The choices aren't: 'leave it alone' or 'real scientists can find it'. The choices are 'find it' or 'let it erode away'.
Having just been reading the paper abstract (it's in pre-print at the moment, and I don't have the paper. Hmmm, "Alan Channing", there's a name that rings a bell.), where do you get that information from?
Since specifically, the abstract refers to examining microscopic and mesoscopic (hand specimen size or smaller) fossils in chert deposits, it is not going to be particularly susceptible to "eroding to dust". That is genuinely an issue in, for example, the "badlands" of the Rockies foothills, but from the abstract, I would doubt it will be much of an issue for these fossils.
Unless of course, you have a different source of information.
The joke within caving circles is applicable : "the site imposes it's own access restrictions."
Patagonia is not a hotspot of tourist activity. By the time you get there, you'll be well aware that you've spent a good number of days getting there, and you'd better kill all witnesses if you think you're going to get away with vandalism.
I have BluRay players, but just for their Neflix capabilities
Huh?
OK, I only have a vague idea of what Netflix is (Youtube/ iPlayer on steroids, with invoices), and I'm not even sure if it's available in this country (it's Youtube / iPlayer, with invoices ; what is to like?, let alone what motive is there to research it?). But why on earth would a service like that need a particular piece of hardware? Wouldn't that be rather limiting to the potential audience? Not only do you get an otherwise free service, but with invoices ; but you also have to buy specific hardware. Seems like a recipe for commercial failure to me.
I don't feel any need to compare my contributions to this site over the 20-ish years I've been posting here with "Bang's." I don't feel a need to commercially exploit my online activities ; Bang clearly does. If you do your research on him, you'll find that he was an "adjunct professor" (whatever one of those is) in astrophysics at some minor college somewhere in America, but hasn't had any apparent position since. My guess is that this is how he puts some food on the table. Unless you're sure you won't find yourself in his shoes, I'd temper the criticism from some of the more rabid critics.
Oh yes, I've used DVD-R (and -RW) for years too, but not very often. Too slow, to constrained. I'll burn a final backup of a client data set on DVD, but for personal stuff I copy hard drives. Much cheaper and faster.
HP had a feature they called something like "lightscribe" some years ago - there was one in a Work laptop I was dumped with this Vista monstrosity - which was meant to put some sort of barcode onto DVDs, but with only one machine that could use it,... well, we'd already moved on to internally using HD arrays, so what's the point?
You'll still be buying batteries and panels initially from someone. and there will be a (smaller) market for maintenance and/ or repair.
Hay merchants used to provide many kilos of food every day to every propulsion source in the land. Then, as new transport methods developed, some morphed into selling coal (for railways), wheels (for wagons), or mineral oil (for internal combustion engines). And some people who remained selling hay for horses, went out of business.
If Shell (to pick an example) chose to bring out a well packaged battery+15sq.m+controller package that would take someone 90% off the grid, then their marketing know-how and engineering expertise (don't forget - these companies have large engineering know-how. A sensor and metering package on a wellhead that ran off it's own solar panel + battery might save several thousand dollars/ year of costs, which would make a lot of sense to a company with 100,000 oil wells) could well make it a very attractive buy. Even more so compared to a foreign company like Texaco's package.
We have noticed how Shell has been morphing to a gas company over the last decade or so. Reduced lift cost.
Moreover, if the disc requires a live network connection in order to play, it may have unique keys imprinted on it
Is this actually physically possible?
OK, I've never (knowingly) seen a Blu-Ray or UHDVD drive or disc - there's no reason to, I see more movies in the movie house than I do at home - so I may have got this wrong, but doesn't the system depend on using a stamping machine to imprint many tiny physical pits into the material of a disc, then gluing a protective cover on one side of the (identical) stamping, a human-readable label on the other side, and throwing it into a (identical) case with another printed label.
Where in the chain can they imprint a unique physical key onto the disc? Effectively you'd have to be burning a new copy of every disc. Unless there's some way of incorporating the necessary very fine pattern of pits in a different way into every disc at the stamping process.
