Dark matter and the biological basis of consciousness are well below the big question: What is knowledge? What is consciousness, and what is truth? This should be answered before the question of what the biological basis of consciousness can be known. We don't even know what consciousness is, so why do we look for its biological basis first?
Those are philosophy questions, not science questions. You have to start with, "We are conscious. Animals are not. What's the difference?"
More than half of the top 25 were biology questions. You'd think physics would be a little more strongly represented. But I'm all for answering the evolution questions if it'll stop my in-laws from giving me creationist literature.
I'm seeing a pretty consistent pattern among the anti-English crowd. Most seem to think that as long as you can understand what the word was supposed be, they were close enough. The problem with that argument is that we don't read phonetically. In spite of what elementary school teachers and Hooked on Phonics comercials may tell you, we read by memorization. On top of that, we don't read one word at a time. When you come across a misspelled word, it trips you up; it's like slipping badly aligned frames into some animation. One mistake is probably not a big deal, but when there are several, it can completely throw your train of thought. That's when you start really paying attention and notice you're reading something written by an idiot. I remember the 'tards that couldn't pass the spelling tests, and they didn't have much to say that was worth listening to.
I agree with a lot of that stuff about making movies, but Tom Cruise is not overrated. Sure, he's a freak, and his fans are really annoying, and he may be desperately afraid of being outed, but he's still a great actor. Ignore the Mission Impossibles and Top Guns. He was great in Interview with the Vampire, Far and Away, The Last Samurai, Collateral, and probably a few more I'm forgetting.
According to TFA, they are including the energy used in producing the fuel used for growing and harvesting the grain and for making the fertilizers. This should probably be backed out of the equation because these activities will take place anyway - regardless of whether or not we're using ethanol.
No, they won't. Farmers don't grow corn they don't intend to sell, and manufacturers don't make fertilizer they don't intend to sell. Both have increased production expressly for this purpose. Without the ethanol market, the farmers would cut back to keep prices under control. Same for the fertilizer.
It's because of our primary and electoral system. Nobody should give a shit about the corn growing states, but since they're sparsely populated, their votes are worth 3 of mine (in Georgia). And of course, the Iowa caucus has a ridiculously large voice in the selection of the President. All of this clout for corn farmers means everybody has to kiss their ass and promise to buy all the corn they can grow for ethanol. Add to that the benefit that you can pretend you care about the environment instead of just corn farmer votes, and you can be pretty sure ethanol has a secure future.
Not households. You're ignoring business lines. The per capita numbers don't make much sense here, because you'll have a lot of school/work/home overlap. Then again, if a simple DSL line is counted the same as T3 serving a network of dozens of computers, the numbers may get skewed the other way.
Only the lazy ones, I think. It would save them the trouble of picking out a collection, but they're too expensive. 7 bucks a pop for public domain works in paperback is unreasonable, and they'd be saddled with a lot of books that nobody would ever read. Some of those titles are a little obscure.
That may be the definition of unemployment, but that's not the statistic that's usually quoted. When they mention unemployment in press conferences or news reports, it's alway people filing for unemployment.
Education won't work. It only takes a handful of idiots to screw it up for the rest of us. You just have to get rid of that handful of idiots. There needs to be a way to punish people for clicking the links (other than being ripped off, which obviously doesn't deter them) or turning themselves into spambots.
I suggest viruses. Remember when viruses used to be dangerous? They'd delete some important file or change your configuration to make your computer unusable. We need some more of that. The problem is that worms leave the computers usable most of the time. If people had to do a reinstall every time they opened Hillary_Duff_nude!!!.exe, then even if they didn't learn a lesson, at least they'd be out of commission for a bit. And there's about 8000 malicious Java Script and ActiveX exploits, at least one them has to be good for breaking something.
That's not cost effective. It would be cheaper to give the airlines the pico-repeaters than to even plan a trip to the moon.
Then you have the cost of hauling the stuff up there. Those radio telescopes are huge. That's a lot steel to even put in orbit, much less land on the lunar surface.
I still agree that it's a good idea, but not for the cost reasons.
That depends on what you mean by "still around." Technically, AOLTimeWarner is only, what, 5 years old? When was the last time a huge corporation just disappeared? They just merge and change names.
Google is swallowing up small companies left and right. Eventually it'll get around to the big ones. Do you suppose they're just going to fire the management types coming up with these "evil" policies? In 10 or 20 years, we could be talking about the fresh young upstarts who are ready to topple Google's Evil Empire.
Who modded this insightful? You don't use fuel to charge the battery; you use kinetic energy that you would ordinarily throw away as heat. The battery charges when you use the brakes, which is why they get such good mileage in the city.
