And I keep telling you: your reasoning was wrong and you misidentified the bias. You said "I think its possible the scientific community was biased toward a water flow explanation" as an explanation for why a paper was published postulating water flow when new interpretations contradict that.
Your seeming desire to tell me I don't understand science is clouded by your lack of reading comprehension. I did NOT say the bias was an explanation for why 'a' paper was published. Rather, the bias "could" explain the propensity to look at water first and focus on water based explanations.
Then, I followed with; "but this story is evidence that they are doing just that.", working hard to prove other explanations. In other words, the bias, if it exists, did not in the end prevent them from considering other explanations.
Settle down and consider the fact that maybe you misinterpreted something, rather than make uninformed claims as to other's understanding of science.
You can't have a debate putting words in the mouths of others.
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm trying to explain to you where you misunderstand how science operates. Scientists are biased, in terms of what they work on, in terms of what they believe to be true, and in terms of what they publish; you don't need to look for "evidence" of that, it's part of the process. That's why the scientific literature is full of papers that provide incorrect explanations and incorrect results; the literature is probably biased towards such papers.
I don't misunderstand how science operates. I never claimed bias plays no role in science, that is your twist. I merely pointed out a specific bias. It is YOU who put words in my mouth and took that as some misunderstanding or commentary on bias in science in general.
Biases in science are not always helpful. Pointing out biases can be very helpful. Sorry I pointed a potential one out. Why do YOU misunderstand how that can be helpful?
One could argue all day over whether or not it is gambling in the legal sense. The intent of the regulation is to keep stupid people from doing stupid things, another debate in itself.
You're making the mistake of equating what's published with some measure of scientific truth.
No, I clearly said "or possibly that's just the one the media stuck to". I never said anything to equate what is published with scientific truth. And I never ' insist(ed) that everything everybody says is known to be true".
You can't have a debate putting words in the mouths of others.
There is clearly (and understandably) a desire in the scientific community to find as much evidence of water on mars as possible. More water means higher chance of life and better chance of human colonization support. I think its possible the scientific community was biased toward a water flow explanation, or possibly that's just the one the media stuck to. Did they work as hard to prove other explanations? I'm not sure they did, but this story is evidence that they are doing just that.
But we know that the levels detected were very low, and therefore the release was very small. That has been clearly reported. You can ignore if you like.
There has been no revision of Fukushima health impacts estimates. The estimate was carefully performed and well documented using the same methodology as after Chernobyl, where we found the actual health impacts much lower than estimated. There are extremely small radiological health risks from Fukushima.
The toxicity has zero to do with the radioactivity.
Ruthenium is used in some thin film solar cells. People working with it are exposed to trace levels of it, much greater than anyone in the path of this 'cloud'. Why does THAT not scare you so much?
You know what you should be scared of. Its a chemical you are exposed to at 1000 times normal levels when you are near automotive traffic or gas stations. It causes various forms of cancer, can cause birth defects, convulsions, and various other things. Why are there no headlines about BENZENE!!!!!!
It is funny that finding trace amounts of a radioactive material in the atmosphere is billed as a 'radioactive cloud' and results in so many alarmist articles. Meanwhile, all the truly dangerous crap being released into the atmosphere is everyday ho hum.
Once again, proof of media ignorance about radiation risk.
You are literally arguing for a system which reduces to under $2/hour in pay in the modern economy. This makes you corrupt or it makes you overly naive and idealist, either way it makes you an idiot.
I didn't 'argue for' the system. You have reading comprehension issues. It seems you have soaked up the limited information fed to you in the article and, without asking questions, assume you have full understanding of what is occurring. In other words, you are a moron.
It doesn't store hydrogen, they seem to make the case that they can store the electrical energy and simply produce it on demand fast enough to use as a fuel, which is ridiculous.
They did a good job of including all the buzz words that folks love; Fuel cell, solar, storage, cars for the masses, cheap and environmentally friendly, dramatically lower cost, green, not reliant of fossil fuels, huge advance (like cell phone camera), distinquished professor...
TFA says one worker 'put in' 19 hrs and got $37 in pay. Can anybody tell me what work the person actually did in those 19 hours? Maybe he did 4 hours worth of work? Maybe he did 40 hours worth of work?
Key information missing, so please folks don't get all bent.
Yeah, because nobody that lives near me gets their groceries from the local store, and there is no way I could wait and shop for my stuff when one of them orders.
This is not a bug but a key feature of gig economy.
It is. The "feature" is that by calling workers "independent contractors", Instacart can violate all of the laws set up to make sure that employers don't take advantage of workers.............
There are laws that apply to contractors. How can you violate the laws that don't apply?
If you pick up someones groceries while you also shop for your own and deliver on your way home, its a chance to make some money for very little 'added' time invested.
Slashdot Mirror
And I keep telling you: your reasoning was wrong and you misidentified the bias. You said "I think its possible the scientific community was biased toward a water flow explanation" as an explanation for why a paper was published postulating water flow when new interpretations contradict that.
Your seeming desire to tell me I don't understand science is clouded by your lack of reading comprehension. I did NOT say the bias was an explanation for why 'a' paper was published. Rather, the bias "could" explain the propensity to look at water first and focus on water based explanations.
Then, I followed with; "but this story is evidence that they are doing just that.", working hard to prove other explanations. In other words, the bias, if it exists, did not in the end prevent them from considering other explanations.
