There are as many or more pesticides in organic food than there is in "not-organic" food. It's just the source of the pesticide that is different, and the organic pesticides have never been subject to any sort of rigorous testing.
I certainly hope his is disposed of properly. He intentionally and with forethought published state secrets. If he was a citizen of the USA he would be clearly guilty of violating the national security act and probably treason. As a foreigner he has proven himself an enemy of the United States and deserves what is coming to him.
Virtually all the great geniuses of recorded history have believed in an afterlife. Some AC on slashdot confidently states otherwise. Who has more credibility - Isaac Newton or Anonymous Coward on the internet? That is indeed a tough one.
Well you are breaking the rules. This is to ensure accuracy.
I think we know the rules. The issue is that they are foolish. They do no ensure accuracy, in fact, in the case you are responding to, it ensures that is it IS NOT accurate.
That's what they should do, though! Wikipedia isn't a place to publish your own personal knowledge, but a place to publish information that can be cited, ideally to peer-reviewed articles or books.
So your theory is that it's OK if something is wrong, as long as it is well-sourced?
Hate to break it to the ivory-tower types, but "peer-review" is basically bullshit in many cases. The ability to get through the review process is hardly any indication of value or correctness. All it means is that you can find sufficient people to sign the damn paper.
I check and review a lot of engineering papers, I see about 3x the rate of order of magnitude type errors like this one with metric units compared to conventional units. Even from "native metric users".
Speaking of calling bullshit on something, the premise of this article is utter BS as well. The difference in time of arrival of the sound based on lane position is on the order of 30 msec, worst-case, not 300-ish.
Oh, goody, en expert. At normal cruising speed and 1000 you would blow every window and eardrum for 2 miles either side of the flight path. And burn up the airplane in a few minutes. This is a moot point as it won't go normal cruising speed at 1000 feet.
The noise associated with the sonic boom, and the accompanying regulation to prevent it, was well-understood in the 60's. That is indeed what killed any possible market for the Concorde - and every other potential SST including Boeing's own. It was dubious at best even without the subsonic limitations but it was a dead loser from a business standpoint once it had to go Mach.85 over land.
This is hardly a Boeing-generated myth. I am sure that Boeing would encourage someone like Airbus to take up the supersonic challenge again, it would be crippling to Boeing's biggest competitor.
Concorde was a British/French vanity project to make up for their (highly justified) feelings of inferiority to the USSR and the USA during the space race. It was a nice design but it was NEVER EVER going to make any money - a fact that many people knew and pointed out repeatedly before it ever flew.
Private security in France do NOT have the right to physically assault someone even if they did something like break some anti camera rule in a fucking fast food. The ONLY thing they can do is to call the police. They do not have any other right. And certainly NOT the right to destroy private property. The only time violence is permitted for any group besides the cops themselves is when someone's in danger and you don't have any choice but make the assailant submit with physical means.
That is also the case in the US. Private security, AKA "rent-a-cops" have no rights beyond any other private citizen.
This isn't the Far West. This isn't America. This is civilized France.
Your knowledge of the US appears to be about as good as your knowledge of deodorant.
Yes, but you don't suddenly drop dead from being old. There's generally a specific medical cause.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive - in fact, that's pretty much how all creatures die, outside accidents and being killed by external causes.
Newton, for example, was not only religious, but even by the standards of the time, an extremist (anti-Trinitarian). To the extent that if his religious views had become known he could have been drawn and quartered for heresy. That didn't seem to inhibit him from inventing, for all intents and purposes, physics and coincidentally, calculus.
There were virtually no atheists throughout the history of humanity. They all killed each other over religion, not because some were religious and some were not, but because they couldn't tolerate the religion of others. Even today, atheists are an extreme minority mostly confined to people who want to pose as intellectuals.
Slashdot Mirror
There are as many or more pesticides in organic food than there is in "not-organic" food. It's just the source of the pesticide that is different, and the organic pesticides have never been subject to any sort of rigorous testing.
