FWIW, he had several opportunities to voice a denial in court, and did not do so.

Not for reasons of any limitations in predicate logic or complexity or any appeals to supernaturalism or anything like that. But instead because I think it more likely that the ability of human society to advance technologically is going to collapse (either because the ecosystem itself has collapsed, or because of nuclear war on a planetary scale, or biocrises, or whatever) before getting there.

This /. story uses symbols for "News" and "Technology" at the top. Back in the long ago days, didn't /. have a symbol to use for stories having to do with Mindstorms? Back when they were a lot more frequent?

If I were you, I'd ask for my money back.

So is not knowing what you're talking about, but talking about it anyway.

So polluting minor waterways is less restricted/regulated than polluting major waterways?

How does water in "major waterways" get there? Does it come from "minor waterways? Or does it just magically appear in major waterways?

I guess you've remained unaware of the the recent HBO miniseries Chernobyl.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Geez, who gives them any business? They started out OK, but went to total crap. I give them a try about once a year, hoping they've sorted things out since they have restaurants that no other delivery service nearby has. And every time, it's a joke. The food they deliver arrives messed up in transit, or multiple hours late, or simply never arrives at all -- every single time I've ordered from them.

This sucks.

I think of roblimo from a time when I really loved /. And I think of him and Hemos and Taco as much of why.

Blah.

I recently said to my phone, "OK, Google, is it supposed to rain today? When you answer, keep in mind that you got this question wrong yesterday."

To my surprise, it replied with a list of links to alternative digital assistants I could install.

Yeah. I don't remember 2005 either, but that's *because* I'm old.

Meanwhile, I just decided I'm *more* likely to go there.

Not sure how that pertains to my answer to your question; but yes, the Manhattan Project (or its precursor) scientists involved in the creation of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists -- Rabinowitch, Szilard, Oppenheimer, Bethe, Urey, etc. -- are gone now, although a few survived until relatively recently (Hans Bethe, for instance, did not pass until 2005).

I don't know why you're asking me these questions, since I merely answered the one you posed (about what the basis for the name was), and made no assertions of the sort that your questions seem to imply or defenses of anything the Bulletin has ever published.

The so-called "Doomsday Clock" is undoubtedly the most notorious thing about the Bulletin; but it's a tiny fraction of what they publish and what they argue. In general, and from my experience, the papers/articles published therein which argue for any particular viewpoint on an issue tend to be supported with attempts at logical reasoning built upon a set of claimed evidence. That absolutely does not make any of them right, any more than the many papers that fill scientific journals every week are all correct; and it's completely reasonable to argue that one sees flaws in their reasoning or in the set of facts/axioms/whatever on which their reasoning is based; and I'd be very surprised if any of the principals involved in the publication now, or those who write for it, would argue to the contrary.

What it means is that the folks who founded and originally wrote for/edited/published the journal were predominantly scientists who played prominent roles in the Manhattan Project during WW2.