It's fuck that, suck this, screw that. Reminds me of a funny line by one of the veterans in the recent Ken Burns documentary on WWII - "In a war you forget all your adjectives except one or two."
"Behold days are coming, says the Lord, and I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with seed of man and seed of beasts." What has Onanism got to do with this story?
This line of research is not going to give us more insight into nature, nor is it morally acceptable at this point. I don't know about you, but for me a cell isn't a person.
what the author's plan for using these devices in education is? I think a lot of CEOs - and even the owners of Pa & Ma businesses, for that matter - get used to being surrounded by people who are required to listen to their opinions, however dumb they might be, and progressively develop the foolish notion that they're experts on everything.
No surprise school is boring; the rise of social conservatives have ensured that everything that made any subject interesting have been scrubbed from the curriculum. Don't be silly. School is boring, but it has nothing to do with social movements. It's inherently boring because it's not what normal children and young adults would like to do with their time.
Perhaps it's possible to make it interesting, or at least less boring. But technical gizmos per se aren't going to do that - unless of course you want to replace education with mere entertainment.
My favorite is where they show you the difference in picture quality between the old style set and the cool new one -- in a commercial playing on your television. Now I know there's tiny, almost invisible text telling you the picture is simulated but I really don't want to know just how many people are taken in by this. I like the way weight loss commercials use the same picture with two different aspect ratios to show how well their product works.
The ability to spend $5k on a cable indicates to females that you have higher social status than the rest of the ordinary spuds who only spend $5. So how come my $5K videogame collection doesn't have the girls flocking to my bed?
All Nostradamus did was write down his 'dreams and visions' in a vague 'blog of the day' type thing. They are pretty obstuse and nebulous to say the least (and written in a very old language that still can be taken in meaning very many ways). In some cases all it requires is a bit of esoteric knowledge. For example, the much-misrepresented "prophecy" about a certain 'Hister' arising in Greater Germany was a simple statement of fact: Hister is an archaic name for the Danube River, which does in fact have its source in central Germany.
"Made in the U.S.A. for superior quality" What does that mean? Does that mean anything coming from anywhere but the USA is poor quality? That's like saying because XYZ is made somewhere in Taiwan it must be much worse than the same thing made in the US of A? It's a moot point; it's unlikely that you'll ever again by anything that wasn't made in China.
It's hard to find albums that aren't classical music that aren't mastered at such a high level as to completely remove all the dynamic range available. No, they leave a little bit in so the radio stations will have something left to squeeze out.
Hmm...it seems the error in this article was that the reviewer forgot to FREEZE the cables, prior to listening. This of course helps the molecules to align correctly, for better electron movement, directionally speaking. Be sure to freeze them with glacier ice rather than just sticking them in your freezer. Artificial cooling produces a much weaker effect.
I find this whole audiophile thing to be absurd The whole point of a hobby is to make sure you don't have any spare money lying around.
We need $7,000 stereo cables for the same reason we need $700 stereo cables, $70 stereo cables, and $7 stereo cables: not everyone has the same amount of money lying around collecting dust.
Dick Cheney probably needs some $70,000 cables for his stereo, and Bill Gates needs $700,000 for his.
...it will be somehow, some way, spun as justification to increase everyone's taxes in the name of environmental protection, saving the earth, or what the hell ever. Yeah, never mind the science, it's all a librul conspiracy to steal your tax dollars. The main thing that science has ever taught us is that reality has a Liberal bias.
If the antartic ice sheet melts faster than predicted, some folks say, with convinction, that its proof that humanity has finally done in poor mother earth, and that we are all doomed. Now, we get a piece of good news, that the ozone hole is actually healing up, and that can't possibly be because humanity did something right. Whence the conclusion that the OH is "healing up"? All we have is an observation that it's smaller this year than last year. One data point doesn't make a trend, much as special pleaders would like to think it does.
Oops. It was back as before in 2006.I wonder how many people foolishly claimed that it was "healing up" in 2005.
You can't set a single observation of good news against a long trend of bad news and conclude that there isn't a problem. People only do that when they're desperate to "prove" something that they don't actually have any evidence for.
It's impossible to embarrass those who produce bad science. This is the same crowd that said all oil reserves will be completely depleted by 2003, and the same ones who said that 2000 will be the beginning of a deep freeze from which we'll never escape. Care to name some names?
