Perhaps that any modern car already has stability control to stop the car from drifting around a corner? If you turn off the stability control, no doubt you'll turn off the limiter as well. So you can still Tokyo Drift your way of as many cliffs as you like.
That's a shame. In the Audis they let you set the distance in seconds and it will automatically increase the distance automatically during wet weather.
Meanwhile here in AU, this technology is already available and works perfectly works fine as is. I have it in my own car.
Both Mercedes and Audi offer speed sign recognition that feeds in to the adaptive cruise control. Mercedes have been offering it for over 5 years now. If it ever did recognise the wrong sign, you can easily override it, either via the pressing the brake, the accelerator or manually adjusting the limit from a control on the steering wheel.
I know it's too much to expect people to RTFA, but as others have pointed out it would take much more than 1 mutation. The main point the "doom and gloomers" are missing is that these modifications are designed to complement existing containment techniques.
Think of it as a potential way for researchers to more safely work with deadly bacterium such as anthrax. They would still use all of the traditional containment methods, but have an additional fail-safe built in. Ultimately these researchers hope to come up with multiple overlapping safeguards to provide even better safety.
It's beyond me, how anyone could object to making it harder for bacteria to escape from the lab!!
Dark matter *is* the simplest explanation for the data. Every proposal to modify gravity introduces one or more new fields. And every time you add a new field, guess what? You are adding a new particle as well. Dark matter models not only generally fit well with observation, but also with out existing understanding of gravity. They have exactly the same downside as gravity modifying alternatives, i.e. introducing one or more new particles.
Besides, I've never understood this objection. We already know about neutrinos which have mass and are weakly interacting (they only interact via the weak force and gravity) . A dark matter particle could be very similar to a neutrino, except it would not interact via the weak force and would likely be more massive.
Yet we've been eating both crop DNA and jelly fish DNA for thousands of years with no ill effects. Please be specific about what risks are introduced by mixing the two. And please provide evidence that we've actually been doing this for food crops.
So your response after making an outlandish claim is basically to tell me to buy a book? By a journalist.. One who frequently quote-mines paranormal skeptics to push his own agenda?
I don't think I'll bother then.
OK. I'm happy to look unto it. Please provide details, because I can only find negative replications e.g Richie, Wiseman and French. http://www.plosone.org/article...
Plenty of other countries have a higher minimum wage and low unemployment. e.g. Australia's minimum wage is AUD 16.37/h or AUD 20.30/h for causals. Unemployment is around 5% and unemployment benefits start at about AUD 250p/w. Which means you'd probably be better of living in Australia and looking for work than being employed on minimum wage in the USA.
"He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998"
So perhaps you could use your superior search engine skills to find an actual, real example of a farmer being sued by Monsanto that did not intentionally harvest and plant patented seeds?
Yet somehow, after using multiple google products (including gmail and picasa) on a regular basis for well over 10 years, I still don't have a Google+ account. And I can still use all of those services just fine.
And we teach gravity as if there is no other way and every other scientific theory in which there is no scientific controversy. Evolution (when taught at all) is not taught any different to anything else in science.
It is you who really you who don't get it. Creationists will reject anything, even a solidly evidence back theory because it conflicts with their religious belief. There is no way to teach evolution without them getting their panties in a twist because anything that conflics with the bible must be a priori incorrect.
The problem arises with the separation of church and state. Claiming one is true over the other is the same as saying the other is false. And since the government cannot force religious views on you, it simple cannot force the opinion that they are false or one is more right on you either. And that is not even touching the fact that evolution does not disprove creationism whatsoever at all. Nowhere in science does it say that seeing something happen one way means it's the only way possible.
What bollocks.
Following your argument through to its logical conclusion means that if any claim by any religious sect contradicts the school curriculum we could no longer teach that topic. It is not just creationism, by the time you add in the beliefs of the raelians, scientologists and every other cult out there, you'd not be able to teach anything at all. Should we not teach Native American history because the mormons tell us they are a lost tribe of Israel and therefore teaching their real history is now prohibited by seperation of church and state? What a ludicrous concept.
Evolution is the best scientific description we have of the diversity of life we see on the planet and that is why we teach it in science class. Whatever your other views on creationism, it is a wholly religious idea and has no place in the science classroom.
The best advice I can give is to please, please, please contact your local amateur astrononical club or society.
Starting out in astronomy by yourself is hard, even without the pressure of entertaining a bunch of kids at the same time. Most astronomical societies will be more than happy to help out with volunteers, telescopes or just some training on how to use your telescope and locate some bright objects.
My society has teamed up with quite a few schools in the past and it has worked out really well for both groups.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps that any modern car already has stability control to stop the car from drifting around a corner? If you turn off the stability control, no doubt you'll turn off the limiter as well. So you can still Tokyo Drift your way of as many cliffs as you like.
That's a shame. In the Audis they let you set the distance in seconds and it will automatically increase the distance automatically during wet weather.
