This Glacier was over the water so there will not be any water rise from this. Actually there should be a very minute contraction of sea level from this glacier (Greenland and other glacier losses will probably offset this anyways so there will most likely be no noticeable sea level change).
Also next winter and probably the one after that in Antarctica, there will be more sea ice than normal because this amount of water melting will lower the salinity of the water and allow it to freeze at a slightly higher temperature. But of course people will point at this and say that it is proof that there is no global warming.
The next question is how long it will take for the next section of the Larsen ice shelf to fall.
so why does the article's title (and the article here) say all stars are born in pairs.
Why this may be true for most stars, because most stars are born in stellar nurseries. It doesn't mean there aren't other circumstances where a star can develop on its own.
Maybe I am over-reacting to a headline, but I want scientific articles to be accurate so people don't just read headlines and assume they understand everything.
Hi. Reality here. If Comcast could do that they would have, they are ALREADY FREE to do so even under current rules.
They are not currently free to do this. Under current rules all internet sites are given the same speed. And this is why ISP's are fighting these rules, because they are mostly giant corporations that only care about their stock holder's short term gains, not the user's experience. They did it previously in the couple of months where net neutrality rules were struck down Netflix Speeds Drop on Two ISPs
But this is stupid because it also blocks the highly desirable goal of giving traffic priority to Netflix, which many would pay extra for. What is wrong with letting most people do something that is beneficial for them and they would like? Preventing that is how we got the war on drugs.
Why should I pay extra to get the internet I want, I already pay a higher price than most other 1st world countries for. And if that were the case how long would it be before you had to start paying $50 or $100 a month to get Netflix at a reasonable rate of speed plus the cost to access a slow version of the rest of the internet?
Why? Why does it have to be that way? What if that's what a lot of people want and are willing to pay for?If people did not want that they would not pay for it and it would die off.
So if I don't want to pay for my ISP's version of the internet, I would just have to stop using the internet? Oh wait, I guess I could switch ISP's except I only have one ISP where I live, like a lot of this country. Most ISP's operate in localized monopolies. And this is the reason why we need Net Neutrality rules. If I could switch between Cox, Time Warner, Comcast or some other ISP with ease, Net Neutrality rules wouldn't matter, but most Americans cannot do this because the ISP provides both the service and the line to the house/ apartment.
If Net Neutrality is struck down. Then Comcast can slow down sites to an unreasonable amount. They could make it take forever to reach any site which said anything bad about the company or provided any competing services.
If you do not think this would ever happen, just look at what happened to Netflix for Comcast users in February 2014.
Net Neutrality declares that all internet traffic is give the same priority (minus a few exceptions which are not related at all to the provider's ability to make more money). ISP's are supposed to provide access to the internet, not their selected version of the internet. Or just internet websites that give the ISP's more of a financial benefit.
This is a nice idea, and it could be practical in 50 or so years. But why would you start in or around any city on the west coast. One earthquake during the early stages and this will die a terrible death, as would anyone buried in those tunnels.
Previously Verizon killed Netflix's bandwidth for around a month to force them to pay more for the bandwidth they were using. Verizon was also the second largest lobbying company before the previous Net Neutrality rules went into effect. As they were completely against these rules, also they sued the federal government to force a decision about Net Neutrality.
I agree that law makers should do something about this, but most of them are corporate shills who would not disobey their masters. And net neutrality is going to affect everyone that uses the internet in America.
Also the tax overhaul is not happening right now, first it has to make it to the floor of the House then the Senate, and pass both of them. And this just seems like a distraction from the topic at hand.
Last time they almost did this, during Obama's term, it took a great video from some comedic fool to set it straight. Last Week Tonight Net Neutrality And this was done during the FCC comment period, before the rule went into to affect, to force people to look at this.
Yeah everyone's Netflix, Amazon, Apple and/or other internet costs are going to go up. Because ISP's are going to force them to pay more for the same bandwidth.
But this will somehow increase competition, because a lot more internet providers are about to come into your area. Because somehow this was holding them back...
Fossil fuels are easy to store but they are also dangerous as they can catch fire and/or explode pretty easily. (Yes I know current lithium batteries have a similar issue, but solid lithium batteries should solve this soon. Solid-state_lithium-ion_battery ). I am guessing that sometime in the next decade stations and electric cars will be setup to swap a charged battery for your current battery. With these things humans could ween off of fossil fuels in the next couple of decades.
Wind and solar (with better battery storage), damns, geothermal, and some nuclear, would be able to solve our current energy usage for a considerable amount of the future.
