Comment Re:LHC Purpose (Score 1) 138
Could you be any more pedantic?
OP said:
"the Higgs Boson is one of the century's biggest discoveries"
Could you be any more pedantic?
OP said:
"the Higgs Boson is one of the century's biggest discoveries"
Funny how the Chinese immigrants in Quebec prefer to learn English over French - supposedly the reason PQ supporters want provincial level immigration controls. Don't make this into an Anglophone's not wanting to learn another language thing - it clearly extends beyond English speakers. Tabernac!
Nah you're giving them far too much credit for being clever.
Just look at this stupid shit.
"rooting" the device to disable an LED that could be blocked by $2 bottle of black enamel paint (ie nail polish, figurine paint, etc)
I don't understand what difference Keystone XL plays into climate change considering the choice is between burning American, Canadian, Norwegian, Venezuelan, or Saudi oil. The demand for fossil fuel burning will only continue to increase as global population increases, if the price increases in the short term eventually the demand will outweigh the cost from increasing population and we're back to where we were. Leaks from global increases in natural gas production is probably having a greater impact on climate change despite it being a cleaner burning fuel source - methane is quite good at absorbing infrared, far better than carbon dioxide, but we're creating carbon dioxide in much higher volumes.
Anyhow, the greenhouse effect goes back to Fourier, this isn't anything new in terms of the basic science, it's just modelling a complex system like the Earth reliably is difficult. All you can do is correlate the general trend of the system to some variables and point to them as the cause. Even if we assume the Sun is mostly responsible for global temperature rise the only variable we can have any hope in controlling is the atmospheric composition.
Otherwise if we do nothing about the issue nature might forcibly relocate us back to caves.
The solution with the least impact on our standard of living, which is also within our means to achieve is : Electric cars and electric heating sources, while investing in low or no-carbon emission sources of energy such as solar, wind, fission and fusion.
Short of massive engineering projects to reflect heat back into space, condense carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and store it underground, or some other ridiculous proposal, the reduction of burning fossil fuels is the most practical and brings other benefits (except for oil producers).
I guess we now have solid proof that Rush Limbaugh is a Slashdotter.
So what would impress you? Having a lawyer write up a whole new license? Keeping it closed source?
Gas dynamic lasers actually do involve 'firing' the laser. I know this is not the case with the BMW however you can still fire some lasers.
Not necessarily. Lots of coach busing and trains have reserved seating.
Why are airplanes singled out? Why not all public transportation?
Evolution as a scientific theory didn't really come into the mainstream public attention until Darwin. Almost all your examples are of people who died before Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) - Boyle ( 1691 ), Newton (1727), Kepler (1630), Bacon (1626). The only exception here is Faraday (1867), and he was 69 years old at this point. Miescher didn't even isolate 'nuclein' until 1869, and ffs DNA had an unknown structure until the 50's.
What I don't understand is why Creationists are so hostile towards evolution when other scientific theories fall more in-line with a creationist origin anyway - ie. the big bang. I guess it doesn't make much sense of Jesus or the Genesis story but evolution itself doesn't have to explain away God. You can interpret it that way if so you choose to, but trying to publish a scientific paper explaining some discovery and simply ending the conclusion section with "because God made it that way" is laughable. Why even bother doing any science at all?
Anyhow, it's pointless to argue about the number of scientists who have credentials on either side of the creation/evolution debate it doesn't really prove anything. Also, assuming your other points about disintegrating DNA, carbon-14 in diamonds, trees crossing geological layers have any validity, it certainly doesn't give any credence to a creationist theory.
Wow interesting how you slanted this as him being some government scientist shill. He was originally asked by Syngenta to do the study as an employee of the University of Berkeley. There's a lot of other things that raises eyebrows with this guy but attacking him as a government scientist is just flat out wrong in this case.
Depends how many rocks this guy is offering...
After talking with several people who are rather educated in finance and the banking industry they all come back with the same response about fiat currencies: the entire system is built on bullshit
It's just a matter of time before those houses of cards topple over. Might as well jump on the future primary international currency.
We could all just start using reddit instead. Heck, or go even here: http://www.reddit.com/r/slashd...
"Intelligence without character is a dangerous thing." -- G. Steinem