I seem to recall reading about an emergency blood substitute in the late 90s. The odd thing about it was that it wasn't red, but white. There was a picture of a lab rat (albino, of course) that had a complete transfusion and its eyes were silver. Does anyone else remember this?
So maybe I've had a few tonight, but I'm thoughtful enough to not go texting people at this hour. I'll just bug all of you instead.
I feel like I've been reading about cold fusion for as long as I've been old enough to read about science. I can't shake the feeling that cold fusion research is the modern equivalent of alchemy. That is to say that it's kind of a dead end in itself, but the amount of work being done to that end is yielding all kinds of results that will be beneficial to other scientists at some other point.
As to why I just had to come on here and spew this, I will refer you to my colleague, Professor Daniels.
Well why did he stop? I mean, I have no problem paying for my own sins, but a good night out can get a little pricey and if there's someone willing to pick up the tab out of love then I'd like his card.
Obviously you've never heard the wonder of Norteno being blasted at seven in the morning on a Saturday. I'd venture that the two are not so dissimilar.
I always thought Marc Bolan was simply an awesome musician. Now I found out that he's also performing protein analysis from beyond the grave. T. Rex... still the best.
So in a failed attempt to quiet some idiots who take the bible not as the observed Truth about society but as if it were a literal account of how the earth was created you have quite nearly stooped to their level by declaring that evolution is not a best educated guess supported by evidence but instead an absolute unshakeable truth about how things were created.
Nowhere in my post did I say anything about the unshakeable truth of evolution. I did not even hint at it. My concern here is teaching the scientific method to kids. These kids are (and I'll grant wholly that this is my opinion) served best by a system that says, "Anything we're going to present as fact has been labelled as such due to much observation and measurement and such. However, it is all up for reconsideration and you are welcome to challenge it if you find contradictory evidence. This is the method by which these conclusions have been reached and here's how you can apply them yourself." If there is ever an all-powerful magic man to fall back on in this process, there is only so much reason to keep up with the questioning.
Many scientists are quite able to handle theology alongside science.
Good for them. I'm quite able to handle playing piano while digesting dinner.
This is an unfortunate axiom of the currently practiced education system. It has not always been this way and I have strong doubts that it should remain this way. It clouds the students' minds by forcing them to break the natural connections among disciplines. How different really is the scientific method from a mathematical proof or well-thought rhetoric? How different is any of it from good theology (note: not religion) and philosphy? It is all ultimately a form of critical thinking.
It is ultimately a form of critical thinking. However, I think you and I are simply going to disagree. I simply fail to grasp why Mendel and Moses need to brought up in the same discussion. And let me still you now: I know that Mendel was a priest.
Christian theology does not demand its followers to be unthinking sheep. In fact,...(editing for brevity)... solvers of all the world's problems, or scientists who profess to speak the truth.
Ask ten different Christians what Christianity means to them and what it demands of them and you will get a hundred different answers. Some will say love thy neighbor and accept Jesus as your savior, some will go on about the importance of proselytizing, one might even say that it means he needs to bomb an abortion clinic. I'm not here to discuss what your religion means to you. Jesus seems to be working okay for you. That's great. All I'm saying is that stories about floods and fishes and loaves and rising from the dead do not really have any place in a discussion about how sugar crystals are formed or how to make an electromagnet.
So really, theology in theology class, science in science. Besides, most schools don't have enough money for the equipment to observe how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
Why should he bother reading the summary. When the headline calls it a remake and the summary calls it a sequel, I have to wonder if even Zonk opted to read it.
My "proclamation" as such is to prevent "God did it" out of the line of answering. "How did God do it?" if you must, but there are those who consider it heresy to attempt to crack such mysteries. The idea that mere man could possibly unravel how God did anything can be very upsetting to these people and as long as you are entertaining them by allowing God into the conversation you've opened the door to their further interference.
And that's why I say leave the theology out of the science classroom. Nature may have no subjects, but schools most certainly do.
Until your faith in God and His word generates something so simple as a God-powered toaster, you are kindly invited to keep your pet out of science classrooms. Foundations of scientific thinking are not based on "God did it."
Still other games are designed such that these disruptive cutscenes are stuck right before boss encounters or other death traps and then force you to watch them repeatedly as demented punishment for not getting through on your first attempt.
Eternal Darkness being one of my most hated offenders for that very crime. It's a wonderful game, excellent story-telling, all that. Too bad the FMV before the final boss battle is so very long and so very unskippable.
Slashdot Mirror
If we stop broadcasting and start distributing everything via the web, how will another planet's SETI equivalent pic up our stray radio signals?
Why do you find the people being killed creepy at all? It's not like it was their choice.
I seem to recall reading about an emergency blood substitute in the late 90s. The odd thing about it was that it wasn't red, but white. There was a picture of a lab rat (albino, of course) that had a complete transfusion and its eyes were silver. Does anyone else remember this?
So maybe I've had a few tonight, but I'm thoughtful enough to not go texting people at this hour. I'll just bug all of you instead.
