If the only evidence is microscopic markings in a rock that was assumed to have been knocked off of another planet, and then lay on ours for hundreds of thousands of years...yeah, I'd say there is no proof of dinosaurs or ancestors. Just because something could have happened, doesn't mean that it did.
That's when your red flag went up? Mine went up when someone claimed to be wondering around in the antartic and happen to stumble on a rock from Mars. They determine that it is from Mars, because it has a similar chemical makeup of what they think Mars is composed of, and determine that it has been in the anartic for hundreds of thousands of years.
THEN, they cut into it and find what they believe to be microscopic markings resembling markings left by bacteria. IPSO FACTO...life on Mars.
This chain of ownership has to many holes in it. No amount of analysis will *prove* anything.
WHEN we get to Mars, bend over and pick up a several rocks, cut into them and find some fossils...THEN we'll have proof of something.
Where does the Bible even claim that God has to tell us anything? The spirit of the book of Job seems to be that God has his own motivations and will do whatever he well pleases. We are subject to his whims, should obey his commands, and shouldn't be questioning his motives.
Being upset that he chose to create another world would be a little strange for a Biblical scholar.
From your analysis, I see a clear direction for the purpose of government. Instead of instituting prohibition laws (drink this..not that, you can have breast implants...but steroids aren't allowed, you can smoke tobacco..but not hemp, etc), the government should be about disseminating information. (alcohol does this to your liver, (why the hell are steroids outlawed), marijauna has this effect on your brain). Then leave adults alone to make their own decisions.
-The "War on Drugs" goes away. -Real science benefits, because people will be forced to learn it or die, making the gene pool a little cleaner. -Responsibility for oneself will once again be seen as a requirement for being considered a mature adult. -Government power will decrease (which is why it will never happen)
Except no libertarian claims that the businesses can do anything they think they can get away with. Libertarians claim that informed parties should be allowed to enter into contracts as they see fit. Libertarians call it freedom.
If there is poisonous toxins present, I don't think most informed parents would purchase the product for their children. The government has a very definite place in these sort of situations. It is to insure that parties aren't allowed to commit fraud by representing their products as safe for children.
Math isn't just "learned". It is "practiced". Much in the same way that you don't just "learn" to throw a 90mph fastball, you don't just "learn" to do math. Math is a set of techniques, combined with skill that must be developed.
A large part of math, especially that done in high school and college, is just exercise for the brain. There may be some practical application in the future, but the vast majority of people will never have a need to take a derivative any more than they will have the need to throw a 90mph fastball.
What they will have a need for, is the mental capacity to think methodically, logically, and mechanically about a problem. I cringed when my son's college writing professor said that "Luckily, journalists don't have a big need for math." That sort of braindead mindset is why we have reporters not bothering to question how federal healthcare will ever save money in the US. Journalist are not trained to wrap their minds around logical concepts like "If A=B, and B=C, then A=C". Those neurons have not been exercised.
The goal of taking the math class is not necessarily to learn a specific set of mathematical techniques. It is as much about developing the mental capacity as anything else. When you start developing, it will be very difficult to cope if you haven't developed those mental muscles.
History has proven that the tablet market was set at a price point that was to high. Traditionally, the typical tablet has been a very overpriced but underpowered laptop.
Many, MANY uses can be found for these type of tablets, IFF they're cheap enough. That is just now starting to happen.
The thing that hasn't changed is this industry moving from "hyping of planned bandwagon hyping". That has always been the case, and without some government enforced consent agreements (re IBM) it will continue to be the case.
Yeah, and the underpants will be good for playing contact sports also, because they will be made of metal. Give new meaning to the "Under Armour" brand of sportswear.
As a side benefit, the power sources help cool you down
Typically if you take something that's trying to dump waste heat, and install something that recovers power from that heat, it creates an insulating effect, reducing the cooling the object was receiving.
Unless, the device dumping the waste heat originally had a very inefficient path for dumping the heat. You can come in, install a more efficient "heat dumping" path and then bleed off some of the difference in the form of useful energy.
