> I still disagree with the notion that modern languages aren't as rich and nuanced
I certainly didn't mean to imply that! I don't believe that either. But our languages are *different* from those used by the ancients. More importantly, they simply didn't think the same way.
I read online recently a (possibly apocryphal, and I can't find it now) story of a primitive tribe, recently discovered, that had no concept of "right" and "left." They had no written language, but this wasn't a problem: if they needed to show you where to go, they'd point or draw a crude map in the sand. But when they started trying to modernize and embrace current technology, they had real spacial orientation.
(I wish I could find that article! I may have some of the details wrong.)
We shape our language and it mirrors our thought patterns.
The mistake that people often make when reading any ancient document is applying their modern sense and understanding to it. The ancients weren't stupid, they simply thought differently.
In ancient writing, it was common to say something like, "in all the land, no one cleaned or swept her floor, and the land stunk." But in the very next section, it might say, "now, Hannah was cleaning her floor and her house smelled like flowers."
To us and to our way of thinking, that's a contradiction. But to the ancient, it would simply mean, "everyone in the land was a slob except for Hanna.":)
Likewise, the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is that chapter 1 is the big overview, and chapters 2-3 specifically detail the Garden of Eden. I never saw a contradiction in the two (even after having read them in the original) and was frankly surprised the first time someone made that assertion to me. They had to explain to me why they felt that way.
Ah, don't get me started. I studied the ancient Greek and Hebrew years ago and languages are a bit of a hobby with me besides. To everyone here: believe as you wish and we'll still be friends.:)
> The ancient languages had many words that had different meanings...
So does English. "I bear" can mean that I'm a large furry animal with bad grammar, or that I carry something. (And try explaining the Greek aorist tense to someone whose language doesn't even include the concept.):)
The entire thread has been fascinating as a window into how people think, though. I wish life was as cut and dried and black and white as some here seem to think.
Look: people can (and will) believe whatever they want. The best you can hope for is that they TRY to be as objective as possible: to acknowledge the bad AND the good. The only complaint I have about your polemic is that it totally ignores the latter. One example of millions (which I've used here before): the late Danny Thomas' devout Catholic faith created the St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital.
Some people are good. Some are bad. Some commit atrocities, whether in the name of God or secular humanism or atheistic communism. The fact is that Stalin and Pol Pot, both avowed atheists, managed between them to kill more people than Christians have managed to do since a guy named Jesus founded the thing 2,000 years ago. And in far less time.
It amuses me that today's atheists are quick to distance themselves from these two guys, but they won't allow me (a Christian) to put distance between myself and, say, a guy like Fred Phelps with the Westboro Baptist Church. "Ah, you're all just whackjobs, what's the difference?":)
I've got mod points, but I don't care. This is one of my hot buttons.:)
1. Senators and representatives would be closer to their actual constituents. There's at least a slightly improved chance that they'll actually vote the way the people who elected them want.
2. It wouldn't save a lot of money on the grand scale, but it would be a useful symbol to cut the costs (heating, cooling, transportation) of clustering all the morons in Washington.
2-1/2 - it would make it more difficult for lobbyists to buy an entire block of votes. This would force the LOBBYISTS to sink tons of money into travel to visit each Congresscritter. It's a beautiful thing.:)
2-3/4: LOCAL news media would have better access to the Congresscritters, and if we're really lucky, they could watch the 'critter's local headquarters and report on who came and left that day -- including the aforementioned lobbyists. No large parking lots or hallways to more easily become "lost" in.
3. We have the technology to make it secure. Video conferencing could replace endless meetings. AND SPEECHES. Man, getting rid of the speeches alone would be worth it.
4. The really dumb ones wouldn't know how to vote electronically or attend the video conferences, acting as a natural selection effect on dumb votes!
Who knows? We might actually (OK, I'm dreaming now) elect people with brains, who would at least be required to know how to write and operate a computer, instead of blowhards who are elected simply because they know how to speak well in front of a camera.
This stuff just fascinates me. I've known about Keppler's Supernova for years, but this is interesting new info. I'm gonna have to see where magnesium fits in stellar nucleosynthesis.
The Great Observatories Program is finding all sorts of cool stuff.:)
Here's another good picture: Cassiopeia A. The Chandra Observatory analyzed that supernova remnant and determined that the star literally blew itself inside out.
Gribbin's point is that Earth is uniquely suited to *INTELLIGENT* life. In the very first chapter he says that, in fact, he thinks that simple single-celled life is probably common in the entire galaxy.
Sigh.
I recommended the book because it was a good read. READ THE BOOK.:)
Interesting that two people here have brought up Gribbin's old (decades ago) prediction about the alignment of the planets... which HE HIMSELF later said was bogus. His reputation has been excellent otherwise.
I cringe when I think of some of the stuff that I used to believe and say.:)
> I'm guessing it's going to be a window of hundreds of millions of years if not billions of years before the actual formation of the sun.
Read the book. (It's about a million years, and the star would first shed its outer layers -- now known to be quite common -- then explode about 100,000 years later.)