FFS, I live near one of the biggest hives of Trump fans, and there were countless people around here that wanted to vote for Sanders, but voted for Trump to keep Hillary out.
Actually a lot of Sanders supporters said that Trump was their second option because if Sanders didn't make it they wanted to shake up the whole system. A lot of people voted against Hillary rather than for Trump. Basically having a two party system and the electoral system in the US gave us Trump.
Actually most asteroids orbit the sun and pass by the earth's orbit on the way in and out. So if we found one on the way in that could hit us on the way out, we could do something about it. Or if we determine the orbit could allow it to hit us the next time it comes through then we could do something about it.
Ignoring this would make us no better than the dinosaurs.
(even when the liberal stories are dubious or "fake news," like with the infamous golden showers
Most (if not all of the real) news organizations did cite the fact that it was an unconfirmed report.
I just think people need to understand that they need to get their news from more than one source, with more than one viewpoint in those sources. Facebook should not be anyone's only method of getting news.
I am also a Type 1 diabetic and I am very pessimistic about this. The problem here is scientists have already come up with a few different ways to do this but there is still one major issue remaining that is not being addressed by this.
Type 1 diabetes is caused by the immune system destroying B-cells, and this will not prevent this from happening. So even if Type 1 diabetic's can get working islet cells, it would only last for a little while before our immune systems would destroy them once again. This is nice and it will make headlines, but it is only half of the cure that we need.
Of course if you just just judge the cost of course it would seem that science and engineering would be more expensive, but the problem is that this is not looking at the entire picture. Many science and engineering professors do research which ends up being beneficial and profitable to the University, I don't think most liberal arts professors have that ability.
And an advanced degree in science and engineering tends to be worth more outside academia than an advanced degree in liberal arts, so paying those professors more makes the most sense.
The problem with that is you are only considering the dinosaur mass extinction. There have been at least 5 mass extinction events in the history of earth.
One of the other was believed to be caused by the eruption of a super volcano, which could happen these days. If Yellowstone were to completely erupt it would wipe most life off of the earth.
Another possible extinction event is an astronomically close supernova. Which would strip our ozone layer and the sun would do the rest.
Not to mention a nuclear war or a rogue planet moving through the solar system (could throw off our orbit or very unlikely hit earth).
Can humans survive some of these events? Yes, but how long will it take for the earth to be habitable again is the more important question.
Also don't forget that an underground society is going to need to use lots of energy to keep the lights on for plants to grow and it will need a way to get clean water. So, we may have enough supplies for tens of years or maybe even a couple hundred or so, but will the earth be habitable (reasonable climate, decent oxygen levels, ozone layer to protect from the sun, ability to grow plants) again that soon?
What always survives these extinction events is multi-cellular organisms deep in the ocean, which can eventually reform life on the planet. In the last mass extinction event small mammals survived just under the surface of the earth, but that is not always the case.
If they're wrong, the refutation would be more science, not conspiracy theories.
And if they are right, the global climate will change rapidly over the next hundred years. Species around the world will die off due to this. Famine in some areas and flooding in others will kill off millions of people.
But lets just assume they are wrong, it isn't like they got us to the moon or they have done any good science before. We should all just ignore this and continue polluting as much as possible, because change is hard!
Some people think it is going to be gradual but there are people who think it could be sudden for a few reasons.
Antartic ice sheets are melting at this time, but it is currently trapped by the ice there.
Most people don't think these sorts of things happen regularly, but glacial floods have been seen in the earth's history (as long as you believe the earth older than 6000 years).
Also, the reason that ocean sea level rise has not been seen everywhere up to this point is because the Arctic ice was over water, which meant that no water was added to the ocean. Antarctica and Greenland's ice are not currently a part of the ocean, so when this makes it to the ocean, things are going to go bad around the world.
Aside from the climate change aspect the more immediate problem is acidifcation and warming of the sea which has already killed off a quarter of the barrier reef and is having serious effects elsewhere with plankton.
And this is the other point, we have no idea what effects we are having on plankton populations. But then again, why do we need plankton, it isn't like we need to breathe.
Most vaccines do not have a 100% efficiency rate. This means that some people who get the vaccine do not actually get immunity from it. Also some folks have compromised immune systems and cannot be given vaccines to begin with. But they are protected by the fact that most people around them are vaccinated, therefore the disease can't spread easily through the population.
