While in my opinion, there is enough independent evidence to cautiously suggest that global warming (which itself is not in dispute in scientific circles) is more likely to make bush fires worse than better
Why? Climate Change does not automatically make every area more prone to the kinds of disasters that frequently occur there. Why wouldn't it lessen the chance for severe wild fires? This is the kind of thinking that fuels "deniers". It's always, smaller polar caps, retreating glaciers, intensified tornadoes, wildfires, hurricanes, rising sea levels. Why not more rain in the desert or semi-arid farmland? Or the shifting of severe weather events to another area? More snow for the ski areas. Less rain for flood prone areas. Why is it always worse?
So, they say it's non computable, but then they concede that it is probably computable but likely too complex to do it right now. So, computable then. Sensational headline or what.
And? Flying cars are still impractical, dangerous, and expensive. This is dictated by the physical laws of the universe. Grounds cars can move from point a to point b with less fuel. Mechanical failures in ground cars are non-fatal events(usually). And ground cars are far cheaper and simpler to build and maintain. This is not going to change no matter how you design it.
A liberal administration isnt going to crack down on porn; it would alienate huge parts of their base.
You mean like how the DEA is still going after medical marijuana dispensaries in Denver despite Obama supporting legalization?
http://www.denverpost.com/news...
I've been doing several to dozens of solves daily for the last several years. I couldn't average much faster than 40 seconds no matter how much a studied and practiced. A few months ago I threw away all of my cubes (around 10 of them) so that I could stop obsessing over it. I was wasting so much of my life sitting there solving over and over.
But how do you explain why we don't detect these hundreds of objects in front of other stars?
You're assuming these transits would occur frequently and that we actually have the equipment pointed at the sky to detect them. Even if there were 200 times as many brown dwarfs as stars in the galaxy, actually seeing one pass in front of another star would be an extremely rare occurrence and we'd only detect if we were looking right at that star. Even then we'd only detect a small decrease in light and we'd be unable to distinguish it from the transit of a planet with a long orbital period. Also, consider the velocity of stars in relation to each other? The transit may only visible for a fraction of a second...in which case we wouldn't be able to detect it at all.
These aren't small things, and we can detect wayward exoplanets
Brown dwarfs are small. And we can only detect exoplanets by detecting the effect they have on the wobble of the host star, by their transit of the star, or very rarely we can see light from extremely hot planets.
How come they don't collide? Why didn't they collapse into just being, you know, stars?
Even at 200 times, collisions would be extremely rare. And the collision would be a non-event as far as the earth is concerned. Why don't they collapse into stars [assuming the collision produced a star with sufficient mass to be a star]. Maybe they are? Still the collisions would be so rare that we'd almost certainly never witness the event.
if there's so many how come they haven't been turning up at a clipping rate?
The only part of your argument that really works. Even with the limited instruments we have now, we'd expect to see more if there were 200 times as many brown dwarfs. But then, we're discovering a lot more of these now that we have instruments designed to find them.
Regardless, I don't think 200 times the number would account for the missing mass.
People just running a browser for email and surfing don't need more than 4 right now. I get by with 8 at work and I'm using running 2-4 instances of Visual Studio and several instances of firefox, office, and various other programs.
You think someone is trying to impose death on you?
Indirectly. I'm seeing several people arguing to let nature take it's course. I'm seeing people argue against transhumanist goals.
Do you really believe in the possibility that 1) there will be a transhumanist "solution" in your lifetime and 2) that you are going to be able to afford it?
Should I be more afraid of the.1% who seek immortality for themselves, or the self-righteous "geeks" who seem to want to impose nature's normal expiration date me.
Is it ethically justifiable to permanently subject wild animals to such conditions?
Yes. As restored species they would be protected by man and then have a shot at continued existence in the event humans die off or evolve passed the necessity for a biosphere.
but it also strikes me as arguably sounding like animal cruelty. I'd suggest that the scientific discoveries we might make by doing this may be heavily outweighed by the ethical considerations involved.
Your logic seems to be that it's unethical to bring them into a world that they can't survive in. But they all endured the waxing and waning of ice ages before that. The current thinking is that either humans or some sudden climate catastrophe caused the Holocene megafaunal extinctions, and not an inability to adapt to post ice age climate conditions. The only thing that seems to be preventing most of these species from thriving today is humans themselves.
There is no convincing controversy. Your ideas are "fringe" science that nobody takes seriously. It's not a conspiracy to keep theists down. It's just that your arguments are not convincing.
'evolution facists' (facist as in trying to control other people's thoughts)
Eh? Teaching evolution in a *science* class is now controlling other people's thoughts? The whole reason this is an issue is because hardcore theists want to prevent it from being taught because they think it conflicts with one cultures interpretation of a creation story. Is that not attempting to control people's thoughts?
Slashdot Mirror
While in my opinion, there is enough independent evidence to cautiously suggest that global warming (which itself is not in dispute in scientific circles) is more likely to make bush fires worse than better
Why? Climate Change does not automatically make every area more prone to the kinds of disasters that frequently occur there. Why wouldn't it lessen the chance for severe wild fires? This is the kind of thinking that fuels "deniers". It's always, smaller polar caps, retreating glaciers, intensified tornadoes, wildfires, hurricanes, rising sea levels. Why not more rain in the desert or semi-arid farmland? Or the shifting of severe weather events to another area? More snow for the ski areas. Less rain for flood prone areas. Why is it always worse?
