God could not use evolution, because if it was guided, it wasn't evolution.
That's not quite right. You might very well have had some form of directed evolution. (The Christian god/some other god/the aliens/FSM altered/is altering genes gradually towards some goal, and here we are.)
And related to this, Darwin did not come up with the idea of evolution, that would already have been known. What he proposed was natural selection; the method that pushed evolution seemingly "forward".
But you're probably from the US, and they don't teach this kind of stuff there, right?;-)
But it's not hard to establish credibility by performing meaningful edits and additions, if only for the purpose of then using that credibility to do malicious things.
Which might likely get you banned when you are found out. I believe there was a Slashdot story about someone doing malicious edits recently...
You're right that radioisotope thermal generators are used on deep space probes, of course. But my point is that nobody would bother with such a potentially controversial method of generating power here on Earth, when there are other cheaper and easier ways that are already working well. Other using them as "batteries" in remote areas I don't see any applications at all...
Thanks for the correction on spent fuel rods. I should have written "all of the useful fuel" like I originally intended to, I guess.:-)
In my defense I'd like to say that it was a couple of years since I read up on the subject.
Well, when launching stuff into space is so cheap that we can seriously consider moving nuclear waste from the surface of the Earth to the surface of the moon, I think we might as well go with orbiting solar panels and beam down energy in the form of microwave death rays^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H radiation.
If you read TFA, you'll find that the physicist in question actually has an idea what could be causing the effects he is seeing. And it's not one of the things you mention. Which rather makes the electron capture counterargument redundant.
Furthermore, you will find that the hypothesis has been tested, and could explain the results of the experiment made.
Which makes it a bit more plausible, at least to me.
As long as we're redesigning these reactions, we should do it all in space.
Hmm. I disagree. It might be cold, but it's cold vacuum. Vacuum is not so great for absorbing heat. In fact, it's notoriously difficult getting rid of heat while in space.
And I think that an industrial-scale process for near-zero K cooling would generate lots of heat. Like you said, "sounds like it consumes a vast amount of energy".
That might be possible. (I am thinking about the radioactive materials used as power sources on some spacecraft.) Unfortunately we couldn't get a whole lot of energy out of the process (or get very much "wattage"), so no one would bother.
We could also put it back in the reactor, and we do this already. Not all of the useful uranium is gone after the spent fuel rods are pulled from the reactor, and what is left can be reprocessed and used again. That can't be repeated forever, though.
Disclamer: This is all from a (reasonably informed, I hope) layman's perspective, I Am Not A Nuclear Physicist, etc.
It's not all that relevant to the greater discussion, but I'm pretty sure that "this game" refers to the game that is the subject of the article... AC didn't mention "Hit the Road" at all.
"me too". Actually I already bought a budget release of DOTT and S&M Hit the Road, just so I could have it in my bookshelf.
I wonder if the new game will build on SCUMM too; in that case I suppose there's a good chance we won't have to touch Windows in order to play it. (see ScummVM)
I thought we/he was talking about the seed vault in Spitsbergen. Bootstrapping humanity from (almost) nothing would of course be another thing altogether.
Ah damn, you beat me to it. Anyway, the BBC had a pretty interesting documantary a while back that I thought I should mention: An Islamic History of Europe
Nuclear energy, which has been developed thanks in no small part due to nuclear weaponry.
Nonsense. Just because money for weapons research and electricity generation have been bundled together in the US (which I assume is what you mean) doesn't mean that's the only way to do it. Look at all the countries in the world who have nuclear power plants and no nuclear weapons.
Who is to say that some inventor won't come up with an interesting way to divert CO2 emissions from factories within the bubble city straight into the ground so the trees can use it to create oxygen for the city?
I am. Because trees don't suck CO2 from the ground, they take it from the air. But pumping CO2 into the ground is, I believe, exactly what some "clean coal" power stations are doing already.
I think you make some interesting points though. We should be thinking about what can (and will) be done in a worst-case scenario. But I don't agree. We in the rich West will be mostly OK, but lots of people won't.
The people who know about this sort of thing seem to agree that blowing an incoming asteroid up would be futile. "It would be like being hit with a shotgun blast instead of a single bullet", is a phrase that comes up frequently.
I am not one of those people, and I think it might be worth a shot, but it's hardly my area of expertise.
You are missing the boat here. It is accepted fact that people don't SPEAK with perfect grammar.
Not really. What is sure is that people, in conversation, often do things like changing direction mid-sentence; or interrupting themselves to let others speak, etc. That doesn't mean their grammar is somehow flawed, just that their speech has to be modified as it is happening. (And not all speech is conversation!)
Linguistics today focus on description, not prescription. So a native speaker will, really, by definition "speak with perfect grammar". Just not all the time.
What the parent poster says is proven wrong by the fact that you cannot write as you speak at any level beyond maybe middle school and be taken seriously.
Just to be clear, I do not mean that you can write as you speak in all situations. What I am saying is that there is no special grammar in academia. I do not see that you have proven that wrong.
