If you're going to censor those videos, perhaps it would be better to replace them with (uncensored) porn. Muslims aren't allowed to look at it, and it will probably give them something to think about. Perhaps ease some of the tension in the Middle East.
Sure, there exists at least one religious person who contributes to science. But that means nothing. Does being religious, nowadays, correlate positively or negatively with scientific contribution? If, as you say, there's no conflict then surely there wouldn't be a negative correlation, now would there?
Actually history shows scientists being part of the church for many centuries.
History shows scientists being a subgroup of the people who are literate and have free time. In the past, that meant the clergy, rich people, and people sponsored by rich people. Now, everyone is literate and almost everyone has enough free time to do science if they so wished, and can even get jobs doing science. If your implication is that religion is what was good for science, pray tell what is the current correlation between members of the clergy and scientific advance, and how it compares to non-clergy?
Try offering it for a penny, as an experiment. I think you'll still find that people will refuse to pay a penny, and it won't be because it's too much for them and it won't be because they don't think your product is worth a penny -- it's just that paying is complicated, dangerous, non-anonymous, and not even available to some (eg children). In fact, odds are less people will buy your file for a penny than for a dollar.
They want Volkswagen's money to go into manufacturing plants and R&D for zero-emission technology rather than to government-mandated fines. (Note that these investments would give Musk, in particular, another direct competitor.)
Would it really give him a competitor? How about first it reduces the competition against existing electric vehicles, and when Volkswagen finally is ready to market, Musk can lease them some patents and sell them some batteries from his gigafactory.
They allow it so that they can feign incompetence and that they were "forced" or "tricked" into passing the unpopular law that they've been itching to pass.
I don't see how this supernova business relates at all to Dark Matter. The supernova happened in a galaxy already known to be gravitationally lensed by this other galaxy. Therefore it is predicted to show up in the gravitationally lensed image. The only involvement of Dark Matter is that, yes, we still need it for galaxy gravity to match our estimates of galaxy mass and gravitational strength. Just like it was needed to match galaxy rotation speed and non-supernova gravitational lensing. I mean, I suppose we have some verification that the path-length of the lensing is what we expected it to be, but I expect that to have already been checked.
That might be unsportsmanlike, but not unfair. If someone chose to do something they're inherently bad at they should expect to lose to someone who chose to do something they are inherently good at -- that's only fair. Pretending everyone is identical doesn't do them justice.
If Clockboy taught us anything it's to suspend judgement about this type of story.
Nope, it was pretty obvious there were stupid reactionary autocrat pussies involved in both these cases. The fact that stupid reactionary autocrat pussies can be easily manipulated as may have been the case with Clockboy is a further fault, not an exoneration.
Hm, I thought that they arrest the person under charges of calling in the fake bomb threat, like with "clock boy". They got the wrong kid! Should have arrested the racist who called in a fake bomb threat. And if they think the product Armaan purchased is threateningly bomb-like, they should arrest all the stores that sell it and the manufacturers. I mean, allowing the open manufacture and sale of fake bomb threat backpacks, what is the world coming to.
Or they could examine the perfectly harmless object owned by the "scary foreigner 12 year old" then tell the people involved in this to grow up.
that means 2/3 of the risk of cancer is unaffected by efforts to avoid it.
Keep in mind that this is probably an estimate and definitely after accounting for the many many things we do to avoid cancer, particularly government banning or requiring warning labels or use restrictions on carcinogenic chemicals. If we decided it was OK to use highly carcinogenic chemicals as food flavorings then suddenly the ~33% environmental contribution would probably rise to ~90%.
That's the problem with science. You can have all the hypotheses you want, but then you have to prove them. Everyone may know better, but unfortunately, science requires actual data.
I believe you meant, fortunately science requires actual data.
Slashdot Mirror
"Putting the 'dead' into deadline."
I really really hope they don't rush things to get it done on time.
If you're going to censor those videos, perhaps it would be better to replace them with (uncensored) porn. Muslims aren't allowed to look at it, and it will probably give them something to think about. Perhaps ease some of the tension in the Middle East.
Sure, there exists at least one religious person who contributes to science. But that means nothing. Does being religious, nowadays, correlate positively or negatively with scientific contribution? If, as you say, there's no conflict then surely there wouldn't be a negative correlation, now would there?