If you don't want to buy it, fetch it from the local library or ask a friend to Lend it to you in e-form. But don't criticize it until you've read it.:)
"Alone In The Universe: Why Our Planet Is Unique" by John Gribbin. I've just finished it. Those who've always hoped to one day chat with a Wookie or a Klingon (not to mention SETI-types) will find it thoroughly depressing, but it's filled with excellent science. There's a good review of it here:
Computer geeks will like it because many of its conclusions are based on cluster-run computer simulations.:) The results of the simulations are nothing short of amazing.
Example: Earth's molten iron core is what gives us a strong magnetic field that protects our atmosphere. The only way they could get that to work out was to put a supernova(!!!).1 light years (that's not a typo) from the solar system at a critical time while it was forming. This also helps answer why our system has an unusual mix of elements compared to other stellar systems (particularly of radioactives such as Aluminum 26 and Iron 60).
Example: we're actually a binary planet -- Earth and Moon. The moon is thought to have formed from a planet in the Langrange point, called "Theia," that would have fractured our thick crust, making continental drift possible; the moon's gravitational effects on Earth are also critical.
Read the book. Even if you disagree with it (and I know many here will, especially my good friends who love SETI), but it's an excellent read.
I'm reminded of a comment made to me once by one of your fellow chemists. This guy was sharp, had even published a few papers in the literature.
I'm going from memory, but it went something like this: "you know," he said, "over in the Chemistry department, we're spending zillions of dollars, in state of the art laboratories, with tons of carefully-calibrated equipment, just to figure out how to synthesize a chemical from a sample obtained from nature.
"And yet, across the campus in the biology department, they're proposing that DNA and RNA and proteins and all that were somehow assembled by lightning and thunder and smoke and falling asteroids."
(The rivalries between scientific disciplines amuse me sometimes.)
Yep. But given that the age of the universe is about 14 billion years, and that it spent the first 8-9 billion years of that creating all of those chemicals (primarily via stellar nucleosynthesis -- i.e, supernovae), there's not a whole lot of time available, on a cosmic scale. Whatever finally ends up being proposed for abiogenesis will have to be a VERY efficient process.
Finding the pre-biotic chemicals in stellar clouds is an important first step. This is amazing stuff.
> Nope, it's far more simple than that, thanks to Einstein's discoveries. All we need is a ship that can produce a 1g thrust over a long time...
Sure. I've done the math. Theoretically, you'd reach the speed of light in about a year's time. But it won't happen and in fact, Einstein's "discoveries" were among the first to explain WHY it can't happen.:)
1. As you accelerate toward the speed of light (so-called "relativistic" speed), your mass approaches infinity. You reach a point where you can't generate enough reaction to "push" the ship any faster. Time passes more slowly for *you* on that ship, but that's not much help to the people back on Earth who are waiting to hear from you.
2. Bussard ramjets, which theoretically scoop up interstellar hydrogen for a fusion drive have another problem. First, no rocket can accelerate faster than its exhaust. Second, physicists have worked out the math and even if you could make the "scoop" as perfect as possible, the drag of collecting interstellar hydrogen itself places a top limit on your speed (about 1/2C, as I recall, but I could be wrong).
3. At higher speeds, minor things like cosmic rays and solar wind become lethal particles. (This is being discussed right now as a real problem for a simple Mars mission -- spending a year in space could result in the astronauts glowing in the dark before they get back to Earth!) Ergo, you'll need better shielding.
Bottom line: before we can ever go to the stars -- or even just explore the Oort cloud in our own solar system, we're going to need something that will take a ship completely out of Einsteinian space. Until warp/tunnel/wormholes drives are invented (IF they can ever be invented), we're stuck to a relatively close ring around our planet.
It's important to note, though, that Linus isn't saying this just because "Itz Micro$OFT OMG run!11!!" Another nice quote from Linus:
"Encourage things like per-host random keys--with the stupid UEFI checks disabled entirely if required. They are almost certainly going to be *more* secure than depending on some crazy root of trust based on a big company, with key signing authorities that trust anybody with a credit card. Try to teach people about things like that instead."
Like I said elsewhere, Linus can be a big, furry anus, but all he cares about is his baby: the Linux kernel, keeping it free, and giving maximum freedom to the *USER*. I like that.
> not because this actually does anything at all to inconvenience Linux users.
Ummm... not necessarily. Linus is concerned about two things:
1. That a Microsoft-signed Linux secure boot key could be used to hack systems. Microsoft could disable the key, which would then disable *Linux* systems. We can argue about whether Microsoft would actually do this, but understandably, Linus isn't excited about placing that kind of power in anyone else's hands.
2. Linus also says, "Before loading any third-party module, you'd better make sure you ask the user for permission. On the console. Not using keys."
Linus can be a tyrant and an anus, but I like where his heart is at. The best quote is this Linux's approach to UEFI is (again quoting), "based on REAL SECURITY and on PUTTING THE USER FIRST."
Agree or disagree, don't just dismiss this as the usual "Microsoft bashing." I'm not a Microsoft hater; we use their stuff alongside F/OSS all over our workplace. I prefer Linux, but I don't hate Microsoft. But I am very concerned about this whole UEFI thing and the way it's shaping up.
