What do you really mean by "in nature" and why do you think it's superior to whatever else it is that you've arbitrarily defined not to have the status "in nature"? It sure seems to me that the "nature" is used here as some sort of magical/mystical distinction rather than anything real and tangible.
Please. It's like you can't understand the difference between a runners high and a heroine injection.
The chemicals that humans were exposed to in significant concentrations were basically unchanged for a hundred thousand years or more. Those chemicals which have increased in concentration in our immediate environment since the advent of agriculture (or the industrial revolution, if you prefer) are hereby deemed non-natural chemicals for the purpose of this discussion.
This isn't just pedantry. The problem with co-opting scientific words to have a different mainstream meaning is that it reduces people's ability to read and understand science. Someone might find a scientific article that talks about a new type of (soap, pesticide, fuel, spice) but calls it a chemical. The naive reader is immediately convinced that this new product is unsafe. This causes politicians to make bad policy decisions too.
Good point. I still maintain that all the self congratulatory posts about dihydrogen monoxide were missing the point. To often we are pedantic instead of merely precise.
I suppose the sum of many individual communications could make such a system work. A pattern of communications could provide enough specificity to target a small enough number of individuals that would make more targeted snooping feasible.
Seriously, who's going to tweet something like that?
or post it on the internet...
I suppose it would be useful for scanning social media, but I still have a hard time believing that scanning social media will ever be useful. Too many false positives.
Except you are MADE OF chemicals, and not MADE OF snakes
I was MADE BY a trouser snake. Is that close enough?
But seriously, it isn't a perfect analogy. I suppose the real question is this: Which is worse, assuming things are harmful until proven otherwise, or assuming things are safe until proven otherwise? (or somewhere in the middle that I am too lazy to define exactly).
I imagine this would be extremely useful to recognize and block new ways of referencing forbidden topics in countries that censor the internet and text messaging.
Yes, they are using the word "chemicals" wrong. Get over it. Use your brain to substitute something that is correct and listen to what they are saying.
Just because they paint all chemicals as evil, and they are wrong, does not mean that all chemicals are safe. With snakes, I assume they are poisonous unless I know otherwise. Why not do the same with things I put in my body?
I agree that there is a quality about seeing them through a telescope that is not present in pictures, but I think it has more to do with the idea that light has been traveling for millions of years and is ending up in my eye. I tend to forget about that when I look at pictures.
In any case, the first time I saw a nebula through a telescope, with a fair amount of light pollution, I was ready to see something like the "pillars of creation" picture of the eagle nebula. All I actually saw was a patch of the sky that was a bit brighter than the background. I was about 8, and thankfully someone moved on quickly and showed me Jupiter and its moons.:)
I absolutely have to second the Pleiades. They look absolutely spectacular at low magnification. Most any open star cluster will be pretty impressive. The same goes for planets and the moon.
Unfortunately, to kids desensitized by pictures from Hubble, galaxies and nebulae seen through a telescope are pretty disappointing. In my mind, the best part about finding some of the dimmer objects is actually finding them. Learning your way around the sky is truly a challenge. I think that kids that young would have a hard time appreciating the significance of viewing another galaxy, so you should stick to things that are visually stimulating.
Hypothetical question: I offer you a cookie, you accept: I take a cookie that I have, break off a crumb, give it to you, and proceed to eat the rest of the original cookie myself. Would you be satisfied?
The answer was {0 (no one really understands Quantum Mechanics), 1 (Changing the bulb did leave him in an excited state), 2 (One to do it, and one to observe)...}
Once you looked in you probably found the answer was a linear combination of quantum physicists and maintenance workers
Even better, once you are in Chicago, you don't have to pay for parking, which, for anything longer than a one night stay, completely makes up for the cost difference between auto and rail travel.
There isn't any current history of temperature trends on Venus.
However, there are of Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Neptune, and Pluto.
As the most mind-boggling coincidence EVAR, all five show global warming over the last 30 years that correlate with the rising temperature trends on Earth in that period.
I love the show, but from what I can see, just about every single character should have been pushed out the airlock for insubordination at least twice. I can't imagine a real military functioning at all like the Galactica.
As far as the blog thing goes, use your free official E-mail addy to send plaintext to somebody else who will maintain your blog for you and send you plaintext wikipedia articles as desired, and do that as much as possible so that you can save your precious 125 minutes - It won't be a real-time thing, but that's one of the whole points of being at sea(or camping, for that matter).
I have to second this, at least for Wikipedia. A person will do much better at getting you the correct article, and providing annotations as to any important illustrations or pictures. It shouldn't be difficult to update your blog by email, and I'm sure a google search could have turned up a plethora of suitable options.
Every time I see a woman who is immaculately dressed and made-up, I think:
She obviously makes enough money to afford those clothes, makeup and haircuts.
She must spend a lot of time working on looking like that, which means that she has risen far enough above subsistence living to have free time
etc.
She is signaling that she is a desirable mate, and not just cause you would enjoy mating with her. She is desirable because she is successful and will give your children a higher chance of likewise being successful and producing viable offspring.
Facebook definitely started as a college thing...mostly a place to post drunk pics of yourself...but then they opened it up, and my mom joined. Facebook has gone straight.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you really mean by "in nature" and why do you think it's superior to whatever else it is that you've arbitrarily defined not to have the status "in nature"? It sure seems to me that the "nature" is used here as some sort of magical/mystical distinction rather than anything real and tangible.
