Of course, the people in the country A without patents could read the patents of the people in the other country B (or could copy the patented products themselves because their inventors didn't take their inventions to the grave because they were not willing to let others parasite on their effort). It would be a better comparison if you'd looked at the situation where the people of country A couldn't do that. Oh, wait.
Applicants for patents pay serious money for having a patent application drafted. It gets published after 18 months, usually before the applicant knows before he will be able to secure a patent. Yet, society gets all this information. And you can find it on espacenet.com. With mechanical translator, if you can't read the language. You can download PDFs of it. You can use all the information in there to learn even use it (if the patent has lapsed, or was never applied for in your country). The cost to you, or any company? FREE. Let me turn this around, the ones who don't use this free information are bad for the economy. I wonder whether that was part of the study.
Anecdotal evidence. I'm a patent attorney and a client wanted to use particular technology but a competitor had a valid patent on it. My client came up with something better. Wouldn't have happened if the other patent hadn't been there. A patent was applied for and society learned about something better.
Bert For software, there shouldn't be patents. I can argue why.
What is there to negotiate? Stop shooting and the Israelis will do it too (their excuse is gone too). Near instant peace. Near instant stop of collateral damage.
And the palestinians can spend the money now spent on rockets on more fruitful things like water, food, housing, and their fishermen can spend time fishing etc. After behaving well for a time, the borders with Egypt can be opened and a further improvement of life can be looked forward to.
The above is all easy.
All that has to be done is stop religious nut cases from yelling that allah is on their side (then why do you need rockets; just pray the Israelis to death overnight) and make them realise that allah doesn't exist (given a choice, no soldier will take his favourite religious book to battle over his gun. There are only atheists in foxholes). That is the hard part. Especially in view of this silly idea that the opinion called religion should be treated with respect.
"Interesting, but not revolutionary by any means."
To the contrary, it is fucking brilliant. 1) Instead of having to heat up bulk of water (like what you do if you use a boiler), they only heat up the water that is actually going to be converted into steam. So, the start-up time is greatly improved. 2) The steam generated passes through the foam up, where the foam is even hotter. The steam gets heated to a higher temperature, making it more useful to generate power. Another way of looking at the foam, is recognising that it flows in counter current with the heat source, just exactly what you want if you want to transfer heat in the best way.
And the questions you pose? They're more of the engineering type. The direction is determined by the above principle.
As an aside: Instead of water you can use another liquid, such as hexane or something. Reaching high pressures with that should not be a problem.
1. Is a sleight that's not worthy of a reply. Just a glance at TFA shows how much research went into it. And you think you can wave it away without any evidence.
2. Solve it by a process called thinking. Try this: Humans are spread all over the planet (Africa etc.). They'd all have to lose that very gene, except the Tibetans. Odds of that? Probably in the same order of magnitude as the likelihood that a person making statements of this caliber is convinced by reason.
What cracks? The Piltdown man? It was debunked. Constant review and scrutiny is part of science. You make a name by discovering something new/.show someone else was wrong (with facts, not with assertions). With today's tools (DNA sequencing) etc. it wouldn't have taken 40 years. Missing fossils? Missing evidence? WTF. Ask him to produce the arc of the covenant, etc. The important thing about evolution is: There is nothing contradicting it. Every newly found fossil matches the pattern. Never do we find a rabbit with a piece of a T-rex tooth in it . No one is claiming it is complete, that every piece of evidence is there, but there is no evidence against it. EVERYTHING independent line of evidence points to the same thing: geology was used to predict where one of the missing links could be found, and was indeed found (read about it here). Every scientist would love to falsify the theory of evolution. I know I would. What a way to make a name for yourself. But the theory of evolution is bolstered every day. ERVs show that man and apes share a common ancestor. Learn about it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Tiktaalik, a transitional fossil was found at the predicted location. Read about it here: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/...
Mims posits a Creator. Not zero creators. Not many creators. A (one) creator. The amount of evidence for that? Zilch. He has no qualms about that. If you want to spot a crack in a line of reasoning, there's one. And why does Mims give himself a free pass on a super powerful creator out of nothing but is stymied by photochemical system?
Every molecule has properties, such as a boiling point, a solubility in water etc. etc. Water vapor can form a variety of ice crystals (snow flakes). None of his electronic components did that (although resistors might self-align a bit). Complex molecules exhibit more elaborate properties. The molecules he's so amazed about, like molecular motors? They self-assemble upon formation. They arise by transcription from DNA and translation from RNA. Not a single deity involved in that. If these molecules didn't have that property, the molecules wouldn't be there. All those molecular behavior in the end determine what you do. If you think a god is pulling the strings at a molecular level, then he can't hold you responsible for your actions.
