> "...the government endorses a recent intellectual property report".
That's a first. I've lost count of the number of times some quango has been set up to bolster gov't policies and then been quietly buried when their report turns out to recommend the opposite.
No it isn't. Reductio ad absurdum is where you assume the opposite (of what you want to prove) to be true and then after a series of logically correct inferences arrive at a "true" statement that is inconsistent with your assumption or the axioms.
Disproving a conjecture by finding a counter-example isn't a proof of anything except the falsehood of the conjecture. I suppose you could set up the falsehood of the conjecture as a theorem, but it doesn't really tell you anything.
Maybe you should try reductio ad nauseam. That's where you make a series of logically correct inferences until you arrive at the conclusion that everyone in your audience has dozed off. Then you suddenly announce "QED!" in a loud voice and move on to the next topic.
I think the fact that high school maths teachers are recommending calculators at all points to what's wrong with maths teaching, but maybe that's just me.
Can't help noticing that the linked Express article says he has beaten prostate cancer, not colon cancer. For the anatomically challenged among you, it's the hole you pee through, not the one you sh1t through.
I asked about the Airman's Corner excavations at in the visitors' centre when I visited Stonehenge this summer. Apparently they're hoping *not* to find anything interesting there; they are looking for somewhere to put a new visitors' centre, and want to make sure that there won't be any archaeological remains under the car park.
Yeah - if your car loses grip at 75mph in a gentle curve, even in the wet, there's something seriously wrong with either your car or the road surface.
Disclaimer: I live in Germany, and my 7-seater "people carrier" with winter tyres and no ESP can manage 130-140 (80-90mph) round a gentle curve with only perhaps a small bit of understeer at the top end of that range. With summer tyres it's much better --- but allegedly isn't so good in snow, not that I've ever noticed much difference there either.
Besides turning a small portion to wetlands would just increase available farmland, win/win
Not really - your solar collectors wouldn't work all that well any more:-(
I can't argue with your assertion about the amount of desert - I just don't have any figures. However, all I'm trying to point out is that the so-called "renewable" energy sources have their environmental impacts too.
The amount of tidal energy we take would be infinitesimal compared to the energy available.
That isn't really the point. The point is, what happens locally (around the tidal generator/wind farm/solar collector/whatever) when a significant amount of energy is removed just there. There are already examples of this in Europe: altered pollination patterns for wind-pollinated plants (grasses etc.) downwind of wind farms. No-one knows the long-term effects of this - though I guess we might soon find out.
So you know the full environmental impact of covering deserts with solar collectors, do you? You wouldn't half look stupid if your desert became a wetland in a short space of time because you cooled the region too much.
Removing significant amounts of energy from waves and tides could also have interesting environmental side effects.
Basically you're going to get some form of side effect whenever you convert large amounts of energy from one form to another. The questions are: what are the effects, and are we willing to accept them?
Not saying nuclear is better. just pointing out the downside (never mentioned, possibly unknown) of the so-called "renewable" energy sources.
My front door lock froze at midnight CET. Couldn't get back in after letting off fireworks. Fortunately there's a back door, but if that hadn't worked we could have tried the windows:-)
Slashdot Mirror
FileVault?
Just search for VileFault - there's your answer.
Difficult to *restore* a faith that was never there.
Does "non-essential" cover senators and reps?
Surveillance is terrorism
Lets see now. 26 senators from 23 states. Less than half.
Was the assembly quorate?
...or a footgun :-)
You mean your flying electric car currently has a power cable?
No wonder the range is limited.
> "...the government endorses a recent intellectual property report".
That's a first. I've lost count of the number of times some quango has been set up to bolster gov't policies and then been quietly buried when their report turns out to recommend the opposite.
I'm not Sparticus either.
I'm Spartacus!
First post, but modded down as "redundant"?
Reality must be on the blink again.*
[*] Douglas Adams,iirc.
Nah, we've got our own thanks to the EUCD. :-(
No it isn't. Reductio ad absurdum is where you assume the opposite (of what you want to prove) to be true and then after a series of logically correct inferences arrive at a "true" statement that is inconsistent with your assumption or the axioms.
Disproving a conjecture by finding a counter-example isn't a proof of anything except the falsehood of the conjecture. I suppose you could set up the falsehood of the conjecture as a theorem, but it doesn't really tell you anything.
Maybe you should try reductio ad nauseam. That's where you make a series of logically correct inferences until you arrive at the conclusion that everyone in your audience has dozed off. Then you suddenly announce "QED!" in a loud voice and move on to the next topic.
Nah - that's easy to debunk. Just ask for the citations. ;-)
I think the fact that high school maths teachers are recommending calculators at all points to what's wrong with maths teaching, but maybe that's just me.
You will now.
Can't help noticing that the linked Express article says he has beaten prostate cancer, not colon cancer. For the anatomically challenged among you, it's the hole you pee through, not the one you sh1t through.
Just thought I'd mention it.
Let them rape cake.
... or shoot the popcorn and eat anything that moves.
You're talking about immunity from prosecution. This isn't prosecution ... it's a lynching.
I asked about the Airman's Corner excavations at in the visitors' centre when I visited Stonehenge this summer. Apparently they're hoping *not* to find anything interesting there; they are looking for somewhere to put a new visitors' centre, and want to make sure that there won't be any archaeological remains under the car park.
OK here goes ...
Le plus ça change, le plus ça même old joke.
Yeah - if your car loses grip at 75mph in a gentle curve, even in the wet, there's something seriously wrong with either your car or the road surface.
Disclaimer: I live in Germany, and my 7-seater "people carrier" with winter tyres and no ESP can manage 130-140 (80-90mph) round a gentle curve with only perhaps a small bit of understeer at the top end of that range. With summer tyres it's much better --- but allegedly isn't so good in snow, not that I've ever noticed much difference there either.
Besides turning a small portion to wetlands would just increase available farmland, win/win
Not really - your solar collectors wouldn't work all that well any more :-(
I can't argue with your assertion about the amount of desert - I just don't have any figures. However, all I'm trying to point out is that the so-called "renewable" energy sources have their environmental impacts too.
The amount of tidal energy we take would be infinitesimal compared to the energy available.
That isn't really the point. The point is, what happens locally (around the tidal generator/wind farm/solar collector/whatever) when a significant amount of energy is removed just there. There are already examples of this in Europe: altered pollination patterns for wind-pollinated plants (grasses etc.) downwind of wind farms. No-one knows the long-term effects of this - though I guess we might soon find out.
So you know the full environmental impact of covering deserts with solar collectors, do you? You wouldn't half look stupid if your desert became a wetland in a short space of time because you cooled the region too much.
Removing significant amounts of energy from waves and tides could also have interesting environmental side effects.
Basically you're going to get some form of side effect whenever you convert large amounts of energy from one form to another. The questions are: what are the effects, and are we willing to accept them?
Not saying nuclear is better. just pointing out the downside (never mentioned, possibly unknown) of the so-called "renewable" energy sources.
My front door lock froze at midnight CET. Couldn't get back in after letting off fireworks. Fortunately there's a back door, but if that hadn't worked we could have tried the windows :-)