So, why can't we get a system like that set up for California. It's about the same size, and has a much higher population density, so it should be even more profitable.
I'd heard that they'd compared it to his sister, who died of cancer in New York. Not sure if you could be positive from that though... This will certainly shape u pto be interesting.
It depends upon the nature of the bonding in the compound. For ionic compounds (such as your aluminium oxide example) numerical prefixes aren't used, as the charge of the two ions determines the ratio of them.
Covalent bonds don't work the same way. For instance you could have either Carbon Monoxide (CO) or Carbon Dioxide (CO2), so the information of how many oxygen atoms present is required to correctly identify the compound. In these cases, because carbon comes first, we don't need to specify monocarbon- as that is assumed by convention. In the case of dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) the di- prefix is used for the first word.
Water does of course present a little more of an interesting challenge, as it can be seen as many types of compounds. It can be seen as an ionic compound (where you'd call it hydrogen hydroxide), or as an acid (which would be hydroxilic acid), or as a covalently bonded compound. Oxygen dihydride may be the/more/ correct way to refer to it as a covalently bonded compound, but as the convention is to write the formula as H2O rather than OH2, I'd stand behind dihydrogen monoxide as the correct name.
If my boss wasn't sitting right behind me, I'd pull out the appropriate Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic. (If you want to look it up on ohnorobot yourself look for "uncomfortable truth" and you should find it...)
That was roughly my thought. Especially the part about stellar engineering. I don't really know much about that field, but I doubt that we're anywhere near close to extending the life of the sun.
How is he acting like that? To put the idea into a more easily understood example:
I had some money in my bank account before I ever had a job (from gifts etc.) Then I got a job, and had a lot more money in my bank account. Would it be acting like I never had money to say that my job puts money in my bank account?
I'm fairly certain it isn't. When I came to the US a couple of years ago, it took a couple of weeks before my Social Security number came through, and I set up a bank account before I got it. I also managed to get the first couple of paycheques in that time too.
I did a pretty bad job on that last sentence too. Kinda comes across as being against atheists.
I've struggled with the idea of where "the right thing to do" came from, and to what it really leads. Yes, when I return someone's wallet, I'm not hoping for an immediate payoff, but I would like to live in a world where people return wallets, so I do my small part to that end. I think that the large strength of looking at morality this way is that you can do away with a lot of the chaff, that doesn't lead toward making the world a nicer place to live.
I think there can be a lot of interesting argument where morality and rationality intersect. It can depend largely upon how you interpret morality.
Using your example of rape. If some random stranger is raped, immediately I may not care. But the person who raped the original victim could then go on to rape my sister, or someone else could see that rape has no consequences and rape my sister. The emotion impact would then mean that I would have to support my sister, or that she would be unable to support me. Preventing the original rape then becomes a matter of self interest.
Referring to endangered animals: we can probably agree that preventing animals from going extinct is a largely moral goal, and saving more animals is even more moral. Unfortunately, we do not have unlimited resources to save every animal there is, so directing some of our resources toward and animal that may have little to no chance of surviving anyway would reduce the available resources for other animals, potentially leading to them becoming extinct - an immoral action.
I think a lot of this comes from humans evolution as social animals, moral actions help the whole group of people, and largely serve the purposes of the individual. People often bag on religion as deciding the moral code, but atheist morality puts a lot of this stuff in terms of helping other people, which will eventually serve your own interest.
There are things that people should know, not just to the benefit of themselves, but to the benefit of society as a whole. Knowing about sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies will help both the children involved, and society that does not have to take care of these people. That is why the government should be involved.
Flip-side of the argument: what do you think the government should be teaching children?
There are so many important things in the world which are being sidelined by astroturfed spats. Once bread and circuses were sufficient. Now the population is moderately educated, so we need bread, circuses and engineered pointless debate (see also: abortion, tea party, gun control).
I did! Granted we didn't have the actual Mindstorm stuff, I did do a class titled 'Robotics' which was basically just playing around with Lego/Technic, and making things that can do stuff.
A) Probably B) What's to say this is their only attempt, they may have had several artists start up similar strips with slight differences, and Dilbert was the one that hit the spot the best, so they went with it.
Where do you draw the line for 'Traditional' English. Shakespeare-like language? Chaucer-like language? Modern English is basically all corruptions of old English.
Some of us weren't around when it happened before, and everybody is just talking about the 'shutdown' without actually clarifying what they're talking about. One of the reasons I keep coming back to Slashdot is the fact that it's often the only place I can find an easy to understand summary of what's actually happening.
Slashdot Mirror
So, why can't we get a system like that set up for California. It's about the same size, and has a much higher population density, so it should be even more profitable.
I'd heard that they'd compared it to his sister, who died of cancer in New York. Not sure if you could be positive from that though... This will certainly shape u pto be interesting.
You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.
That's a good point about the hydride, my mind wasn't on that track. Thanks for catching that.