It's closed captioned.
So, they say it's non computable, but then they concede that it is probably computable but likely too complex to do it right now. So, computable then. Sensational headline or what.
Damn it
And? Flying cars are still impractical, dangerous, and expensive. This is dictated by the physical laws of the universe. Grounds cars can move from point a to point b with less fuel. Mechanical failures in ground cars are non-fatal events(usually). And ground cars are far cheaper and simpler to build and maintain. This is not going to change no matter how you design it.
Guys, if you don't want the NSA scanning your websites, just set up a robots.txt. Duh.
A liberal administration isnt going to crack down on porn; it would alienate huge parts of their base.
You mean like how the DEA is still going after medical marijuana dispensaries in Denver despite Obama supporting legalization? http://www.denverpost.com/news...
I've been doing several to dozens of solves daily for the last several years. I couldn't average much faster than 40 seconds no matter how much a studied and practiced. A few months ago I threw away all of my cubes (around 10 of them) so that I could stop obsessing over it. I was wasting so much of my life sitting there solving over and over.
Thanks Shatner.
What part of my last sentence didn't you read?
Even if we solve the propulsion problem, there's another problem--uncharted objects like this.
If we could actually speed a ship up to anywhere near the speed of light, even hitting a pebble is likely to blow up your spaceship.
But how do you explain why we don't detect these hundreds of objects in front of other stars?
You're assuming these transits would occur frequently and that we actually have the equipment pointed at the sky to detect them. Even if there were 200 times as many brown dwarfs as stars in the galaxy, actually seeing one pass in front of another star would be an extremely rare occurrence and we'd only detect if we were looking right at that star. Even then we'd only detect a small decrease in light and we'd be unable to distinguish it from the transit of a planet with a long orbital period. Also, consider the velocity of stars in relation to each other? The transit may only visible for a fraction of a second...in which case we wouldn't be able to detect it at all.
These aren't small things, and we can detect wayward exoplanets
Brown dwarfs are small. And we can only detect exoplanets by detecting the effect they have on the wobble of the host star, by their transit of the star, or very rarely we can see light from extremely hot planets.
How come they don't collide? Why didn't they collapse into just being, you know, stars?
Even at 200 times, collisions would be extremely rare. And the collision would be a non-event as far as the earth is concerned. Why don't they collapse into stars [assuming the collision produced a star with sufficient mass to be a star]. Maybe they are? Still the collisions would be so rare that we'd almost certainly never witness the event.
if there's so many how come they haven't been turning up at a clipping rate?
The only part of your argument that really works. Even with the limited instruments we have now, we'd expect to see more if there were 200 times as many brown dwarfs. But then, we're discovering a lot more of these now that we have instruments designed to find them. Regardless, I don't think 200 times the number would account for the missing mass.
You know, doing your taxes (and filing) in something like TurboTax takes like 30 - 60 minutes (assuming your taxes aren't complicated). Easy money.
F2P games are riddled with 12 year olds who smack talk everyone by calling them fags or some other juvenile insult. It gets tiresome.
People just running a browser for email and surfing don't need more than 4 right now. I get by with 8 at work and I'm using running 2-4 instances of Visual Studio and several instances of firefox, office, and various other programs.
I have 16 GB in my mac mini and i dont see a future of me using it all.
This statement is a bit reminiscent of my fellow nerdy friends when I was growing up who could not fathom filling a 100 megabyte harddrive.
You're holding up accountants and lawyers as role models? Now that's funny.
What makes you think it wasn't also timed by another device?
You think someone is trying to impose death on you?
Indirectly. I'm seeing several people arguing to let nature take it's course. I'm seeing people argue against transhumanist goals.
Do you really believe in the possibility that 1) there will be a transhumanist "solution" in your lifetime and 2) that you are going to be able to afford it?
No. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Should I be more afraid of the .1% who seek immortality for themselves, or the self-righteous "geeks" who seem to want to impose nature's normal expiration date me.
Yes.
Is it ethically justifiable to permanently subject wild animals to such conditions?
Yes. As restored species they would be protected by man and then have a shot at continued existence in the event humans die off or evolve passed the necessity for a biosphere.
but it also strikes me as arguably sounding like animal cruelty. I'd suggest that the scientific discoveries we might make by doing this may be heavily outweighed by the ethical considerations involved.
Your logic seems to be that it's unethical to bring them into a world that they can't survive in. But they all endured the waxing and waning of ice ages before that. The current thinking is that either humans or some sudden climate catastrophe caused the Holocene megafaunal extinctions, and not an inability to adapt to post ice age climate conditions. The only thing that seems to be preventing most of these species from thriving today is humans themselves.
There is no convincing controversy. Your ideas are "fringe" science that nobody takes seriously. It's not a conspiracy to keep theists down. It's just that your arguments are not convincing.
'evolution facists' (facist as in trying to control other people's thoughts)
Eh? Teaching evolution in a *science* class is now controlling other people's thoughts? The whole reason this is an issue is because hardcore theists want to prevent it from being taught because they think it conflicts with one cultures interpretation of a creation story. Is that not attempting to control people's thoughts?