Parent beat me to a similar joke/point.

Heh, parent beat me.

You only said, "Polypropylene isn't something that is bio-degradable." You didn't say anything about biodegradation in landfills. Perhaps you were confused between anaerobic degradation and biodegradation in general. Perhaps you thought all landfills functioned under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, but this is not the nineties. Everything from bio-reactors to surface churning is used regularly in many modernly operated landfills in hopes of capitalizing biodegradable materials (and not just those deep tubes attached to methane turbines).

But when I went to that article, I found, "Polypropylene is liable to chain degradation from exposure to heat and UV radiation such as that present in sunlight."

Wait a minute...did you recently write an article for 16 concerned scientists?

So, I wanted to show my results for those with some curiosity how moderation worked out.
A) My karma remains excellent, despite a weekly troll hunt.
B) (0) Flamebait didn't just get there with a couple of moderations. Times were not included, but the order can be determined. In Comma Seperated Values:

Moderation Value, Reason, Result, Rank, Note;
null, null, 1, Normal, This is premoderation;
-1, Overrated, 0, Normal, This was pretty much expected;
-1, Overrated, -1, Normal, Someone really didn't want to see this again;
+1, Funny, 0, Normal, Told ya that could happen;
-1, Flamebait, -1, Flamebait, Technically\, I can't disagree;
+1, Insightful, 0, Flamebait, Some rankings really stick\, but what's up with Insightful?;

I'd recommend going for the gold rather than worrying about the karma. The net community value of your actions determines your karma; hiding it for fear of flamebait or trolling does nothing to benefit you. If you like to go on a troll fishing binge, own it. I do. My net effect still remains positive due to my on topic contributions to other discussions. If all you do is lurk and post as an AnonCow, why have an account? Many trolls possess, embrace and show off their gloriously poor karma. I know. I know them by name. You don't get banned by slashdot for being a total d-bag. That's how it was designed since, I don't know, version 3, let's call it. Maybe...98?

It doesn't matter if you have a history loaded with praises for or condemnations against a particular party or philosophy, as most of the positive contributors to slashdot focus on the discussion, not history of the people in the discussion, unless they really like that person's point, in which case, maybe they may look at a journal or previous posts. People that go on an ad hominem tirade look trollish and influence those who don't understand how to recognize a legitimate point in the first place.

I've posted anonymously a total of four times in a decade. Once was due to an absence of being logged in. Two were for entertainment purposes and once was to show someone what they should have done (similar to the entertainment purposes, really, pretty much 3 entertainments and a lazy, though, maybe two lazies due to an overlap).

Point is, go for it.

This here goddamn country went down hill the moment Erbammy Hussein got inter office. He plans on replacing our bones with some fancy polymer he's been puttin' in the fleride in city drinkin' water, along with that filter for schools to aid in indoctrination of youngin's.

Now, depending on who's got the moderator itch, I do have to throw in some absolutes:

Gnome is one of the worst attempts at stealing Winders for hackers who don't wanna pay shit for shit. It's only a hair worse than KDE, which doesn't got no shit for it that wasn't goin' for that awful mexican girlfriend system with the bouncin' ball. That was almost as bad Beboss thing that's always comin' back, but it still looks like 80's shit. Only IBM ever made a good Windows knock off in that Star Trek thingy, but it wasn't no good compared to what Bill in the buddies cooked up. That Winders is better than Meth!

Now, in case a funny counter-corrects an offtopic, allow me to inform you that all metamoderators have a history of raping their own mothers and burning stray cats. Now a score of 1 is still possible, and anyone who sees that should mark it as overrated.

To respond to this so late, but...

Normally, when dotters take to correcting a post en mass, there isn't a reason to cover anything; however, the logic of, "We got these things 25-50 years later from a theory, but anything that doesn't contribute this quarter is a waste of money," would be sufficient to kill the theory of economic value versus investment. We got lots of things from the money dumped on the Space Race and the succeeding era, but from a dollar in to dollar out that month, year or even decade perspective, it wouldn't have appeared to be that affordable, even though those technologies, from fuel cells (more than just one type), to photovoltaics, to advanced ceramics and plastics, account for more economic profit today than the most expensive year of the US Independent Space Exploration Era.

