Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/05/19 in all areas

  1. 2 points
  2. 2 points
    It's pretty easy, and it's been done to death. Most of their arguments are strawmen, in that they make a false or misunderstood claim to attack, instead of a more difficult, legitimate claim. For instance, that the creation of proteins is astronomically improbable, therefore it couldn't have happened. Since they mistakenly think the universe is only a few thousand years old, they can't accept that evolution had millions of years to miss before it finally hit. Many of the arguments are nitpicking Darwin, as if the theory began and ended with him. They ignore what every scientist knows, that theories are dynamic, changing as new evidence shapes them into better and more accurate predictions. And they keep repeating arguments that have been refuted, which is seriously dishonest from an intellectual perspective. I still hear "If we descended from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?" being spread to ignorant audiences. They study evolution only enough to cherry-pick the parts many don't understand, and then ask questions they don't want answers to. If they really studied evolution sincerely, with an open mind, they would come to the obvious conclusion that there's no other way it could work. Evolution is a fact, and the Theory of Evolution describes how it works, with observational accuracy backed up by more evidence than almost any other theory.
  3. 1 point
    Exploring applications for tires and more; electric vehicle magnets research motor... Perhaps you are lucky catching the next broadcast : ----> https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/tv/scienceview/20190206/2015208/
  4. 1 point
    As best I can tell, nobody here other than you is talking about targeting moderates based on racial demographics. So, just to confirm... you are unable to provide even a single example, correct?
  5. 1 point
    No problem. Make sure you Include the initial generation in your value of n.
  6. 1 point
    (if you're Windows user) start from downloading free Visual Studio Express from MSDN website: https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/vs/express/ Recommended is VS 2008 or VS 2010, because they are not tragic slow like the latest versions, which might be annoying for newbie, unless you have top-notch game machine with SSD, 16 GB+ RAM memory and Core i7 etc. Then learn C/C++ (if you don't know yet) https://en.cppreference.com/w/ And learn about TCP/IP stack. It's in WinSock docs: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/winsock/winsock-functions The most obvious difference between WinSock and BSD socks from Unix/Linux, is that at the beginning of Windows app, you must call special initialization function WSAStartup(). This way you will learn how to program Internet and network applications. Everything for free of charge. If you want to call for somebody on this forum, use @ and append proper name of user (or pick it from the list). This way that person will get notification from forum software. And don't misspell.. Like for example: @StringJunky
  7. 1 point
    Does this help: Nn= N0 x 2n . It's the same as the above formula but I have included the multiplication sign, which is excluded by convention but it is implied. First find the value of n, which is the number of generations possible in 2 hours.
  8. 1 point
    That is some impressive selective reading. The first sentence in your link (my bold): Also you posted the links in response to: So it seems that it was your assertion that she is a democratic leader.
  9. 1 point
    My parents already did! Im in town all week, folks.
  10. 1 point
    Why would I refrain from saying there is high level of agreement amongst scientists? It is true. Experts always know more - with more accuracy - than non experts. Trust in experts is not about blindly believing them because they are experts but because of trust in the institutions and practices, the codes of conduct and professional standards within which science on climate is done. Being able to convince you or not is kind of irrelevant as well as, I expect, futile; we get similar posts with similar points quite often at this site. That there are things you don't understand, can't understand or choose not to understand about climate change does not make any difference to whether the mainstream science is correct. I would note that science based knowledge and expertise is almost always what courts of law use for deciding cases of negligence, reflecting that common sense truth that expert knowledge is not made false by refusing to accept it; if people with fiduciary duties - holding positions of trust and responsibilty - ignore expert advice they can be held negligent; "I am not an expert and I don't trust experts" will not get you any credit in court and it won't here. The kind of faith I think is most at issue here is good-faith in this discussion; I could attempt to explain, for example, why your claim that science hasn't considered past historical climate change is incorrect or why what is likely to happen over the next decades and centuries is far more significant to people of the present and near future than climate changes of the pre-civilisation, pre-human past. But - will you read and give real, thoughtful consideration and responses to arguments I or others make?
  11. 1 point
    Nope. YOU have made specific claims in this thread. I don't believe them. So it is up to YOU to provide evidence for those claims. There is a high-level summary of some of the evidence here: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf Note that it is about 30 pages and only touches on some of the types of evidence. So, as I say, providing evidence in a forum post is not practical. This is a report put together by hundreds of experts (*) on the current state of the science and the potential impacts on the USA. I think it is about 1,000 pages in total. So feel free to come back with questions after you have read it: Volume 1 (the science): https://science2017.globalchange.gov Volume 2 (impact assessment): https://nca2018.globalchange.gov And then there is: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/ https://skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm https://climatechange.insightconferences.com/events-list/evidence-of-climate-changes http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/457000/457037/html/ https://www.ipcc.ch/data/ And so on and so on But perhaps you think that all of these experts from different countries, universities, political beliefs, religions, sciences, etc are all in some massive conspiracy to trick you. If so, this might be more up your street: BBC R4 "A History of Delusions"