Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Counterintuitively? (Score 1) 172

To me it's also obvious, but judging from the conversations with colleagues in the field (who are chemists, not evolutionary biologists), destruction of replicators is generally neglected. The challenge has been to just make molecules which can replicate and it is even more difficult to make them evolve because you need at least one bit of information that can assume 0 or 1 state, translated into chemical structures. Such error-prone replication process is enough to generate diversity of replicators but without extinction, the only selection pressure is on the replication efficiency and not survival.

This has also been brought up as a critique of cosmological natural selection.

Comment Re:Poor planning (Score 1) 302

At least he cited a source. Do you have a link to nasa.gov which explains the difference?

Sure. Not hard to find. Took me about 30 seconds with Google.

Now how about you supply some evidence of your own for the massive ad hominem conspiracy theory you regurgitated into the thread? Things like documents from the world wide alarmist conspiracy? Protip: if you don't see my name in the transcript, it's fake.

Comment Re:Because hype sells more papers than truth (Score 2) 294

That's a mistatement. The problem is that controversy and conflict drives page hits and viewership. so their is a strong economic incentive to present sensational headline, not inciteful journalism.

Speaking of misstatements, I think you meant "insightful". Inciteful journalism is the problem you are pointing out!

Comment Re:In Iceland... (Score 1) 214

As for Kaupthing, the executives actually did intend to deceive investors in the al-Thani case. And guess what? We threw them in jail for it. What more do you want, should we rip their toenails out with pliers?

Well, since we are discussing corrupt bankers and moral questions around sentience, then yes please.

Comment Re:How will the Reds be portrayed? (Score 1) 39

The Reds were a terrorist group in the books, but weren't exactly the bad guys. I wonder how the show's writers and executives are going to portray that in today's environment.

Come to think of it, most of the characters in the book were "terrorists," at least from the point of view of the UN organization that governed the project. It has massive infrastructure destruction (don't want to spoil it), guerilla warfare, cultural sectarianism, etc.

I doubt the network execs are going to allow that on the TV show without some major editing.

I dunno. I used to think that, but after watching Daredevil and some of GoT, there seems to be a lot of moral ambiguity in TV shows these days. Not to mention a lot of what we used to call "ultra violence"...

Comment Re:15 years old? (Score 1) 475

I see this and his age, and I can only think, "does he realize that, while Obama can make some action, the majority of such a thing has to come from Congress?"

I can only see him as being a brat trying to make a name for himself targeting a well targeted person.

The biggest thing on his table politically about climate change recently, might have been Keystone, which he didn't let go through

WTF does the Keystone pipeline have to do with climate change? The Canadians are selling the oil to China, anyway, it'll just take a different route.

Not if those different routes are blocked too. The next choice is across tribal land in BC, and the tribes are opposing it.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 248

Go ahead and tax the hell out of me. I'm okay with that. Just spend the money for something meaningful. I didn't get to where I am on my own. It's my JOB to give back. Well, more my responsibility. Life's short, do what you can with the time you have.

Totally.

I have kids, and the question I ask myself is: What sort of society do I want to leave for them? This is a bit different from the usual "better world" stuff (although a habitable planet would also be a nice legacy!) I mean, I could just set them up for life or something, but I'd much rather leave them a functioning society where they can rely on their fellows (and vice versa) than one where they (and the other descendants of lucky bastards like myself) are insulated from communal life by a fortress built of money that has no empathy and may let them down at some point (didn't somebody once describe wealth being vulnerable to moth, rust and thieves?)

My kids have plenty of advantages already, but a more important one would be a society built on empathy and compassion, not on fear. And that is something we can give to everyone.

Comment Re:Let's face it... (Score 1) 260

How so? At no point does the Bible state that God only created humans nor does it exclude the idea that he created beings not in his image. I'm no biblical scholar nor a Christian but I don't see where it is incompatible or anything. It doesn't even extend to beyond the Earth so far as I know, except for the heavens which can be defined in a variety of ways. I have read the entire Bible but I didn't really understand all of it so I may be missing something. I should probably read it in a format other than the KJV.

Indeed. C.S.Lewis' Space Trilogy is a good fictional example, and his essay Religion and Rocketry is his take in an apologetic vein.

(Not to mention Jesus' I have sheep that are not of this fold remark.)

Comment Re:Manipulate people opinions (Score 1) 133

Actually, no. The cause is not enough exercise/work. You can eat as many calories as you want as long as you expend enough energy to compensate, anything less makes you fat.

See how easy it is too justify the exact opposite. I can actually say that my version is more accurate to real life because you eventually reach a point where you are spending so much time expending energy that you cannot consume more calories and the system can reach equilibrium. You cannot go the other direction and expend so little energy that you can eat nothing. Besides, sitting on your ass all day and eating almost nothing will have its own consequences (poor circulation, bed sores, atrophied muscles, etc) whereas leading an active lifestyle generally prevents those problems.

While your rhetoric is impeccable, the reality is that it is difficult to burn enough calories through exercise. (The may have been your point, but it is hard to tell.) If you want to lose weight, you have to eat less than you burn (which is the point the GP was trying to make in an abbreviated fashion.) I have been training in tae-kwon-do for about 30 years now, and the caloric burn for my weight is about 800/hour, which is pretty high up on this list. In spite of this, I found it far more effective for weight loss to simply reduce snacks and meals,, swap carbs for protein and fat, and reduce sugar than to try to add more workouts. You get a lot more weight loss for your time and willpower. I mean think about it - a couple of doughnuts, vs an hour's workout plus travel time? If you have a life outside of the gym, it's a no brainer.

Comment Re:You are Confused (Score 1) 417

Historical evidence is always nice, but if what you say about the baseline data is true (I'm not an expert), we may have to rely on modeling. It's the ocean food chain, FFS, so we should be cautious IMHO.

As for acidification, you are correct that it is buffered, but as I pointed out to another respondent, the buffering is provided by Ca ions - which is the real problem, not the ph levels.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It takes all sorts of in & out-door schooling to get adapted to my kind of fooling" - R. Frost

Working...