Settle down and consider the fact that maybe you misinterpreted something, rather than make uninformed claims as to other's understanding of science.
Just like how the Apollo program got many interested in STEM careers we can see now that our investment in FarmVille has also paid off.
Now just wait for the uptick in the number of confectioners to come around...
For today's young farmers, STEMs are what is leftover after the good stuff is gone.
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm trying to explain to you where you misunderstand how science operates. Scientists are biased, in terms of what they work on, in terms of what they believe to be true, and in terms of what they publish; you don't need to look for "evidence" of that, it's part of the process. That's why the scientific literature is full of papers that provide incorrect explanations and incorrect results; the literature is probably biased towards such papers.
I don't misunderstand how science operates. I never claimed bias plays no role in science, that is your twist. I merely pointed out a specific bias. It is YOU who put words in my mouth and took that as some misunderstanding or commentary on bias in science in general.
Biases in science are not always helpful. Pointing out biases can be very helpful. Sorry I pointed a potential one out. Why do YOU misunderstand how that can be helpful?
The intent of the regulation is to keep stupid people from doing stupid things, another debate in itself.
Is a sad day when addiction is called "doing stupid things."
Are you saying addiction is smart? Aren't we all capable of doing something stupid?
One could argue all day over whether or not it is gambling in the legal sense. The intent of the regulation is to keep stupid people from doing stupid things, another debate in itself.
You're making the mistake of equating what's published with some measure of scientific truth.
No, I clearly said "or possibly that's just the one the media stuck to". I never said anything to equate what is published with scientific truth. And I never ' insist(ed) that everything everybody says is known to be true".
You can't have a debate putting words in the mouths of others.
There is clearly (and understandably) a desire in the scientific community to find as much evidence of water on mars as possible. More water means higher chance of life and better chance of human colonization support. I think its possible the scientific community was biased toward a water flow explanation, or possibly that's just the one the media stuck to. Did they work as hard to prove other explanations? I'm not sure they did, but this story is evidence that they are doing just that.
Are you assigning some acronym to yourself? Not Particularly Cognizant.
You are certainly good at using a lot of words to accomplish absolutely nothing.
But we know that the levels detected were very low, and therefore the release was very small. That has been clearly reported. You can ignore if you like.
There has been no revision of Fukushima health impacts estimates. The estimate was carefully performed and well documented using the same methodology as after Chernobyl, where we found the actual health impacts much lower than estimated. There are extremely small radiological health risks from Fukushima.
Nice generalities, sounds scary. Now talk about the exposure risk for this particular event and the trace amounts detected.
Do you understand that levels and exposure amounts are important considerations? Trace amounts of lots of stuff are out there.
The toxicity has zero to do with the radioactivity.
Ruthenium is used in some thin film solar cells. People working with it are exposed to trace levels of it, much greater than anyone in the path of this 'cloud'. Why does THAT not scare you so much?
You know what you should be scared of. Its a chemical you are exposed to at 1000 times normal levels when you are near automotive traffic or gas stations. It causes various forms of cancer, can cause birth defects, convulsions, and various other things. Why are there no headlines about BENZENE!!!!!!
Thanks for solidifying my point. That's the reaction I'd expect.
It is funny that finding trace amounts of a radioactive material in the atmosphere is billed as a 'radioactive cloud' and results in so many alarmist articles. Meanwhile, all the truly dangerous crap being released into the atmosphere is everyday ho hum.
Once again, proof of media ignorance about radiation risk.
Think of all the rats that could have benefited had this study been properly completed and released.
You are literally arguing for a system which reduces to under $2/hour in pay in the modern economy. This makes you corrupt or it makes you overly naive and idealist, either way it makes you an idiot.
I didn't 'argue for' the system. You have reading comprehension issues. It seems you have soaked up the limited information fed to you in the article and, without asking questions, assume you have full understanding of what is occurring. In other words, you are a moron.
I see, you can't respond to my point because it is so obvious, so instead you insult. I think we know who the idiot is.
It doesn't store hydrogen, they seem to make the case that they can store the electrical energy and simply produce it on demand fast enough to use as a fuel, which is ridiculous.
They did a good job of including all the buzz words that folks love; Fuel cell, solar, storage, cars for the masses, cheap and environmentally friendly, dramatically lower cost, green, not reliant of fossil fuels, huge advance (like cell phone camera), distinquished professor...
Did AI generate this?
In many towns, the unemployment rate exceeds 50 percent.
Yes, it can be the only OPEN job.
There used to be some $10.00/hr jobs before that was illegal.
TFA says one worker 'put in' 19 hrs and got $37 in pay. Can anybody tell me what work the person actually did in those 19 hours? Maybe he did 4 hours worth of work? Maybe he did 40 hours worth of work?
Key information missing, so please folks don't get all bent.
Yeah, because nobody that lives near me gets their groceries from the local store, and there is no way I could wait and shop for my stuff when one of them orders.
This is not a bug but a key feature of gig economy.
It is. The "feature" is that by calling workers "independent contractors", Instacart can violate all of the laws set up to make sure that employers don't take advantage of workers. ............
There are laws that apply to contractors. How can you violate the laws that don't apply?
Again, where's the gun to their head to do this contract job?
If you don't have a job, you starve.
That's a gun to the head.
What about 'this' job?
If you pick up someones groceries while you also shop for your own and deliver on your way home, its a chance to make some money for very little 'added' time invested.