... How inadequate and limited in vision you are, when you can't even consider the possibility of us striving to be able to create entire artificial environments all on our own from scratch. Preserving species near extition simply by backing up their DNA for future cloning, growing food and renewable resources through genetic modification and new technological breakthroughs, terraforming entire planets, and creating biodomes and sustainable ecosystems, able to keep us and a few other select species alive indefinitely in space. The  that comes from some rare species going extinct doesn't feel quite as when we can just "print" more of them in DNA sequencers. +1 Why the +1? Is it because you are also not armed with all the information out there? Because Rassah's exposition of "arming with information" trumps your dark vision? Explain how. Explain why my vision is dark. Explain how Rassah's vision is wonderful. Factor in the information I have freely provided to you in this post, which is a lot more than you have. In fact, you have provided no information, nor demonstrated any knowledge about the environment. |
|
|
|
... How inadequate and limited in vision you are, when you can't even consider the possibility of us striving to be able to create entire artificial environments all on our own from scratch. Preserving species near extition simply by backing up their DNA for future cloning, growing food and renewable resources through genetic modification and new technological breakthroughs, terraforming entire planets, and creating biodomes and sustainable ecosystems, able to keep us and a few other select species alive indefinitely in space. The that comes from some rare species going extinct doesn't feel quite as when we can just "print" more of them in DNA sequencers. +1 Why the +1? Is it because you are also not armed with all the information out there? |
|
|
|
How much more sincere and indicative of thought your remark would have been had it read: It's a good thing there are goals out there to utilize the resources of our solar system so that the only valuable, diverse and data rich resources of our own planet can be preserved.
The environment isn't just about the elements. It's a complex system of diversity which offers more when aloud to flourish. How inadequate and limited in vision you are, when you can't even consider the possibility of us striving to be able to create entire artificial environments all on our own from scratch. Preserving species near extition simply by backing up their DNA for future cloning, growing food and renewable resources through genetic modification and new technological breakthroughs, terraforming entire planets, and creating biodomes and sustainable ecosystems, able to keep us and a few other select species alive indefinitely in space. The that comes from some rare species going extinct doesn't feel quite as when we can just "print" more of them in DNA sequencers. Do you even know where knowledge comes from? It comes from the vast informational space which resides in the environment. As an example, a planet like Mars simply does not offer the same informational space to study. Huh. So what did we studdy in nature to come up with silicone processors, radios, networks, displays, light sensors, and all that other fancy techy stuff we use in our everyday life? Cause I was under the impression that it mostly had to do with chemistry and physics, not biology or whatever. I've already been over this. You rudely stated it was elementary. It's in that big post that apparently didn't fully comprehend, though claiming you did. You're blind. |
|
|
|
How much more sincere and indicative of thought your remark would have been had it read: It's a good thing there are goals out there to utilize the resources of our solar system so that the only valuable, diverse and data rich resources of our own planet can be preserved.
The environment isn't just about the elements. It's a complex system of diversity which offers more when aloud to flourish. How inadequate and limited in vision you are, when you can't even consider the possibility of us striving to be able to create entire artificial environments all on our own from scratch. Preserving species near extition simply by backing up their DNA for future cloning, growing food and renewable resources through genetic modification and new technological breakthroughs, terraforming entire planets, and creating biodomes and sustainable ecosystems, able to keep us and a few other select species alive indefinitely in space. The that comes from some rare species going extinct doesn't feel quite as when we can just "print" more of them in DNA sequencers. Do you even know where knowledge comes from? It comes from the vast informational space which resides in the environment. As an example, a planet like Mars simply does not offer the same informational space to study. |
|
|
|
The key is that radical environmentalists/feminists are annoying. I'm pro recycling/sustainable practices/anti littering, and pro equal rights/equal pay etc, but those people who tell me that I'm a bad person for not driving a hybrid, or that think that women deserve to be better than men due to past descrimination, are the stereotype that people have come to hate. Not to turn this into a religious debate, but for example theres nothing exciting about a Muslim family doing their religious things in their own homes and places of worship, however the things that radicals do are what people hear about, and thats what sticks as common perception.
