Is this actual, observed evolution?
Is this the proof creationists are always demanding?
Yes and no. It is one of thousands of examples of observed evolution, and the process is already well proved. This will not stop the demands, however, since the demands are not made in good faith...
Couldn't you just form an symbiotic relationship with algae or photoplankton, allowing them to live inside you for protection in return for using them for energy? Aren't there already animals that do this?
There are. That process is well understood, and thus, not all that interesting to scientists. What this slug does in addition to that is novel and thus interesting.
Well, the problem would be that you then would also be very hot. And not in the good sense. More in the “spontaneous combustion” sense.;)
Not necessarily. Depending on how well it's done, it could actually cool you down rather than heat you up. A perfect efficiency, the process would cause you to die of hypothermia.
So, in other words, the statement is entirely correct, and your nit is incorrect if you're trying to say they don't produce energy from sunlight, but is correct if you're trying to say they produce energy from sunlight in a multi-step process, precisely like plants do, rather than a single-step process (which is not implied by the original statement, which is why it is entirely correct, despite your objections).
It's a pussy game and until it grows a pair, it will continue to be a pussy game.
You realize that your manner of speech tends to make people think you haven't actually grown a pair yourself yet, right? You're either still in Jr. High, or you've just never outgrown it...
When well adjusted adults see a game they don't care to play, they simply don't play it. If its not their cup of tea, they find something else to do. It takes a seriously immature person to feel the need to somehow put down those who do choose to play it, or call the players or the game itself childish names (e.g. "pussy", an adjective I haven't heard much of since high school, and even then, only from the crowd that was still acting by jr. high standards).
If you're not going to support PvP well in a Star Trek game, make it single-player.
Why? Because you don't enjoy that kind of thing in an MMO, every MMO should be either designed the way you like, or it should be single-player, because no one should be allowed to enjoy a different style of MMO gaming than you? Believe it or not, you are not the center of the universe. Again, grow up. Be happy for those who enjoy that sort of thing that they're getting what they want, even if it's not what you want. As an adult, you'll find you can take joy in the good fortune of others, rather than get upset about it.
How do I make sure I'm legally in the clear without hiring an expensive lawyer that my indie developer budget can't afford?
How do I make sure I don't get pregnant while having sex every day without using any form of contraception?
(Obvious answer: you don't. If you want to make sure you're legally in the clear, you hire an expensive lawyer. If you don't want to hire an expensive lawyer, then you live with not being sure you're legally in the clear.)
...a company like Atari (who? yes, they still exist!)...
Depends on who you mean by "they". If by "they" you mean the people who bought the rights to use the "Atari" trademark, yes, they exist. If you mean the company that made classic video games in the 80s, no, they're long gone...
Come up with ways to clean up every kind of radiation spill quickly, and demonstrate them by restoring the area around Chernobyl, and only then am I willing to change my mind about the unique dangers of nuclear power.
By the way, that last part would be difficult to demonstrate. Presumably living in an area with increased radiation contributes to cancer, but it's very difficult to pin down causes with epidemiological studies. Of the hundreds of people who defied evacuation orders and still live in Chernobyl and the surrounding area, it's not clear that they suffer from any ill effects. The natural wildlife in the area, both flora and fauna, is actually thriving, no doubt due to the much smaller population density of humans in the area these days. It's becoming an impressive park/wildlife preserve. Simply having the people leave has "restored" the area to be far more hospitable to most life than it was before the accident. Of course, most animals don't live the decades humans do, so I wouldn't recommend spending the next two decades of your life there. But it's not entirely clear you'd suffer any ill effects by it. You'd almost certainly have a increased cancer risk, but you might never actually suffer any ill-effects. It might even be healthier than living in central Los Angeles. Hard to say, one way or the other...
Not sure if it's actually less costly than coal, but it's certainly much more environmentally friendly. If certainly doing massive amounts of environmental damage to the planet every day is preferable in your eyes to possibly irradiating comparatively small areas of the planet, maybe, if only there's an accident on a scale that's not really possible in most designs, then yes, you most certainly don't have your priorities straight.