Well, you certainly seem obsessed with it, alright.
I certainly hope his is disposed of properly. He intentionally and with forethought published state secrets. If he was a citizen of the USA he would be clearly guilty of violating the national security act and probably treason. As a foreigner he has proven himself an enemy of the United States and deserves what is coming to him.
Why do you think spending more money on education improved the results? It hasn't anywhere else.
Virtually all the great geniuses of recorded history have believed in an afterlife. Some AC on slashdot confidently states otherwise. Who has more credibility - Isaac Newton or Anonymous Coward on the internet? That is indeed a tough one.
I think we know the rules. The issue is that they are foolish. They do no ensure accuracy, in fact, in the case you are responding to, it ensures that is it IS NOT accurate.
Other than that, well done.
So your theory is that it's OK if something is wrong, as long as it is well-sourced?
Hate to break it to the ivory-tower types, but "peer-review" is basically bullshit in many cases. The ability to get through the review process is hardly any indication of value or correctness. All it means is that you can find sufficient people to sign the damn paper.
If the particles are entangled, measuring the one should also alter the other.
Brett
I check and review a lot of engineering papers, I see about 3x the rate of order of magnitude type errors like this one with metric units compared to conventional units. Even from "native metric users".
Speaking of calling bullshit on something, the premise of this article is utter BS as well. The difference in time of arrival of the sound based on lane position is on the order of 30 msec, worst-case, not 300-ish.
Oh, goody, en expert. At normal cruising speed and 1000 you would blow every window and eardrum for 2 miles either side of the flight path. And burn up the airplane in a few minutes. This is a moot point as it won't go normal cruising speed at 1000 feet. .85 over land.
The noise associated with the sonic boom, and the accompanying regulation to prevent it, was well-understood in the 60's. That is indeed what killed any possible market for the Concorde - and every other potential SST including Boeing's own. It was dubious at best even without the subsonic limitations but it was a dead loser from a business standpoint once it had to go Mach
This is hardly a Boeing-generated myth. I am sure that Boeing would encourage someone like Airbus to take up the supersonic challenge again, it would be crippling to Boeing's biggest competitor.
Concorde was a British/French vanity project to make up for their (highly justified) feelings of inferiority to the USSR and the USA during the space race. It was a nice design but it was NEVER EVER going to make any money - a fact that many people knew and pointed out repeatedly before it ever flew.
Why, it's almost as if throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it!
There is no current color photgraphic media that will last as long as the Kodachrome that these images were taken with.
If you are quoting the IPCC, you have already lost the argument. They have long since been discredited as a scientific panel.
took care of that for you...
I responded to TFA to that effect.
That is also the case in the US. Private security, AKA "rent-a-cops" have no rights beyond any other private citizen.
Your knowledge of the US appears to be about as good as your knowledge of deodorant.
Don't forget it had Eric the Midget's head explode.
The problem being, of course, that there will be every possible obstacle put in the way of exploiting these resources. Just like oil.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive - in fact, that's pretty much how all creatures die, outside accidents and being killed by external causes.
Is this person Morg, or Imorg?
Ask the crew of Soyuz 11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_11. Oops, scratch that!
Oh, I don't think you need an oath. It'll work itself out.
How well does it work with tape over the camera?
Because your stats are from the modern era. Virtually no one in the past was an atheist, this is a ridiculous delusion of modern western society.
Newton, for example, was not only religious, but even by the standards of the time, an extremist (anti-Trinitarian). To the extent that if his religious views had become known he could have been drawn and quartered for heresy. That didn't seem to inhibit him from inventing, for all intents and purposes, physics and coincidentally, calculus.
There were virtually no atheists throughout the history of humanity. They all killed each other over religion, not because some were religious and some were not, but because they couldn't tolerate the religion of others. Even today, atheists are an extreme minority mostly confined to people who want to pose as intellectuals.