HAWKING ALERT: Leave planet Earth, find a new home. Stupid humans Human aggression threatens to destroy Earth so we'd better start colonising planets soon, pioneering physicist Stephen Hawking has said. "I believe that the long-term future of the human race must be space and that it represents an important life insurance for our future survival," said Hawking, speaking at London's Science …
"Maybe because it rankles a bit to be doing for free what the editors are paid to (supposedly) do?"
The correct phrase here is "doing for nothing." The term "for free" is grammatically incorrect rubbish. The AC should probably make sure he's correct himself before pulling up other people on their mistakes!
This post has been deleted by its author
Interesting point. On the one hand we pay nothing for accessing this site, it's us supported mostly by advertising. The financial realities of this probably impact the editorial practices. That being said, a professional wordsmith supported by editors shouldn't really be making basic errors. My command of the English language is tenuous (chalk that up to Yorkshire schooling where grammar is someone who knits you hats) so I hire a friend who is an author ,ex journalist, and Olympic class pedant to review anything I intend to inflict on adults in a professional capacity. Much like an editor would do ;)
That being said, we are rather constructing mountains out of mole shit here.
> That being said, we are rather constructing mountains out of mole shit here.
Quite but:
> I hire a friend who is an author ,ex journalist, and Olympic class pedant to review
=
I hire a friend who is an author, ex journalist and Olympic class pedant to review...
FTFBoY. (How much do you pay?)
"The term "for free" is grammatically incorrect rubbish. "
If you asked how much something cost you could be told "it is a pound/dollar" - or "it is free". Presumably both those statements are accepted as reasonable usage?
Therefore you could ask someone to do something "for a pound/dollar" or "for free". The word "free" has become a currency denomination in its own right.
@Bloodbeastterror
Spot on. Have an upvote. If you're going to be careful anywhere, do it with the headlines, First two comments (three with this one) are about the grammar - says it all, really. From the context of the article it should be 'lose' (something I've posted about before on ElReg, btw).
This is so common that I wonder if it's a losing battle (or should that be a loosing battle?)
A few years ago the street furniture in my area was plastered with posters saying "Loose weight now - ask me how". My response was "No thanks, I have plenty of loose weight already".
Sorry, I'd have been glad to use the "Send corrections" link if I'd noticed it - and even after your comment it took me two minutes to find it, not on the main page, nor in the article page, but only in the Comments page.
But as someone else has already commented, tongue in cheek (as I'm being), name-and-shame is much more fun. Apologies if I made the headache worse.
Actually, after posting the above comment I noticed the "Tips and corrections" bottom left, tiny grey letters, no obvious hyperlink. Another fallout from the "upgrade"? And since I'm mentioning hyperlinks, why does the "Comments" blue (i.e. hyperlink colour) at the bottom right of each of the home page list of articles just lead to the article instead of directly to the comments? Bad use of colour coding by your web designers...?
Happy to follow the best procedures, but help me out here...
@Uncle Slacky you don't know that it wasn't meant to be like that since you clearly didn't understand the authors meaning....Oh you did understand the meaning? Then surely message conveyed, language succeeded. The human race would fall over tomorrow if everyone had to use your specific version of English for communication. When coding I even manage to set colours without trouble despite the American gibberish used. If the author posts genuine unrecognisable nonsense then go ahead and point it out, but if you understand the meaning then at least be nice about it!
Maybe, after 20 years of crap over windows issue's, those halfwits's would cut us a break, but no, they paid big money to be experts ...
JTQ <> English
expert = drip under pressure ....
Poke 53280,0:poke53281,0:?"cntrl+6" .....
American gibberish is what world is doing.....
You are it's lacky .............
Or, after being famous for some time, they are very much more likely to be /reported/ after remarking on areas outside their scientific expertise; not to mention being more likely to be /asked/ for their opinion by reporters/passers-by in the first place.
I was actually thinking more of Crooke, who went in for spiritualism, or Shockley, who reckoned that his experience with semiconductors allowed him to know more than mere geneticists and evolutionary biologists. It may be true that famous scientists are more likely to be asked for their opinion, but some of them have gone a long way to promote ideas that, to say the least, are contentious in the field into which they are stepping. It takes a Feynman to make a part time contribution to molecular biology and rocket failure modes (not to mention the ethics of topless bars), and there are very few people like that.
Also I think getting people off planet is only way forward, currently, as halfwits in charge are to busy gathering profits, too change the outcome....
However more than a 100, need to get out of here, DNA testing ranging 1000-5000 humans, that survived last ice, that evolved into us ... you need some "range" in the gene pool ..
You should remember these are just my views, it may NOT bear resemblance to your reality, but it don't have to ...
COP20: Global Arctic Methane Emergency #2 (12-5-2014 in Lima Peru)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQkNxuQ0DoI
Dr Jennifer Francis - Arctic Sea Ice, Jet Stream & Climate Change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAiA-_iQjdU
Hmmm ... as in - we just found bones of the occupants who used to live here and it doesn't look good. T-rex, eat###rex, ###sour .... making us look like midgets in the library of predicted/discovered creatures. What if our nest(earth) is actually in the middle of a jungle and we are surrounded by wild cannibalising beasts. Hopefully we don't land on a planet full of giant cannibals or mutant giant wasps that can survive what we call extreme space conditions.. they would just follow us back home for food. Not suggesting that the mayans were onto something but the monsters they and other indigenous people from all over the world curved look scary. Maybe we should build a UN military base on the moon first before going to mars and all those other planets.
Possibly because 1) dragging weapons-grade nukes with you to Mars etc. might get a few people asking questions in the first place, and 2) getting to the point of being able to mine & refine nuke fuel once you're there probably isn't going to be top of the list of priorities for an new colony?
Guess you'd also have to hope the colonists have a bit more common sense to work with as well. Or maybe that we'd have worked out how to colonise other places apart from Mars, so that there's a chance of at least one colony (and thus humans) surviving.
" dragging weapons-grade nukes with you to Mars etc"
In "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" - Heinlein had his moon settlers lobbing easily launched containers full of rocks down the gravity well to Earth. The proposition was that by they time they hit the ground they would have enough energy to cause a large explosion - like a meteorite.
" is WHO is going to build ALL these rockets with WHAT resources and time???"
Don't forget that you don't need an earth-style rocket to launch a projectile from the low-gravity moon. That was why it has often been touted as the assembly station for large spaceships.
Britain's Industrial Revolution only started after 1700 - when the Enlightenment put science and technology into gear. That was almost a standing start compared to our current knowledge base.
The moon has much the same inorganic minerals as Earth. Nuclear or solar energy generation could be presumed to be possible. The premise of Heinlein's novel was that the moon colonies' settlers grew grain crops in underground caverns - and then exported them to Earth. The colony's rebellion was over the fact that it was a one-way trip for the moon's water - a modern problem for some third world countries dependent on cash-crops.
When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives.
Robert A. Heinlein
Clearly no longer relevant.
Probably because like star trek or star wars, each planet would be its own entity in a greater alliance. So nukes might kill off one planet, but there would be enough colonies to continue survival of the species.
Assuming of course it isn't like Babylone 5 where the alliance then infights and more than one colony picks a side and gets nuked.
He is talking about survival of the species afterall.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