Please. It's like you can't understand the difference between a runners high and a heroine injection.
The chemicals that humans were exposed to in significant concentrations were basically unchanged for a hundred thousand years or more. Those chemicals which have increased in concentration in our immediate environment since the advent of agriculture (or the industrial revolution, if you prefer) are hereby deemed non-natural chemicals for the purpose of this discussion.
This isn't just pedantry. The problem with co-opting scientific words to have a different mainstream meaning is that it reduces people's ability to read and understand science. Someone might find a scientific article that talks about a new type of (soap, pesticide, fuel, spice) but calls it a chemical. The naive reader is immediately convinced that this new product is unsafe. This causes politicians to make bad policy decisions too.
Good point. I still maintain that all the self congratulatory posts about dihydrogen monoxide were missing the point. To often we are pedantic instead of merely precise.
I suppose the sum of many individual communications could make such a system work. A pattern of communications could provide enough specificity to target a small enough number of individuals that would make more targeted snooping feasible.
Seriously, who's going to tweet something like that?
or post it on the internet...
I suppose it would be useful for scanning social media, but I still have a hard time believing that scanning social media will ever be useful. Too many false positives.
Except you are MADE OF chemicals, and not MADE OF snakes
I was MADE BY a trouser snake. Is that close enough?
But seriously, it isn't a perfect analogy. I suppose the real question is this: Which is worse, assuming things are harmful until proven otherwise, or assuming things are safe until proven otherwise? (or somewhere in the middle that I am too lazy to define exactly).
I imagine this would be extremely useful to recognize and block new ways of referencing forbidden topics in countries that censor the internet and text messaging.
Yes, they are using the word "chemicals" wrong. Get over it. Use your brain to substitute something that is correct and listen to what they are saying. Just because they paint all chemicals as evil, and they are wrong, does not mean that all chemicals are safe. With snakes, I assume they are poisonous unless I know otherwise. Why not do the same with things I put in my body?
Or an ingenious troll.
Please read the articles more carefully in the future and use common sense.
You must be new here...
Well done San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department, you have pulled off the best troll ever.
I agree that there is a quality about seeing them through a telescope that is not present in pictures, but I think it has more to do with the idea that light has been traveling for millions of years and is ending up in my eye. I tend to forget about that when I look at pictures.
In any case, the first time I saw a nebula through a telescope, with a fair amount of light pollution, I was ready to see something like the "pillars of creation" picture of the eagle nebula. All I actually saw was a patch of the sky that was a bit brighter than the background. I was about 8, and thankfully someone moved on quickly and showed me Jupiter and its moons. :)
I absolutely have to second the Pleiades. They look absolutely spectacular at low magnification. Most any open star cluster will be pretty impressive. The same goes for planets and the moon.
Unfortunately, to kids desensitized by pictures from Hubble, galaxies and nebulae seen through a telescope are pretty disappointing. In my mind, the best part about finding some of the dimmer objects is actually finding them. Learning your way around the sky is truly a challenge. I think that kids that young would have a hard time appreciating the significance of viewing another galaxy, so you should stick to things that are visually stimulating.
Hypothetical question: I offer you a cookie, you accept: I take a cookie that I have, break off a crumb, give it to you, and proceed to eat the rest of the original cookie myself. Would you be satisfied?
NPR: equally hated by conservatives and liberals
I do not understand your analogy. Perhaps you could restate it in terms of automobiles?
The answer was {0 (no one really understands Quantum Mechanics), 1 (Changing the bulb did leave him in an excited state), 2 (One to do it, and one to observe)...}
Once you looked in you probably found the answer was a linear combination of quantum physicists and maintenance workers
Ha!! Now the commies have corrupted your bodily fluids.
Sorry, but I don't really think that WWII created many jobs. Mostly it just removed men ages 18-30 from the workforce.
Even better, once you are in Chicago, you don't have to pay for parking, which, for anything longer than a one night stay, completely makes up for the cost difference between auto and rail travel.
There isn't any current history of temperature trends on Venus.
However, there are of Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Neptune, and Pluto.
As the most mind-boggling coincidence EVAR, all five show global warming over the last 30 years that correlate with the rising temperature trends on Earth in that period.
[citation needed]
I love the show, but from what I can see, just about every single character should have been pushed out the airlock for insubordination at least twice. I can't imagine a real military functioning at all like the Galactica.
As far as the blog thing goes, use your free official E-mail addy to send plaintext to somebody else who will maintain your blog for you and send you plaintext wikipedia articles as desired, and do that as much as possible so that you can save your precious 125 minutes - It won't be a real-time thing, but that's one of the whole points of being at sea(or camping, for that matter).
I have to second this, at least for Wikipedia. A person will do much better at getting you the correct article, and providing annotations as to any important illustrations or pictures. It shouldn't be difficult to update your blog by email, and I'm sure a google search could have turned up a plethora of suitable options.
Just be sure that the show/movie comes up in conversation with someone of the appropriate sex. Otherwise you could end up being bro-raped
Every time I see a woman who is immaculately dressed and made-up, I think:
She is signaling that she is a desirable mate, and not just cause you would enjoy mating with her. She is desirable because she is successful and will give your children a higher chance of likewise being successful and producing viable offspring.
Facebook definitely started as a college thing...mostly a place to post drunk pics of yourself...but then they opened it up, and my mom joined. Facebook has gone straight.