Devout? He's been married three times! What happened to 'til death do us part"?
Two solutions occur. Either Trump has had his ex-wives killed and replaced by doppelgangers. No great technical problems - or moral ones if you look at it from a Christian perspective. Just as long as you make sure that the target is from some marginally mis-aligned heretic evil barbarian sect. Ref Henry VIII - he got away with it 4 times.
Or, Trump checked out his wives for being brain-dead gold-digging bimbos before marrying them. Dead before marriage, no problem, marriage is null and void. Again, see Henry VIII for precedent.
I would expect gravity-induced compression and expansion of the crust, mantle, and outer core to come into play when it comes to bleeding off energy.
That is an effect. But rock is so much stiffer than water (and for that matter air) that the integral of force versus distance moved results in there being more work done by the hydrosphere (and atmosphere) than by the lithosphere. (The work also scales by mass moved as well as distance, so the contribution of the atmosphere is matched by the top 15m of the oceans, and the remaining approximately 4.985 km of the average ocean's depth is not matched by an atmospheric contribution.)
Still, with the center of gravity of the earth-moon system being more than 4,000 km beneath the surface even today,
1700km according to Wiki, and "a thousand miles" according to my memory. The point stands, though most of the effect is from movement rather than compression/ decompression. Typically on the continental crust the diurnal solid-body tide is on the order of a metre. People like LIGO and gravimetric surveys (e.g. for mineral prospecting) need to take this into account - it's a routine correction factor.
If we accept the impact model, then we should expect that the chunks that ended up forming the moon were outside Roche's limit
Roche's limit isn't a razor-edge dividing line, even in a system approaching equilibrium. The post-impact state of the Earth-Moon system as decidedly not near equilibrium, which is why modelling of the system has to be by running numerical integrations rather than attempting analytical solution. Well, so far anyway.
What we do know (from the status of Pluto-Charon, Uranus, and Venus) with a fair degree of confidence is that large collisions were common in the late stages of the construction of the Solar system. (Unless you have a better way of accounting for the structure and orientation of these objects. Which would be a new piece of planetary science deserving of publication.)
What would be the problem about pushing Christmas back to once every four years? Isn't that about the number of practising Christians in your country (it's certainly too high an estimate for mine)?
Why do you think this is a question that affects the USA more or less than any other country? Issues of time management affect anyone who has to operate outside the borders of their parochial little country. (Which goes for any country with less than 1/5 of the Earth's land surface, e.g. Russia, at 1/8th and 10 time zones.)
Also, since we don't know when we got the moon (we're not even sure how we got it), we can't just extrapolate backwards to a day of 6.5 hours.
Correct answer (we can't simple extrapolate backwards) but for the wrong reasons (it's not uncertainty about the date of formation of the Moon that's the issue, it's the variable torque between the oceans and the seabed).
I didn't bother to follow Ethan-ends-With-A-Whimper's links, but I welcom his movement from Forbes.com to the Torygraph and Nat.Geo (both Murdoch rags, IIRC), so one expects the former to get the science wrong, and the latter to over-simplify it.
The actual science is that for some decades, geologists have been examining rock deposits which contain both daily and more-than-daily cycles of deposition. (For example, twice-daily cycles of tidal sand/ mud alternations and 21-day cycles that appear to represent the spring/ neap tidal cycle, in the same rock sequences.) There had been three reasonable quality measurements of this sort of data when I was a student (and wrote an essay on the topic) in the 1980s, and the number of measurements (in different formations at different eras) has increased since, with the noise reducing.
The data is not consistent with a simple linear change, and therefore with any simple extrapolation.