Most anti-vaccination people don't understand that they are actually putting other people in danger by not getting their child vaccinated. Also some of the diseases that there are vaccines for still exist, in small pockets of the world whether it is carried by unvaccinated humans or animals.
But the problem with anti-vaccine people is they don't understand these facts. And they also don't understand how terrible some of the diseases we get vaccines for can be.
Questioning a particular vaccine's side effects or ingredients are fine, under the right circumstances. But when a medical professional does this in public or encourages their patients to not get vaccinations, society can begin to suffer. These laws are for the good of society as a whole.
"They typically dwell just behind rocks, but are also sometimes playful bounding into thick fogs and out of focus areas."
Unfortunately this is on Slashdot for some stupid reason, but that doesn't mean I can't mock the story with a good Futurama reference.
"Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem, if he exists. So lets all help keep possibly Bigfoot alive for future generations to enjoy, unless he doesn't exist."
The real issue is the fact that DNC tried to stop Bernie with a few underhanded tactics.
The DNC is now trying to redirect the focus everyone to say the Russians did this rather than asking why Bernie didn't get a fair shot or why Hilary was basically given a free pass. I am more worried about why these emails were written in the first place and why the people at the DNC were stupid enough to think their email server couldn't be hacked.
Additionally and more importantly why the fuck should the *center for disease control* be funding gun studies? Shouldn't congress make them spend their money on fucking fighting disease, instead of our constitution?
Part of the reason why cars are safer today than 40 years ago is because the CDC did studies examining car safety and provided the results and recommendations to Congress.
Yes, they should be fighting disease as well. But when they request money to prevent and study possible epidemics like Zika and Ebola, Congress takes forever to pass anything (if they do) and normally under funds them.
Actually this is the solution. He needs to counter sue for lost time and wages, and for his lawyer's expenses for these lawsuits and the counter suit one.
I am pretty sure that if these facts are all accurate and true, he could easily get a judgement of about $100,000 in his favor. And he might be able to stop this guy from doing this to other people.
Unfortunately this is the only way that Doug Costello could probably get our legal system to work for him.
Slashdot Mirror
This Glacier was over the water so there will not be any water rise from this. Actually there should be a very minute contraction of sea level from this glacier (Greenland and other glacier losses will probably offset this anyways so there will most likely be no noticeable sea level change).
Also next winter and probably the one after that in Antarctica, there will be more sea ice than normal because this amount of water melting will lower the salinity of the water and allow it to freeze at a slightly higher temperature. But of course people will point at this and say that it is proof that there is no global warming.
The next question is how long it will take for the next section of the Larsen ice shelf to fall.
The article says this:
Many stars have companions
so why does the article's title (and the article here) say all stars are born in pairs.
Why this may be true for most stars, because most stars are born in stellar nurseries. It doesn't mean there aren't other circumstances where a star can develop on its own.
Maybe I am over-reacting to a headline, but I want scientific articles to be accurate so people don't just read headlines and assume they understand everything.
Hi. Reality here. If Comcast could do that they would have, they are ALREADY FREE to do so even under current rules.
They are not currently free to do this. Under current rules all internet sites are given the same speed. And this is why ISP's are fighting these rules, because they are mostly giant corporations that only care about their stock holder's short term gains, not the user's experience. They did it previously in the couple of months where net neutrality rules were struck down Netflix Speeds Drop on Two ISPs
But this is stupid because it also blocks the highly desirable goal of giving traffic priority to Netflix, which many would pay extra for. What is wrong with letting most people do something that is beneficial for them and they would like? Preventing that is how we got the war on drugs.
Why should I pay extra to get the internet I want, I already pay a higher price than most other 1st world countries for. And if that were the case how long would it be before you had to start paying $50 or $100 a month to get Netflix at a reasonable rate of speed plus the cost to access a slow version of the rest of the internet?
Why? Why does it have to be that way? What if that's what a lot of people want and are willing to pay for?If people did not want that they would not pay for it and it would die off.
So if I don't want to pay for my ISP's version of the internet, I would just have to stop using the internet? Oh wait, I guess I could switch ISP's except I only have one ISP where I live, like a lot of this country. Most ISP's operate in localized monopolies. And this is the reason why we need Net Neutrality rules. If I could switch between Cox, Time Warner, Comcast or some other ISP with ease, Net Neutrality rules wouldn't matter, but most Americans cannot do this because the ISP provides both the service and the line to the house/ apartment.
If Net Neutrality is struck down. Then Comcast can slow down sites to an unreasonable amount. They could make it take forever to reach any site which said anything bad about the company or provided any competing services.