So is Linus... and in his usual, inimitable fashion is telling everyone how he feels.:)
Estimated at 265 times solar mass. I was going to use the Pistol Star (located in the center of our galaxy), but its mass is disputed.
Slate is wrong. Or rather, they're repeating something that was believed about 20 years ago. Astrophysicists have known for some time now that stars > 100 solar masses are quite possible.
> I'm also astounded by the discovery of black holes resulting from an explosion of a star.
Really massive stars (greater that 250 solar masses -- i.e., 250 times as massive as our own Sun) most assuredly do explode, and *very* violently, leaving behind a black hole. It's believed that this is a key source for gamma ray burst events. It's also thought that many of the first stars in the universe, not long after the Big Bang, exploded this way, spewing jets of metals at relativistic speeds.
To be fair to you, it's now known that there are actually several different types of supernova. Some core collapses do occur without a big earthshattering "kaboom." The really massive stars explode due to photodisintegration, and result in a hypernova -- a ridiculously intense, you-don't-want-to-be-within-a-hundred-light-years kind of thingie.:)
> The robots in the Jack WIlliamson's Humanoid stories had a Prime Directive of ''to serve and obey and guard men from harm"....see how well that worked out...
I'll have to try that one. Thanks.
John Ringo's "Troy Rising" series has a lot of interaction with artificial intelligence, and one of the AIs (Granadica, IIRC), mentions Asimov's "Laws of Robotics." The thing about a robot not being able to harm a human isn't the big deal; it's the clause, "OR allow a human to be injured through inaction" that causes the problem.
As the AI points out, if taken to its logical end, you'd get the ultimate (and most repressive) nanny state, where you literally wouldn't be allowed to do anything that might involve risk -- including gymnastics, football, or most other sports.
> You are worrying about a bunch of third-world priests...
Give those "priests," say, a nuclear weapon, or (to stay on topic) a doomsday robot that is self-replicating, and is programmed to kill all infidels, yes, I would worry about that. Advanced weaponry is the Great Equalizer(tm).:)
Besides, I would rather believe that I was modded "interesting" because of my recommendation of Saberhagen. His stories are much better than anything I could say.:)
Aside from touching on the subject at hand, it's just some crackin' good sci-fi.:)
I don't know if we'd ever reach that point ourselves, but in that series, an unknown (and now extinct) alien race, losing a war and desperate, created "doomsday" machines that were simply programmed to kill all life. They were self-replicating, self-aware AIs that took their task seriously, too.
Then again, I ask myself what some jihadist might do, if given half the chance... .....
> We've done that with 2.4 and 5 GHz, and it didn't work out the way you describe
Heh. You have obviously never used wireless in an apartment complex, or in a large building with several businesses, or even in a hotel "cluster" on the Interstate where dozens of different access points are fighting with one another for attention.
Our first data link, installed several years ago, was an unlicensed Motorola Canopy. Highly directional, 2.4GHz, worked like a charm... until the folks who lived in the apartment complex right between our studios and transmitter site all bought Linksys and DLink access points. Not only were they arguing with each other about channels, they rendered that Motorola useless.
Fine; it was unlicensed. We couldn't complain. We knew the risk when we bought it.
But that's why we upgraded to the Dragonwave with a license. If anyone interferes with that, we can take positive action with the FCC to get them shut down or fixed.
> It's not turned over to the public completely, which is probably what parent meant.
That is EXACTLY what I meant. And just for the record, there probably won't be "a screw" that Bozo can adjust. (Everything is synthesized now.) But he'll find a way. (Most likely, someone will come out with a downloadable software "mod.")
Back during the CB era, most of the better radios could easily be modified to operate on those illegal frequencies, above and below 27MHz. You could even order kits and install them. Came with easy-to-follow instructions "for educational purposes only!" (Heh.)
The point is: this is just classic idealism: "Give it to the people and trust them!" Sounds good. Makes a great slogan on a T-shirt.
Problem is, it didn't work before (see my comment on HOW the FCC came into existence) and it won't work now.
I hate government regulation AND I hate big business (I'm an equal-opportunity curmudgeon), but there are times when some control and oversight is needed. We can argue about alternative methods for assigning frequencies, maybe even putting some of this allocation stuff up for a public vote, but it has to be controlled.
Ah, that's the rub, though. You'd still need some regulation and certified, per-manufactured units that were sealed against tampering. If you're suggesting that we just throw a giant chunk of spectrum out for people to do with as they please, it will be unusable within a year or two from all the interference. Even worse, it will be interfering with other services, including some of MY licensed ones.:)
Naturally, I object to that.