Meanwhile here in AU, this technology is already available and works perfectly works fine as is. I have it in my own car. Both Mercedes and Audi offer speed sign recognition that feeds in to the adaptive cruise control. Mercedes have been offering it for over 5 years now. If it ever did recognise the wrong sign, you can easily override it, either via the pressing the brake, the accelerator or manually adjusting the limit from a control on the steering wheel.
No. The theoretical lower limit on a star's mass in 13 Jupiter masses. source
I know it's too much to expect people to RTFA, but as others have pointed out it would take much more than 1 mutation. The main point the "doom and gloomers" are missing is that these modifications are designed to complement existing containment techniques.
Think of it as a potential way for researchers to more safely work with deadly bacterium such as anthrax. They would still use all of the traditional containment methods, but have an additional fail-safe built in. Ultimately these researchers hope to come up with multiple overlapping safeguards to provide even better safety.
It's beyond me, how anyone could object to making it harder for bacteria to escape from the lab!!
Dark matter *is* the simplest explanation for the data. Every proposal to modify gravity introduces one or more new fields. And every time you add a new field, guess what? You are adding a new particle as well. Dark matter models not only generally fit well with observation, but also with out existing understanding of gravity. They have exactly the same downside as gravity modifying alternatives, i.e. introducing one or more new particles.
Besides, I've never understood this objection. We already know about neutrinos which have mass and are weakly interacting (they only interact via the weak force and gravity) . A dark matter particle could be very similar to a neutrino, except it would not interact via the weak force and would likely be more massive.
Yet we've been eating both crop DNA and jelly fish DNA for thousands of years with no ill effects. Please be specific about what risks are introduced by mixing the two. And please provide evidence that we've actually been doing this for food crops.
Perhaps you could use your obviously epic google skills to look up the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet. You know the one the article is actually talking about? The one that is shrinking and unstable and could cause sea levels to rise by 1.2 metres? I think that's worth at least keeping an eye on. Don't you?
So your response after making an outlandish claim is basically to tell me to buy a book? By a journalist.. One who frequently quote-mines paranormal skeptics to push his own agenda? I don't think I'll bother then.
OK. I'm happy to look unto it. Please provide details, because I can only find negative replications e.g Richie, Wiseman and French. http://www.plosone.org/article...
Museum specimens were commonly preserved with formaldehyde, which damages DNA.
Plenty of other countries have a higher minimum wage and low unemployment. e.g. Australia's minimum wage is AUD 16.37/h or AUD 20.30/h for causals. Unemployment is around 5% and unemployment benefits start at about AUD 250p/w. Which means you'd probably be better of living in Australia and looking for work than being employed on minimum wage in the USA.
No one will ever need more than 3 quarks.
And we don't just see this effect in stars. But also in galaxies, quasars, basically every distant object we can observe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser says that:
"He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998"
So perhaps you could use your superior search engine skills to find an actual, real example of a farmer being sued by Monsanto that did not intentionally harvest and plant patented seeds?
Yet somehow, after using multiple google products (including gmail and picasa) on a regular basis for well over 10 years, I still don't have a Google+ account. And I can still use all of those services just fine.
I change between multiple accounts all the time. The drop-down at the top-right of the screen lets you change which of your google accounts is active.
And we teach gravity as if there is no other way and every other scientific theory in which there is no scientific controversy. Evolution (when taught at all) is not taught any different to anything else in science. It is you who really you who don't get it. Creationists will reject anything, even a solidly evidence back theory because it conflicts with their religious belief. There is no way to teach evolution without them getting their panties in a twist because anything that conflics with the bible must be a priori incorrect.
The problem arises with the separation of church and state. Claiming one is true over the other is the same as saying the other is false. And since the government cannot force religious views on you, it simple cannot force the opinion that they are false or one is more right on you either. And that is not even touching the fact that evolution does not disprove creationism whatsoever at all. Nowhere in science does it say that seeing something happen one way means it's the only way possible.
What bollocks.
Following your argument through to its logical conclusion means that if any claim by any religious sect contradicts the school curriculum we could no longer teach that topic. It is not just creationism, by the time you add in the beliefs of the raelians, scientologists and every other cult out there, you'd not be able to teach anything at all. Should we not teach Native American history because the mormons tell us they are a lost tribe of Israel and therefore teaching their real history is now prohibited by seperation of church and state? What a ludicrous concept.
Evolution is the best scientific description we have of the diversity of life we see on the planet and that is why we teach it in science class. Whatever your other views on creationism, it is a wholly religious idea and has no place in the science classroom.
The best advice I can give is to please, please, please contact your local amateur astrononical club or society. Starting out in astronomy by yourself is hard, even without the pressure of entertaining a bunch of kids at the same time. Most astronomical societies will be more than happy to help out with volunteers, telescopes or just some training on how to use your telescope and locate some bright objects. My society has teamed up with quite a few schools in the past and it has worked out really well for both groups.
While beagles may not have scored well in these tests, they are certainly not stupid. Cute video offered as evidence.