific knowledge showing them to be false.
Big oil may be publicly acknowledging climate change but the big push against it must be coming from somewhere. The oil companies and the coal companies are currently making a lot of money by putting carbon into the atmosphere, so they may have some incentive to reduce or delay measures to prevent carbon from getting into the atmosphere.
Just to be clear, do you think that anthropogenic climate change refers to climate change influenced by humans, or climate change which is occurring naturally.
Thank you for explaining the joke. I don't know how I would ever have made the connection without you.
Shoplifting is extremely competitive. If there are N shoplifters, only one will succeed in stealing the goodies, so N-1 are out of the game.