You want some math? Bozo The Redneck has a 5GHz unit that he has "improved." To get away from all of his neighbors' emissions, he found a little screw inside that would lower his frequency to 4.5GHz. Hey, there wasn't anyone else there! He then discovered that it would "put out more better" if he removed that silver can on the output (i.e., the filter). Harmonics are simply multiples of the fundamental frequency, so now he's radiating junk at 9GHz, 13.5GHz, and 18GHz. This doesn't even include the *spurious* products that he's generating at heaven-only-knows what frequencies, because he also goosed the power, so now the amplifier is clipping like mad.:)
That's when I perk up and take notice, because I have a licensed Dragonwave link at 18GHz that we absolutely depend on. It ferries (via audio-over-IP, as well as one T1-over-IP that was a BEAST to set up, but that's a separate story!) several signals for our radio stations, as well as telemetry and video monitoring (to watch for the @#$@#$ copper thieves). We kind of depend on that thing, y'know?
And if you think that's an unlikely scenario, think back to the CB craze of the late 70's. Most truck stops sold linear amplifiers. Highly illegal, but that didn't stop people from buying them. Better yet, the bozos had no idea how to tune them, so they radiated trash and harmonics that absolutely destroyed TV reception in rural areas, where people had to depend on over-the-air antennas -- i.e., the very areas that were most likely to have rednecks running "LEE-nyers." It was a very real problem, and the FCC (the CB's called him "uncle Charlie") was constantly running around, busting people for running these pieces of junk.
Just turning frequencies over to the public sounds like a good idea, but most people don't know what they're doing. As someone who loves Open Source and Open Standards and all that, it grieves me to say it, but in this particular case, you'd better have some oversight and control.
If you don't, the end result is going to be that everyone interferes with everyone else and NO ONE will be able to communicate. Read up on the history of the FCC sometime: it was actually created (at least in part) at the request of *broadcasters,* who were sick and tired of constant interference, scrambling for "open" frequencies and no real limits on operation.
> 3 AC comments in a row saying basically the same thing.
And if I had some mod points, I'd bump them up. Even if it is the same guy/gal posting three times.
This is healthy and it's time and PAST time that people began to realize this. Democrats and Republicans differ on some philosophical points, but when it comes to the Great Game (and all the monopoly money involved in same) there's hardly a stitch of difference between them.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Daltry and Townshend were ahead of their time.:)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: whether you're liberal or conservative or libertarian, the place to make a difference is in the primaries. YOU might run for office. Make a difference. Stop reelecting the same crooks from the same Country Club over and over again.
> Why does the right wing support things like the TSA and marijuana prohibition?
I think this comment is an insight into your *perception* of conservatives, rather than what we actually believe. In particular, if you read the right-wing sites and blogs, you'll see that most of us *HATE* the TSA. Passionately. From Breitbart to Drudge to you name it. (And for the record, were complaining loudly even when Bush was in office.)
This shows me that you don't regularly read what we're actually saying. Instead, you engage in the very confirmation bias that you assume that WE have. For example, you may read a liberal blogger's *summary* of "what we believe," rather than reading the original "conservative" blog. (Perhaps out of fear of being "tainted." Hey, I can roll with that.):)
And many conservatives have one foot on the Libertarian side of the aisle these days, and fully support the decriminalization of marijuana. (If not outright legalization.)
The fact is, these labels are inaccurate. On some issues, you'd probably consider me hard right wing. But my own right wing friends consider me almost liberal on other issues.
Example: I am extremely concerned about the way the MPAA/RIAA can just harass and engage in legal "shakedowns" based on very weak evidence (note to the courts: you CANNOT reliably identify someone by IP address!!!).
On gun control, I agree with DC v. Heller, that the "militia" argument is specious; we have a right to "keep and bear arms" in the US. Period, thank you. BUT... I also have no problem with proper training, screening and licensing. (Try uttering the latter words around a true 2nd Amendment-huggin' redneck and watch what happens.):)
And on this case: I am keeping a close eye on fair use, and on the ways that the courts and Congress in the US have tried to water down that fundamental right. TLDR on the actual article, but if the EU has actually done something useful in this regard, I say we send them a bag of candy.
> Because you deny the evidence that would convince someone who is genuinely looking for evidence.
I know you won't believe this, but I'll say it anyway: I've looked at a wide range of evidence, not only from IPCC and related sources, but dissenting points of view (including that of Freeman Dyson, a man whom I admire deeply and who is anything but a "conservative whack-job"). The idea that there is "scientific consensus," for example, depends on how one defines "consensus." If you include other, but related, scientific disciplines, the consensus becomes much weaker: there is good evidence that the Earth is warming, and CO2 emissions *might* play a significant part, but more study is needed to be sure.
Confirmation bias exists on BOTH sides. Pro-AGW and Anti-AGW tend to read things that support their points of view and blow off or ignore other points.
And now I'm wasting my time, because you're going to believe that people like me are uninformed (or worse) no matter what -- that if ONLY I'd read the same things as you, I would be *compelled* to agree.
I *have* read many of them. I am still agnostic. I'm not alone, either. Deal with it.:)
Slashdot Mirror
> I still disagree with the notion that modern languages aren't as rich and nuanced
I certainly didn't mean to imply that! I don't believe that either. But our languages are *different* from those used by the ancients. More importantly, they simply didn't think the same way.