Sure, none of Mims' electronic circuits has every self-assembled. But atoms and molecules have different properties than electronic components. They self-solder, i.e. react. And the universe is a gigantically big place (multiply the number of galaxies by the number of stars per galaxy) times a couple of planets. That's a gigantically erlenmeyer flask with a gazilion reactions taking place. Most of them leading to nothing special. I place my bet on a freak chemical event taking place leading to life in that chemical soup than a deity that self-raised himself as a super-von-munchausen.
In his own field/related to his own field of electronics, genetic algorithms have resulted in very strange-looking antennae that are better than human designed ones. Yes, the algorithm was programmed. That is because antennae don't procreate, otherwise they could have evolved to look that strange yet be so efficient.
I liked the Q&A quite a bit. But I don't think he's a man to go to on evolution, as to take him serious there, he either has to present evidence for the creator he posits or provide evidence (like a rabbit bone with a T-rex tooth in it) that falsifies evolution. That's how it works. His work on ozone got accepted not because it was his strong opinion but because it was correct.
If it is profitable to pay for computer capacity for mining bitcoins, why aren't the datacenters doing it themselves (especially since they'll have spare capacity anyway)? I mean, the miners want to make a profit. So, if they can make a profit by paying for the data center equipment, the data centers would make (more) profit doing it themselves.
Well, sending iMessages is a free alternative to SMS messages. This helped to drive prices of texting down after many years of excessive pricing for that. She enjoyed both of these benefits. Thanks.
So, you must be happy that they want to have their baby when they have time for it, not squeezed in a too tight time schedule because of some biological clock ticking.
Bert Who can only hope that you know the difference between an egg and a baby
"Why are scientists increasingly concerned about what some people in our society think and believe?"
Well, if you're an astronomer studying the effects of asteroid impacts and their likelihood, you may come across evidence that it has happened in the past and that their effects are rather devastating. As we may well be able to develop the technology to divert an asteroid on a collision course. People running around that the earth is only 10 kY old are not helpful then.
Women won't forget the day they delivered a still-born. While they won't forget that they had one or more miscarriages, they won't burn a candle that day (they may well forget which day it was exactly. It won't be on the calendar). And there are certainly no candles in the toilet being burned for a discarded fertilized egg being flushed down the drain.
It is a mental, developing process. So, at some point a line can be drawn. Sure, for some people line will be at a different time than for others, but it is simply not true that there is no difference in how growing life is viewed during pregnancy. You'll have a hard time finding someone pro-abortion that will be in favor of an abortion time limit at 7 months.
If you face a campfire, your front will be hotter than your back. That holds true if you were a planet facing the sun. If you rotate it would spread more evenly. But at the top and bottom areas of the sphere, still very little sunlight would shine. Thus, these two pole areas would colder than the part in the middle.
There you have it: You have made a qualitative model of a climate cold at the pole and warm in the center area. And you didn't predict what the weather would be tomorrow in any of these areas.
In the beginning, it was mostly wrong at understanding me, but these days it is remarkably correct. Very useful feature for creating reminders on the go (or at night, in bed. No need to find writing material/leave bed).
With tidal force locking, I'd expect the edges to be rather uninhabitable too, and the center that's facing the sun comparatively hot. There air will rise up, move towards the other side of the planet, cool down and drop. It would cool even further down, get even colder and move towards the lit side. When it enters that region, there is little light there, and the air is very cold. So, even though there is some light, it is uninhabitable. Then the air starts picking up heat when it moves back to the center. It would in particular in that region you could expect life to be.
However, what if that life requires CO2. It might condense on the other side of the planet. Perhaps if there's a lot of it, you'd get a greenhouse effect, and sufficient CO2 for plants anyway.
"Religion has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution."
I think it has. - people have a greater chance of survival if they cooperate. If there is a further possible bond (apart from being family), than that can help. - it can also help against power. Suppose the chief of your clan is a grumpy strong man. You could lose your life. But if you tell him that you're in contact with higher powers that will punish him if he doesn't alter his behavior, then that can help you survive. - it made for good stories in a time without internet. What have you been doing today? Herding the goats. Oh. Well, let me tell you a story (in the bible, there's a story about a well that was sealed off with a rock that required three people to move it. Or a bald guy who was yelled at by kids and bears came out of the wood and killed the kids. What do you think: It is something that god really wanted to tell us or was a good story at the campfire?).