I feel like I've been reading about cold fusion for as long as I've been old enough to read about science. I can't shake the feeling that cold fusion research is the modern equivalent of alchemy. That is to say that it's kind of a dead end in itself, but the amount of work being done to that end is yielding all kinds of results that will be beneficial to other scientists at some other point.
As to why I just had to come on here and spew this, I will refer you to my colleague, Professor Daniels.
If you virtually prick me, do I not bleed?
Shouldn't there be an "I'm chargin mah lazers!" somewhere in there?
That was pretty thoughtful of you to copypasta the article. It's always a good idea- you never know when we might slashdot the BBC.
Sad thing is, on a certain level I'm intrigued.
If the name is Schrödinger, we won't know if music survives until we open the box to find out.
I would would mod this whole submission -1 Asinine.
Well why did he stop? I mean, I have no problem paying for my own sins, but a good night out can get a little pricey and if there's someone willing to pick up the tab out of love then I'd like his card.
But was he well hung?
Good for you.
As an ardent non-christian, I am more than happy to say that Jack Valenti died today. Leaving the world no poorer.
You just have to control the tubes.
hispanic male -- polish folk
Obviously you've never heard the wonder of Norteno being blasted at seven in the morning on a Saturday. I'd venture that the two are not so dissimilar.
I always thought Marc Bolan was simply an awesome musician. Now I found out that he's also performing protein analysis from beyond the grave. T. Rex... still the best.
w00t! That dress IS an outrage. She'd look even better without it.
So in a failed attempt to quiet some idiots who take the bible not as the observed Truth about society but as if it were a literal account of how the earth was created you have quite nearly stooped to their level by declaring that evolution is not a best educated guess supported by evidence but instead an absolute unshakeable truth about how things were created.
Nowhere in my post did I say anything about the unshakeable truth of evolution. I did not even hint at it. My concern here is teaching the scientific method to kids. These kids are (and I'll grant wholly that this is my opinion) served best by a system that says, "Anything we're going to present as fact has been labelled as such due to much observation and measurement and such. However, it is all up for reconsideration and you are welcome to challenge it if you find contradictory evidence. This is the method by which these conclusions have been reached and here's how you can apply them yourself." If there is ever an all-powerful magic man to fall back on in this process, there is only so much reason to keep up with the questioning.Many scientists are quite able to handle theology alongside science.
Good for them. I'm quite able to handle playing piano while digesting dinner.
This is an unfortunate axiom of the currently practiced education system. It has not always been this way and I have strong doubts that it should remain this way. It clouds the students' minds by forcing them to break the natural connections among disciplines. How different really is the scientific method from a mathematical proof or well-thought rhetoric? How different is any of it from good theology (note: not religion) and philosphy? It is all ultimately a form of critical thinking.
It is ultimately a form of critical thinking. However, I think you and I are simply going to disagree. I simply fail to grasp why Mendel and Moses need to brought up in the same discussion. And let me still you now: I know that Mendel was a priest.
Christian theology does not demand its followers to be unthinking sheep. In fact, ...(editing for brevity)... solvers of all the world's problems, or scientists who profess to speak the truth.
Ask ten different Christians what Christianity means to them and what it demands of them and you will get a hundred different answers. Some will say love thy neighbor and accept Jesus as your savior, some will go on about the importance of proselytizing, one might even say that it means he needs to bomb an abortion clinic. I'm not here to discuss what your religion means to you. Jesus seems to be working okay for you. That's great. All I'm saying is that stories about floods and fishes and loaves and rising from the dead do not really have any place in a discussion about how sugar crystals are formed or how to make an electromagnet.
So really, theology in theology class, science in science. Besides, most schools don't have enough money for the equipment to observe how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
Why should he bother reading the summary. When the headline calls it a remake and the summary calls it a sequel, I have to wonder if even Zonk opted to read it.
My "proclamation" as such is to prevent "God did it" out of the line of answering. "How did God do it?" if you must, but there are those who consider it heresy to attempt to crack such mysteries. The idea that mere man could possibly unravel how God did anything can be very upsetting to these people and as long as you are entertaining them by allowing God into the conversation you've opened the door to their further interference.
And that's why I say leave the theology out of the science classroom. Nature may have no subjects, but schools most certainly do.
I don't know about either of those, but I do know that lesbians blow my frigging mind. They are awesome!
Until your faith in God and His word generates something so simple as a God-powered toaster, you are kindly invited to keep your pet out of science classrooms. Foundations of scientific thinking are not based on "God did it."
100% of the people sitting in this chair reject that 48%.
Still other games are designed such that these disruptive cutscenes are stuck right before boss encounters or other death traps and then force you to watch them repeatedly as demented punishment for not getting through on your first attempt.
Eternal Darkness being one of my most hated offenders for that very crime. It's a wonderful game, excellent story-telling, all that. Too bad the FMV before the final boss battle is so very long and so very unskippable.
Call me an outlier if you want, but I bought a Dreamcast because I saw that spot and just had to play whatever that commercial was selling me.