I read online recently a (possibly apocryphal, and I can't find it now) story of a primitive tribe, recently discovered, that had no concept of "right" and "left." They had no written language, but this wasn't a problem: if they needed to show you where to go, they'd point or draw a crude map in the sand. But when they started trying to modernize and embrace current technology, they had real spacial orientation.
(I wish I could find that article! I may have some of the details wrong.)
We shape our language and it mirrors our thought patterns.
The mistake that people often make when reading any ancient document is applying their modern sense and understanding to it. The ancients weren't stupid, they simply thought differently.
In ancient writing, it was common to say something like, "in all the land, no one cleaned or swept her floor, and the land stunk." But in the very next section, it might say, "now, Hannah was cleaning her floor and her house smelled like flowers."
To us and to our way of thinking, that's a contradiction. But to the ancient, it would simply mean, "everyone in the land was a slob except for Hanna." :)
Likewise, the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is that chapter 1 is the big overview, and chapters 2-3 specifically detail the Garden of Eden. I never saw a contradiction in the two (even after having read them in the original) and was frankly surprised the first time someone made that assertion to me. They had to explain to me why they felt that way.
Ah, don't get me started. I studied the ancient Greek and Hebrew years ago and languages are a bit of a hobby with me besides. To everyone here: believe as you wish and we'll still be friends. :)
> The ancient languages had many words that had different meanings ...
So does English. "I bear" can mean that I'm a large furry animal with bad grammar, or that I carry something. (And try explaining the Greek aorist tense to someone whose language doesn't even include the concept.) :)
The entire thread has been fascinating as a window into how people think, though. I wish life was as cut and dried and black and white as some here seem to think.
Look: people can (and will) believe whatever they want. The best you can hope for is that they TRY to be as objective as possible: to acknowledge the bad AND the good. The only complaint I have about your polemic is that it totally ignores the latter. One example of millions (which I've used here before): the late Danny Thomas' devout Catholic faith created the St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital.
Some people are good. Some are bad. Some commit atrocities, whether in the name of God or secular humanism or atheistic communism. The fact is that Stalin and Pol Pot, both avowed atheists, managed between them to kill more people than Christians have managed to do since a guy named Jesus founded the thing 2,000 years ago. And in far less time.
It amuses me that today's atheists are quick to distance themselves from these two guys, but they won't allow me (a Christian) to put distance between myself and, say, a guy like Fred Phelps with the Westboro Baptist Church. "Ah, you're all just whackjobs, what's the difference?" :)
I've got mod points, but I don't care. This is one of my hot buttons. :)
1. Senators and representatives would be closer to their actual constituents. There's at least a slightly improved chance that they'll actually vote the way the people who elected them want.
2. It wouldn't save a lot of money on the grand scale, but it would be a useful symbol to cut the costs (heating, cooling, transportation) of clustering all the morons in Washington.
2-1/2 - it would make it more difficult for lobbyists to buy an entire block of votes. This would force the LOBBYISTS to sink tons of money into travel to visit each Congresscritter. It's a beautiful thing. :)
2-3/4: LOCAL news media would have better access to the Congresscritters, and if we're really lucky, they could watch the 'critter's local headquarters and report on who came and left that day -- including the aforementioned lobbyists. No large parking lots or hallways to more easily become "lost" in.
3. We have the technology to make it secure. Video conferencing could replace endless meetings. AND SPEECHES. Man, getting rid of the speeches alone would be worth it.
4. The really dumb ones wouldn't know how to vote electronically or attend the video conferences, acting as a natural selection effect on dumb votes!
Who knows? We might actually (OK, I'm dreaming now) elect people with brains, who would at least be required to know how to write and operate a computer, instead of blowhards who are elected simply because they know how to speak well in front of a camera.
Do it. I'm all for it.
This stuff just fascinates me. I've known about Keppler's Supernova for years, but this is interesting new info. I'm gonna have to see where magnesium fits in stellar nucleosynthesis.
The Great Observatories Program is finding all sorts of cool stuff. :)
Here's another good picture: Cassiopeia A. The Chandra Observatory analyzed that supernova remnant and determined that the star literally blew itself inside out.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2012/casa/
Gribbin's point is that Earth is uniquely suited to *INTELLIGENT* life. In the very first chapter he says that, in fact, he thinks that simple single-celled life is probably common in the entire galaxy.
Sigh.
I recommended the book because it was a good read. READ THE BOOK. :)
Interesting that two people here have brought up Gribbin's old (decades ago) prediction about the alignment of the planets ... which HE HIMSELF later said was bogus. His reputation has been excellent otherwise.
I cringe when I think of some of the stuff that I used to believe and say. :)
> I'm guessing it's going to be a window of hundreds of millions of years if not billions of years before the actual formation of the sun.
Read the book. (It's about a million years, and the star would first shed its outer layers -- now known to be quite common -- then explode about 100,000 years later.)