If you do not think this would ever happen, just look at what happened to Netflix for Comcast users in February 2014.
Net Neutrality declares that all internet traffic is give the same priority (minus a few exceptions which are not related at all to the provider's ability to make more money). ISP's are supposed to provide access to the internet, not their selected version of the internet. Or just internet websites that give the ISP's more of a financial benefit.
This is a nice idea, and it could be practical in 50 or so years. But why would you start in or around any city on the west coast. One earthquake during the early stages and this will die a terrible death, as would anyone buried in those tunnels.
Ok lets talk about this, then.
Previously Verizon killed Netflix's bandwidth for around a month to force them to pay more for the bandwidth they were using. Verizon was also the second largest lobbying company before the previous Net Neutrality rules went into effect. As they were completely against these rules, also they sued the federal government to force a decision about Net Neutrality.
I agree that law makers should do something about this, but most of them are corporate shills who would not disobey their masters. And net neutrality is going to affect everyone that uses the internet in America.
Also the tax overhaul is not happening right now, first it has to make it to the floor of the House then the Senate, and pass both of them. And this just seems like a distraction from the topic at hand.
Last time they almost did this, during Obama's term, it took a great video from some comedic fool to set it straight. Last Week Tonight Net Neutrality And this was done during the FCC comment period, before the rule went into to affect, to force people to look at this.
Yeah everyone's Netflix, Amazon, Apple and/or other internet costs are going to go up. Because ISP's are going to force them to pay more for the same bandwidth.
But this will somehow increase competition, because a lot more internet providers are about to come into your area. Because somehow this was holding them back...
Fossil fuels are easy to store but they are also dangerous as they can catch fire and/or explode pretty easily. (Yes I know current lithium batteries have a similar issue, but solid lithium batteries should solve this soon. Solid-state_lithium-ion_battery ). I am guessing that sometime in the next decade stations and electric cars will be setup to swap a charged battery for your current battery. With these things humans could ween off of fossil fuels in the next couple of decades.
Wind and solar (with better battery storage), damns, geothermal, and some nuclear, would be able to solve our current energy usage for a considerable amount of the future.
FFS, I live near one of the biggest hives of Trump fans, and there were countless people around here that wanted to vote for Sanders, but voted for Trump to keep Hillary out.
Actually a lot of Sanders supporters said that Trump was their second option because if Sanders didn't make it they wanted to shake up the whole system. A lot of people voted against Hillary rather than for Trump. Basically having a two party system and the electoral system in the US gave us Trump.
Actually most asteroids orbit the sun and pass by the earth's orbit on the way in and out. So if we found one on the way in that could hit us on the way out, we could do something about it. Or if we determine the orbit could allow it to hit us the next time it comes through then we could do something about it.
Ignoring this would make us no better than the dinosaurs.
(even when the liberal stories are dubious or "fake news," like with the infamous golden showers
Most (if not all of the real) news organizations did cite the fact that it was an unconfirmed report.
I just think people need to understand that they need to get their news from more than one source, with more than one viewpoint in those sources. Facebook should not be anyone's only method of getting news.
I am also a Type 1 diabetic and I am very pessimistic about this. The problem here is scientists have already come up with a few different ways to do this but there is still one major issue remaining that is not being addressed by this.
Type 1 diabetes is caused by the immune system destroying B-cells, and this will not prevent this from happening. So even if Type 1 diabetic's can get working islet cells, it would only last for a little while before our immune systems would destroy them once again. This is nice and it will make headlines, but it is only half of the cure that we need.
Of course if you just just judge the cost of course it would seem that science and engineering would be more expensive, but the problem is that this is not looking at the entire picture. Many science and engineering professors do research which ends up being beneficial and profitable to the University, I don't think most liberal arts professors have that ability.
And an advanced degree in science and engineering tends to be worth more outside academia than an advanced degree in liberal arts, so paying those professors more makes the most sense.
There's high turnover as the workers keep on killing themselves.
That is what the super fun netting is for!!!!
No no no. What else floats in water?
A duck!
If he weighs as much as a duck he must be guilty!
The problem with that is you are only considering the dinosaur mass extinction. There have been at least 5 mass extinction events in the history of earth.
One of the other was believed to be caused by the eruption of a super volcano, which could happen these days. If Yellowstone were to completely erupt it would wipe most life off of the earth.
Another possible extinction event is an astronomically close supernova. Which would strip our ozone layer and the sun would do the rest.
