But that's not equivalent to having a backdoor to the device. If I catch a courier, who never knew the key code, no prison, gun or court order will do me any good. With a backdoor, however...
Yes, that makes vastly more sense. Especially if they are hyper-intelligent pangalactic inter-dimensional beings whose physical manifestation within this universe is mice.
The first google hit on "rare earths ocean" says this
Deep-sea mining is an old idea, but one that has yet to prove itself in the face of high costs and environmental concerns. Discovered decades ago, chunks of manganese on the ocean floor and deposits of metals such as zinc and copper in the Red Sea have proven impractical to mine.
“I don’t understand how this can be expected to be an economic way to recover rare earth,” says Daniel Cordier, a mineral commodity specialist at the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Minerals Information Center in Reston, Va.
Evolution is hardly simple compared to (to use the popular atheist pejorative) "goddidit".
"Goddidit" in isolation is simple. But then accounting for all the mental hoops one needs to take to create a semi-reasonable model with an omnipotent creator being, it becomes progressively more complex.
Fortunately, Occam's Razor doesn't, and never did, say the slightest thing about what is true, rather only what is pragmatic for use when presented with otherwise-equivalent models.
Of course. When presented with a choice between "this simple process did it", "an unseen creator did it, then put a lot of hints to the contrary in the ground" and more intricate theories like "the Teapot made the creator do that", it's pragmatic to choose the first one. I'm willing to change my mind when evidence that disproves evolution or evidence for intelligent creator or evidence for Teapot surfaces.
In other words, YOU think you know what the alleged designer had in mind
No, really it's just Occam's razor. When you can explain observed facts with a simple, elegant, proved-to-death process like evolution through natural selection, bringing an omnipotent designer into the picture to explain away facts is overkill. Might as well claim the Teapot summoned the designer in the first place.
If I'm not mistaken the the double-carbon-bond found in graphene/nanotubes/etc is believed to among the strongest chemical bonds that can be formed.
The bonds in graphene are not double bonds. The bond order of carbon in a single sheet of graphene is 4/3, if I remember correctly. Single-walled carbon nanotubes are essentially rolled up sheets of graphene and thus have no double bonds either.
You are right about them being very strong bonds, though.
Polititians or religious freaks can proclaim anything to please the crowd, but they will not turn their country into nuclear wasteland,
... except when they openly say that the end of the world must be hastened, because that's when the hidden Imam comes back and makes everything fine and dandy.
You can argue about the "legal" definition of stealing all you want, but most parents teach their children that taking something that does not belong to you is stealing.
Yes, but that kind of taking involves the other party not having it anymore. This is more of a grey area, is it not?
Are you a child or are you a responsible adult?
In this argument I can only be an adult if I agree with you, right?
Downloading copyrighted content from unauthorized sources is stealing
or so you say.
and it is unethical,
or so you say.
when you attempt to justify your actions, you are only lying to yourself.
In this case, or does this hold in general?
Jurors in court dont agree with your justifications, the laws dont agree with your justifications and judges dont agree with your justifications.
You mean the laws are unambigous and identical all around the world regarding this issue? That's some serious news!
What a load of bollocks.
Casual googling yields 1.7M people dying from AIDS each year, with negligible (0.1M) deaths from Ebola, SARS and flus. And then alcohol alone kills 2.5M people every year...
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't him, it was his altar ego.
The system for destroying anything cannot be provably secure. Nevermind cloning the device and working on a copy.
What about fake back doors? How do you determine which back door is the real door?
By looking at the entropy of the result.
But that's not equivalent to having a backdoor to the device. If I catch a courier, who never knew the key code, no prison, gun or court order will do me any good. With a backdoor, however...
I object.
http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/
Yes, that makes vastly more sense. Especially if they are hyper-intelligent pangalactic inter-dimensional beings whose physical manifestation within this universe is mice.
what is the real hurdle to ocean mining
The first google hit on "rare earths ocean" says this
Deep-sea mining is an old idea, but one that has yet to prove itself in the face of high costs and environmental concerns. Discovered decades ago, chunks of manganese on the ocean floor and deposits of metals such as zinc and copper in the Red Sea have proven impractical to mine.