If you don't want to buy it, fetch it from the local library or ask a friend to Lend it to you in e-form. But don't criticize it until you've read it. :)
"Alone In The Universe: Why Our Planet Is Unique" by John Gribbin. I've just finished it. Those who've always hoped to one day chat with a Wookie or a Klingon (not to mention SETI-types) will find it thoroughly depressing, but it's filled with excellent science. There's a good review of it here:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/bluecollaratheist/2012/05/29/alone-in-the-universe-why-our-planet-is-unique-part-1
Computer geeks will like it because many of its conclusions are based on cluster-run computer simulations. :) The results of the simulations are nothing short of amazing.
Example: Earth's molten iron core is what gives us a strong magnetic field that protects our atmosphere. The only way they could get that to work out was to put a supernova(!!!) .1 light years (that's not a typo) from the solar system at a critical time while it was forming. This also helps answer why our system has an unusual mix of elements compared to other stellar systems (particularly of radioactives such as Aluminum 26 and Iron 60).
Example: we're actually a binary planet -- Earth and Moon. The moon is thought to have formed from a planet in the Langrange point, called "Theia," that would have fractured our thick crust, making continental drift possible; the moon's gravitational effects on Earth are also critical.
Read the book. Even if you disagree with it (and I know many here will, especially my good friends who love SETI), but it's an excellent read.
> It doesn't really resolve any of these issues.
I'm reminded of a comment made to me once by one of your fellow chemists. This guy was sharp, had even published a few papers in the literature.
I'm going from memory, but it went something like this: "you know," he said, "over in the Chemistry department, we're spending zillions of dollars, in state of the art laboratories, with tons of carefully-calibrated equipment, just to figure out how to synthesize a chemical from a sample obtained from nature.
"And yet, across the campus in the biology department, they're proposing that DNA and RNA and proteins and all that were somehow assembled by lightning and thunder and smoke and falling asteroids."
(The rivalries between scientific disciplines amuse me sometimes.)
> the missing ingredient is time
Yep. But given that the age of the universe is about 14 billion years, and that it spent the first 8-9 billion years of that creating all of those chemicals (primarily via stellar nucleosynthesis -- i.e, supernovae), there's not a whole lot of time available, on a cosmic scale. Whatever finally ends up being proposed for abiogenesis will have to be a VERY efficient process.
Finding the pre-biotic chemicals in stellar clouds is an important first step. This is amazing stuff.
> Nope, it's far more simple than that, thanks to Einstein's discoveries. All we need is a ship that can produce a 1g thrust over a long time ...
Sure. I've done the math. Theoretically, you'd reach the speed of light in about a year's time. But it won't happen and in fact, Einstein's "discoveries" were among the first to explain WHY it can't happen. :)
1. As you accelerate toward the speed of light (so-called "relativistic" speed), your mass approaches infinity. You reach a point where you can't generate enough reaction to "push" the ship any faster. Time passes more slowly for *you* on that ship, but that's not much help to the people back on Earth who are waiting to hear from you.
2. Bussard ramjets, which theoretically scoop up interstellar hydrogen for a fusion drive have another problem. First, no rocket can accelerate faster than its exhaust. Second, physicists have worked out the math and even if you could make the "scoop" as perfect as possible, the drag of collecting interstellar hydrogen itself places a top limit on your speed (about 1/2C, as I recall, but I could be wrong).
3. At higher speeds, minor things like cosmic rays and solar wind become lethal particles. (This is being discussed right now as a real problem for a simple Mars mission -- spending a year in space could result in the astronauts glowing in the dark before they get back to Earth!) Ergo, you'll need better shielding.
Bottom line: before we can ever go to the stars -- or even just explore the Oort cloud in our own solar system, we're going to need something that will take a ship completely out of Einsteinian space. Until warp/tunnel/wormholes drives are invented (IF they can ever be invented), we're stuck to a relatively close ring around our planet.
It's important to note, though, that Linus isn't saying this just because "Itz Micro$OFT OMG run!11!!" Another nice quote from Linus:
"Encourage things like per-host random keys--with the stupid UEFI checks disabled entirely if required. They are almost certainly going to be *more* secure than depending on some crazy root of trust based on a big company, with key signing authorities that trust anybody with a credit card. Try to teach people about things like that instead."
Like I said elsewhere, Linus can be a big, furry anus, but all he cares about is his baby: the Linux kernel, keeping it free, and giving maximum freedom to the *USER*. I like that.
> not because this actually does anything at all to inconvenience Linux users.
Ummm ... not necessarily. Linus is concerned about two things:
1. That a Microsoft-signed Linux secure boot key could be used to hack systems. Microsoft could disable the key, which would then disable *Linux* systems. We can argue about whether Microsoft would actually do this, but understandably, Linus isn't excited about placing that kind of power in anyone else's hands.
2. Linus also says, "Before loading any third-party module, you'd better make sure you ask the user for permission. On the console. Not using keys."
Linus can be a tyrant and an anus, but I like where his heart is at. The best quote is this Linux's approach to UEFI is (again quoting), "based on REAL SECURITY and on PUTTING THE USER FIRST."
Agree or disagree, don't just dismiss this as the usual "Microsoft bashing." I'm not a Microsoft hater; we use their stuff alongside F/OSS all over our workplace. I prefer Linux, but I don't hate Microsoft. But I am very concerned about this whole UEFI thing and the way it's shaping up.
