That's no reason not to give up trying! C'mon all you physicists, create some anti-matter bomb or a black hole, that'll show this dinky planet who's boss!
Damn you brits teasing us Americans. I'd kill for crap TV if some dumb blonde bint was flashing her tits at me. I suppose this is your revenge for that whole revolutionary war thing - you get the good copies of GQ, we get the crap.
Smoking 2 ciggs = max 2.8 mg if they're nonfiltered, eating 2 ciggs = max 50 mg = deadly. Nutmeg is a bad example, since it'll take 100ml of the oil to be ld50, though people have died from eating 1 nutmeg seed, while it's extremely dangerous if a child eats a ciggarette, as they will probably will die. A better example for route of administration would be morphine, which is 6x as effective (and lethal) by injection.
I disagree. Based on my experiences (anecdotal evidence), you'll get much greater respect and be a much more interesting person (and therefore have more people who want to be your friends) if you're enthusiastic about what you do. I point you to the example of Feynman. He was unknown outside of physics until his writings, and then he became the closest thing to Einstein that my generation has experienced (celebrity scientist) because he make it seem so damn intersting, even to nonscientists.
As an aside, Feynman's Rainbow, Genius - James Glick, and Perfectly Reasonably Deviations are very good books, and paint a much more human version of Feynman than he does in his published writing. Tuva or Bust is good too.
Nuh uh. I had to register for this account, which means I had to be qualified. Well, not so much qualified, as I had to have an email account. I'm just glad that I didn't have to talk to any girls, I sure would've failed that. Still, it proves that I'm better than ACs because I have an email account.
If it's such an obvious fact, then there should be mounds of evidence that pistols aren't useful for hunting because of accuracy. Since all you have provided are petty insults and "it's obvious", I take it you have no evidence, and therefore concede that pistols are accurate enough for hunting.
Dear sir, I have partaken of your product "Human life on Earth", and I wish to inform you that the majority of your "followers" actions and beliefs are incongrouous with your word as supposedly laid out verbatim in various holy books (which in themselves disagree with each other). I would like you to remedy this apparent oversight, preferably with some good old smiting, which you seem to have taken a break from in the past few thousand years. I think this would shut up the morons who claim you don't exist, and those who claim to be doing your work.
Sincerly, coopex
PS, what's with the high slashdot id, and what part of your master plan do dupes entail?
>
Basically, our whole "modern" society has thrown away the banana. The result is higher rates of depression, cancer, stress, suicides, etc. This is because of lack of spirituality and roots in this world. A feeling of alienation and that we don't belong here.
If you're going to claim that lack of spirituality is causing all that, I'm going to need to see some proof.
Excellent point, that so many rabid atheists fail to realize. Science functions just fine if you believe the universe just came into being, or if you believe that God created it. As a side note, only one textbook I've had has mentioned God, and that's been Griffiths QM.
I didn't ask for if people hunted with pistol, I asked for comparison of the accuracy of pistol vs bow. Since you have claimed that pistols are to inaccurate for hunting, and have failed to provide said data, I take it that you withdraw your claim and admit that pistols are accurate enough to be used for hunting.
Honestly speaking, those environmental scientists did studies, they didn't qualitatively pull predictions out of their collective asses.
They do in fact mention effects like that, if you'd bother to read, and they also mention the drought and extreme weather weather effects, which just basic thought will also reveal.
However, do you think that this specific request from Joe Barton is valid, with the criteria you gave about detecting bias, for a study on global warming.
Personally, I think that Joe Barton's bias towards screwing over his constitutents in favor of his contributers is enough to make his criticism of a study published in Nature worthless. I think that if the study was funded by *any* group that thinks that maybe it's not such a good idea to not take into account the true costs of pollution, he'll use that to try to discredit the results.
Which is why I still think that the funding should be kept secret. While it may make it harder to detect bias on the part of the researchers, it's value in keeping politicians from playing politics with science is immeasurable. In politics, the source of funding is a valid variable to determine if a politicians actions are why he says they are. In science however, it's much (in a certain sense) simpler - you look at the data, results, and see if it's a reasonable conculsion to draw.
Slashdot Mirror
I totally agree. I completely owned Alexander James Quentin Duggan's birth certificate over 30 years ago, and he hasn't even found out now!
"Hippies, NASA Race for Moon."
We made it son. International waters -- the land that law forgot! -- Homer Simpson
Hehe, Sea Launch. Any day now I expect them to pull some Blofeld style stunt holding the world hostage.
Very well. You're free to believe what you believe.
I'd make up some joke about germans loving technology more than people, but it'd be too easy, plus, it'd insult my grandparents.
That's no reason not to give up trying! C'mon all you physicists, create some anti-matter bomb or a black hole, that'll show this dinky planet who's boss!
Bart: Oh no, not another boring space launch. Change the channel. Change the channel! Homer: I can't! I can't! [Bart dives for the plug and tears it from the wall] [He and Homer both sigh]
Damn you brits teasing us Americans. I'd kill for crap TV if some dumb blonde bint was flashing her tits at me. I suppose this is your revenge for that whole revolutionary war thing - you get the good copies of GQ, we get the crap.
