Properly placed, it would remove some mass from the object. Given enough time, that will changed it's trajectory. And the sooner we know, the less mass we need to change.
all about time. IF you had enough time, you could just launch rocks and have a robot pt them on the asteroid. the increase in mass will changes it's course.
except any planet with sufficient level of intelligent inhabitants isn't necessarily meaningless. They, we, have the opportunity to give it meaning, to move beyond it, to spread through the galaxy.
There was no meaning it's its formation, or the start of life, I am talking about applying meaning later.
Since it looks like there is no big crunch, you're question isn't valid; however, if there where a big crunch, then time would end..and then begin again. So even then it has an age.
Nice straw man, except the IPCC doesn't control the movement of money, and global warming has nothing to do with that,. it's just that groups like the heartland instituter have, provable, spread lies like that in order to create a controversy where their isn't one.
"But ultimately "we're right because shut up" is the constant refrain from the Warmers" lie. We are probably right cause of this fucking mountain of data and predictions.
Anecdote: I ahve watch sone go througbh cancer several time in my life.
Twice in the 1970s You have cancer, 6 months later dead.
Once in the 80s. Treamentr with horrible side effects. nasty, nasty side effects. Survived for 4 years.
twice again in the 90s: bad side effects, one died 4 years later, the other is still alive. My mother in 2010. Treatment was nasty, but cause early enough and she is still alive. Her cancer is a cancer that only 5% of peopel who get cancer get.
The anecdote is just that, and anecdote, however it does coincide with the constant betterment of treatments. Less harsh, more specific, less amount of time.
It is BS,. I can look back 15 years and see akll the advances that show you are wrong.
"There is far more money to be made by treating symptoms then curing people." If there was only 1 company, controlled by one person that owned all the research capabilities, and their growth was determined by how much profit that had you would be correct.
But none of that is true. Stock values determines how well a company is doing. Stock price determine bonuses, stock price determine the mood of the board.
If you half a fucking clue about business, you would know that.
wrong. Vitamin supplementation for people who where deficient in vitamins showed that.More then that is, literally, pissed away.
200 iu was fine because that was a number for food intake. The vast majority if Vitamin D is being out during the day. The Supplementation industry made a stink, ignored the actual facts and created a marketing campaighn.
Just so you have a chance to not look like a fool: MOST supplementation companies are OWNED by pharmaceutical companies.
So stop make a false dichotomy.
And next time, site ACTUAL FUCKING STUDIES. Try pubmed.
My insurance company would cover it. Why wouldn't they?
"There is far more money to be made treating diseases than curing them." A mantra that shows the person who spouts it has no fucking clue about how large corporations work. It's all about the stock value THIS FUCKING QUARTER. not: will this keep are stock value flat for the next decade.
Slashdot Mirror
Continious power? can you believe? those bastard at the electric company always out to get us.
If you you want to use a battery, you still need to you 'their' electrons to fill your battery.
Properly placed, it would remove some mass from the object. Given enough time, that will changed it's trajectory. And the sooner we know, the less mass we need to change.
all about time. IF you had enough time, you could just launch rocks and have a robot pt them on the asteroid. the increase in mass will changes it's course.
30% is comes out of the publisher.
"not being able to offer the book for less anywhere else"
and that's just false.
return of the king
Apple: 9.99
http://itunes.apple.com/us/book/the-return-of-the-king/id503026877?mt=11
Google: 8.51
https://play.google.com/store/books/details/John_Ronald_Reuel_Tolkien_The_Return_Of_The_King?id=WZ0f_yUgc0UC&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwyLDEsImJvb2stV1owZl95VWdjMFVDIl0.
That's just one example.
Stop 'Just sayin' and start thinking for yourself.
They don't loose any rights to Apple. Stupid nonsense.
Never releasing digital, to a digital release.
And by funny, I mean money.
except any planet with sufficient level of intelligent inhabitants isn't necessarily meaningless. They, we, have the opportunity to give it meaning, to move beyond it, to spread through the galaxy.
There was no meaning it's its formation, or the start of life, I am talking about applying meaning later.
A machine sufficient advanced enough for us to upload a consciousness would be advanced enough not to want us to upload our consciousness.
it will when it's spinning blades hit the gas.
F=(-m)(-a)
Since it looks like there is no big crunch, you're question isn't valid; however, if there where a big crunch, then time would end..and then begin again. So even then it has an age.
Slashdotception?
Nice straw man, except the IPCC doesn't control the movement of money, and global warming has nothing to do with that,. it's just that groups like the heartland instituter have, provable, spread lies like that in order to create a controversy where their isn't one.
"But ultimately "we're right because shut up" is the constant refrain from the Warmers"
lie. We are probably right cause of this fucking mountain of data and predictions.
They use the work 'likely' because China refused to sign it until it was changed from certain to likely.
You are clueless about how models are built, and you are pretty clueless about how global climate models are built and confirmed.
biometrics is better then keys.
yes.
Or better yet a rfid device that the car can detect..of wait, new cars have those.
To be honest, we should have gotten rid of car keys 30 years ago.
Anecdote:
I ahve watch sone go througbh cancer several time in my life.
Twice in the 1970s
You have cancer, 6 months later dead.
Once in the 80s. Treamentr with horrible side effects. nasty, nasty side effects. Survived for 4 years.
twice again in the 90s:
bad side effects, one died 4 years later, the other is still alive.
My mother in 2010.
Treatment was nasty, but cause early enough and she is still alive. Her cancer is a cancer that only 5% of peopel who get cancer get.
The anecdote is just that, and anecdote, however it does coincide with the constant betterment of treatments. Less harsh, more specific, less amount of time.
You dont know much about the Amish, do you?
That was one of the most pointless and stupid things ever written on slashdot.
Why don't you just say cancer is cause by chemicals?
idiot.
It is BS,. I can look back 15 years and see akll the advances that show you are wrong.
"There is far more money to be made by treating symptoms then curing people." If there was only 1 company, controlled by one person that owned all the research capabilities, and their growth was determined by how much profit that had you would be correct.
But none of that is true. Stock values determines how well a company is doing. Stock price determine bonuses, stock price determine the mood of the board.
If you half a fucking clue about business, you would know that.
wrong. Vitamin supplementation for people who where deficient in vitamins showed that.More then that is, literally, pissed away.
200 iu was fine because that was a number for food intake. The vast majority if Vitamin D is being out during the day.
The Supplementation industry made a stink, ignored the actual facts and created a marketing campaighn.
Just so you have a chance to not look like a fool: MOST supplementation companies are OWNED by pharmaceutical companies.
So stop make a false dichotomy.
And next time, site ACTUAL FUCKING STUDIES. Try pubmed.
Then you are stupid.
The stock value would skyrocket, and they would get more value. THAT is what it is about in large corporations.
The CURRENT round of executives will get FUCKING MONSTER BONUSES.
It's the VERY SAME QUARTER TO QUARTER GREED maximization you talk about that would be the reason for releasing a cure.
My insurance company would cover it. Why wouldn't they?
"There is far more money to be made treating diseases than curing them."
A mantra that shows the person who spouts it has no fucking clue about how large corporations work. It's all about the stock value THIS FUCKING QUARTER. not: will this keep are stock value flat for the next decade.
except discovering a cure for cancer will increase your stock value, considerable.
So even if it was solely about money, they would still release it.