Not to mention a nuclear war or a rogue planet moving through the solar system (could throw off our orbit or very unlikely hit earth).
Can humans survive some of these events? Yes, but how long will it take for the earth to be habitable again is the more important question.
Also don't forget that an underground society is going to need to use lots of energy to keep the lights on for plants to grow and it will need a way to get clean water. So, we may have enough supplies for tens of years or maybe even a couple hundred or so, but will the earth be habitable (reasonable climate, decent oxygen levels, ozone layer to protect from the sun, ability to grow plants) again that soon?
What always survives these extinction events is multi-cellular organisms deep in the ocean, which can eventually reform life on the planet. In the last mass extinction event small mammals survived just under the surface of the earth, but that is not always the case.
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.
If they're wrong, the refutation would be more science, not conspiracy theories.
And if they are right, the global climate will change rapidly over the next hundred years. Species around the world will die off due to this. Famine in some areas and flooding in others will kill off millions of people.
But lets just assume they are wrong, it isn't like they got us to the moon or they have done any good science before. We should all just ignore this and continue polluting as much as possible, because change is hard!
Some people think it is going to be gradual but there are people who think it could be sudden for a few reasons.
Antartic ice sheets are melting at this time, but it is currently trapped by the ice there.
Most people don't think these sorts of things happen regularly, but glacial floods have been seen in the earth's history (as long as you believe the earth older than 6000 years).
Also, the reason that ocean sea level rise has not been seen everywhere up to this point is because the Arctic ice was over water, which meant that no water was added to the ocean. Antarctica and Greenland's ice are not currently a part of the ocean, so when this makes it to the ocean, things are going to go bad around the world.
Aside from the climate change aspect the more immediate problem is acidifcation and warming of the sea which has already killed off a quarter of the barrier reef and is having serious effects elsewhere with plankton.
And this is the other point, we have no idea what effects we are having on plankton populations. But then again, why do we need plankton, it isn't like we need to breathe.
Most vaccines do not have a 100% efficiency rate. This means that some people who get the vaccine do not actually get immunity from it. Also some folks have compromised immune systems and cannot be given vaccines to begin with. But they are protected by the fact that most people around them are vaccinated, therefore the disease can't spread easily through the population.
Most anti-vaccination people don't understand that they are actually putting other people in danger by not getting their child vaccinated. Also some of the diseases that there are vaccines for still exist, in small pockets of the world whether it is carried by unvaccinated humans or animals.
But the problem with anti-vaccine people is they don't understand these facts. And they also don't understand how terrible some of the diseases we get vaccines for can be.
Questioning a particular vaccine's side effects or ingredients are fine, under the right circumstances. But when a medical professional does this in public or encourages their patients to not get vaccinations, society can begin to suffer. These laws are for the good of society as a whole.
"They typically dwell just behind rocks, but are also sometimes playful bounding into thick fogs and out of focus areas."
Unfortunately this is on Slashdot for some stupid reason, but that doesn't mean I can't mock the story with a good Futurama reference.
"Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem, if he exists. So lets all help keep possibly Bigfoot alive for future generations to enjoy, unless he doesn't exist."
Something is going to need to be done soon about the space debris issue.
Otherwise more satellites are going to start being taken out which will created more debris, which will take out more satellites...
This issue was first recognized almost 40 years ago and no solutions have been found yet.
The real issue is the fact that DNC tried to stop Bernie with a few underhanded tactics.
The DNC is now trying to redirect the focus everyone to say the Russians did this rather than asking why Bernie didn't get a fair shot or why Hilary was basically given a free pass. I am more worried about why these emails were written in the first place and why the people at the DNC were stupid enough to think their email server couldn't be hacked.
Additionally and more importantly why the fuck should the *center for disease control* be funding gun studies? Shouldn't congress make them spend their money on fucking fighting disease, instead of our constitution?
Part of the reason why cars are safer today than 40 years ago is because the CDC did studies examining car safety and provided the results and recommendations to Congress.
Yes, they should be fighting disease as well. But when they request money to prevent and study possible epidemics like Zika and Ebola, Congress takes forever to pass anything (if they do) and normally under funds them.
Actually this is the solution. He needs to counter sue for lost time and wages, and for his lawyer's expenses for these lawsuits and the counter suit one.
I am pretty sure that if these facts are all accurate and true, he could easily get a judgement of about $100,000 in his favor. And he might be able to stop this guy from doing this to other people.
Unfortunately this is the only way that Doug Costello could probably get our legal system to work for him.