I, however, wanted to plug, in a non-spammy way, a couple of places on YouTube that shows current payoff. While it doesn't focus on the LHC, it's a follow up on technologies that are otherwise related to what is being done at the LHC.

http://www.youtube.com/user/BackstageScience?feature=g-all-s#p/u/43/12KaFItjgl0
This is YT Channel BackstageScience, with a feature call for the video titled, "Lap of a Synchotron". In this video (as well as the many in that list), you will find discussion about many of the assists to, primarily, materials science that comes from the many research activities in the beamline branches.

http://www.youtube.com/user/DiamondLightSource
This is the same facility, but these videos are more on the individual research projects going on at that facility.

Synchotrons are relatively expensive, and when they were the new thing, they were more expensive to construct, maintain and run than many infrastructure projects; they were the LHC of their time. Now, we have safer planes, improved medicine and more advanced super- and semi-conductors. Intentionally producing nanoparticles has been a relatively new thing for commercial industries, but that new economy is entirely dependent on technology like the synchotron.

BackstageScience has a video titled, :"Muon Man", which is an interview with one of the scientists in general. If you asked someone 25 years ago what practical applications existed for muons, you would have been told they can be used to detect time dilation in accordance to Special relativity or changes in a protons charge field. Today, we use the to detect restricted radio-active materials and peer into the inner workings of large-scale geological activities, which will eventually allows us to detect volcanic eruptions and, quite possibly, earth quakes.

With regard to this specific project, the LHC's job is to understand the fundamental structures of energy at very small scales. The idea it's stuck on the Higgs boson research shows a lot of ignorance, but the kind one might expect from the limited understanding that comes from someone who would say, "[A]nything other than the proton, neutron, electron and photon," is exotic or has never produced any useful technology. E^2=M^2C^4+P^2C^2 has brought us anti-matter, which eventually led to improved medical technologies. The fact is, large projects, like the LHC, are necessary for such advancements, but too expensive for even a single portion of the economic spectrum to manage for the initial time between theory and application. To say it was too expensive because you can't see any advantage in it shows a failure of understanding how doctorates lead to economic and social advantages. Perhaps you should join slashdot with the moniker Lysenko, so, we will all know how ignorant you are about the importance of advancing science through large scale. publicly funded projects.

It was technically accurate, and besides, we renamed Uranus to Urectum to get around that stupid joke.

Really?

See, as I look at it, burning petroleum from other planets on this one should make it even more Venusian than burning the pre-solar petroleum under the basaltic plains.

I wonder if we'll see some steam-punk space travel of using our petroleum to get more petroleum elsewhere. Go us!

Due to the idea of showing aggressiveness, out-stripping capability/capacity or the comparative extreme, everything from computing to politics has some extreme language. Explode, nuclear, destroy, execute, shoot-down, assassinate, surgical strike and war, which have been around forever, have found new companions with jihad, terrorism, dirty bomb and shock and awe. Phrases that may eternally be in bad taste have a tendency to pop up, such as holocaust, genocide, nazi (not that the Interweb Tubes have stopped that one), crash a plane into, Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) and Windows 95.

To paraphrase what Pons said to Fleischmann, "Ehh, close enough."

Or does posting as an AnonCow count as a pinch of salt?

In case anyone doubted the use of the term, I present google translate of a financial piece; hover on the article's title for untranslated usage:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/comment-la-finance-fait-exploser-les-inegalites_fr_art_1094_54437.html&ei=49stT6qBNtCztwey0oTzDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDgQ7gEwAQ

You could extend the point by noting that Theories of Science are the best models of knowledge, and yet, they are always unable to cover all possible aspects. Those Theories are drawn from matching the data extrapolations which are themselves sorted by the Laws of Sciences which have limited practicality relative to their own application. And as Laws are inherently incomplete, the Math which proves them serves limited use beyond the paper or program which creates or uses it. Or, as one person has put it, "Did you know the '[Philosophiæ Naturalis] Principia [Mathematica]' has an error rate?" If you can't know every value of every dimension in the whole Universe, or otherwise, are not Maxwell's Demon, it's impossible to prove bupkis. Even the Doctor of Gallifrey can be suprised, and he knows this history of most civilizations in the Universe from the near beginning to the near end.

As a relative output

The result of a process

Outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes)

That result which stands separate of the naturally continuing and constituting processes, both of biological and non-biological nature, given the scope of the planet

[This is a breaking up of the definition of a pollutant or pollution (as stated), to recall the reason it as been put forward. This break is justified as to define the conditions and boundary before the introduction of a variation.]

