 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:03:10 -0700, Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguy com> wrote:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/science/29collider.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp
Half-Life and its sequels are just training simulators for what's to come. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Gail Shaw
Subject: Re: As if we didn't have enough to worry about...
Date: 3 Apr 2008 08:36:57
Message: <47f4dd79@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
news:op.t8083otuc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> So let me get this straight *Mr* Wagner, who studied physics, and Mr
> Sancho, an author, are attempting to get an injunction in Hawaii against a
> European Science Group, of which they United States is not a part, from
> operating in Switzerland because they've failed to carry out an
> environmental impact statement as required under a Act that doesn't apply
> to them.
But, but, but, isn't Switzerland a small town up near the Canadian border? I
mean, it has skiing, so it must be somewhere up north.
Europe? Is that a state?
<grin>
For some extra fun, find the New Scientist article that reports on this. The
article's sane, the comments get progressively more ridiculous.
Why do these people seem to think they know more about subatomic physics
than the professional scientists do?
Oh wait, I forgot. Science = Evil. Geeks are losers. Geniuses are always
trying to take over or destroy the world. Right. Now I got it.
Down with Progress! Back to the Stone Age!
Hehehehehehe...... <grin>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> But, but, but, isn't Switzerland a small town up near the Canadian border? I
> mean, it has skiing, so it must be somewhere up north.
> Europe? Is that a state?
That would be funny if it wasn't true... :'(
> For some extra fun, find the New Scientist article that reports on this. The
> article's sane, the comments get progressively more ridiculous.
> Why do these people seem to think they know more about subatomic physics
> than the professional scientists do?
> Oh wait, I forgot. Science = Evil. Geeks are losers. Geniuses are always
> trying to take over or destroy the world. Right. Now I got it.
>
> Down with Progress! Back to the Stone Age!
Indeed. Because, let's face it, if the world gets destroyed by the LHC,
the scientists won't be upset. It's not like they'll be the first ones
to die or anyt... oh, wait...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:37:41 +0200, "Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech
sa dot com> wrote:
>Why do these people seem to think they know more about subatomic physics
>than the professional scientists do?
I was listening to Melvyn Bragg rabbit-ing on about Newton's laws of
motion. You can get the podcast here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/
He read out the first one and said to the professor "Can you expand on
that?" After a short moment the professor said "No".
The science reporter came to Bragg's rescue :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Gail Shaw
Subject: Re: As if we didn't have enough to worry about...
Date: 3 Apr 2008 08:53:03
Message: <47f4e13f@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
news:kln9v391qi6bp936qjpc250pbo7ue616vh@4ax.com...
>
> He read out the first one and said to the professor "Can you expand on
> that?" After a short moment the professor said "No".
> The science reporter came to Bragg's rescue :)
LoL
Well, in all honesty, the 1st law of motion is fairly self-explanatory.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> He read out the first one and said to the professor "Can you expand on
>> that?" After a short moment the professor said "No".
>> The science reporter came to Bragg's rescue :)
>
> LoL
>
> Well, in all honesty, the 1st law of motion is fairly self-explanatory.
Somebody remind me... which one is law #1?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Gail Shaw
Subject: Re: As if we didn't have enough to worry about...
Date: 3 Apr 2008 09:01:42
Message: <47f4e346@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47f4e25c$1@news.povray.org...
> >> He read out the first one and said to the professor "Can you expand on
> >> that?" After a short moment the professor said "No".
> >> The science reporter came to Bragg's rescue :)
> >
> > LoL
> >
> > Well, in all honesty, the 1st law of motion is fairly self-explanatory.
>
> Somebody remind me... which one is law #1?
An object will remain at rest or will continue moving in a straight line at
constant speed unless an external force is applied.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Somebody remind me... which one is law #1?
>
> An object will remain at rest or will continue moving in a straight line at
> constant speed unless an external force is applied.
OK, that *is* pretty self explanatory...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:53:43 +0200, "Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech
sa dot com> wrote:
>
>Well, in all honesty, the 1st law of motion is fairly self-explanatory.
Not to dear Melvyn. It sounded as if he was struggling. And when they
went on to talk about Descartes third law. He complained that they had
only started on Newton's second <hehe>
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> An object will remain at rest or will continue moving in a straight line
>> at
>> constant speed unless an external force is applied.
>
> OK, that *is* pretty self explanatory...
But if the audience is the general public, you should probably explain how
air drag, friction, gravity and things can all be external forces.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
