Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:nothing was 'such an issue decades ago' (Score 0) 283

by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! (#48088295) Attached to: Glut of Postdoc Researchers Stirs Quiet Crisis In Science

So if there were 30,000 biomedical graduate students in 1979, that represents 7.60% of the population ( )

..and if there were 56,800 biomedical graduate students in 2009, that represents 5.42% of the population ( )

So... c'mon man, where are the jobs?

Comment: Re:Banning cars could save more lives (Score 1) 186

Assuming you're the OP... you have a lot of qualifying comments that are not the same as the OP's claim of outright banning cars.

So yes, you're right, there are several facets to the process. And it's much more constructive to talk about them rather than just straight trolling, even if elements of your response are still outright trolling.

Comment: Re:Banning cars could save more lives (Score 1) 186

That's a pretty near-sighted idea.

If you ban cars, how will people in areas of the world designed for cars get access to food? Heathcare?

How will companies that service utilities service the infrastructure?

How many people would consequentially die by banning cars? Much more than the car deaths per year.

You have the power... to stop being a negative, short-sighted person. Think about a solution rather than trolling.

Comment: Re:Thanks for pointing out the "briefly" part. (Score 0) 461

by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! (#47319023) Attached to: Half of Germany's Power Supplied By Solar, Briefly

Thanks for the insightful and provocative post today. I didn't have the energy to post a similar defense today against the ./ anti-nuclear crowd.

Glad you didn't get down-modded for the profanity!

Hopefully someday all relevant people will realize the true costs involved.

Comment: Re:Always? (Score 1) 104

Haha you have a good point there. Hopefully we as a species can find some non-depressing realities through the results over our lifetimes. Hopefully...

You collapsing the wave function doesn't look like the likely way we'll all end, given the current state of affairs :/

Comment: Re:Always? (Score 2) 104

Assuming your post is derived from the following Wikipedia excerpt:

...a system moves to higher energies or—equivalently—larger quantum numbers, i.e. whereas a single particle exhibits a degree of randomness, in systems incorporating millions of particles averaging takes over and, at the high energy limit, the statistical probability of random behaviour approaches zero. In other words, classical mechanics is simply a quantum mechanics of large systems.

Then you have interpreted it a bit incorrectly. Everything is not random, everything exhibits a degree of randomness. Just because we can't properly measure the deterministic nature of it, doesn't make it inherently random.

It looks random to us, but if there were no limit to our measuring capability we would know that it is indeed not random.

Kind of like the Earth Is Flat type argument of modern times.

We don't know one millionth of one percent about anything.