 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/science/29collider.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp
My favorite quote is the very last sentence on page 2.
(Scroll down to see)
“the Large Hadron Collider might make dragons that might eat us up.”
:) :) :)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Bill Pragnell
Subject: Re: As if we didn't have enough to worry about...
Date: 3 Apr 2008 05:53:22
Message: <47f4b722$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/science/29collider.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp
Excellent. :)
The trouble is, most people don't realise that when a scientist says
something is unlikely, they could easily be talking about a 1 in 1e30
chance or less. Basic honesty and innate pedantry forbids them from
saying outright that something is impossible because they don't honestly
know for absolute certainty. Of course, the slightest chance that a
pico-blackhole with less mass than a proton could appear and start to
eat the earth, however slowly or briefly, can very easily be used by the
press to sell at least 1e30 papers...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 05:03:10 +0100, Chambers
<ben### [at] pacificwebguy com> did spake, saying:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/science/29collider.html?pagewanted=
1&_r=3&hp
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 appl
y
to them.
:-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:03:10 -0700, Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
