Yes, I can remember having this discussion in an A-Level Physics (!) class as a demonstration of the distance between the two positions: they can't even agree on a question like that. It seems to me that there's a tricky question about the definition of a species lurking in the background, but I'm only a humble mathematical physicist, so I'm well outside my area of specialism. But let that not distract from the main point: all hail the Prime Chicken! Or was it Egg? Now, lemme think about this one...
Depends what the new method does, exactly. I skimmed the article, but it wasn't quite heavy enough on detail. If it saves millions of euros/dollars/pounds/whatever, then you've just increased profit per MWh, a small step towards profitability. And if any of that saving is in terms of the energy input required, then you've just pushed it towards being energetically-favourable, too. If the new technique makes it safe to run the reactor at a higher temperature, then it's pushed even further towards a net energy gain.
I think it means they're looking for someone who speaks English as the rest of the public does, in order to talk to said public about what Nasa does. As you can see, there isn't anyone in the Public Affairs office who presently fits the description; I think all they can speak in is Mar-Kettish. And you can guess which orifice *that* comes out of.
Consider a graph in (t-x) with two lines of different gradients. How could they possibly cross-- oh wait, never mind.
It is entirely possible to arrive at the same time despite leaving later, and that's ignoring the fact that we're not exactly working with atomic clock precision here.
Yup. I've been reading Slashdot for about a year, and this has to be the worst summary I've read yet. On the plus side, there's this little bit of levity from the Slashdot FAQ:
Why is your grammar/spelling so bad?
We're more interested in getting the stories out quickly than we are in making sure every post passes the white glove test. These days we have a copy editor who catches most of the spelling and grammar mistakes, but things do sometimes slip through.
Like the occasional elephant, three nukes with "Property of S Hussein" and half the U.S. trade deficit.
a while back. In fact, they even had Marcus du Sautoy on the programme (who wrote the article and is the Beeb's tame mathematician).
a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtim e/inourtime_20060112.shtml">Here.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I can remember having this discussion in an A-Level Physics (!) class as a demonstration of the distance between the two positions: they can't even agree on a question like that. It seems to me that there's a tricky question about the definition of a species lurking in the background, but I'm only a humble mathematical physicist, so I'm well outside my area of specialism. But let that not distract from the main point: all hail the Prime Chicken! Or was it Egg? Now, lemme think about this one...
Eh? 13mm *is* half an inch.
Depends what the new method does, exactly. I skimmed the article, but it wasn't quite heavy enough on detail. If it saves millions of euros/dollars/pounds/whatever, then you've just increased profit per MWh, a small step towards profitability. And if any of that saving is in terms of the energy input required, then you've just pushed it towards being energetically-favourable, too. If the new technique makes it safe to run the reactor at a higher temperature, then it's pushed even further towards a net energy gain.
I think it means they're looking for someone who speaks English as the rest of the public does, in order to talk to said public about what Nasa does. As you can see, there isn't anyone in the Public Affairs office who presently fits the description; I think all they can speak in is Mar-Kettish. And you can guess which orifice *that* comes out of.
It is entirely possible to arrive at the same time despite leaving later, and that's ignoring the fact that we're not exactly working with atomic clock precision here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inou rtime_20060112.shtml
Beats me how URLs actually work here; any-one able to tell me?
a while back. In fact, they even had Marcus du Sautoy on the programme (who wrote the article and is the Beeb's tame mathematician). a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtim e/inourtime_20060112.shtml">Here.