Honestly, it it's that impotent, development will continue, otherwise, maybe it's not that important.
I'm confused - You've either used the wrong word or you're trying to confuse me. I ascribed it to a typo and then important came and bit me in the ass. Anyway, I guess this is another impotent grammar nazi post - that or it's not important.
The UK introduced "Incitement to racial violence" laws and others a while back, which are basically hate speech laws. They're not as simple as incitement to violence laws, which actually require incitement to violence.
Germany has stricter ones too (as does France IIRC), there was some scholar arrested a while back for denying the holocaust. Also, amusingly, some bloke got done for getting his alsatian to do a Nazi salute to police. Well, I guess amusing in some ways...
I'm surprised parent got modded down. There is an enormous amount of evidence to imply lack of extraterrestrial life. Lack of radio waves is the major one, for me, and no one has explained this so far.
Like I said previously, I do believe there _must_ be sentient life out there, but I don't understand the lack of communication.
You're missing the point. Of course no one knows if we are special or not. The point made was that it was idiotic to assume that we are special, considering the probabilities of that. Continue feeling special if you want to... it doesn't affect anyone else.
The trouble is that a hell of a lot of people don't feel like you do. The no1 worst situation to be in is a one party government. The second worst is a two party government. The third worst.... is, you guessed it : 3 party government. What I have never understood about the US system is why it doesn't split into smaller portions. You can still do that with state integrity. It would be fairer.
One of the reasons I'm not completely disillusioned with UK politics is the fact we have three parties. However, all 3 advocate privacy intrusion to some extent... possibly the lib dems least, the cons more, and labour most.
This Labour government have done more than any other government in the history of the UK to restrict human liberties.
The trouble is, the amount of land required to replace petroleum is immense. Look, for example, at countries like the UK. There is nowhere near enough land to grow fuel on - if you haven't been to the UK, it's basically all food farmland or towns and cities now. By growing fuel crops, you will cut into the food crops, and require food to be imported.
That being said, my parents grow trees and chop them down and use them for heating. Wood burning is essentially carbon neutral when you plant more trees. They've got more land than most though, though nothing substantial.
I don't think you can get through to people with long winded posts any more. People just want quick bullet points. Here are two:
Carbon Dioxide is rising, hugely in our atmosphere
Carbon Dioxide does contribute to global warming.
Now, you can pontificate all you like, but those are facts - no scientist at all denies those. What some scientists claim with regards to global warming is the amount of carbon dioxide produced by humankind is insignificant comparative to the amount produced naturally. I'm not a climate scientist either, all I know for certain is the first 2 points. I personally believe that we are causing CO2 rises in our atmosphere.
Also, the big fact you're not mentioning, is that homo sapiens probably helped with the extinction of these animals (though current scientific thought is that it was predominately climate change). We've almost a duty to help them back into existence.
"Will it blend" is old now, I'm wondering why it is appearing on slashdot at all. They've already proved that anything electronic will blend into a pile of grey dust, and yes, most other things will blend too. Though I refer you to this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM94aorYVS4
You're ignoring noise, and noise is a huge factor with analogue (and digital) readings. Many people in the past have ascribed meaning to analogue readings that were not there. At the nanometer level, especially, I think it's almost bound to all noise with most applications.
Saying that "The features of silver oxide crystals [...] could be meaningful at less than a nanometer" is not actually saying anything. If they are meaningful, say they are. If there is evidence of them becoming meaningful, reference the evidence.
A petabyte is not that impressive any more - It's only a few thousand consumer level hard drives. I do realise that the challenge of managing all that data is far from easy, but claiming that a petabyte requires "millions of dollars worth of storage hardware" is wrong.
I just checked on newegg, 500Gb is $110, thus 1Tb is $220, thus 1Pb is $220,000, and this is retail prices.
Managing all that crap would be the main problem.
Almost every technology we have today would get you burned for witchcraft in 1857. Automated factories, mobile phones, television, airplanes, nukes... all the magic from a pre-industrial revolution viewpoint.
The industrial revolution was over in most "1st world" countries by 1857. It started in Britain in the late eighteenth century, most people say around 1775. In 1857, Britain was an industrial powerhouse. And, like someone else pointed out, your witchcraft burning is off by a few centuries. The last witch to be ever sentenced to death in England was in 1682, and she was hanged. Incidently, very few witches were burnt in Britain.
