Not sure what to make of this, though it's a fair sight better than most man-eatting plants. Folklore-based I assume?
Date: 15 Jan 2012 03:30
Number of posts: 34
RSS: New posts
They're not man eating. Should I clarify that?
It's not folklore based.
If anyone isn't seeing that they were trying to off themselves, let me know that too…
Hrm. sorry, I made broad assumptions about "plant and animal matter“. To make sure I'm interpreting correctly now, they nom on whatever detrius is near the mouth to grow in a direction of their choosing?
As for the suicidal implication, more subtle is a good thing around here; no need to spell it out, you've gotten the point across.
Aye and aye. I rewrote the former to clarify.
It's impossible to do useful carbon dating on anything that was alive after the atmospheric atomic tests of the 1950s, so we can't test these things and find that they're two months old.
No, you don't understand.
These are still alive and experiencing gas exchange with their environment? Then radiocarbon dating will not produce any useful results on them.
Radiocarbon dating tells you how long it was since an organism died — which is when it stopped either undergoing gas exchange with its environment (for plants) or consuming plants (or the flesh of plant-eating animals).
Getting inconsistent results from radiocarbon dating in such a case isn't anomalous, it's "well duh".
For anything that was alive since the Industrial Revolution, when humans began digging up and burning massive quantities of coal and petroleum, radiocarbon dating is pretty much useless. For anything that was alive since the atmospheric atomic testing of the 1950s and 1960s, radiocarbon dating is worse than useless.
But even without the Industrial Revolution and the atomic testing, radiocarbon dating of samples from something that's still alive would be totally pointless.
What about on dead parts of a still-living organism? That's how I interpreted this.
Like if I dated a part hair (or some other dead part of my body) that was somehow 500 years old but I was still alive, would the radiocarbon dating produce an accurate result?
Nice. Is this related to one of the myths of legend? I know there was a Greek husband and wife turned to trees, but that was an oak and a linden.
Changed aired soil to aerated-hope that us ok.
It isn't folk lore based, but I thought the setting would do service for the article.
I changed some adverbs and small grammatical things.
Is anyone else really tired of the illiterate slang of agents and other non-scientific Foundation personnel? I have yet to meet anyone in real life who pronounces "them" "'em", it's jarring and annoying. These aren't 19th century gold prospectors or 1920s gangsters, they're basically trained soldiers. I can't even tell why it's done, is it to paint these people as somehow gritty and hands-on and too busy or hard for modern conversational conventions or what?
I've heard "'em" plenty of times in the right context, usually something like "GET 'EM!" or "Let 'em up, I want a clear shot!"
That said, it depends largely on the case in point. Unless it's left in the vernacular intentionally to showcase some aspect, I would think things like "let 'em up" would be transcribed as "let them up" in an official documentation.
You got it pretty spot on. If it called for it, I would have no qualms doing phonetic lolspeak.
I have yet to meet anyone in real life who pronounces "them" "'em"
Y'all need to get out more, then.
I do see your point - if it was a transcription of an audio file it would make sense. In the context of part of the Containment Report it's… odd.
But Senior Staff (which I'm not part of) has spoken and it's not yours to edit.
Oh. I meant to put that it was an audio log, my derp.
I thought that would be acceptable, I mean, as far as people talking goes.
Where I'm from people don't usually anunicate their "-ings" or their "th-" so I thought it'd be normal-like.
If these things combust from a small amount of water, shouldn't they have gone up in flames during a rainstorm by now?
I'll revise it a bit and make a note about the damage from rainfall.
kinda lame in my opinion.
Ah, but walking suicidal trees is a tad different.
If I were you, I'd tone down the repetition in the paragraph discussing "fire", perhaps use more technical language for the article as a whole. However, that's a relatively minor problem. Apart from that, I really like this. It's subtle, and above all, it actually explores the concepts that require proper examination, which is more than I can say for most of the other 1000s block articles. +1
I really like it, I want to request some tests to see if the trees photo-tropisim and other reactions are different to other plants because they are sentient (they are sentient right?). Such as: will it 'grow' away from places of high heat such as a radiator and move away from extreme colds such as an air conditioned room?
The production of new bark is able to propel the trees through the soil without cracking or destroying the root ball? This is impressive enough to warrant discussion.
I don't really understand how a tree which combusts on exposure to water can survive. Really? There's no rain?
Maybe you lost me here, but downvote on this.