It does count

Carbon dioxide (implied from the pronoun's precedent), given when placed within this context, would and is objectively considered

[Now, we return to the definition to see the effects of a variation]

As a deposit

In the form of a definable addition

Which changes the chemistry

An alteration (outside of the conditions/boundary), to the cumulative molecular cycles in thermodynamic equilibrium [the difference between mere laws and actual theories]

Of the surrounding environment

An immediate and identifiable area.

-----

I defined a pollutant that took an aside to include CO2. No context is changed. You can say it over and over again, but in the end. no one who understands debates and the very words and phrases you have been using, would define the context as changed. If you don't understand why the context isn't changed because they merely defined CO2 would show your lack of comprehension of why they chose to do it in the first place. That is logic targeted at people who would say I did change the context to my favor, regardless of whether or not you agree with them in the first place. My total definition neither requires human activity or ignores that something that exists as part of the boundaries before the variation of that definition may also be counted as pollution -- This is why I demonstrated that effect in my first response to you with actual research. Not only can COv2 be increased from natural sources to change the chemistry of an area, but it would be an entirely natural cause, i.e. volcanic fumes, large fires and the thawing of methane hydrate near a continental shelf.

"They very clearly described NATURAL processes. You, on the other hand, approached it from the context of UNnatural (industrial or at least man-caused) processes," directly contradicts your claim of, "I neither missed your point, or inferred as you claim." In that first pair sentences, you did both. Remember how I kept asking for examples of your claim? Well, I was able to give an example that supports my definition and counters your assumptions. That's what people do in debates. But, let us be honest, this hasn't really been a debate. You should have just quoted their logic of defining CO2 as not a pollutant, made your observation, and, quite frankly, probably have done so under your own thread, unless you wanted to know why I didn't waste time on their technique of avoiding an actual definition.

Every time you insist that the context was changed, you're falling for the very reason they did what they did that. They didn't define a pollutant. They can't do so unless they can explicitly include terminology that would insure that nothing that happens naturally can constitute as pollution. I just demonstrated here (and SxOx mentioned in another post) that naturally occurring chemistry, under naturally occurring circumstances, would count within Ecological studies as pollution. And again, that's also a reminder that Ecology, which is the general science under which Climatology, Oceanography, Soil sciences and Global Warming would be studied, is the definition to use. not Materials sciences, not Organic Chemistry, not Medicine, not Social and Cultural Studies, not Electronic and Electrical Engineering, but the definition that could be applied in the Ecological context.

Just because something isn't explicitly stated doesn't mean it isn't part of the context. Science is dependent upon that. There have been 3 definitions of a metre throughout the standardization process, but when something is stated in a modern work to be measured in n metres, it is assumed to be referring to the length which light travels, free of gravitational influences, in a vacuum, in 1/299,792,458th of one second. In that entire definition, there is not merely one definition required to be assumed for the context, but at least five.

In each and every science, you have to use exacting and consistent definitions, and you must apply them as such every single time. Pollution has one. It's not up for debate. Changing that definition would have nearly unimaginable effects on multiple sciences. I don't have any Ecology references at hand to see what definition has been used by the NAS, the EPA or the WHO. but I feel fairly confident I can sufficiently describe one without treading on too many toes, hence an attempt in my original post. Despite many requests for examples, you haven't shown any specific limitation in it, but I'd bet there is one, regardless of whether or not one might come to either of us.

You showed that you had placed your assumptions into your interpretation of the definition when you said my definition required processes to be, "UNnatural." The fact that you think context was changed, when the same topic, under the same science, used a recognizable definition for that science shows your assumptions are getting in the way of your comprehension. I've watched this being used in debates, and it works well. It shouldn't.

A group of particle physicists would not describe a photon exchange between two leptons as being, "Bright red." Single photons would only seem bright if they were high-energy (such as from colliding leptons), and even then, the brightness would result in high excitation state of the struck surface, an example would include an individual being hit by a cosmic ray in the eye results in an apparent bright flash that can take up as much 80% of the field of vision. The lepton exchange would be outside of the visible spectrum, making red meaningless, outside of quantum chromodynamics, which still goes outside of the mathematics (as qcd is used among quarks and gluons, not leptons).