When pointing out someone else's poor grammar, you should probably check whether it is poor grammar first (hint : it's not). However, the GP must have read a different post to the one I did - I skim read it and had to re-read it in at least 3 places because of typos (I'm hoping) or poor grammar.
Seems like the people who set the maths test should look at their maths. With 5 possible answers for the first 15 questions, guessing randomly is better than leaving no answer. If you know nothing about maths, so know none of the answers, and guess at them all, you'll get on average one in five, ie. 3, right, and 12 wrong, leaving you with 3 points. I guess if they want that to be part of the test (ie. know which questions it's beneficial to guess at), then fair enough.
As no credible evidence has been put forth, it's safe to "know" god doesn't exist in the same way it's safe to say that I know that purple unicorns don't exists
And in the same way, I presume, that it used to be safe to say that you know black swans didn't exist. I'm a relatively strong atheist, but claiming that you know something doesn't exist is pointless, IMO. Believing in something without sufficient evidence is even more pointless though. Also, purple unicorns and God are not analogous - god is not damaged by lack of physical evidence, according to believers.
Lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence of lack.
No. "State of mind" relates directly to "Long term recovery chances". Fine for a cancer patient, but battlefield survival rates depend on rapid response and onsite medical suturing.
Actually, "State of mind" has been called into question regarding long term recovery chances. It looks like, on current evidence, it doesn't matter how positive or not you are, your fate is already decided. In some studies, however, it was shown that doctors and nurses gave better treatment to those with a positive outlook, simply because it was easier to be around them.
I really don't want to imagine thousands of knowledgeable amatuer astronomers puring over any photos. I they were to pore over them, that'd be a different matter
Slashdot Mirror
In case the second highest bidder does the same.
Honestly, it it's that impotent, development will continue, otherwise, maybe it's not that important.
I'm confused - You've either used the wrong word or you're trying to confuse me. I ascribed it to a typo and then important came and bit me in the ass. Anyway, I guess this is another impotent grammar nazi post - that or it's not important.
The UK introduced "Incitement to racial violence" laws and others a while back, which are basically hate speech laws. They're not as simple as incitement to violence laws, which actually require incitement to violence.
Germany has stricter ones too (as does France IIRC), there was some scholar arrested a while back for denying the holocaust. Also, amusingly, some bloke got done for getting his alsatian to do a Nazi salute to police. Well, I guess amusing in some ways...
Just googled it, here's one link - http://www.redorbit.com/news/oddities/25122/man_tr ains_dog_to_perform_nazi_salute/index.html. Seems he's not actually getting prosecuted for that.
My potential voyeurs are already too busy looking at goatse.
I don't want to know what you do in front of your window.
I'm surprised parent got modded down. There is an enormous amount of evidence to imply lack of extraterrestrial life. Lack of radio waves is the major one, for me, and no one has explained this so far.
Like I said previously, I do believe there _must_ be sentient life out there, but I don't understand the lack of communication.
You're missing the point. Of course no one knows if we are special or not. The point made was that it was idiotic to assume that we are special, considering the probabilities of that. Continue feeling special if you want to... it doesn't affect anyone else.
So where do the people who believe that life is all inclusive fit in?
I'm betting they get beaten up by the viruses.
Ok... if hydrogen is common in the universe, and oxygen is expected near stars, why is this unexpected? It's a big planet close to a star!
The trouble is that a hell of a lot of people don't feel like you do. The no1 worst situation to be in is a one party government. The second worst is a two party government. The third worst.... is, you guessed it : 3 party government. What I have never understood about the US system is why it doesn't split into smaller portions. You can still do that with state integrity. It would be fairer.
One of the reasons I'm not completely disillusioned with UK politics is the fact we have three parties. However, all 3 advocate privacy intrusion to some extent... possibly the lib dems least, the cons more, and labour most.
This Labour government have done more than any other government in the history of the UK to restrict human liberties.
The trouble is, the amount of land required to replace petroleum is immense. Look, for example, at countries like the UK. There is nowhere near enough land to grow fuel on - if you haven't been to the UK, it's basically all food farmland or towns and cities now. By growing fuel crops, you will cut into the food crops, and require food to be imported.
That being said, my parents grow trees and chop them down and use them for heating. Wood burning is essentially carbon neutral when you plant more trees. They've got more land than most though, though nothing substantial.