While you may not agree... I personally choose to believe that the experts in the field... those people who have devoted most of their life to studying this particular volcano, are probably more accurate on the matter than you - hence I side with them.
Bono, old chum!!
But do remember that education is about learning more and more about less and less until you know everything about nothing.
You're not just "trying to cool it". You're trying to extract the energy from it. At one point, people found a flammable liquid seeping from the ground, and started drilling wells to get at it. Then they began finding lots of other wells. The found underground supplies so vast, it was thought that we could never use it all. We're running out.
You wouldn't start this project with a pin prick through the weakest point in the fault. You start a well miles away and come at it laterally. Once the well got deep enough to provide commercially viable energy, the advancement rate would become extremely slow. As the energy is tapped off, the rock cools/hardens, and only then would the drill bit advance.
In 100 years, there would be thousands of pin-prick wells into this hotspot, and the new crisis will have people running to find oil wells before the Yellowstone runs out of heat.
The thing I have trouble with, is the idea that you can get enough of a discount to offset the cost of supporting random hardware configurations and software for several different CPU architectures.
Is this really cost effective?
Support? What is this support you speak of in relation to hardware? The closest I've seen to hardware support in the last 10 years is "Ship the unit back to us, and we'll ship you a new one."
You're talking about the energy contained in the system. We don't need to pull all that out to avoid the volcano explosion scenario. We only need to cool the hotspots enough to keep them sub-critical, and encourage the crust to thicken.
(1) how many materials do we have that could survive that heat for any length of time?
We don't have ANY. But, we don't NEED to withstand that temperature. You actively cool the bit as it progresses.
(2) how big of a drill bit would we need to release that much pressure in a way that would be safe?
Poke a pin in a can of warm Pepsi. Don't pull the pin out. Now make the pin the tip of a Peltier cooler which is powerful enough to freeze the liquid it touches.
Then think about that scenario where the "water hose" has released explosions of "water" that exceed the entire world's nuclear arsenal by a factor of ten.
But, you don't need to remove ALL that energy. You just have to remove enough to keep it from exceeding the ability of the solid mass above it to keep it in check. Just enough to keep it from going critical. And the energy you do remove can be done over several years, producing useful energy the entire time.
And there won't have to be just one "water hose". It'll require some infrastructure to remove the electricity produced, but once electricity is being profitably produce companies will rush to sink thousands of pipes.
If legitimate cases are hard to win, then loser pays is not the root of the problem. Bad laws are the problem, and that is not solvable in the court room.
Wouldn't it also have the effect of limiting access to the court system to those with a legitimate case that might be hard to win?
legitimate case that might be hard to win? A case that is hard to win doesn't seem very legitimate to me. If it is, then the lawmaking needs to be revisited.
If they do realize that, what they see from their end is called "precedent". That is, the best they can do is look at it and say, "Oops! We screwed up. Oh well, to late now. We've already stated how the law is supposed to be interpreted, and it looks bad when we change our minds."
It will stay that way until it is overturned by a higher court. Then it isn't "we changed our minds", it's "we were told we were wrong." Somehow, the legal profession prefers the former.
Slashdot Mirror
If the only evidence is microscopic markings in a rock that was assumed to have been knocked off of another planet, and then lay on ours for hundreds of thousands of years...yeah, I'd say there is no proof of dinosaurs or ancestors. Just because something could have happened, doesn't mean that it did.
That's when your red flag went up? Mine went up when someone claimed to be wondering around in the antartic and happen to stumble on a rock from Mars. They determine that it is from Mars, because it has a similar chemical makeup of what they think Mars is composed of, and determine that it has been in the anartic for hundreds of thousands of years.
THEN, they cut into it and find what they believe to be microscopic markings resembling markings left by bacteria. IPSO FACTO...life on Mars.
This chain of ownership has to many holes in it. No amount of analysis will *prove* anything.
