Doubtfull. Nowhere in the preview did I see the word "Asimov." Sure, it might have been in the tiny text that the show and the end of the preview for 1.5 seconds, but I doubt that's going to get anybody into the bookstores that didn't already know of Asimov. You'd think that they'd title it "Isaac Asimov's 'I, Robot'" as a selling point.
I always thought of the way science has been done for the last two hundred years as being "open source." All science is currently available in journals and anyone can use the information in the journals as long as proper credit is given. So what is this article trying to say? We should keep doing things the way we have been?
Without a license, you can't get insured and screw with rates. If you get caught without a license, you get fined or worse which would give reckless drivers incentive to slow down and pay attention.
He is also barred from driving for the next three years.
WTF? He's had two accidents within the last three years due to wreckless driving, one of which kills someone, and they're only going to take away his license for three years!
Once you kill someone due to wreckless driving you should loose your driving privilages permanently. Assholes like this and the courts that fail to appropriately punish them are the reason why my insurance bills are so rediculous.
Then they learned, to their chagrin, that dihydrogen monoxide -- H2O for short -- is the scientific term for water.
Back off man, I'm a scientist.
The scientific term for water is water. The only time I've ever heard the term dihydrogen monoxide is in reference to making fun of people who think atoms are little balls.
You know that's bullshit. In general I would say you're correct, but that's not the tone people are using here today. They're excusing themselves because they think that being gay is wrong and are uncomfortable with the fact that someone on slashdot might think they're gay.
And to clarify, before any confusion, I am not gay and don't have any gay friends (that I know about), though I have had a few gay acquaintences. I'm just cursed with a love of reason and logic, and there's no reason or logic behind denying gays the right to marry.
Why does everyone have to keep excusing themselves from being gay while defending human rights? It defeats the purpose.
For one thing, because the potential to abuse "marriage" becomes much higher. A guy and a girl living together and one has a job with health insurance? Tada, they're "married" and now the slacker roomate gets cheap healthcare at the expense of the other employees at the firm where dude works.
You're probably not qualified to decide whether or not HIV should be classified biohazard level 3. The point is that he took it upon himself to disobey safety policies that are put in place for a reason and potentially put people into danger unknowingly (the other people in the building that don't know HIV research is being done).
You would hope. But unfortunately a lot of scientists are dumbasses just like the rest of the population. In fact, there's a researcher at my university who wanted to study some aspect of HIV. So he ordered some of the virus and claimed that he was equipped to handle biohazard level 3 (or whatever is needed --- I don't know much about the levels). But the building he works for is not equipped for this and the company bought his story anyway without checking up on anything. I think he decided to finally trash the project after he found that none of his lab assistants would do the research without proper protection. But the fact is that if they had been dumb enough to be willing, it would have gone ahead without proper protection for the lab assistants or the other people in the building.
Basically he's an overconfident asstard who thinks that rules are for other people. Lot's of scientists are like this and it worries me that the system in place to prevent these types of incidents is totally ineffective.
The sky is blue due a phenomenon known as Rayleigh scattering. Molecules are very small, ~1 nm, but light wavelengths are fairly large, ~500nm. Blue light has the shortest wavelength and is thus able to better interact with molecules (think resonance affects). When light hits a molecule there is chance that it could be scattered. Blue light will be scattered more fequently since it interacts with the molecules better. Therefore, when photons from the sun would normally just skim the atmosphere, more of the blue photons are scattered down to the earth and thus the sky looks blue.
Consequently, this explains sunsets as well becuase when light from the sun has more atmosphere to travel though (such as when it's on the horizon), more photon are scattered. So when you look near the sun at sunset, the blue photons have mostly been scattered perpendicular to the direction of sun, leaving only the red photons to hit your eyes.
End of discussion. Anything more to be said about , "oh, but that doesn't really make it a color" is rediculous. The sky looks blue, so for all intents and purposes, it's blue.
Slashdot Mirror
The primary use of guns is self defense (against people). Therefore, guns are mostly used for the purpose of killing people.
Doubtfull. Nowhere in the preview did I see the word "Asimov." Sure, it might have been in the tiny text that the show and the end of the preview for 1.5 seconds, but I doubt that's going to get anybody into the bookstores that didn't already know of Asimov. You'd think that they'd title it "Isaac Asimov's 'I, Robot'" as a selling point.
Ahhh, now I remember what it was like being 14....
I always thought of the way science has been done for the last two hundred years as being "open source." All science is currently available in journals and anyone can use the information in the journals as long as proper credit is given. So what is this article trying to say? We should keep doing things the way we have been?
Isn't this what mac's have been doing for several years now?
Without a license, you can't get insured and screw with rates. If you get caught without a license, you get fined or worse which would give reckless drivers incentive to slow down and pay attention.
He is also barred from driving for the next three years.
WTF? He's had two accidents within the last three years due to wreckless driving, one of which kills someone, and they're only going to take away his license for three years!
Once you kill someone due to wreckless driving you should loose your driving privilages permanently. Assholes like this and the courts that fail to appropriately punish them are the reason why my insurance bills are so rediculous.
That's disgusting.
Back off man, I'm a scientist.
The scientific term for water is water. The only time I've ever heard the term dihydrogen monoxide is in reference to making fun of people who think atoms are little balls.
No shit. Awkward spacing and the bad grammerr sign of obviosly worm or bad virus. Kind of dumbas trust such a source like this?
Socrates wasn't killed by the Catholic church, either. In fact, Christianity didn't even exist at the time.
You know that's bullshit. In general I would say you're correct, but that's not the tone people are using here today. They're excusing themselves because they think that being gay is wrong and are uncomfortable with the fact that someone on slashdot might think they're gay.
See this
Why does everyone have to keep excusing themselves from being gay while defending human rights? It defeats the purpose.
All kinds of ways to abuse this...
This is like sooooo yesterday.
You're probably not qualified to decide whether or not HIV should be classified biohazard level 3. The point is that he took it upon himself to disobey safety policies that are put in place for a reason and potentially put people into danger unknowingly (the other people in the building that don't know HIV research is being done).
Basically he's an overconfident asstard who thinks that rules are for other people. Lot's of scientists are like this and it worries me that the system in place to prevent these types of incidents is totally ineffective.
But the first season looked like shit anyway so it doesn't matter.
I was waiting for somebody to clearly state 90% of what I think about this subject. Thanks!
Same place they got the game.
Consequently, this explains sunsets as well becuase when light from the sun has more atmosphere to travel though (such as when it's on the horizon), more photon are scattered. So when you look near the sun at sunset, the blue photons have mostly been scattered perpendicular to the direction of sun, leaving only the red photons to hit your eyes.
End of discussion. Anything more to be said about , "oh, but that doesn't really make it a color" is rediculous. The sky looks blue, so for all intents and purposes, it's blue.
So you're telling "me" that the grass just "seems" to absorb ~500 nm light, and that our "brain" just tricks us into "thinking" so?
That's better than Robbie the Robot. He took several weeks to crystalize diamond.
I NEED A BLO JOB LINE Is that the one is Hauser? I thought they cleaned that.