Yeah, reading the day after, I gotta agree.
Can't you understand that it is impossible for humans to place something on a comet? It's a hoax, a HOAX I tell you, and all of you swallowed this hook line and sinker.
Sure, you'll reference the wonderfully focused pictures (notice there are no particles on the lens, WHERE ARE THEY?!?!?!) but if you saw Superman throwing Zod into a skyscraper, you didn't believe that did you? Therefore they must be faking it.
It's a conspiracy, I tell you, a CONSPIRACY!!!
[before you mod this down, realize I'm joking...okay?]
I know for certain that they had the storyline of Obi-wan and Vader fighting on a planet with streams of lava and Vader was burned severely and had lost limbs because around 1981-82 my stepbrother told me that he read that in an interview (I don't remember if it was before or after Episode V release).
The rest of the plot? I have no idea.
My view is that George Lucas is great writing the overall story arc, but when it comes to dialog and subtle plotting...he leaves his comfort zone.
I liked the stories behind Episodes I-III (and IV-VI). But the dialog in the movies (especially II) was hard to listen to.
My read on this (probably wrong) is that c is the max speed limit and the slow photons are the stragglers of the peloton, which would mean c' for this beam is slightly less then c. Again, probably totally wrong.
Think of many situations where mock-up training is needed (for example, working in radiation fields). If you could practice a task in a safe environment before actually doing it, you could safe hundreds of person-hours of exposure.
These are impressive, and I hope they continue to develop them.
You posted as AC, I'm sure you've checked to see if you are logged in...right?
You'll note in Oliver's piece that the sheriff in the courtroom referred to civil forfeiture as 'pennies from heaven.' His heaven was America's hell.
For those across different ponds, John Oliver's takedown of this horrid practice in the United States shows why this was needed. I'm wondering if this piece had something to do with the response.
Good points, I would also add that methane is lighter (MW 16) than air (average MW = 29) and that which doesn't degrade will rise far enough above surface to not have as much of an impact. Unless it's there in sufficient quantities to react with ozone and deplete the layer (not sure if I'm joking or not, I don't know the status of that research).
Jesus said turn the other cheek. The Pope just said words are like sticks and stones, and it's okay to retaliate. This is one of the few comments from this pope that I disagree with strongly (and I'm not a member of a church, he's been brave and kind in many ways).
Scientific conclusion requires a far higher standard of evidence than personal opinion, so even if a scientist is 95% confident that humans cause global warming then many will avoid explicitly concluding this in a scientific paper until there is a much higher degree of certainty based on their explicit experiment.
That is exactly what I said in my last sentence. What the media states is that 97% of the climate scientists believe anthropogenic sources cause climate change, where the majority do not state it explicitly. Your statement is implying that those that stated no opinion really believe in it but withhold for more evidence, my statement states they didn't make a statement, it could be either way. Which position is more distorting?
I reported the results of a metastudy. I leave it to the authors of the papers who took no position to state what their opinion is, from what the review said, they chose not to for whatever reasons. Perhaps they are being prudent scientists in stating that there is not enough evidence to support the hypothesis, but there may be enough evidence to continue doing research.
By the way, in both cases (32.6% and 31.6%), it was less than one-third, I didn't distort anything.
According to one of the key decision makers at the time (Steve Jobs), the US lost manufacturing precisely because we lack STEM degrees. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01...
Overall I'm fine with Tyson, but he has a bad habit of after explaining how science only advances if one questions, that we shouldn't question the science that is proven. Which is a rather serious flaw in science communication.