I don't think you can get through to people with long winded posts any more. People just want quick bullet points. Here are two :
Carbon Dioxide is rising, hugely in our atmosphere
Carbon Dioxide does contribute to global warming.
Now, you can pontificate all you like, but those are facts - no scientist at all denies those. What some scientists claim with regards to global warming is the amount of carbon dioxide produced by humankind is insignificant comparative to the amount produced naturally. I'm not a climate scientist either, all I know for certain is the first 2 points. I personally believe that we are causing CO2 rises in our atmosphere.
1 : We didn't make the mammoths extinct. We killed a lot of them, but we killed a lot of elephants and other animals too.
2 : What the hell are you suggesting? We don't excavate mammoth and other animal remains, so that someone else in the future does it better?
Also, the big fact you're not mentioning, is that homo sapiens probably helped with the extinction of these animals (though current scientific thought is that it was predominately climate change). We've almost a duty to help them back into existence.
whenever mankind shows up
You mean we've showed up before? I am interested in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter
For all those who know not of it : http://www.willitblend.com/
"Will it blend" is old now, I'm wondering why it is appearing on slashdot at all. They've already proved that anything electronic will blend into a pile of grey dust, and yes, most other things will blend too. Though I refer you to this :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM94aorYVS4
You're ignoring noise, and noise is a huge factor with analogue (and digital) readings. Many people in the past have ascribed meaning to analogue readings that were not there. At the nanometer level, especially, I think it's almost bound to all noise with most applications.
Saying that "The features of silver oxide crystals [...] could be meaningful at less than a nanometer" is not actually saying anything. If they are meaningful, say they are. If there is evidence of them becoming meaningful, reference the evidence.
A petabyte is not that impressive any more - It's only a few thousand consumer level hard drives. I do realise that the challenge of managing all that data is far from easy, but claiming that a petabyte requires "millions of dollars worth of storage hardware" is wrong. I just checked on newegg, 500Gb is $110, thus 1Tb is $220, thus 1Pb is $220,000, and this is retail prices. Managing all that crap would be the main problem.
I wouldn't exactly call that lossless compression though...
Almost every technology we have today would get you burned for witchcraft in 1857. Automated factories, mobile phones, television, airplanes, nukes ... all the magic from a pre-industrial revolution viewpoint.
The industrial revolution was over in most "1st world" countries by 1857. It started in Britain in the late eighteenth century, most people say around 1775. In 1857, Britain was an industrial powerhouse. And, like someone else pointed out, your witchcraft burning is off by a few centuries. The last witch to be ever sentenced to death in England was in 1682, and she was hanged. Incidently, very few witches were burnt in Britain.
When pointing out someone else's poor grammar, you should probably check whether it is poor grammar first (hint : it's not). However, the GP must have read a different post to the one I did - I skim read it and had to re-read it in at least 3 places because of typos (I'm hoping) or poor grammar.
Seems like the people who set the maths test should look at their maths. With 5 possible answers for the first 15 questions, guessing randomly is better than leaving no answer. If you know nothing about maths, so know none of the answers, and guess at them all, you'll get on average one in five, ie. 3, right, and 12 wrong, leaving you with 3 points. I guess if they want that to be part of the test (ie. know which questions it's beneficial to guess at), then fair enough.
As no credible evidence has been put forth, it's safe to "know" god doesn't exist in the same way it's safe to say that I know that purple unicorns don't exists
And in the same way, I presume, that it used to be safe to say that you know black swans didn't exist. I'm a relatively strong atheist, but claiming that you know something doesn't exist is pointless, IMO. Believing in something without sufficient evidence is even more pointless though. Also, purple unicorns and God are not analogous - god is not damaged by lack of physical evidence, according to believers.
Lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence of lack.
No. "State of mind" relates directly to "Long term recovery chances". Fine for a cancer patient, but battlefield survival rates depend on rapid response and onsite medical suturing.
Actually, "State of mind" has been called into question regarding long term recovery chances. It looks like, on current evidence, it doesn't matter how positive or not you are, your fate is already decided. In some studies, however, it was shown that doctors and nurses gave better treatment to those with a positive outlook, simply because it was easier to be around them.
I really don't want to imagine thousands of knowledgeable amatuer astronomers puring over any photos. I they were to pore over them, that'd be a different matter
MITEACPMI is not a good acronym.