WHEN we get to Mars, bend over and pick up a several rocks, cut into them and find some fossils...THEN we'll have proof of something.
Where does the Bible even claim that God has to tell us anything? The spirit of the book of Job seems to be that God has his own motivations and will do whatever he well pleases. We are subject to his whims, should obey his commands, and shouldn't be questioning his motives.
Being upset that he chose to create another world would be a little strange for a Biblical scholar.
From your analysis, I see a clear direction for the purpose of government. Instead of instituting prohibition laws (drink this..not that, you can have breast implants...but steroids aren't allowed, you can smoke tobacco..but not hemp, etc), the government should be about disseminating information. (alcohol does this to your liver, (why the hell are steroids outlawed), marijauna has this effect on your brain). Then leave adults alone to make their own decisions.
-The "War on Drugs" goes away.
-Real science benefits, because people will be forced to learn it or die, making the gene pool a little cleaner.
-Responsibility for oneself will once again be seen as a requirement for being considered a mature adult.
-Government power will decrease (which is why it will never happen)
Except no libertarian claims that the businesses can do anything they think they can get away with. Libertarians claim that informed parties should be allowed to enter into contracts as they see fit. Libertarians call it freedom.
If there is poisonous toxins present, I don't think most informed parents would purchase the product for their children. The government has a very definite place in these sort of situations. It is to insure that parties aren't allowed to commit fraud by representing their products as safe for children.
No, it's social science. How do you manipulate people to make them demand the change?
It is actually much more difficult than rocket science. You can't draw out a path to follow using math.
If you have a sufficiently large sample size it will start to more closely resemble the normal-distribution model.
Only if the entire population follows a normal-distribution. Nothing guarantees that any arbitrary population follows a normal distribution.
That lawsuit was so bogus. It's a "story" not reality. It just makes you feel like the movie is never going to end. On that, they succeeded.
I guess he doesn't do MSNBC, because they're just to damn easy, being a complete parody of themselves.
Really? Mine wasn't able to get past:
a new solution to Einstein’s field equations which incorporates torque and Coriolis effects.
The poor BS detector just sort of lay there, completely toasted from the overload.
Math isn't just "learned". It is "practiced". Much in the same way that you don't just "learn" to throw a 90mph fastball, you don't just "learn" to do math. Math is a set of techniques, combined with skill that must be developed.
A large part of math, especially that done in high school and college, is just exercise for the brain. There may be some practical application in the future, but the vast majority of people will never have a need to take a derivative any more than they will have the need to throw a 90mph fastball.
What they will have a need for, is the mental capacity to think methodically, logically, and mechanically about a problem. I cringed when my son's college writing professor said that "Luckily, journalists don't have a big need for math." That sort of braindead mindset is why we have reporters not bothering to question how federal healthcare will ever save money in the US. Journalist are not trained to wrap their minds around logical concepts like "If A=B, and B=C, then A=C". Those neurons have not been exercised.
The goal of taking the math class is not necessarily to learn a specific set of mathematical techniques. It is as much about developing the mental capacity as anything else. When you start developing, it will be very difficult to cope if you haven't developed those mental muscles.
Yes. They'd just need to travel faster than the speed of light, and then have a very strong telescope.
I'm confused.
You have a telescope that receives light from a distant object. At first:
-you don't know what it is made of
-you don't know how far away it is
-and you don't know how fast its relative motion is
How can you use red shift to predict relative motion? A shift implies a motion, and you don't know where it is moving from.
How can you make any prediction about composition if you can't be sure of the shift?
How can you make and prediction about distance if you are making up numbers about the previous two?
I've got to read a book or two on cosmology sometime. I suspect there is a lot of 'splaining left out.
And I would expect the oldest galaxies to have the least amount of hydrogen left, having had stars burning it the longest.
History has proven that the tablet market was set at a price point that was to high. Traditionally, the typical tablet has been a very overpriced but underpowered laptop.
Many, MANY uses can be found for these type of tablets, IFF they're cheap enough. That is just now starting to happen.