Your fears are not so much irrational as simply ignorant of the facts.
Byron Station has consistently been one of the best-run and best-performing nuclear power plants in the world from the day it went into service (well before that, actually), so any article that starts out by claiming the opposite is a bit, um, suspect as to the rest.
Oh dear. If that's true, we're a lot more screwed than the article makes it sound.
Unfortunately, SG-1 went on too long. I actually like Mitchell, it wasn't the casting changes at the end, the problem was that they'd taken things past the point of the story universe of being a useful setting for stories. The problem is, when your basic meta-story is about a war against the gods themselves, once you actually win, you run out of challenges...
Take a look at "I, Robot" for example.... To me, that's poor story adaptation, and made for poor science fiction.
Actually, it wasn't story adaption at all. They acquired the rights to "I, Robot", then slapped the name on a script that had already been written with no intention of being an "I, Robot" movie and just renamed a few characters and the name of the company making the robots.
Nope, sorry. The Greeks used up all the possible stories. We just keep making remakes, whether we label them as such or not. Sometimes we do remakes of remakes. How many times have William Shakespeare's remakes of Greek tragedies been remade with different names?
I can easily imagine good movies set in the Foundation universe. I cannot imagine a decent Foundation movie that bears much resemblance to the book. It's a great book, but it's not movie material...
Slashdot Mirror
Only if you're a passive-voiced idiot. "Journalists", use the active voice! Please!
Your point is taken.
Actually both ways are now accepted, although the former was not considered correct when I was in grade school.
Or, more accurately, it was considered correct when you were in grade school, but not by your grade school teacher.
Is this actual, observed evolution? Is this the proof creationists are always demanding?
Yes and no. It is one of thousands of examples of observed evolution, and the process is already well proved. This will not stop the demands, however, since the demands are not made in good faith...
Couldn't you just form an symbiotic relationship with algae or photoplankton, allowing them to live inside you for protection in return for using them for energy? Aren't there already animals that do this?
There are. That process is well understood, and thus, not all that interesting to scientists. What this slug does in addition to that is novel and thus interesting.
Wouldn't that be a fluke that only needed to happen once?
Calling it a "fluke" is not an explanation. The thing about scientists is, they like to find out how these "flukes" happen.
Well, the problem would be that you then would also be very hot. And not in the good sense. More in the “spontaneous combustion” sense. ;)
Not necessarily. Depending on how well it's done, it could actually cool you down rather than heat you up. A perfect efficiency, the process would cause you to die of hypothermia.
And then we would be hearing about the worst ecological disaster to ever strike earth: global lightning.
Actually, light pollution is already a serious problem for astronomers, and we've been hearing about it for decades already.
The sun isn't the source of energy it is simply an energy source as atoms are a source of energy
The sun is atoms. Lots of them. Your nitpick is a logical absurdity of the (P and ~P) form.
So, in other words, the statement is entirely correct, and your nit is incorrect if you're trying to say they don't produce energy from sunlight, but is correct if you're trying to say they produce energy from sunlight in a multi-step process, precisely like plants do, rather than a single-step process (which is not implied by the original statement, which is why it is entirely correct, despite your objections).
It's not really a joke when it's not funny.
That counts as a "whoosh", then. You didn't get the humor.
Whoosh.
Nice save. /sarcasm
People bored of or just never interested in MMO's will not be interested in a Star Trek MMO! *shock*
Well, yes. DS9 had the one thing every other Star Trek series has lacked: interesting characters and stories.
It's a pussy game and until it grows a pair, it will continue to be a pussy game.
You realize that your manner of speech tends to make people think you haven't actually grown a pair yourself yet, right? You're either still in Jr. High, or you've just never outgrown it...
When well adjusted adults see a game they don't care to play, they simply don't play it. If its not their cup of tea, they find something else to do. It takes a seriously immature person to feel the need to somehow put down those who do choose to play it, or call the players or the game itself childish names (e.g. "pussy", an adjective I haven't heard much of since high school, and even then, only from the crowd that was still acting by jr. high standards).