So is Linus ... and in his usual, inimitable fashion is telling everyone how he feels. :)
And I apologize to you, I didn't see your retraction before I posted a response to you.
This stuff fascinates me. I understand just enough about it to keep my own head from collapsing into a black hole, but only barely. :)
> Star can't be heavier than 100 solar masses
Just one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R136a1
Estimated at 265 times solar mass. I was going to use the Pistol Star (located in the center of our galaxy), but its mass is disputed.
Slate is wrong. Or rather, they're repeating something that was believed about 20 years ago. Astrophysicists have known for some time now that stars > 100 solar masses are quite possible.
> I'm also astounded by the discovery of black holes resulting from an explosion of a star.
Really massive stars (greater that 250 solar masses -- i.e., 250 times as massive as our own Sun) most assuredly do explode, and *very* violently, leaving behind a black hole. It's believed that this is a key source for gamma ray burst events. It's also thought that many of the first stars in the universe, not long after the Big Bang, exploded this way, spewing jets of metals at relativistic speeds.
To be fair to you, it's now known that there are actually several different types of supernova. Some core collapses do occur without a big earthshattering "kaboom." The really massive stars explode due to photodisintegration, and result in a hypernova -- a ridiculously intense, you-don't-want-to-be-within-a-hundred-light-years kind of thingie. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodisintegration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
> The robots in the Jack WIlliamson's Humanoid stories had a Prime Directive of ''to serve and obey and guard men from harm"....see how well that worked out...
I'll have to try that one. Thanks.
John Ringo's "Troy Rising" series has a lot of interaction with artificial intelligence, and one of the AIs (Granadica, IIRC), mentions Asimov's "Laws of Robotics." The thing about a robot not being able to harm a human isn't the big deal; it's the clause, "OR allow a human to be injured through inaction" that causes the problem.
As the AI points out, if taken to its logical end, you'd get the ultimate (and most repressive) nanny state, where you literally wouldn't be allowed to do anything that might involve risk -- including gymnastics, football, or most other sports.
> You are worrying about a bunch of third-world priests ...
Give those "priests," say, a nuclear weapon, or (to stay on topic) a doomsday robot that is self-replicating, and is programmed to kill all infidels, yes, I would worry about that. Advanced weaponry is the Great Equalizer(tm). :)
Besides, I would rather believe that I was modded "interesting" because of my recommendation of Saberhagen. His stories are much better than anything I could say. :)
-- Stephen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker_(Saberhagen)
Fred Saberhagen's "Beserker" series.
Aside from touching on the subject at hand, it's just some crackin' good sci-fi. :)
I don't know if we'd ever reach that point ourselves, but in that series, an unknown (and now extinct) alien race, losing a war and desperate, created "doomsday" machines that were simply programmed to kill all life. They were self-replicating, self-aware AIs that took their task seriously, too.
Then again, I ask myself what some jihadist might do, if given half the chance ... . .. ..
> We've done that with 2.4 and 5 GHz, and it didn't work out the way you describe
Heh. You have obviously never used wireless in an apartment complex, or in a large building with several businesses, or even in a hotel "cluster" on the Interstate where dozens of different access points are fighting with one another for attention.
Our first data link, installed several years ago, was an unlicensed Motorola Canopy. Highly directional, 2.4GHz, worked like a charm ... until the folks who lived in the apartment complex right between our studios and transmitter site all bought Linksys and DLink access points. Not only were they arguing with each other about channels, they rendered that Motorola useless.
Fine; it was unlicensed. We couldn't complain. We knew the risk when we bought it.
But that's why we upgraded to the Dragonwave with a license. If anyone interferes with that, we can take positive action with the FCC to get them shut down or fixed.
> It's not turned over to the public completely, which is probably what parent meant.
That is EXACTLY what I meant. And just for the record, there probably won't be "a screw" that Bozo can adjust. (Everything is synthesized now.) But he'll find a way. (Most likely, someone will come out with a downloadable software "mod.")
Back during the CB era, most of the better radios could easily be modified to operate on those illegal frequencies, above and below 27MHz. You could even order kits and install them. Came with easy-to-follow instructions "for educational purposes only!" (Heh.)
The point is: this is just classic idealism: "Give it to the people and trust them!" Sounds good. Makes a great slogan on a T-shirt.
Problem is, it didn't work before (see my comment on HOW the FCC came into existence) and it won't work now.
I hate government regulation AND I hate big business (I'm an equal-opportunity curmudgeon), but there are times when some control and oversight is needed. We can argue about alternative methods for assigning frequencies, maybe even putting some of this allocation stuff up for a public vote, but it has to be controlled.
> so long as it plays nicely with others
Ah, that's the rub, though. You'd still need some regulation and certified, per-manufactured units that were sealed against tampering. If you're suggesting that we just throw a giant chunk of spectrum out for people to do with as they please, it will be unusable within a year or two from all the interference. Even worse, it will be interfering with other services, including some of MY licensed ones. :)
Naturally, I object to that.