Recycling and sustainable practices are actually small contributions to helping the environment. But by all means, don't stop. The real killers are industry, legal and illegal. Dams, fishing practices, logging, poaching, highway construction, suburban sprawl, economic growth, factory emissions, deforestation, ecosystem fracturing due to edge effects, agriculture, pesticides, mining and drilling and the necessary attendant infrastructure which brings about edge effects, industrial accidents, oil spills... The only possible solution to that list is to drastically reduce the population numbers. Oh well. That's the truth of it. Economic growth and population growth aren't good for the environment. It's a good thing some of us have goals beyond just "the environment." Spaaaaaaaaaace! How much more sincere and indicative of thought your remark would have been had it read: It's a good thing there are goals out there to utilize the resources of our solar system so that the only valuable, diverse and data rich resources of our own planet can be preserved.
The environment isn't just about the elements. It's a complex system of diversity which offers more when aloud to flourish. |
|
|
|
The key is that radical environmentalists/feminists are annoying. I'm pro recycling/sustainable practices/anti littering, and pro equal rights/equal pay etc, but those people who tell me that I'm a bad person for not driving a hybrid, or that think that women deserve to be better than men due to past descrimination, are the stereotype that people have come to hate. Not to turn this into a religious debate, but for example theres nothing exciting about a Muslim family doing their religious things in their own homes and places of worship, however the things that radicals do are what people hear about, and thats what sticks as common perception.
Recycling and sustainable practices are actually small contributions to helping the environment. But by all means, don't stop. The real killers are industry, legal and illegal. Dams, fishing practices, logging, poaching, highway construction, suburban sprawl, economic growth, factory emissions, deforestation, ecosystem fracturing due to edge effects, agriculture, pesticides, mining and drilling and the necessary attendant infrastructure which brings about edge effects, industrial accidents, oil spills... The only possible solution to that list is to drastically reduce the population numbers. Oh well. That's the truth of it. Economic growth and population growth aren't good for the environment. |
|
|
|
The key is that radical environmentalists/feminists are annoying. I'm pro recycling/sustainable practices/anti littering, and pro equal rights/equal pay etc, but those people who tell me that I'm a bad person for not driving a hybrid, or that think that women deserve to be better than men due to past descrimination, are the stereotype that people have come to hate. Not to turn this into a religious debate, but for example theres nothing exciting about a Muslim family doing their religious things in their own homes and places of worship, however the things that radicals do are what people hear about, and thats what sticks as common perception.
Recycling and sustainable practices are actually small contributions to helping the environment. But by all means, don't stop. The real killers are industry, legal and illegal. Dams, fishing practices, logging, poaching, highway construction, suburban sprawl, economic growth, factory emissions, deforestation, ecosystem fracturing due to edge effects, agriculture, pesticides, mining and drilling and the necessary attendant infrastructure which brings about edge effects, industrial accidents, oil spills... |
|
|
|
In one, the participants—228 Americans recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk— So a self-selected sample of basement-dwelling neckbeards who have no jobs so are willing to work for pennies an hour on that ridiculous Turk thing. I stopped reading right there. The analysis is from multiple different studies from various sources... the article makes direct reference to at least five independent ones. Better you spend your time actually learning something about the environment, or, alternatively, go immerse yourself in whatever hobby you might have that you know something about. |
|
|
|
That's neat. In the interim, remember this: - You can remain ignorant and deferential - You can get knowledgeable and stay deferential because it makes sense - You can get knowledgeable and be rebellious with a point - You cannot remain ignorant and be rebellious and have much of a point So far, I see a lot of defense of remaining ignorant and being rebellious. "Being rebellious?" Wow. You aren't even aware of how far gone you are, are you? Anyhow, ignoring the phrase in the middle of it, your fourth point is still wrong, and in a very revealing way. You can remain ignorant of what Mardi Gras is and how it impacts the New Orleans economy and crime rate and still have perfectly valid concerns for why having a city-wide, all-ages Midnight Curfew Bill in New Orleans is a bad idea. Your statements above simply miss the boat if directed toward people resisting such a bill, and in the context of most environmental proposals, they likewise fall flat. People don't have to share your fundamental values or educational background to speak to issues that directly affect them. That you think it does shows a pretty flagrant disregard for the opinions and legitimate concerns (and, really, the lives) of others you consider lesser than you. Still, that's for free. You're actually to the point of using the term "rebellious," as if it's the people being affected by the actions of environmental activists that are "rebels." Even if your first language isn't English, I think that says quite enough. Time to use your Ignore button. I guess when you don't know much, what comes out of your mouth is this drivel. As I said, you're just ignorant of the topic, so you try and sound like you've got something to say. |
|
|
|
That's neat. In the interim, remember this: - You can remain ignorant and deferential - You can get knowledgeable and stay deferential because it makes sense - You can get knowledgeable and be rebellious with a point - You cannot remain ignorant and be rebellious and have much of a point So far, I see a lot of defense of remaining ignorant and being rebellious. |
|
|
|
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "test.py", line 13, in <module>
print miles_input + " miles = " + str(miles_to_km_no_float(miles_input)) + " km (no float)"
TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'int' and 'str'
intstrFix print str(miles_input) + " miles = " + str(miles_to_km_no_float(miles_input)) + " km (no float)" It's already been done. |
|
|
|
|
We're looking down at a women from behind, and she has turned her head to look to her left.