If you're not going to support PvP well in a Star Trek game, make it single-player.
Why? Because you don't enjoy that kind of thing in an MMO, every MMO should be either designed the way you like, or it should be single-player, because no one should be allowed to enjoy a different style of MMO gaming than you? Believe it or not, you are not the center of the universe. Again, grow up. Be happy for those who enjoy that sort of thing that they're getting what they want, even if it's not what you want. As an adult, you'll find you can take joy in the good fortune of others, rather than get upset about it.
How do I make sure I'm legally in the clear without hiring an expensive lawyer that my indie developer budget can't afford?
How do I make sure I don't get pregnant while having sex every day without using any form of contraception?
(Obvious answer: you don't. If you want to make sure you're legally in the clear, you hire an expensive lawyer. If you don't want to hire an expensive lawyer, then you live with not being sure you're legally in the clear.)
...a company like Atari (who? yes, they still exist!)...
Depends on who you mean by "they". If by "they" you mean the people who bought the rights to use the "Atari" trademark, yes, they exist. If you mean the company that made classic video games in the 80s, no, they're long gone...
Come up with ways to clean up every kind of radiation spill quickly, and demonstrate them by restoring the area around Chernobyl, and only then am I willing to change my mind about the unique dangers of nuclear power.
By the way, that last part would be difficult to demonstrate. Presumably living in an area with increased radiation contributes to cancer, but it's very difficult to pin down causes with epidemiological studies. Of the hundreds of people who defied evacuation orders and still live in Chernobyl and the surrounding area, it's not clear that they suffer from any ill effects. The natural wildlife in the area, both flora and fauna, is actually thriving, no doubt due to the much smaller population density of humans in the area these days. It's becoming an impressive park/wildlife preserve. Simply having the people leave has "restored" the area to be far more hospitable to most life than it was before the accident. Of course, most animals don't live the decades humans do, so I wouldn't recommend spending the next two decades of your life there. But it's not entirely clear you'd suffer any ill effects by it. You'd almost certainly have a increased cancer risk, but you might never actually suffer any ill-effects. It might even be healthier than living in central Los Angeles. Hard to say, one way or the other...
Not sure if it's actually less costly than coal, but it's certainly much more environmentally friendly. If certainly doing massive amounts of environmental damage to the planet every day is preferable in your eyes to possibly irradiating comparatively small areas of the planet, maybe, if only there's an accident on a scale that's not really possible in most designs, then yes, you most certainly don't have your priorities straight.
Your fears are not so much irrational as simply ignorant of the facts.
Byron Station has consistently been one of the best-run and best-performing nuclear power plants in the world from the day it went into service (well before that, actually), so any article that starts out by claiming the opposite is a bit, um, suspect as to the rest.
Oh dear. If that's true, we're a lot more screwed than the article makes it sound.
... no seriously. Slashdot needs to have a reboot with a younger cast.
Yeah, far too many old farts around here... XD
Unfortunately, SG-1 went on too long. I actually like Mitchell, it wasn't the casting changes at the end, the problem was that they'd taken things past the point of the story universe of being a useful setting for stories. The problem is, when your basic meta-story is about a war against the gods themselves, once you actually win, you run out of challenges...
Take a look at "I, Robot" for example. ... To me, that's poor story adaptation, and made for poor science fiction.
Actually, it wasn't story adaption at all. They acquired the rights to "I, Robot", then slapped the name on a script that had already been written with no intention of being an "I, Robot" movie and just renamed a few characters and the name of the company making the robots.
For God's Sake, can't we have something original?
Nope, sorry. The Greeks used up all the possible stories. We just keep making remakes, whether we label them as such or not. Sometimes we do remakes of remakes. How many times have William Shakespeare's remakes of Greek tragedies been remade with different names?
What? The theme was the best part! (Alas, this just confirms what you said about not missing anything if you tuned out after it...)
Oh dear...
I can easily imagine good movies set in the Foundation universe. I cannot imagine a decent Foundation movie that bears much resemblance to the book. It's a great book, but it's not movie material...