You want some math? Bozo The Redneck has a 5GHz unit that he has "improved." To get away from all of his neighbors' emissions, he found a little screw inside that would lower his frequency to 4.5GHz. Hey, there wasn't anyone else there! He then discovered that it would "put out more better" if he removed that silver can on the output (i.e., the filter). Harmonics are simply multiples of the fundamental frequency, so now he's radiating junk at 9GHz, 13.5GHz, and 18GHz. This doesn't even include the *spurious* products that he's generating at heaven-only-knows what frequencies, because he also goosed the power, so now the amplifier is clipping like mad. :)
That's when I perk up and take notice, because I have a licensed Dragonwave link at 18GHz that we absolutely depend on. It ferries (via audio-over-IP, as well as one T1-over-IP that was a BEAST to set up, but that's a separate story!) several signals for our radio stations, as well as telemetry and video monitoring (to watch for the @#$@#$ copper thieves). We kind of depend on that thing, y'know?
And if you think that's an unlikely scenario, think back to the CB craze of the late 70's. Most truck stops sold linear amplifiers. Highly illegal, but that didn't stop people from buying them. Better yet, the bozos had no idea how to tune them, so they radiated trash and harmonics that absolutely destroyed TV reception in rural areas, where people had to depend on over-the-air antennas -- i.e., the very areas that were most likely to have rednecks running "LEE-nyers." It was a very real problem, and the FCC (the CB's called him "uncle Charlie") was constantly running around, busting people for running these pieces of junk.
Just turning frequencies over to the public sounds like a good idea, but most people don't know what they're doing. As someone who loves Open Source and Open Standards and all that, it grieves me to say it, but in this particular case, you'd better have some oversight and control.
If you don't, the end result is going to be that everyone interferes with everyone else and NO ONE will be able to communicate. Read up on the history of the FCC sometime: it was actually created (at least in part) at the request of *broadcasters,* who were sick and tired of constant interference, scrambling for "open" frequencies and no real limits on operation.
> 3 AC comments in a row saying basically the same thing.
And if I had some mod points, I'd bump them up. Even if it is the same guy/gal posting three times.
This is healthy and it's time and PAST time that people began to realize this. Democrats and Republicans differ on some philosophical points, but when it comes to the Great Game (and all the monopoly money involved in same) there's hardly a stitch of difference between them.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Daltry and Townshend were ahead of their time. :)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: whether you're liberal or conservative or libertarian, the place to make a difference is in the primaries. YOU might run for office. Make a difference. Stop reelecting the same crooks from the same Country Club over and over again.
> Why does the right wing support things like the TSA and marijuana prohibition?
I think this comment is an insight into your *perception* of conservatives, rather than what we actually believe. In particular, if you read the right-wing sites and blogs, you'll see that most of us *HATE* the TSA. Passionately. From Breitbart to Drudge to you name it. (And for the record, were complaining loudly even when Bush was in office.)
This shows me that you don't regularly read what we're actually saying. Instead, you engage in the very confirmation bias that you assume that WE have. For example, you may read a liberal blogger's *summary* of "what we believe," rather than reading the original "conservative" blog. (Perhaps out of fear of being "tainted." Hey, I can roll with that.) :)
And many conservatives have one foot on the Libertarian side of the aisle these days, and fully support the decriminalization of marijuana. (If not outright legalization.)
The fact is, these labels are inaccurate. On some issues, you'd probably consider me hard right wing. But my own right wing friends consider me almost liberal on other issues.
Example: I am extremely concerned about the way the MPAA/RIAA can just harass and engage in legal "shakedowns" based on very weak evidence (note to the courts: you CANNOT reliably identify someone by IP address!!!).
On gun control, I agree with DC v. Heller, that the "militia" argument is specious; we have a right to "keep and bear arms" in the US. Period, thank you. BUT ... I also have no problem with proper training, screening and licensing. (Try uttering the latter words around a true 2nd Amendment-huggin' redneck and watch what happens.) :)
And on this case: I am keeping a close eye on fair use, and on the ways that the courts and Congress in the US have tried to water down that fundamental right. TLDR on the actual article, but if the EU has actually done something useful in this regard, I say we send them a bag of candy.
> Because you deny the evidence that would convince someone who is genuinely looking for evidence.
I know you won't believe this, but I'll say it anyway: I've looked at a wide range of evidence, not only from IPCC and related sources, but dissenting points of view (including that of Freeman Dyson, a man whom I admire deeply and who is anything but a "conservative whack-job"). The idea that there is "scientific consensus," for example, depends on how one defines "consensus." If you include other, but related, scientific disciplines, the consensus becomes much weaker: there is good evidence that the Earth is warming, and CO2 emissions *might* play a significant part, but more study is needed to be sure.
Confirmation bias exists on BOTH sides. Pro-AGW and Anti-AGW tend to read things that support their points of view and blow off or ignore other points.
And now I'm wasting my time, because you're going to believe that people like me are uninformed (or worse) no matter what -- that if ONLY I'd read the same things as you, I would be *compelled* to agree.
I *have* read many of them. I am still agnostic. I'm not alone, either. Deal with it. :)