The thing that hasn't changed is this industry moving from "hyping of planned bandwagon hyping". That has always been the case, and without some government enforced consent agreements (re IBM) it will continue to be the case.
Yeah, and the underpants will be good for playing contact sports also, because they will be made of metal. Give new meaning to the "Under Armour" brand of sportswear.
As a side benefit, the power sources help cool you down
Typically if you take something that's trying to dump waste heat, and install something that recovers power from that heat, it creates an insulating effect, reducing the cooling the object was receiving.
Unless, the device dumping the waste heat originally had a very inefficient path for dumping the heat. You can come in, install a more efficient "heat dumping" path and then bleed off some of the difference in the form of useful energy.
While you may not agree... I personally choose to believe that the experts in the field... those people who have devoted most of their life to studying this particular volcano, are probably more accurate on the matter than you - hence I side with them.
Bono, old chum!!
But do remember that education is about learning more and more about less and less until you know everything about nothing.
You're not just "trying to cool it". You're trying to extract the energy from it. At one point, people found a flammable liquid seeping from the ground, and started drilling wells to get at it. Then they began finding lots of other wells. The found underground supplies so vast, it was thought that we could never use it all. We're running out.
You wouldn't start this project with a pin prick through the weakest point in the fault. You start a well miles away and come at it laterally. Once the well got deep enough to provide commercially viable energy, the advancement rate would become extremely slow. As the energy is tapped off, the rock cools/hardens, and only then would the drill bit advance.
In 100 years, there would be thousands of pin-prick wells into this hotspot, and the new crisis will have people running to find oil wells before the Yellowstone runs out of heat.
The thing I have trouble with, is the idea that you can get enough of a discount to offset the cost of supporting random hardware configurations and software for several different CPU architectures.
Is this really cost effective?
Support? What is this support you speak of in relation to hardware? The closest I've seen to hardware support in the last 10 years is "Ship the unit back to us, and we'll ship you a new one."
You're talking about the energy contained in the system. We don't need to pull all that out to avoid the volcano explosion scenario. We only need to cool the hotspots enough to keep them sub-critical, and encourage the crust to thicken.
(1) how many materials do we have that could survive that heat for any length of time?
We don't have ANY. But, we don't NEED to withstand that temperature. You actively cool the bit as it progresses.
(2) how big of a drill bit would we need to release that much pressure in a way that would be safe?
Poke a pin in a can of warm Pepsi. Don't pull the pin out. Now make the pin the tip of a Peltier cooler which is powerful enough to freeze the liquid it touches.
Then think about that scenario where the "water hose" has released explosions of "water" that exceed the entire world's nuclear arsenal by a factor of ten.
But, you don't need to remove ALL that energy. You just have to remove enough to keep it from exceeding the ability of the solid mass above it to keep it in check. Just enough to keep it from going critical. And the energy you do remove can be done over several years, producing useful energy the entire time.
And there won't have to be just one "water hose". It'll require some infrastructure to remove the electricity produced, but once electricity is being profitably produce companies will rush to sink thousands of pipes.
No. An understanding of the English language.
If legitimate cases are hard to win, then loser pays is not the root of the problem. Bad laws are the problem, and that is not solvable in the court room.
All we have to do is inspect all their freezers.
Then the laws need changing, not the interpretations thereof.
Wouldn't it also have the effect of limiting access to the court system to those with a legitimate case that might be hard to win?
legitimate case that might be hard to win? A case that is hard to win doesn't seem very legitimate to me. If it is, then the lawmaking needs to be revisited.
If they do realize that, what they see from their end is called "precedent". That is, the best they can do is look at it and say, "Oops! We screwed up. Oh well, to late now. We've already stated how the law is supposed to be interpreted, and it looks bad when we change our minds."
It will stay that way until it is overturned by a higher court. Then it isn't "we changed our minds", it's "we were told we were wrong." Somehow, the legal profession prefers the former.