Slashdot Mirror
This reminds you of the article you just read 20 minutes ago? You have a really long attention span.
Dark matter and the biological basis of consciousness are well below the big question: What is knowledge? What is consciousness, and what is truth? This should be answered before the question of what the biological basis of consciousness can be known. We don't even know what consciousness is, so why do we look for its biological basis first?
Those are philosophy questions, not science questions. You have to start with, "We are conscious. Animals are not. What's the difference?"
More than half of the top 25 were biology questions. You'd think physics would be a little more strongly represented. But I'm all for answering the evolution questions if it'll stop my in-laws from giving me creationist literature.
I'm seeing a pretty consistent pattern among the anti-English crowd. Most seem to think that as long as you can understand what the word was supposed be, they were close enough. The problem with that argument is that we don't read phonetically. In spite of what elementary school teachers and Hooked on Phonics comercials may tell you, we read by memorization. On top of that, we don't read one word at a time. When you come across a misspelled word, it trips you up; it's like slipping badly aligned frames into some animation. One mistake is probably not a big deal, but when there are several, it can completely throw your train of thought. That's when you start really paying attention and notice you're reading something written by an idiot. I remember the 'tards that couldn't pass the spelling tests, and they didn't have much to say that was worth listening to.
I agree with a lot of that stuff about making movies, but Tom Cruise is not overrated. Sure, he's a freak, and his fans are really annoying, and he may be desperately afraid of being outed, but he's still a great actor. Ignore the Mission Impossibles and Top Guns. He was great in Interview with the Vampire, Far and Away, The Last Samurai, Collateral, and probably a few more I'm forgetting.
(Note: IANTC or a fanboy.)
According to TFA, they are including the energy used in producing the fuel used for growing and harvesting the grain and for making the fertilizers. This should probably be backed out of the equation because these activities will take place anyway - regardless of whether or not we're using ethanol.
No, they won't. Farmers don't grow corn they don't intend to sell, and manufacturers don't make fertilizer they don't intend to sell. Both have increased production expressly for this purpose. Without the ethanol market, the farmers would cut back to keep prices under control. Same for the fertilizer.
It's because of our primary and electoral system. Nobody should give a shit about the corn growing states, but since they're sparsely populated, their votes are worth 3 of mine (in Georgia). And of course, the Iowa caucus has a ridiculously large voice in the selection of the President. All of this clout for corn farmers means everybody has to kiss their ass and promise to buy all the corn they can grow for ethanol. Add to that the benefit that you can pretend you care about the environment instead of just corn farmer votes, and you can be pretty sure ethanol has a secure future.
Not households. You're ignoring business lines. The per capita numbers don't make much sense here, because you'll have a lot of school/work/home overlap. Then again, if a simple DSL line is counted the same as T3 serving a network of dozens of computers, the numbers may get skewed the other way.
Only the lazy ones, I think. It would save them the trouble of picking out a collection, but they're too expensive. 7 bucks a pop for public domain works in paperback is unreasonable, and they'd be saddled with a lot of books that nobody would ever read. Some of those titles are a little obscure.
That may be the definition of unemployment, but that's not the statistic that's usually quoted. When they mention unemployment in press conferences or news reports, it's alway people filing for unemployment.
Education won't work. It only takes a handful of idiots to screw it up for the rest of us. You just have to get rid of that handful of idiots. There needs to be a way to punish people for clicking the links (other than being ripped off, which obviously doesn't deter them) or turning themselves into spambots.
I suggest viruses. Remember when viruses used to be dangerous? They'd delete some important file or change your configuration to make your computer unusable. We need some more of that. The problem is that worms leave the computers usable most of the time. If people had to do a reinstall every time they opened Hillary_Duff_nude!!!.exe, then even if they didn't learn a lesson, at least they'd be out of commission for a bit. And there's about 8000 malicious Java Script and ActiveX exploits, at least one them has to be good for breaking something.
You clearly never played Final Fantasy X.
Then you have the cost of hauling the stuff up there. Those radio telescopes are huge. That's a lot steel to even put in orbit, much less land on the lunar surface.
I still agree that it's a good idea, but not for the cost reasons.
That depends on what you mean by "still around." Technically, AOLTimeWarner is only, what, 5 years old? When was the last time a huge corporation just disappeared? They just merge and change names. Google is swallowing up small companies left and right. Eventually it'll get around to the big ones. Do you suppose they're just going to fire the management types coming up with these "evil" policies? In 10 or 20 years, we could be talking about the fresh young upstarts who are ready to topple Google's Evil Empire.
Who modded this insightful? You don't use fuel to charge the battery; you use kinetic energy that you would ordinarily throw away as heat. The battery charges when you use the brakes, which is why they get such good mileage in the city.