"The members of the study committee are interested in the views (positive or negative) of the general public, particularly those people with a scientific and/or technological interest.""
While you're at it, why not ask such people (those who are neither cretinous nor scientifically dysfunctional nor extremely gullible) what they think about a fable concerning 19 individuals armed with nothing more than religious faith and box cutters who managed to create murder and mayhem on a Herculean scale and thereby triggering continuous war in the West Asia.
AMD64, Alpha, Arm, Armel, HPPA, i386, IA64, Mips, Mipsel, PPC, S390, Sparc
List of CPU architectures that are supported on Debian Linux 5.0. The majority of people are totally oblivious to computers other than the overpriced overspecified boxes they use themselves for emailing and porn hunting. How the real world uses IT is beyond their ken. Who cares?
Isn't amazing? First of all we find that WTC7 collapsed internally as a result of uneven heating of the steel members before falling, a phenomenon which has never been documented before. Now we find that WTC1 & 2 collapsed because of magnetism caused by heating, a phenomenon that has never been documented before. So on 9/11, 3 steel framed skyscrapers collapsed as a consequence of fire, phenomena which have never occurred before for two different reasons previously unknown to science.
For the benefit of whoever posted about a tanker fire under an underpass causing a collapse, please understand that the type of steel used would not assume fire as a possible hazard; steel has different characteristics depending on it's composition and manufacture: for instance, steel used in skyscrapers is designed to withstand fire, obviously unless it is of the intensity created by, for example, thermate. Nor is construction steel brittle: as it warms it will lose rigidity and become more plastic - it will not break, it will buckle, but not until temperatures caused by burning fuel have been considerably surpassed.
Here's a thought: if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck rather than a a member of a species previously unknown to science. OK?
Many papers now offer their editorial to cyberspace. What do they get back? Advertising revenue
and feedback on their daily beauty contest: which stories, which writers bring in the punters?
When will papers start to react to the latter? What is the future for columnists with zero knowledge,
originality, wit, or credibility, who currently pack out the column inches, but score ducks with the readers?
Slashdot Mirror
"The members of the study committee are interested in the views (positive or negative) of the general public, particularly those people with a scientific and/or technological interest."" While you're at it, why not ask such people (those who are neither cretinous nor scientifically dysfunctional nor extremely gullible) what they think about a fable concerning 19 individuals armed with nothing more than religious faith and box cutters who managed to create murder and mayhem on a Herculean scale and thereby triggering continuous war in the West Asia.
AMD64, Alpha, Arm, Armel, HPPA, i386, IA64, Mips, Mipsel, PPC, S390, Sparc List of CPU architectures that are supported on Debian Linux 5.0. The majority of people are totally oblivious to computers other than the overpriced overspecified boxes they use themselves for emailing and porn hunting. How the real world uses IT is beyond their ken. Who cares?
Isn't amazing? First of all we find that WTC7 collapsed internally as a result of uneven heating of the steel members before falling, a phenomenon which has never been documented before. Now we find that WTC1 & 2 collapsed because of magnetism caused by heating, a phenomenon that has never been documented before. So on 9/11, 3 steel framed skyscrapers collapsed as a consequence of fire, phenomena which have never occurred before for two different reasons previously unknown to science. For the benefit of whoever posted about a tanker fire under an underpass causing a collapse, please understand that the type of steel used would not assume fire as a possible hazard; steel has different characteristics depending on it's composition and manufacture: for instance, steel used in skyscrapers is designed to withstand fire, obviously unless it is of the intensity created by, for example, thermate. Nor is construction steel brittle: as it warms it will lose rigidity and become more plastic - it will not break, it will buckle, but not until temperatures caused by burning fuel have been considerably surpassed. Here's a thought: if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck rather than a a member of a species previously unknown to science. OK?
Many papers now offer their editorial to cyberspace. What do they get back? Advertising revenue and feedback on their daily beauty contest: which stories, which writers bring in the punters? When will papers start to react to the latter? What is the future for columnists with zero knowledge, originality, wit, or credibility, who currently pack out the column inches, but score ducks with the readers?