Now, with the example given, the actual usage for QED requires something is definitively proven (usually by mathematical proof, occasionally indirectly with regard to physics, which would still involved contextually accepted mathematics), and two particle physicists might actually use it. However, here in a debate, where points are relative due to cross-contextual references, and not the warping of space-time, QEF would be used to demonstrate a construction. I've made it previously, but will cover it again:

The letter claims CO2 is not pollutant.
The letter discusses Global Warming as its premise.
It mentions a pollutant/pollution.
It doesn't define pollution.
Pollution is used with regard to Global Warming.
Global Warming is an Ecological study, when not describing other sciences that are used peripherally (i.e. Material Sciences in Sensors).
The letter does not discuss other sciences directly while discussing both pollution and CO2.
The letter does involve Social and Cultural sciences, Economic Sciences and Energy sciences/General physics.
Global Warming incorporates other sciences, by way of detectors, economic factors, et c.
The use of pollution refers to CO2.
CO2 is implied to refer to carbon dioxide.
CO2 is described as part of both natural processes and anthropogenic processes.
How do you test the claim of CO2 is a pollutant?
You need a definition.
Where does the definition come from?
CO2 is discussed within the letter as something present in the atmosphere.
There are no indicators that the discussion in the letter of CO2 immediately around the statement, "The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant," involves any of the other peripherally related sciences.
Pollutant/pollution appears to refer to the Environment at large, an Ecological topic, the primary study which covers Global Warming.
If pollutant/pollution is to be defined, it must fit the Ecological context.
I defined pollutant/pollution within an Ecological context.
My definition fits within the context of potential causes of Global Warming.
Applying my definition to CO2 results in CO2 being a pollutant/pollution.
My definition conflicts with the claim of the letter.
If assuming both views are equally valid, external validation is required.
The EPA, NAS and WHO define CO2 as a pollutant, both explicitly and within their respective definitions
Nota Suma:
Barring CO2 not referring to carbon dioxide
Barring the authors presenting a solid definition to pollution
Barring evidence that the letter's use of the term, "pollution," is outside of an Ecological definition
Barring a flaw in the construction of my definition of pollution within an Ecological context
Barring a change in the definition used by the stated scientific authority
Barring an explicit exception made by the stated scientific authority for carbon dioxide
My definition was within the context of the letter,
CO2 is a pollutant within that context,
The letter was erroneous.
QEF

Now, if you wanted to construct the necessary axioms around precise, mathematical and scientific definitions, I could return with a QED; however, using the definitions from the sciences would likely result in at least one additional conflict within the letter; thus, as far as we can go, I would only venture QEF until all points have been fairly tested.

I've offered you the opportunity to find an error in my definition. You have multiple points in the above axiomatical construction you can attack, and we can debate such an issue properly, but just to say, "But they didn't say that," is simply not valid, unless the letter is discussing something WAY outside of what any one could reasonably assume from the terms and context within the article, that the whole of letter has nothing to do with what the majority of native English speakers would likely recognize as references to the environment, ecological sciences and Global Warming.

If you believe that there is no context outside the work itself, they may as well have written "Lord of the Rings". It is, ironically, the exact opposite of what you have done so far -- You have demonstrated your willingness to include your own associations in what you have read when it is my work, but you refuse to see that both, my original article and the letter must exist within the context of something that is otherwise pre-existent. I doubt the WSJ has taken to publishing the preface of a role playing game. If it is a new form of entertainment, it uses a lot of the structural logic of a small number of lobbying groups possess within the context of an ecological debate. Now, if that is the case, I apologize for not getting joke.

Otherwise, I'd recommend you avoid engineering, the sciences and law as potential career options. Normally, I edit statements like these out after a re-read. I'm leaving this one in. The problem solving for contextual comprehension in these careers would require already understanding all of these things. I don't mean the Ecological sciences, but that any point in a paper (as in article or other monograph) must first pre-exist within a system of pre-defined constructs, which, when called, should be consistently applied. Otherwise, every publication would have to define every word within that publication where a simple definition used by a dictionary can not be accurately inferred.

I also leave it in as your recurring theme of negativity directed towards me seemed both one sided and illogically veiled attempts at deflection. I have avoided doing many detracting things to date. You have misused multiple terms (mostly unrelated to the main topic), failed to identify references and failed to respond to requests to identify examples to support your claims against my statements. Unlike many people on slashdot, I do avoid getting pedantic over these, usually, minor things. But if you wish to continue an actual debate, I've given you a validly formed construction from which you can work. If you continue to insist the letter exists independent of any pre-existing systems of structure, entirely axiomatically independent from what its terminology would otherwise suggest, however, I would like to know if I may include any of the characters from my White Wolf campaigns.

Funny, maybe, but that's not interesting. If I had a YT link or something, maybe both, but really, that was just a dump.