So, while only my hypothesis, I think that there may well be a genetic component to religion/the ease with which humans can be deluded.
Patents/patent applications are open source knowledge before the term open source was coined. You are free to build on those ideas (and are free to take a patent on any non-obvious improvement, if you want that or not if you don't want that). Patent databases are freely accessible (as in beer); they may even have free machine translators so you can read the information in a language you don't speak. Want to know how something can be made, alternative ways of solving problems? Patent documents are your friend. No books to buy. No subscriptions needed. The documents are well-organized, in a standard format and can be searched using keywords from the comfort of your home. (You don't need to register and sell your soul to get the information you want.).
The information in patents becomes freely available to the public in on average about 7 years (drugs take longer, other stuff shorter). No shitty near-infinite term like copyright.
The applicant paid quite a bit to put an accurate description of the invention into words, and it becomes public after 18 months. That may be before the actual product hits the market. You couldn't have know about it otherwise.
Bert Patent attorney (oh, and patents on software? Yes, I agree. They're a bad and unnecessary thing)
If you read about the role of general Groves, Oppie's boss, his personal need to be more than a bureaucrat .
Googled quotes: While Groves credited President Truman with the decision to use the atomic bomb, he qualified this by saying, "As far as I was concerned, his decision was one of noninterference - basically, a decision not to upset the existing plans".
Groves was a prime mover in getting the atomic bomb built, on where it would be used, and on when it would be used.
I once talked to the captain of a boat (that sailed from the Mediterranean to the Caribbean islands) that in the straight of Gibraltar his GPS was inaccurate. He said that it was because of the satellites. But the GPS satellites don't know where you are; you're just receiving signals from them. AFAIK for military purposes the satellites introduce inaccuracies in the timing signals they broadcast, and only military GPS knows how to correct for those. But how is it possible to have a particular region on earth have inaccurate positioning.
Do you know how that works?
Bert BTW, thanks Bill Clinton for removing (most?) of the inaccuracy and making GPS navigation in cars possible.
Both items 5 times more expensive, the saving is $540. That is $432 more in the piggy bank.
Anyone doing the math on EV vs ECI should consider: - more than the purchase price - when doing the math, don't base the calculation on the current fuel/electricity cost, but the average cost over the next few years. (I drive ICE, here the price has gone up in about 8 years with over 30%, and there have been periods when it was 40% higher).
Bert You could consider helping the environment by buying electric now/encouraging others to buy. Technological progress needs sales.
"God did protect me, he gave me a well designed parachute and good instructors to keep me safe."
God did design the parachute? It is in the bible? Wow, I must have missed that part.
How about your boss saying to you at the end of the month: Well, that was one job well done! What is god's bank account number? I'll transfer his salary right away.
Bert The maker you don't want to tempt outfitted you on the assembly line with the GULO gene. The gene is broken (a chunk is missing), as a result of which you can't synthesize vitamin C. It is like a car company taking the trouble of installing a broken airco into every car it produces. Makes sense. Oh, by the way. In primates the same chunk is missing. It is not that we share a common ancestor and your source of reference is completely off the mark. Oh no, the devil planted that gene to confuse us.
Radiocarbon dating relies on fresh 14C being generated (high up) in the atmosphere by solar radiation. It mixes due to air turbulence, so plants have a substantially constant supply of it. The exchange of 14C carbon with carbon below the surface of water is poor. There, plant/animal stuff eaten also results in CO2 but it is absorbed by algae again. So it is recycled there, and doesn't have the good mixing and constant supply like in the atmosphere. So, scientists know: You can't do radiocarbon dating using material that grew in or under water. (Liars for religion use examples like radiocarbon dating a freshly caught fish to be hundreds of years old as evidence that radiocarbon dating is unreliable and proof that their favorite myth book is correct. Sigh). So, no radiocarbon dating on the clam wouldn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, the people in the country A without patents could read the patents of the people in the other country B (or could copy the patented products themselves because their inventors didn't take their inventions to the grave because they were not willing to let others parasite on their effort). It would be a better comparison if you'd looked at the situation where the people of country A couldn't do that. Oh, wait.
Applicants for patents pay serious money for having a patent application drafted. It gets published after 18 months, usually before the applicant knows before he will be able to secure a patent. Yet, society gets all this information. And you can find it on espacenet.com. With mechanical translator, if you can't read the language. You can download PDFs of it. You can use all the information in there to learn even use it (if the patent has lapsed, or was never applied for in your country). The cost to you, or any company? FREE.