“I don’t understand how this can be expected to be an economic way to recover rare earth,” says Daniel Cordier, a mineral commodity specialist at the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Minerals Information Center in Reston, Va.
Evolution is hardly simple compared to (to use the popular atheist pejorative) "goddidit".
"Goddidit" in isolation is simple. But then accounting for all the mental hoops one needs to take to create a semi-reasonable model with an omnipotent creator being, it becomes progressively more complex.
Fortunately, Occam's Razor doesn't, and never did, say the slightest thing about what is true, rather only what is pragmatic for use when presented with otherwise-equivalent models.
Of course. When presented with a choice between "this simple process did it", "an unseen creator did it, then put a lot of hints to the contrary in the ground" and more intricate theories like "the Teapot made the creator do that", it's pragmatic to choose the first one. I'm willing to change my mind when evidence that disproves evolution or evidence for intelligent creator or evidence for Teapot surfaces.
In other words, YOU think you know what the alleged designer had in mind
No, really it's just Occam's razor. When you can explain observed facts with a simple, elegant, proved-to-death process like evolution through natural selection, bringing an omnipotent designer into the picture to explain away facts is overkill. Might as well claim the Teapot summoned the designer in the first place.
A double-bond would imply a single zig-zag chain of carbon molecules. I wonder if anyone has managed to create such a thing
Sure thing, you're talking about cumulenes. And they are not zig-zags, they're linear.
If I'm not mistaken the the double-carbon-bond found in graphene/nanotubes/etc is believed to among the strongest chemical bonds that can be formed.
The bonds in graphene are not double bonds. The bond order of carbon in a single sheet of graphene is 4/3, if I remember correctly. Single-walled carbon nanotubes are essentially rolled up sheets of graphene and thus have no double bonds either.
You are right about them being very strong bonds, though.
Does not work for PEBKAC.
Polititians or religious freaks can proclaim anything to please the crowd, but they will not turn their country into nuclear wasteland,
... except when they openly say that the end of the world must be hastened, because that's when the hidden Imam comes back and makes everything fine and dandy.
It's all relative.
And it parses Japanese, right?
You can argue about the "legal" definition of stealing all you want, but most parents teach their children that taking something that does not belong to you is stealing.
Yes, but that kind of taking involves the other party not having it anymore. This is more of a grey area, is it not?
Are you a child or are you a responsible adult?
In this argument I can only be an adult if I agree with you, right?
Downloading copyrighted content from unauthorized sources is stealing
or so you say.
and it is unethical,
or so you say.
when you attempt to justify your actions, you are only lying to yourself.
In this case, or does this hold in general?
Jurors in court dont agree with your justifications, the laws dont agree with your justifications and judges dont agree with your justifications.
You mean the laws are unambigous and identical all around the world regarding this issue? That's some serious news!
It's a cool technology, but the iPod shuffle can run for a billion years plugged into a potato. Can we get some actual performance data please?
Thing is, potato is not bendable.
This implies that there are about 1.2 million bots worldwide. Seems low.
Grum was responsible for 1/6 of spam volume, not 1/6 of world botnet size.
By reducing the probability of the spammers finding out and, in consequence, of creating more accounts. Should this technique be successful.
What a load of bollocks.
Casual googling yields 1.7M people dying from AIDS each year, with negligible (0.1M) deaths from Ebola, SARS and flus. And then alcohol alone kills 2.5M people every year...
It means a very, very low level of noise that then averages out to close to zero over the timescales involved.
We already know that Aspartame has issues...even at "human safe" doses of the stuff.
We don't. The conspiracy theorists do.
acutely depresses hemodynamics and grip strength in mice at doses 12.5 mg/kg
Technically, only 80% of Facebook users who click the ad, not 80% of all Facebook users.
Technically, only 80% of ad clicks, not users.