You have to ask yourself, if so many of your qualified peers think you're crazy for taking a given perspective, and your new paper on the subject is rejected for being crappy: have they all lost their minds, or have you?
"If the press sees this crappy paper they will use it to perpetuate misconceptions" is a valid thing to point out when rejecting dodgy work. I dare say you would've found something similar in response to the papers that eventually wind up in the Journal of Cosmology.
Someone dug up some old comments by the Professor himself expressing his anger that you couldn't just ship all the climate scientists off to East Berlin. I guess he has a great sense of irony.
It's a shame that the GDR disappeared otherwise would have been able to offer one-way tickets there for these socialists. Now there's unfortunately not many orthodox countries left soon and I surely do not imagine our romantic green Communists want a one-way ticket to North Korea. But if interested I'd gladly contribute to the trip as long as it is for a one way ticket. Perhaps you could arrange a Gallup study, since it can not be ruled out that I underestimated rush to the exit5
I think in this situation, by "is evolution predictable" they mean "is evolution reasonably deterministic with respect to creating a given set of genetic code given a set of starting code and a certain environment".
How is it misleading? They don't claim to have invented the technology, they're just one of the first companies to be selling a consumer-aimed laser-based system.
And did you actually read what they meant by "any material"?
We're making a printer that, rather than just being able to load in proprietary materials, you can load in any material you want. You can formulate your own polymers and experiment with those.
A cheap manufacturing process is what they should be prototyping this stage, not finished devices. The bigger issue with solar roadways isn't performance, but manufacturing cost.
Being turned away at the gate because you turned up without any paperwork would be pretty normal procedure at any laboratory, public or private; they don't just let strangers in to wander around you know.
HAARP isn't a conspiracy theory; its existence, functioning and purpose were never secret. (No doubt the military had its own applications for the results, of course.) The idea that HAARP is responsible for mind control is a conspiracy theory.
Well obviously under your very limited definition of "resembles mind control", this doesn't count. My point is that even the best way we have of manipulating the brain "remotely" - transcranial magnetic stimulation - involves wiring something into the mains and pressing it against your skull. Not firing a bunch of radio waves at the upper atmosphere.
You have to reach the $1,000 reward tier before they'll send you even a 4-inch hexagon of the surface glass as a reward. I'm going to guess that their processes are not in the dollars-per-square foot range.
"Slightly different" in this case being the difference between a large outdoor facility countless miles away in Alaska, and literally clamping a mains-powered instrument to the side of your skull.
You can wait for a revision of the consoles that adds Displayport (unlikely), or a new version of HDMI that supports this (more likely) and a version of the consoles that supports that new HDMI (contingent but plausible), but in either case you'd have to shell out for a new TV, which seems to be a rather fundamental obstruction.
I'd be shocked if new portables (inc. phones and tablets) weren't using this within a few years though.
It's not like there are any individuals in other species with the gross physical features of one gender but the reproductive characteristics of the other, right? That never happens.
There's a convention in English to refer to related inanimate objects as sisters. Sister-ships, for example. "Brother" doesn't tend to get used. No idea where it comes from mind you.
AFAIK any mandate wouldn't restrict the development of these weapons, just the deployment. It's not like the complete irrelevance of a technology in a battlefield setting ever stopped DARPA before.
Slashdot Mirror
He's at Reading, not Bristol. To be fair they're on the same train line.
You have to ask yourself, if so many of your qualified peers think you're crazy for taking a given perspective, and your new paper on the subject is rejected for being crappy: have they all lost their minds, or have you?
"If the press sees this crappy paper they will use it to perpetuate misconceptions" is a valid thing to point out when rejecting dodgy work. I dare say you would've found something similar in response to the papers that eventually wind up in the Journal of Cosmology.
Someone dug up some old comments by the Professor himself expressing his anger that you couldn't just ship all the climate scientists off to East Berlin. I guess he has a great sense of irony.
It's a shame that the GDR disappeared otherwise would have been able to offer one-way tickets there for these socialists. Now there's unfortunately not many orthodox countries left soon and I surely do not imagine our romantic green Communists want a one-way ticket to North Korea. But if interested I'd gladly contribute to the trip as long as it is for a one way ticket. Perhaps you could arrange a Gallup study, since it can not be ruled out that I underestimated rush to the exit5
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/...
Either way, its meaning has nothing to do with the reduction in the size of an object.
I think in this situation, by "is evolution predictable" they mean "is evolution reasonably deterministic with respect to creating a given set of genetic code given a set of starting code and a certain environment".
The answer is "no".
How is it misleading? They don't claim to have invented the technology, they're just one of the first companies to be selling a consumer-aimed laser-based system.
And did you actually read what they meant by "any material"?
We're making a printer that, rather than just being able to load in proprietary materials, you can load in any material you want. You can formulate your own polymers and experiment with those.
A cheap manufacturing process is what they should be prototyping this stage, not finished devices. The bigger issue with solar roadways isn't performance, but manufacturing cost.
You understand that the people that blog is citing as evidence for the conspiracy theory, are the originators of the conspiracy theory, yes?
Weatherwarfare dot worldatwar dot info? Seems legit.
Being turned away at the gate because you turned up without any paperwork would be pretty normal procedure at any laboratory, public or private; they don't just let strangers in to wander around you know.
HAARP isn't a conspiracy theory; its existence, functioning and purpose were never secret. (No doubt the military had its own applications for the results, of course.) The idea that HAARP is responsible for mind control is a conspiracy theory.
Well obviously under your very limited definition of "resembles mind control", this doesn't count. My point is that even the best way we have of manipulating the brain "remotely" - transcranial magnetic stimulation - involves wiring something into the mains and pressing it against your skull. Not firing a bunch of radio waves at the upper atmosphere.
That's exactly what it's not doing.
You have to reach the $1,000 reward tier before they'll send you even a 4-inch hexagon of the surface glass as a reward. I'm going to guess that their processes are not in the dollars-per-square foot range.
"Slightly different" in this case being the difference between a large outdoor facility countless miles away in Alaska, and literally clamping a mains-powered instrument to the side of your skull.
Cloud seeding doesn't manipulate the ionosphere.
You can wait for a revision of the consoles that adds Displayport (unlikely), or a new version of HDMI that supports this (more likely) and a version of the consoles that supports that new HDMI (contingent but plausible), but in either case you'd have to shell out for a new TV, which seems to be a rather fundamental obstruction.
I'd be shocked if new portables (inc. phones and tablets) weren't using this within a few years though.
The USS Maine actually blew up, and as far as I know there was no threat preceding it.
It's not like there are any individuals in other species with the gross physical features of one gender but the reproductive characteristics of the other, right? That never happens.
It's solar, it's not compatible with clouds.
In a hole in the bottom of the sea.
The preferred term is "less-lethal".
There's a convention in English to refer to related inanimate objects as sisters. Sister-ships, for example. "Brother" doesn't tend to get used. No idea where it comes from mind you.
AFAIK any mandate wouldn't restrict the development of these weapons, just the deployment. It's not like the complete irrelevance of a technology in a battlefield setting ever stopped DARPA before.