Let me turn this around, the ones who don't use this free information are bad for the economy. I wonder whether that was part of the study.
Anecdotal evidence. I'm a patent attorney and a client wanted to use particular technology but a competitor had a valid patent on it. My client came up with something better. Wouldn't have happened if the other patent hadn't been there. A patent was applied for and society learned about something better.
Bert
For software, there shouldn't be patents. I can argue why.
What is there to negotiate? Stop shooting and the Israelis will do it too (their excuse is gone too). Near instant peace. Near instant stop of collateral damage.
And the palestinians can spend the money now spent on rockets on more fruitful things like water, food, housing, and their fishermen can spend time fishing etc. After behaving well for a time, the borders with Egypt can be opened and a further improvement of life can be looked forward to.
The above is all easy.
All that has to be done is stop religious nut cases from yelling that allah is on their side (then why do you need rockets; just pray the Israelis to death overnight) and make them realise that allah doesn't exist (given a choice, no soldier will take his favourite religious book to battle over his gun. There are only atheists in foxholes). That is the hard part. Especially in view of this silly idea that the opinion called religion should be treated with respect.
Bert
"Interesting, but not revolutionary by any means."
To the contrary, it is fucking brilliant.
1) Instead of having to heat up bulk of water (like what you do if you use a boiler), they only heat up the water that is actually going to be converted into steam. So, the start-up time is greatly improved.
2) The steam generated passes through the foam up, where the foam is even hotter. The steam gets heated to a higher temperature, making it more useful to generate power. Another way of looking at the foam, is recognising that it flows in counter current with the heat source, just exactly what you want if you want to transfer heat in the best way.
And the questions you pose? They're more of the engineering type. The direction is determined by the above principle.
As an aside: Instead of water you can use another liquid, such as hexane or something. Reaching high pressures with that should not be a problem.
Bert
1. Is a sleight that's not worthy of a reply. Just a glance at TFA shows how much research went into it. And you think you can wave it away without any evidence.
2. Solve it by a process called thinking. Try this: Humans are spread all over the planet (Africa etc.). They'd all have to lose that very gene, except the Tibetans. Odds of that? Probably in the same order of magnitude as the likelihood that a person making statements of this caliber is convinced by reason.
Bert
Swift is also a good choice because nobody has a head start on you.
Bert
What cracks? The Piltdown man? It was debunked. Constant review and scrutiny is part of science. You make a name by discovering something new/.show someone else was wrong (with facts, not with assertions). With today's tools (DNA sequencing) etc. it wouldn't have taken 40 years.
Missing fossils? Missing evidence? WTF. Ask him to produce the arc of the covenant, etc. The important thing about evolution is: There is nothing contradicting it. Every newly found fossil matches the pattern. Never do we find a rabbit with a piece of a T-rex tooth in it . No one is claiming it is complete, that every piece of evidence is there, but there is no evidence against it. EVERYTHING independent line of evidence points to the same thing: geology was used to predict where one of the missing links could be found, and was indeed found (read about it here). Every scientist would love to falsify the theory of evolution. I know I would. What a way to make a name for yourself. But the theory of evolution is bolstered every day.
ERVs show that man and apes share a common ancestor. Learn about it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Tiktaalik, a transitional fossil was found at the predicted location. Read about it here: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/...
Mims posits a Creator. Not zero creators. Not many creators. A (one) creator. The amount of evidence for that? Zilch. He has no qualms about that. If you want to spot a crack in a line of reasoning, there's one. And why does Mims give himself a free pass on a super powerful creator out of nothing but is stymied by photochemical system?
Every molecule has properties, such as a boiling point, a solubility in water etc. etc. Water vapor can form a variety of ice crystals (snow flakes). None of his electronic components did that (although resistors might self-align a bit).
Complex molecules exhibit more elaborate properties. The molecules he's so amazed about, like molecular motors? They self-assemble upon formation. They arise by transcription from DNA and translation from RNA. Not a single deity involved in that. If these molecules didn't have that property, the molecules wouldn't be there. All those molecular behavior in the end determine what you do. If you think a god is pulling the strings at a molecular level, then he can't hold you responsible for your actions.