|
|
|
|
|
Why does everything have to be related to mining? It's a topic about leading edge computing machinery research. It's interesting in its own right, and less interesting when its reduced to the concept of mining.
EDIT: After writing this, I watched the video for 30 seconds and decided it's just as stupid as how it was presented here.
There's actually interesting stuff out there about biocomputers. You just didn't find it.
|
|
|
|
explain to these people how doing what you want them to do will benefit them financially.
If you do not listen to me you will not succeed, guaranteed.
+1 randomcloud education is the only solution teach us not to overfish, we could survive They don't care how it benefits society as a whole. That's like taxation. They want it to be explained to them how it would earn them individually more money next year. But it probably won't. That's why randomcloud's post gets a -2, not a +1. You have to understand, environmental destruction is nothing but borrowing, and not paying back. That means it's going to come back and bite you later. To not engage in environmental destruction is to stop borrowing. When you don't borrow from your household, it fosters a better relationship and pays off later, but it doesn't put more money in your pocket right now. Again, that's why randomcloud's expectations are a little ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Hitler was an environmentalist too. You know why? It was another mechanism for control and subjugation of the people.
Actually, the goal is to protect the environment. It's not about controlling people to have a power trip. Address the actual comment I made in response to your previous post. Oh, and seek help for your paranoid delusions. |
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure I know what your problem is. First, what version of Python are you using. Type python at the command prompt.
There is no command prompt. It's a web browser implementation for the course. It works fine with codeskulptor but throw an error with python 2.7.3 on my computer. Traceback (most recent call last):
File "test.py", line 13, in <module>
print miles_input + " miles = " + str(miles_to_km_no_float(miles_input)) + " km (no float)"
TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'int' and 'str'
for the print command, intead of adding a bunch of things together, it might be better to use placeholders? print "%f miles = %f km." % (miles_input, miles_to_km_no_float(miles_input))
Yes. Such power using C style printf printing. Read up on formatting for printf. |
|
|
|
def miles_to_km(miles):
return miles * 1.60934
miles_input = input('Please input miles to convert in km: ')
print miles_to_km(float(miles_input))
What's likely happening here is that when querying for input, you're getting a string. What you want is a number. You don't know if the string, when converted to a number, has a decimal place or not, so you take the safe route and convert it to a float. But this is all about preparing the arguments for the function. The function should expect a number (int or float) and receive that. |
|
|
|
Even further proof: here we're guaranteeing that we're passing an integer into the function: def miles_to_km(miles):
return miles * 1.60934
print miles_to_km(int(1))
|
|
|
|
So, unless you want to draw erroneous conclusions about how to program, as has become glaringly obvious in this little episode, I suggest you only test your code using your local python interpreter.
I will; however, the online interpreter is the only way to submit our work for the course. Even so, the function was not the problem. Run this online: def miles_to_km(miles):
return miles * 1.60934
print miles_to_km(1)
|
|
|
|
|
So, unless you want to draw erroneous conclusions about how to program, as has become glaringly obvious in this little episode, I suggest you only test your code using your local python interpreter.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
