I'm not blaming the reader for not understanding. I'm blaming them for arguing that the scientist in the article was a moron. If you want to do that, you better not display your own complete ignorance of the subject in your argument.
For what it's worth, if this AC had bothered to read the article and not just the summary:
"It was such a surprise to me to find them in such a remote region,” she says. “These particles have come a long way.”
I doubt environmentalists anticipated that we'd be getting a polyethylene bag large enough to fit a whole turkey for every single purchase. The very rapid pivot against plastic bags seems entirely justified, and the right decision, doesn't it?
Where are you getting "hard time grasping why" from? They literally wrote the paper on how it works. They're not having a hard time grasping anything.
And how in the heck are oceanographers studying plastic particles "the same ilk of scientists who are trying to tell us about climate modelling"?
For that matter, where are you getting "OPs bigger point from" in the first place? I've seen some contrived efforts to bring up a pet peeve in someone else's conversation, but this... okay, it's actually a pretty typical example of the form.
The world's oceans aren't just a big bucket where everything mixes together. In fact one of the characteristic features of the Arctic ocean is that it doesn't strongly interact with the neighbouring systems. That's why it's surprising that there's a significant amount of pollution there.
Now, if you knew even the first thing about oceanography, you should have known that. I'm not sure if you just have a blind spot for your own lack of information on this topic, or were wilfully ignorant, but assumed you were right out of blind luck.
Indeed, it might imply that the whole cosmology is wrong in some way and we need a new one, although that's less likely than some little tweak to the existing one.
I recall reading somewhere - and I hope a historian can come along and correct this - that most modern settlements are at a significant elevation because they're on top of the middens and trash of all the previous settlers on that site. If we actually dug out the areas we currently stand on, we'd find all sorts of interesting trash.
Yeah, the current flavour of big bang if you like. The idea of a big bang itself is pretty robust at this point, but while we've spent a good long time figuring out exactly what happened, the existence of this Great Wall implies that we're off track.
That's a legitimate question, and in fact cosmologists are curious about the idea of whether the big bang is a unique event or something that can happen spontaneously. The hope is that advanced physics will provide some answers.
As for the "locality" issue: cosmologists address issues related to the entire observable universe. Speculations on regions that are unobservable aren't really a topic for scientific investigation, except where a good model implies certain (untestable) things about unobservable areas.
The issue is that the big bang implies the universe is fairly isotropic; it can be clumpy to a certain degree, and the exact degree of clumpiness depends on the exact model you use. Although this Great Wall is a bigger clump than current models allow, you can imagine that there could be other big bang models where the allowed clumpiness is a bit larger. (In fact we know from other observations that we will have to come up with slightly different big bang models than the ones we currently use anyway.)
Nope; because of metric expansion, objects whose light we are now receiving can be further away than the product of the speed of light and the age of the universe.
It doesn't, as far as I can tell; the citation given in the article doesn't actually mention any of the assertions made in that section. What the Great Wall does cause problems with is the "cosmological principle": that the universe is largely isotropic, i.e. smooth.
It's definitely Millward Brown trying to advertise itself, or rather its "Brand Value" metric, rather than Google or anyone else. The financial metrics are all public information, but an analysis firm needs something proprietary to sell; all the better if it's ostensibly quantitative.
I think it's easier for a native speaker to make these sorts of mistakes, particularly if they're not prone to writing. If you learn a language principally by sound, the distinction between "then" and "than" can start to look like a variation on the same word; it's not like English isn't polluted with words with two very different meanings depending on the context.
Of course, comprehensibility in any language comes, in part, from being able to anticipate what structure is being built just as it's being built, and failing to make a distinction like this leads the reader down the garden path.
Re:Since February and just now hearing about it?!
on
eBay Compromised
·
· Score: 3, Informative
That's a dangerous game. There's a legal precedent that they could be fined as much as one hundred thousand pounds in UK court for data protection breaches. It could take them days to find that much money in the sofa.
Of course; a 50% chance of it actually working is several orders of magnitude away from acceptable, and the example I gave is full of holes in a practical situation. (What if you just buy ten guns and try each one in the morning to see what ones are working?) Like I say, the point is that you can sacrifice at least some of its function for safety features before the balance shifts.
Having no story is fine; having a lot of bad story is not. Especially if you've been talking up how you'd humanise the lead of a franchise that frankly didn't need it.
Slashdot Mirror
Seasons. Every year the ice sheets grow and shrink.
I'm not blaming the reader for not understanding. I'm blaming them for arguing that the scientist in the article was a moron. If you want to do that, you better not display your own complete ignorance of the subject in your argument.
For what it's worth, if this AC had bothered to read the article and not just the summary:
"It was such a surprise to me to find them in such a remote region,” she says. “These particles have come a long way.”