What's a difference between "me and my friend" and "my friend and I" to someone who doesn't have a rule book in their head?
As a side note, it takes a lot of reading and listening before someone who is learning English (as a a foreign language) will use "me and my friend" instead of the obviously more grammatically correct "my friend and I".
(And since it's not my first language, I should maybe not try to comment on things like this, but personally I wouldn't use the strange-sounding "my friend and I" except for emphasis.)
The point is, people should not throw stones in grammatically fragile structures. There's tons of weird exceptions the the "rules" of English grammar. The only way to sound half-way normal is to read, write and speak a lot and learn by memorization. If you try to apply textbook grammar consistently, you'll always sound like a foreigner. So learn what other people talk like, and go with that.
I'm studying modern Greek right now and, let me tell you, there's a *huge* difference between "O filos mou kai ego" (My friend and I) and (in Latin instead of Greek letters) "Emena kai ton filo mou" (Me in my friend).
I believe the correct response is: O RLY?
Re:Parents need to get their children to read more
on
It's OK to keep AIMing
·
· Score: 1
I do not claim to be a fan of books (unless they are the O'rielly type)
O RLY?
Take it easy, he already admitted his spelling sucks.
What grammar, exactly, is different in an academic environment? From my (limited) experience, it's all vocabulary and slightly differing forms of "canned" phrases.
And yes, children really don't have to formally learn (in a school environment / from a textbook / memorising rules) grammar, they pick it up from context while listening to others.
You seem to be saying that you need some type of formal language training to be successful in higher education, which might very well be true; but that's not really related to what the parent poster said.
Exactly, this would be error detection, not error correction. And that is good enough. It's not like the country would blow up if there's no clear winner on election night, after all.
Slashdot Mirror
And related to this, Darwin did not come up with the idea of evolution, that would already have been known. What he proposed was natural selection; the method that pushed evolution seemingly "forward".
But you're probably from the US, and they don't teach this kind of stuff there, right? ;-)
Thanks for the correction on spent fuel rods. I should have written "all of the useful fuel" like I originally intended to, I guess.
In my defense I'd like to say that it was a couple of years since I read up on the subject.
Well, when launching stuff into space is so cheap that we can seriously consider moving nuclear waste from the surface of the Earth to the surface of the moon, I think we might as well go with orbiting solar panels and beam down energy in the form of microwave death rays^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H radiation.
Furthermore, you will find that the hypothesis has been tested, and could explain the results of the experiment made.
Which makes it a bit more plausible, at least to me.
And I think that an industrial-scale process for near-zero K cooling would generate lots of heat. Like you said, "sounds like it consumes a vast amount of energy".
*puts away death ray blueprints*
We could also put it back in the reactor, and we do this already. Not all of the useful uranium is gone after the spent fuel rods are pulled from the reactor, and what is left can be reprocessed and used again. That can't be repeated forever, though.
Disclamer: This is all from a (reasonably informed, I hope) layman's perspective, I Am Not A Nuclear Physicist, etc.
It's not all that relevant to the greater discussion, but I'm pretty sure that "this game" refers to the game that is the subject of the article... AC didn't mention "Hit the Road" at all.
If not, be prepared for your -1, Disinformative downmodding.
I wonder if the new game will build on SCUMM too; in that case I suppose there's a good chance we won't have to touch Windows in order to play it. (see ScummVM)
I thought we/he was talking about the seed vault in Spitsbergen. Bootstrapping humanity from (almost) nothing would of course be another thing altogether.
Ah damn, you beat me to it. Anyway, the BBC had a pretty interesting documantary a while back that I thought I should mention:
An Islamic History of Europe
I think you make some interesting points though. We should be thinking about what can (and will) be done in a worst-case scenario. But I don't agree. We in the rich West will be mostly OK, but lots of people won't.
I am not one of those people, and I think it might be worth a shot, but it's hardly my area of expertise.
Linguistics today focus on description, not prescription. So a native speaker will, really, by definition "speak with perfect grammar". Just not all the time.
If parent poster (uh .. "z0I!)" ?) CN RD THT H CN GT A GD JB PRGRMNG (at Microsoft), I'd say.
(And since it's not my first language, I should maybe not try to comment on things like this, but personally I wouldn't use the strange-sounding "my friend and I" except for emphasis.)
The point is, people should not throw stones in grammatically fragile structures. There's tons of weird exceptions the the "rules" of English grammar. The only way to sound half-way normal is to read, write and speak a lot and learn by memorization. If you try to apply textbook grammar consistently, you'll always sound like a foreigner. So learn what other people talk like, and go with that.
And yes, children really don't have to formally learn (in a school environment / from a textbook / memorising rules) grammar, they pick it up from context while listening to others.
You seem to be saying that you need some type of formal language training to be successful in higher education, which might very well be true; but that's not really related to what the parent poster said.
Exactly, this would be error detection, not error correction. And that is good enough. It's not like the country would blow up if there's no clear winner on election night, after all.
Grandparent still sounds about right to me.. (still not upmodded?)