Further study of the interactions of the Moon-Earth system elucidates what is happening. The evolution of the Earth-Moon system is dominated by the drag between the oceans and the seabed. The rotation of the Earth drags the bulge of the ocean's high tides ahead of the line joining Earth-centre and Moon centre, so the bulge exerts a torque on the Moon, increasing it's orbital speed and therefore resulting in the Moon moving further away from the Earth. That much is well known and understood. What is less-well understood is that the drag between the seabed and the oceans is a very complex function of the shape of the seabed, the nature of the seabed (mud, boulders, seaweed, coral) and of course, the viscosity of the water. Just for entertainment, every such calculation for a deep ocena has to have a measure of the temperature profile between surface and seabed. The last time I did such a profile, the seabed was at 3.6 centigrade and the surface at nearly 30 centigrade ; the previous profile, the range was 9.6 to 15-20 centigrade (it varied with season, as did the isolation suits we were required to wear during transit). Even if you simplify the shape of the continents and the nature of the seabed, just the temperature variations is going to make it very hard to predict the efficiency of that torque transfer from the Earth's rotation to the Moon's orbit.
And that is why a simple extrapolation doesn't work.
We can be pretty sure that the Moon was closer to the Earth in the past, and there still is no better model for the formation of the Moon than the "Giant Impact" (not that that is without issues; but fewer issues than other models proposed to date). But we don't know exactly when, for example, the oceans formed (before 4300Myr ago, probably - but were they party evaporated by impacts later?).
Well, it's 12 hours difference in 1600 years, and the substitution of mid-day for mid-night might possibly be slightly more noticeable than one midnight for another.
There is no reason to expect that the orbital motion of a planet and it's rotational motion to be related in a simple ratio. (Except in the case of tidal locking, where the ratio is 1:1). So, unless you're going to go around adjusting rotation rates or orbits, then the slip between the two measures of time is just something you're going to have to deal with.
I think you mean that your friends are Young Earth Creationists. In which case, they're the clods. The phrase "Liars For Jesus" is often used, though a small number are "Liars For Mohammed" instead (though they copy the same errors of logic and fact, and often of spelling).
If $COMPANY_OR_SERVICE$ are adversely affecting your use of a site, then tell the site's administrators that you're stopping using that service because of the use of $COMPANY_OR_SERVICE$, and that you'd appreciate a mail to tell you when they have stopped using $COMPANY_OR_SERVICE$.
Haven't you read the fucking manual on how to manipulate corporations by denying them business?
OK, there is also the possibility that they'll say, "fuck that idiot, we're going to continue using $COMPANY_OR_SERVICE$," and wave goodbye to you. But since you were going to have to find a substitute for that site anyway, you've not actually lost anything.
Just stopping use of the service isn't effective. The reason for the cessation of use needs to be communicated too.
I'll bet they're doing it with people who are not US subjects, and through a management chain which removes them from US legislation. And they've got enough financial and political muscle that they may make it stick.
The AC bullshit-artist at the root of this thread clearly has never had to deal with devices that work in explosive or flammable atmospheres, or for that matter, the distinction between "power" and "intrinsically safe" circuitry in sensor suites. As such, his opinion is of no weight. If he weren't an AC, then it might be worth replying to her directly, but she is an AC, so her opinion does not deserve direct refutation.
business plans on exploiting the fact that warming would melt glaciers and make arctic drilling more profitable if they delay it for 20 years (which they did).
That's a new joke to me.
How exactly is the presence or absence of glaciers going to make searching for and exploiting hydrocarbon reserves any more difficult? In my almost 30 years of drilling experience, I've never once seen a location where the presence or absence of glaciers has been a consideration in the slightest, and only a couple of locations where the presence of glaciers a thousand or so kilometres away led to a minor and very manageable concern about icebergs.
Why would you be doing a compression operation OVER AN EXTERNAL NETWORK, rather than crunching the file locally, then transmitting the compressed data over the internet. Unless you're seriously of the opinion that you can get higher actual communication speeds over a shared line servicing hundreds or thousands of other customers (compared to cables in your own wiring loom). That's to say nothing about the latencies and delays that are inherent in the Tor system itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Having just been reading the paper abstract (it's in pre-print at the moment, and I don't have the paper. Hmmm, "Alan Channing", there's a name that rings a bell.), where do you get that information from?