Sure, none of Mims' electronic circuits has every self-assembled. But atoms and molecules have different properties than electronic components. They self-solder, i.e. react. And the universe is a gigantically big place (multiply the number of galaxies by the number of stars per galaxy) times a couple of planets. That's a gigantically erlenmeyer flask with a gazilion reactions taking place. Most of them leading to nothing special. I place my bet on a freak chemical event taking place leading to life in that chemical soup than a deity that self-raised himself as a super-von-munchausen.
In his own field/related to his own field of electronics, genetic algorithms have resulted in very strange-looking antennae that are better than human designed ones. Yes, the algorithm was programmed. That is because antennae don't procreate, otherwise they could have evolved to look that strange yet be so efficient.
I liked the Q&A quite a bit. But I don't think he's a man to go to on evolution, as to take him serious there, he either has to present evidence for the creator he posits or provide evidence (like a rabbit bone with a T-rex tooth in it) that falsifies evolution. That's how it works. His work on ozone got accepted not because it was his strong opinion but because it was correct.
If it is profitable to pay for computer capacity for mining bitcoins, why aren't the datacenters doing it themselves (especially since they'll have spare capacity anyway)? I mean, the miners want to make a profit. So, if they can make a profit by paying for the data center equipment, the data centers would make (more) profit doing it themselves.
Bert
Well, sending iMessages is a free alternative to SMS messages. This helped to drive prices of texting down after many years of excessive pricing for that. She enjoyed both of these benefits. Thanks.
Bert
So, you must be happy that they want to have their baby when they have time for it, not squeezed in a too tight time schedule because of some biological clock ticking.
Bert
Who can only hope that you know the difference between an egg and a baby
"Why are scientists increasingly concerned about what some people in our society think and believe?"
Well, if you're an astronomer studying the effects of asteroid impacts and their likelihood, you may come across evidence that it has happened in the past and that their effects are rather devastating. As we may well be able to develop the technology to divert an asteroid on a collision course. People running around that the earth is only 10 kY old are not helpful then.
Climate change same thing.
Bert
"God is only invisible to those who choose to ignore him."
Like camera's.
Bert
Women won't forget the day they delivered a still-born. While they won't forget that they had one or more miscarriages, they won't burn a candle that day (they may well forget which day it was exactly. It won't be on the calendar). And there are certainly no candles in the toilet being burned for a discarded fertilized egg being flushed down the drain.
It is a mental, developing process. So, at some point a line can be drawn. Sure, for some people line will be at a different time than for others, but it is simply not true that there is no difference in how growing life is viewed during pregnancy. You'll have a hard time finding someone pro-abortion that will be in favor of an abortion time limit at 7 months.
Bert
Successive Tory governments have been absolutely ruthless of stripping Scotland of it's assets
As evidenced by the fact that they don't wear briefs.
Bert
If you face a campfire, your front will be hotter than your back.
That holds true if you were a planet facing the sun.
If you rotate it would spread more evenly.
But at the top and bottom areas of the sphere, still very little sunlight would shine. Thus, these two pole areas would colder than the part in the middle.
There you have it: You have made a qualitative model of a climate cold at the pole and warm in the center area. And you didn't predict what the weather would be tomorrow in any of these areas.
Brains, they are fantastic instruments (if used).
Bert
In the beginning, it was mostly wrong at understanding me, but these days it is remarkably correct. Very useful feature for creating reminders on the go (or at night, in bed. No need to find writing material/leave bed).
Bert
With tidal force locking, I'd expect the edges to be rather uninhabitable too, and the center that's facing the sun comparatively hot. There air will rise up, move towards the other side of the planet, cool down and drop. It would cool even further down, get even colder and move towards the lit side. When it enters that region, there is little light there, and the air is very cold. So, even though there is some light, it is uninhabitable. Then the air starts picking up heat when it moves back to the center. It would in particular in that region you could expect life to be.
However, what if that life requires CO2. It might condense on the other side of the planet.
Perhaps if there's a lot of it, you'd get a greenhouse effect, and sufficient CO2 for plants anyway.
And you thought life on earth was tough.
Bert
"Religion has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution."
I think it has.
- people have a greater chance of survival if they cooperate. If there is a further possible bond (apart from being family), than that can help.
- it can also help against power. Suppose the chief of your clan is a grumpy strong man. You could lose your life. But if you tell him that you're in contact with higher powers that will punish him if he doesn't alter his behavior, then that can help you survive.