Can you name even one scientist who has made all three claims?
The link from man-made CFCs to ozone depletion was tenuous at best. LOL. You must be snorting out of Rush's spoon.
Yes But... the resources we could have used to fix one thing could have been better used to fixed something else that could cause a greater damage. For Example. Spending Billions to fix sometime we know little about and have an inkling that it is our fault Billions of dollars is pocket change. Look at how much money the USA has thrown away in Iraq without batting an eye. Diverting a few bills to study and combat the effects we're having on the climate would be a stunningly good investment by comparison.
Who knows, we might be able to fund a space program on the side...
I am old enough to remember this. The "second ice age" and "over population" folks were pretty much one-in-the-same. That started in the 60's. I can still remember the TV commercials when I was a kid crying about over populating the planet; "We'll all be a doublin' in thirty-two years". From the same time period I can remember newspaper articles whining about the coming second ice age; "It's already getting colder!". Funny, I don't remember it that way at all. And I've asked for evidence for the Ice Age claims on Slashdot several times, and the only thing I've ever gotten in reply is a short Newsweek note about a single scientist who thought an Ice Age might be coming on, from around 1970.
Both congealed into the air/water pollution crowd in the 70's. The 80's saw the same groups briefly trotting out over population once again to add to their pollution sideshow. Then they discovered "ozone depletion". In the late 80's and 90's it was "global warming". Now it's "catastrophic climate change". In *all* cases it's been the same group of people screaming; "the sky is falling". Care to name names?
What really happened (assuming my memory can be trusted) is that Sagan et al. came out with the idea of a nuclear winter that would result from a global thermonuclear exchange, and it played a big role in the anti-nuclear-arms movement. But it also got scientists thinking about the effects of putting trash in the atmosphere, and that's when they realized that greenhouse gasses might be a problem. And there has been a steady accumulation of research since then that consistently indicates that they were right. (Hardly a surprise, since it is beyond doubt that we are putting incredible amounts of stuff into the atmosphere, and the concept of greenhouse gasses is based on our rigorous understanding of physics.)
Also there's an aside about the hypothetical Ice Age that is worth mentioning. There is still at least one scientist who thinks we'd be chilling out if greenhouse gasses weren't counterbalancing it. He had an article in Scientific American a few years ago, giving numbers on both side of the balance sheet (in watts per square meter), showing that the warming is about twice what is needed to cancel out the cooling.
I don't know how his claims have stood up among scientists, but it shows that at least once scientist thinks global cooling might be in play even today. You do sometimes see reports that show a balance sheet between warming and cooling effects, though I've never seen anyone else mention the threat of an Ice Age.
That was -precisely- the implication of TFS/tags. That this finding disproves "creationists" (an intentionally-misleading term on the level of "Islamofascists", integrating wholly-unalike premises into one term, but that's another discussion), which, one would have to assume, is inclusive of all people whose stance is that the universe was created as an intentional act.
Now, if we were to take the 15 seconds it would take to sort our terminology to have a useful discussion beyond the "science"/"creationism" false dichotomy, You were ok up to there, but there is a dichotomy between science and creationism. There is absolutely no intersection between them.
Yes, you do have to be careful with models. But when someone's best argument is "it's just a model!" (or "it's just a theory!"), odds are that they've already lost the debate.
Otherwise they'd be marshalling facts rather than the more desperate sort of argument.
Just that larger animals have more cells that need to be "evolved" at one times would create some kind of evolutionary inertia? I suppose the difference in warmer blooded animals could be related in terms of inertia. If you consider that warmer blood means more movement a the cellular level. Just a thought. Evolution doesn't require all of an animals cells to change. Evolution happens when your germ cells (eggs, sperm) are different from your parents. Your other cells get their DNA from the fertilized egg you started from.
I knew from the article this would turn into a creation vs evoloution conversation. But this really does bring up a rather intresting question. If large species take longer to evolve then how can it be possible that human beings "being rather large in comparison" be more advanced then smaller animals, who first of all have been on th eplanet alot longer then upright standing . Is it simply a matter of brain mass. Would it not make sense that they would have evolved to have oposable thumbs before us? Upright posture and symbol-manipulating brains aren't signs of "more" evolution, merely different evolution. Evolution isn't goal-directed, so set aside any notion that other species aren't "there" yet.