It depends upon the nature of the bonding in the compound. For ionic compounds (such as your aluminium oxide example) numerical prefixes aren't used, as the charge of the two ions determines the ratio of them.
Covalent bonds don't work the same way. For instance you could have either Carbon Monoxide (CO) or Carbon Dioxide (CO2), so the information of how many oxygen atoms present is required to correctly identify the compound. In these cases, because carbon comes first, we don't need to specify monocarbon- as that is assumed by convention. In the case of dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) the di- prefix is used for the first word.
Water does of course present a little more of an interesting challenge, as it can be seen as many types of compounds. It can be seen as an ionic compound (where you'd call it hydrogen hydroxide), or as an acid (which would be hydroxilic acid), or as a covalently bonded compound. Oxygen dihydride may be the /more/ correct way to refer to it as a covalently bonded compound, but as the convention is to write the formula as H2O rather than OH2, I'd stand behind dihydrogen monoxide as the correct name.
Yes, IAAC.
If my boss wasn't sitting right behind me, I'd pull out the appropriate Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic. (If you want to look it up on ohnorobot yourself look for "uncomfortable truth" and you should find it...)
What perks are there in burger-flipping jobs?
That was roughly my thought. Especially the part about stellar engineering. I don't really know much about that field, but I doubt that we're anywhere near close to extending the life of the sun.
Now THAT, is a troll.
Fantastic quote, I'll be stealing that and using it in the future.
I see this as more of a call to arms. We know how bad we have it, and most of the world has it worse! The time for action is now!
Unfortunately, like most of the world's problems, I can't see any way to make a difference.
How is he acting like that? To put the idea into a more easily understood example:
I had some money in my bank account before I ever had a job (from gifts etc.) Then I got a job, and had a lot more money in my bank account. Would it be acting like I never had money to say that my job puts money in my bank account?
I'm fairly certain it isn't. When I came to the US a couple of years ago, it took a couple of weeks before my Social Security number came through, and I set up a bank account before I got it. I also managed to get the first couple of paycheques in that time too.
That's why you have to back it up to another drive with the same feature!
I did a pretty bad job on that last sentence too. Kinda comes across as being against atheists.
I've struggled with the idea of where "the right thing to do" came from, and to what it really leads. Yes, when I return someone's wallet, I'm not hoping for an immediate payoff, but I would like to live in a world where people return wallets, so I do my small part to that end. I think that the large strength of looking at morality this way is that you can do away with a lot of the chaff, that doesn't lead toward making the world a nicer place to live.
I think there can be a lot of interesting argument where morality and rationality intersect. It can depend largely upon how you interpret morality.
Using your example of rape. If some random stranger is raped, immediately I may not care. But the person who raped the original victim could then go on to rape my sister, or someone else could see that rape has no consequences and rape my sister. The emotion impact would then mean that I would have to support my sister, or that she would be unable to support me. Preventing the original rape then becomes a matter of self interest.
Referring to endangered animals: we can probably agree that preventing animals from going extinct is a largely moral goal, and saving more animals is even more moral. Unfortunately, we do not have unlimited resources to save every animal there is, so directing some of our resources toward and animal that may have little to no chance of surviving anyway would reduce the available resources for other animals, potentially leading to them becoming extinct - an immoral action.
I think a lot of this comes from humans evolution as social animals, moral actions help the whole group of people, and largely serve the purposes of the individual. People often bag on religion as deciding the moral code, but atheist morality puts a lot of this stuff in terms of helping other people, which will eventually serve your own interest.
There are things that people should know, not just to the benefit of themselves, but to the benefit of society as a whole. Knowing about sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies will help both the children involved, and society that does not have to take care of these people. That is why the government should be involved.
Flip-side of the argument: what do you think the government should be teaching children?
There are so many important things in the world which are being sidelined by astroturfed spats. Once bread and circuses were sufficient. Now the population is moderately educated, so we need bread, circuses and engineered pointless debate (see also: abortion, tea party, gun control).
Here here!
I did! Granted we didn't have the actual Mindstorm stuff, I did do a class titled 'Robotics' which was basically just playing around with Lego/Technic, and making things that can do stuff.
A) Probably
B) What's to say this is their only attempt, they may have had several artists start up similar strips with slight differences, and Dilbert was the one that hit the spot the best, so they went with it.
Is that, like, a step up from <3'ing Linux. (The whole three rather than less than three.)
I love systematic rebuttals of entire posts. I was going to generally flame him, but you've already done a much better job of it that I could have.
Where do you draw the line for 'Traditional' English. Shakespeare-like language? Chaucer-like language? Modern English is basically all corruptions of old English.
Besides, it should be |337 anyway.
Some of us weren't around when it happened before, and everybody is just talking about the 'shutdown' without actually clarifying what they're talking about. One of the reasons I keep coming back to Slashdot is the fact that it's often the only place I can find an easy to understand summary of what's actually happening.
Hasn't happened this time though...