- it made for good stories in a time without internet. What have you been doing today? Herding the goats. Oh. Well, let me tell you a story (in the bible, there's a story about a well that was sealed off with a rock that required three people to move it. Or a bald guy who was yelled at by kids and bears came out of the wood and killed the kids. What do you think: It is something that god really wanted to tell us or was a good story at the campfire?).
So, while only my hypothesis, I think that there may well be a genetic component to religion/the ease with which humans can be deluded.
Bert
Patents/patent applications are open source knowledge before the term open source was coined. You are free to build on those ideas (and are free to take a patent on any non-obvious improvement, if you want that or not if you don't want that). Patent databases are freely accessible (as in beer); they may even have free machine translators so you can read the information in a language you don't speak. Want to know how something can be made, alternative ways of solving problems? Patent documents are your friend. No books to buy. No subscriptions needed. The documents are well-organized, in a standard format and can be searched using keywords from the comfort of your home. (You don't need to register and sell your soul to get the information you want.).
The information in patents becomes freely available to the public in on average about 7 years (drugs take longer, other stuff shorter). No shitty near-infinite term like copyright.
The applicant paid quite a bit to put an accurate description of the invention into words, and it becomes public after 18 months. That may be before the actual product hits the market. You couldn't have know about it otherwise.
Bert
Patent attorney (oh, and patents on software? Yes, I agree. They're a bad and unnecessary thing)
And in case of crashing windows, you can see the blue screen of death.
Bert
Much better than burning the original.
Bert
If you read about the role of general Groves, Oppie's boss, his personal need to be more than a bureaucrat .
Googled quotes:
While Groves credited President Truman with the decision to use the atomic bomb, he qualified this by saying, "As far as I was concerned, his decision was one of noninterference - basically, a decision not to upset the existing plans".
Groves was a prime mover in getting the atomic bomb built, on where it would be used, and on when it would be used.
Bert
I never understood that.
I once talked to the captain of a boat (that sailed from the Mediterranean to the Caribbean islands) that in the straight of Gibraltar his GPS was inaccurate. He said that it was because of the satellites. But the GPS satellites don't know where you are; you're just receiving signals from them. AFAIK for military purposes the satellites introduce inaccuracies in the timing signals they broadcast, and only military GPS knows how to correct for those. But how is it possible to have a particular region on earth have inaccurate positioning.
Do you know how that works?
Bert
BTW, thanks Bill Clinton for removing (most?) of the inaccuracy and making GPS navigation in cars possible.
What has changed? The price of solar panels. It will have come down even further.
The sun will be providing us with the same amount of energy every year for quite a few years to come. No shortages are expected.
More to the point: take a closer look at the math.
Item 1 $12
Item 2 $120
Difference in price (e.g saving): $108
Both items 5 times more expensive, the saving is $540. That is $432 more in the piggy bank.
Anyone doing the math on EV vs ECI should consider:
- more than the purchase price
- when doing the math, don't base the calculation on the current fuel/electricity cost, but the average cost over the next few years. (I drive ICE, here the price has gone up in about 8 years with over 30%, and there have been periods when it was 40% higher).
Bert
You could consider helping the environment by buying electric now/encouraging others to buy. Technological progress needs sales.
"God did protect me, he gave me a well designed parachute and good instructors to keep me safe."
God did design the parachute? It is in the bible? Wow, I must have missed that part.
How about your boss saying to you at the end of the month: Well, that was one job well done! What is god's bank account number? I'll transfer his salary right away.
Bert
The maker you don't want to tempt outfitted you on the assembly line with the GULO gene. The gene is broken (a chunk is missing), as a result of which you can't synthesize vitamin C. It is like a car company taking the trouble of installing a broken airco into every car it produces. Makes sense.
Oh, by the way. In primates the same chunk is missing. It is not that we share a common ancestor and your source of reference is completely off the mark. Oh no, the devil planted that gene to confuse us.
Radiocarbon dating relies on fresh 14C being generated (high up) in the atmosphere by solar radiation. It mixes due to air turbulence, so plants have a substantially constant supply of it. The exchange of 14C carbon with carbon below the surface of water is poor. There, plant/animal stuff eaten also results in CO2 but it is absorbed by algae again. So it is recycled there, and doesn't have the good mixing and constant supply like in the atmosphere. So, scientists know: You can't do radiocarbon dating using material that grew in or under water. (Liars for religion use examples like radiocarbon dating a freshly caught fish to be hundreds of years old as evidence that radiocarbon dating is unreliable and proof that their favorite myth book is correct. Sigh). So, no radiocarbon dating on the clam wouldn't work.
Bert