If we were to assume that evolution had a goal, we would have to conclude that that goal was to produce beetles.
"Evolution happens" -> (then a miracle of logic occurs) -> "evolution exhaustively explains origins and incidentally there is no God" The miracle is in misinformation rather than logic. No scientist thinks evolution exhaustively explains origins (or even the narrower topic of biological origins), and evolution says nothing about the existence of any gods.
The fact of evolution does show that certain evolution-denying cults have at least one false claim in their creeds, but that's a far narrower conclusion than what you suggested.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if he has ever taught a class.
Perhaps it's possible to make it interesting, or at least less boring. But technical gizmos per se aren't going to do that - unless of course you want to replace education with mere entertainment.
Standing in front of a blackboard and addressing the students orally is an excellent method of education.
And interactive, for that matter.
It's probably the CIA trying to recover a lost Soviet rock diver.
We need $7,000 stereo cables for the same reason we need $700 stereo cables, $70 stereo cables, and $7 stereo cables: not everyone has the same amount of money lying around collecting dust.
Dick Cheney probably needs some $70,000 cables for his stereo, and Bill Gates needs $700,000 for his.
...it will be somehow, some way, spun as justification to increase everyone's taxes in the name of environmental protection, saving the earth, or what the hell ever. Yeah, never mind the science, it's all a librul conspiracy to steal your tax dollars. The main thing that science has ever taught us is that reality has a Liberal bias.Look at a plot of the history of TOMS measurements. There was a vast improvement in 2005! Global warming is a hoax!
Oops. It was back as before in 2006.I wonder how many people foolishly claimed that it was "healing up" in 2005.
You can't set a single observation of good news against a long trend of bad news and conclude that there isn't a problem. People only do that when they're desperate to "prove" something that they don't actually have any evidence for.
Can you name even one scientist who has made all three claims? The link from man-made CFCs to ozone depletion was tenuous at best. LOL. You must be snorting out of Rush's spoon.
Who knows, we might be able to fund a space program on the side...
What really happened (assuming my memory can be trusted) is that Sagan et al. came out with the idea of a nuclear winter that would result from a global thermonuclear exchange, and it played a big role in the anti-nuclear-arms movement. But it also got scientists thinking about the effects of putting trash in the atmosphere, and that's when they realized that greenhouse gasses might be a problem. And there has been a steady accumulation of research since then that consistently indicates that they were right. (Hardly a surprise, since it is beyond doubt that we are putting incredible amounts of stuff into the atmosphere, and the concept of greenhouse gasses is based on our rigorous understanding of physics.)
Also there's an aside about the hypothetical Ice Age that is worth mentioning. There is still at least one scientist who thinks we'd be chilling out if greenhouse gasses weren't counterbalancing it. He had an article in Scientific American a few years ago, giving numbers on both side of the balance sheet (in watts per square meter), showing that the warming is about twice what is needed to cancel out the cooling.
I don't know how his claims have stood up among scientists, but it shows that at least once scientist thinks global cooling might be in play even today. You do sometimes see reports that show a balance sheet between warming and cooling effects, though I've never seen anyone else mention the threat of an Ice Age.
That was -precisely- the implication of TFS/tags. That this finding disproves "creationists" (an intentionally-misleading term on the level of "Islamofascists", integrating wholly-unalike premises into one term, but that's another discussion), which, one would have to assume, is inclusive of all people whose stance is that the universe was created as an intentional act.
Now, if we were to take the 15 seconds it would take to sort our terminology to have a useful discussion beyond the "science"/"creationism" false dichotomy, You were ok up to there, but there is a dichotomy between science and creationism. There is absolutely no intersection between them.
Hope springs eternal in science deniers' chests.
Yes, you do have to be careful with models. But when someone's best argument is "it's just a model!" (or "it's just a theory!"), odds are that they've already lost the debate.
Otherwise they'd be marshalling facts rather than the more desperate sort of argument.
If we were to assume that evolution had a goal, we would have to conclude that that goal was to produce beetles.
The fact of evolution does show that certain evolution-denying cults have at least one false claim in their creeds, but that's a far narrower conclusion than what you suggested.
Nice troll, though.