I doubt environmentalists anticipated that we'd be getting a polyethylene bag large enough to fit a whole turkey for every single purchase. The very rapid pivot against plastic bags seems entirely justified, and the right decision, doesn't it?
Where are you getting "hard time grasping why" from? They literally wrote the paper on how it works. They're not having a hard time grasping anything.
And how in the heck are oceanographers studying plastic particles "the same ilk of scientists who are trying to tell us about climate modelling"?
For that matter, where are you getting "OPs bigger point from" in the first place? I've seen some contrived efforts to bring up a pet peeve in someone else's conversation, but this... okay, it's actually a pretty typical example of the form.
True, but the effect I was thinking of was more conspicuously artificial.
The world's oceans aren't just a big bucket where everything mixes together. In fact one of the characteristic features of the Arctic ocean is that it doesn't strongly interact with the neighbouring systems. That's why it's surprising that there's a significant amount of pollution there.
Now, if you knew even the first thing about oceanography, you should have known that. I'm not sure if you just have a blind spot for your own lack of information on this topic, or were wilfully ignorant, but assumed you were right out of blind luck.
Indeed, it might imply that the whole cosmology is wrong in some way and we need a new one, although that's less likely than some little tweak to the existing one.
I recall reading somewhere - and I hope a historian can come along and correct this - that most modern settlements are at a significant elevation because they're on top of the middens and trash of all the previous settlers on that site. If we actually dug out the areas we currently stand on, we'd find all sorts of interesting trash.
Yeah, the current flavour of big bang if you like. The idea of a big bang itself is pretty robust at this point, but while we've spent a good long time figuring out exactly what happened, the existence of this Great Wall implies that we're off track.
That's a legitimate question, and in fact cosmologists are curious about the idea of whether the big bang is a unique event or something that can happen spontaneously. The hope is that advanced physics will provide some answers.
As for the "locality" issue: cosmologists address issues related to the entire observable universe. Speculations on regions that are unobservable aren't really a topic for scientific investigation, except where a good model implies certain (untestable) things about unobservable areas.
The issue is that the big bang implies the universe is fairly isotropic; it can be clumpy to a certain degree, and the exact degree of clumpiness depends on the exact model you use. Although this Great Wall is a bigger clump than current models allow, you can imagine that there could be other big bang models where the allowed clumpiness is a bit larger. (In fact we know from other observations that we will have to come up with slightly different big bang models than the ones we currently use anyway.)
Nope; because of metric expansion, objects whose light we are now receiving can be further away than the product of the speed of light and the age of the universe.
It doesn't, as far as I can tell; the citation given in the article doesn't actually mention any of the assertions made in that section. What the Great Wall does cause problems with is the "cosmological principle": that the universe is largely isotropic, i.e. smooth.
It's definitely Millward Brown trying to advertise itself, or rather its "Brand Value" metric, rather than Google or anyone else. The financial metrics are all public information, but an analysis firm needs something proprietary to sell; all the better if it's ostensibly quantitative.
"Brand value is calculated on the basis of the firms' financial performance and their standing among consumers."
Their methodology is completely proprietary and unpublished so I'm not sure how much faith I have in the ranking.
http://www.millwardbrown.com/B...
Slashdot U, where everybody tunes out after the first lesson and the exam is conducted in car analogies.
I think it's easier for a native speaker to make these sorts of mistakes, particularly if they're not prone to writing. If you learn a language principally by sound, the distinction between "then" and "than" can start to look like a variation on the same word; it's not like English isn't polluted with words with two very different meanings depending on the context.
Of course, comprehensibility in any language comes, in part, from being able to anticipate what structure is being built just as it's being built, and failing to make a distinction like this leads the reader down the garden path.
That's a dangerous game. There's a legal precedent that they could be fined as much as one hundred thousand pounds in UK court for data protection breaches. It could take them days to find that much money in the sofa.
Take all those useful features, put them somewhere other than my face. Problem solved.
We're at 17 years, now, in 2014. So it's literally as early as it could possibly be.
Of course; a 50% chance of it actually working is several orders of magnitude away from acceptable, and the example I gave is full of holes in a practical situation. (What if you just buy ten guns and try each one in the morning to see what ones are working?) Like I say, the point is that you can sacrifice at least some of its function for safety features before the balance shifts.
Having no story is fine; having a lot of bad story is not. Especially if you've been talking up how you'd humanise the lead of a franchise that frankly didn't need it.
Apparently audio decoding power is not quite cheap and plentiful enough:
http://www.eurogamer.net/artic...
Bingo. Someone's got to make the first move in any disarmament, and the side with the most power has the moral obligation to move first.
If you don't know whether the gun's having an "on day" brandishment is still effective.
My point however is that there's a big margin to sacrifice the gun's ability to fire in exchange for safety.