Actually history shows scientists being part of the church for many centuries.
History shows scientists being a subgroup of the people who are literate and have free time. In the past, that meant the clergy, rich people, and people sponsored by rich people. Now, everyone is literate and almost everyone has enough free time to do science if they so wished, and can even get jobs doing science. If your implication is that religion is what was good for science, pray tell what is the current correlation between members of the clergy and scientific advance, and how it compares to non-clergy?
Also, journalists have become corrupt little trolls, trolls matching exactly the "throw something out there and see if anyone will bite" definition.
printf(" [insert text of your favorite novel here] ");
Try offering it for a penny, as an experiment. I think you'll still find that people will refuse to pay a penny, and it won't be because it's too much for them and it won't be because they don't think your product is worth a penny -- it's just that paying is complicated, dangerous, non-anonymous, and not even available to some (eg children). In fact, odds are less people will buy your file for a penny than for a dollar.
They want Volkswagen's money to go into manufacturing plants and R&D for zero-emission technology rather than to government-mandated fines. (Note that these investments would give Musk, in particular, another direct competitor.)
Would it really give him a competitor? How about first it reduces the competition against existing electric vehicles, and when Volkswagen finally is ready to market, Musk can lease them some patents and sell them some batteries from his gigafactory.
Better yet, miniature thermonuclear generators the size of a coin battery that will power a whole house.
They already have a coin battery that can power the whole house, in a rural village in Africa.
Stop! This level of technical jargon is beyond my ken!
He should ask Barbie for help.
They allow it so that they can feign incompetence and that they were "forced" or "tricked" into passing the unpopular law that they've been itching to pass.
Think of it as a public service announcement warning against buying expensive things that require the internet to function properly.
WINdows Emulator
Does it come with a "Your horn will not transform my car into a helicopter" bumper sticker?
That's so cool. Like, -450 F.
Yes, but what does supernova lensing tell us that we didn't already know about dark matter?
Well, the fortune cookie did say "Outlook not so good".
I don't see how this supernova business relates at all to Dark Matter. The supernova happened in a galaxy already known to be gravitationally lensed by this other galaxy. Therefore it is predicted to show up in the gravitationally lensed image. The only involvement of Dark Matter is that, yes, we still need it for galaxy gravity to match our estimates of galaxy mass and gravitational strength. Just like it was needed to match galaxy rotation speed and non-supernova gravitational lensing. I mean, I suppose we have some verification that the path-length of the lensing is what we expected it to be, but I expect that to have already been checked.
Nothing says the testing has to be by performing experiments. That just happens to be the simplest way to test a theory.
That might be unsportsmanlike, but not unfair. If someone chose to do something they're inherently bad at they should expect to lose to someone who chose to do something they are inherently good at -- that's only fair. Pretending everyone is identical doesn't do them justice.
Well the school staff and judge and cops are, chronologically speaking, adults.
If Clockboy taught us anything it's to suspend judgement about this type of story.
Nope, it was pretty obvious there were stupid reactionary autocrat pussies involved in both these cases. The fact that stupid reactionary autocrat pussies can be easily manipulated as may have been the case with Clockboy is a further fault, not an exoneration.
Hm, I thought that they arrest the person under charges of calling in the fake bomb threat, like with "clock boy". They got the wrong kid! Should have arrested the racist who called in a fake bomb threat. And if they think the product Armaan purchased is threateningly bomb-like, they should arrest all the stores that sell it and the manufacturers. I mean, allowing the open manufacture and sale of fake bomb threat backpacks, what is the world coming to.
Or they could examine the perfectly harmless object owned by the "scary foreigner 12 year old" then tell the people involved in this to grow up.
that means 2/3 of the risk of cancer is unaffected by efforts to avoid it.
Keep in mind that this is probably an estimate and definitely after accounting for the many many things we do to avoid cancer, particularly government banning or requiring warning labels or use restrictions on carcinogenic chemicals. If we decided it was OK to use highly carcinogenic chemicals as food flavorings then suddenly the ~33% environmental contribution would probably rise to ~90%.
That's the problem with science. You can have all the hypotheses you want, but then you have to prove them. Everyone may know better, but unfortunately, science requires actual data.
I believe you meant, fortunately science requires actual data.