Smoking 2 ciggs = max 2.8 mg if they're nonfiltered, eating 2 ciggs = max 50 mg = deadly. Nutmeg is a bad example, since it'll take 100ml of the oil to be ld50, though people have died from eating 1 nutmeg seed, while it's extremely dangerous if a child eats a ciggarette, as they will probably will die. A better example for route of administration would be morphine, which is 6x as effective (and lethal) by injection.
Myristicin and Elemicin (active ingredients in Nutmeg oil)
1. The AC was trolling.
2. NanoGator is as anonymous as coopex unless you're some you're Dade Murphey or work for the NSA.
I disagree. Based on my experiences (anecdotal evidence), you'll get much greater respect and be a much more interesting person (and therefore have more people who want to be your friends) if you're enthusiastic about what you do. I point you to the example of Feynman. He was unknown outside of physics until his writings, and then he became the closest thing to Einstein that my generation has experienced (celebrity scientist) because he make it seem so damn intersting, even to nonscientists.
As an aside, Feynman's Rainbow, Genius - James Glick, and Perfectly Reasonably Deviations are very good books, and paint a much more human version of Feynman than he does in his published writing. Tuva or Bust is good too.
Nuh uh.
I had to register for this account, which means I had to be qualified. Well, not so much qualified, as I had to have an email account. I'm just glad that I didn't have to talk to any girls, I sure would've failed that.
Still, it proves that I'm better than ACs because I have an email account.
How about microprocessors?
If it's such an obvious fact, then there should be mounds of evidence that pistols aren't useful for hunting because of accuracy. Since all you have provided are petty insults and "it's obvious", I take it you have no evidence, and therefore concede that pistols are accurate enough for hunting.
The fatal dose of pure nicotine is approximately 40-60 mg (0.6-1.0 mg/kg, 1-2 drops) i.e. the quantity contained in 2 g of tobacco (equivalent to 2 common blend cigarettes; 15-25 mg of nicotine per cigarette). However, the smoke contains less than 3 mg per cigarette, with smoke of most nonfiltered brands containing 1.2 to 2.4 mg and filtered brands between 0.2 and 1.0 mg.
>Now, the thing with the vacuum. Ever give someone a hickey, or been given a hickey?
What's this "hickey" you speak of giving/receiving?
Dear sir,
I have partaken of your product "Human life on Earth", and I wish to inform you that the majority of your "followers" actions and beliefs are incongrouous with your word as supposedly laid out verbatim in various holy books (which in themselves disagree with each other). I would like you to remedy this apparent oversight, preferably with some good old smiting, which you seem to have taken a break from in the past few thousand years. I think this would shut up the morons who claim you don't exist, and those who claim to be doing your work.
Sincerly, coopex
PS, what's with the high slashdot id, and what part of your master plan do dupes entail?
> Basically, our whole "modern" society has thrown away the banana. The result is higher rates of depression, cancer, stress, suicides, etc. This is because of lack of spirituality and roots in this world. A feeling of alienation and that we don't belong here.
If you're going to claim that lack of spirituality is causing all that, I'm going to need to see some proof.
What about the evolution of the eye?
Excellent point, that so many rabid atheists fail to realize. Science functions just fine if you believe the universe just came into being, or if you believe that God created it. As a side note, only one textbook I've had has mentioned God, and that's been Griffiths QM.
I didn't ask for if people hunted with pistol, I asked for comparison of the accuracy of pistol vs bow. Since you have claimed that pistols are to inaccurate for hunting, and have failed to provide said data, I take it that you withdraw your claim and admit that pistols are accurate enough to be used for hunting.
How about actual proof, in say, references to tests of pistols used for hunting vs bows used for hunting?
Honestly speaking, those environmental scientists did studies, they didn't qualitatively pull predictions out of their collective asses.
They do in fact mention effects like that, if you'd bother to read, and they also mention the drought and extreme weather weather effects, which just basic thought will also reveal.
Ok, I see your point.
However, do you think that this specific request from Joe Barton is valid, with the criteria you gave about detecting bias, for a study on global warming.
Personally, I think that Joe Barton's bias towards screwing over his constitutents in favor of his contributers is enough to make his criticism of a study published in Nature worthless. I think that if the study was funded by *any* group that thinks that maybe it's not such a good idea to not take into account the true costs of pollution, he'll use that to try to discredit the results.
Which is why I still think that the funding should be kept secret. While it may make it harder to detect bias on the part of the researchers, it's value in keeping politicians from playing politics with science is immeasurable. In politics, the source of funding is a valid variable to determine if a politicians actions are why he says they are. In science however, it's much (in a certain sense) simpler - you look at the data, results, and see if it's a reasonable conculsion to draw.
I'm still waiting for proof, and ad homiem attacks make me think you're just mad you just kicked out for making a pass at your CO.