Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:we need bigger space stations (Score 1) 503

Nothing, it's not possible. The gravity and inertia on Earth allow us to do things like pour liquids from one vessel to another.

Meh, just keep everything under a little pressure.

You'd have to reinvent every single process to do it in space. Why?

Because space has a lot more stuff than earth. True, you'd need to do it just for space based markets first, but before too long economies of scale would kick in and you could just drop your manufactured products straight down to earth.

Space is a dead end. Face it.

The more engineers I meet, the less I respect the breed tbh. Science, motherfucker, it does stuff it couldn't do yesterday. Economics, you do not understand it.

Comment Re:we weren't the first (Score 1) 91

Cute, now you put words in my mouth.

Better than you putting words into the mouths of others.

Or really like fantasizing.

Mmm, sarcasm is no replacement for a critical mind. Although some clearly feel that it is.

which would of course require throwing a very large part of what we know about evolution of life on this planet out the window...)

On the contrary, it merely involves educating you on the limits of our knowledge, which doesn't take long.

we have no justifiable reason assume such large discrepancies.

In flat defiance of the clear predominance of possibility pointed out by the poster you misrepresented, and which you have thus far failed to refute.

That ALL the available evidence, and constantly being unearthed, evidence paints certain picture is only too convenient. But hey, since you mention Dawkins - maybe there were giants, who knows...

You're not interested in evidence. You should, however, look up calls to authority as they were used in the medieval period. Most of us have moved on, you know.

Comment Re:we weren't the first (Score 1) 91

Sigh... what you're saying is that the possibility does not exist because of the lack of a fossil record, which is the exact opposite of what the poster in question is saying. Let me spell this out for you - we probably have less than a single percent of the biodiversity of any given period stored in the fossil record. Not only is there room for the lineages you are looking for, there is room for hundreds of thousands of them.

Also, on the issue of fantasies, I'm not saying that any such civilisation has existed. I am, however, saying that you most certainly can't rule out the possibility.

I respect Dawkins and all that guff, but he's really spawned a lot of self righteous authoritarians on the internet, a plague previously seen in the middle ages before it gave way to true scientific curiosity and open mindedness.

Comment Re:we weren't the first (Score 1) 91

Without evidence, there's no reason to believe it. Since there is no evidence left of any ancient civilization, there is no reason to believe one exists. That's the way science works.

The argument in question is one of whether or not such a civilisation or civilisations could have existed, and we would know nothing about it. The answer is unarguably yes. Sznupi seems to feel that a lack of fossil record leading to homonid intelligence denies the possibility of such a happening, despite that the fossil record is in all likelihood less than one percent of all the biodiversity in any particular period in time.

Comment Re:we weren't the first (Score 1) 91

Lineages which follow very different paths that all the available ones - don't conveniently forget that "small" detail.

I find when presented with a response which goes against the basic reality of a situation, the element of rationality has vacated the premises. Whether simply unable to comprehend what is being said, invested in the idea that our species' civilisation is the first, dogmatism, or simply into getting the last word, interest wanes.

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Working...