Since specifically, the abstract refers to examining microscopic and mesoscopic (hand specimen size or smaller) fossils in chert deposits, it is not going to be particularly susceptible to "eroding to dust". That is genuinely an issue in, for example, the "badlands" of the Rockies foothills, but from the abstract, I would doubt it will be much of an issue for these fossils.
Unless of course, you have a different source of information.
Patagonia is not a hotspot of tourist activity. By the time you get there, you'll be well aware that you've spent a good number of days getting there, and you'd better kill all witnesses if you think you're going to get away with vandalism.
Huh?
OK, I only have a vague idea of what Netflix is (Youtube/ iPlayer on steroids, with invoices), and I'm not even sure if it's available in this country (it's Youtube / iPlayer, with invoices ; what is to like?, let alone what motive is there to research it?). But why on earth would a service like that need a particular piece of hardware? Wouldn't that be rather limiting to the potential audience? Not only do you get an otherwise free service, but with invoices ; but you also have to buy specific hardware. Seems like a recipe for commercial failure to me.
Sucks to be American, I see.
HP had a feature they called something like "lightscribe" some years ago - there was one in a Work laptop I was dumped with this Vista monstrosity - which was meant to put some sort of barcode onto DVDs, but with only one machine that could use it, ... well, we'd already moved on to internally using HD arrays, so what's the point?
No standard means there is effectively no system.
Hay merchants used to provide many kilos of food every day to every propulsion source in the land. Then, as new transport methods developed, some morphed into selling coal (for railways), wheels (for wagons), or mineral oil (for internal combustion engines). And some people who remained selling hay for horses, went out of business.
If Shell (to pick an example) chose to bring out a well packaged battery+15sq.m+controller package that would take someone 90% off the grid, then their marketing know-how and engineering expertise (don't forget - these companies have large engineering know-how. A sensor and metering package on a wellhead that ran off it's own solar panel + battery might save several thousand dollars/ year of costs, which would make a lot of sense to a company with 100,000 oil wells) could well make it a very attractive buy. Even more so compared to a foreign company like Texaco's package.
We have noticed how Shell has been morphing to a gas company over the last decade or so. Reduced lift cost.
One assumes that the alternative would have been being banned from maintaining any accounts for anyone who listed an address in Germany.
Would that have been over much of a loss? Including to the Germans and German residents?
Is this actually physically possible?
OK, I've never (knowingly) seen a Blu-Ray or UHDVD drive or disc - there's no reason to, I see more movies in the movie house than I do at home - so I may have got this wrong, but doesn't the system depend on using a stamping machine to imprint many tiny physical pits into the material of a disc, then gluing a protective cover on one side of the (identical) stamping, a human-readable label on the other side, and throwing it into a (identical) case with another printed label.
Where in the chain can they imprint a unique physical key onto the disc? Effectively you'd have to be burning a new copy of every disc. Unless there's some way of incorporating the necessary very fine pattern of pits in a different way into every disc at the stamping process.
Two solutions occur. Either Trump has had his ex-wives killed and replaced by doppelgangers. No great technical problems - or moral ones if you look at it from a Christian perspective. Just as long as you make sure that the target is from some marginally mis-aligned heretic evil barbarian sect. Ref Henry VIII - he got away with it 4 times.
Or, Trump checked out his wives for being brain-dead gold-digging bimbos before marrying them. Dead before marriage, no problem, marriage is null and void. Again, see Henry VIII for precedent.
That is an effect. But rock is so much stiffer than water (and for that matter air) that the integral of force versus distance moved results in there being more work done by the hydrosphere (and atmosphere) than by the lithosphere. (The work also scales by mass moved as well as distance, so the contribution of the atmosphere is matched by the top 15m of the oceans, and the remaining approximately 4.985 km of the average ocean's depth is not matched by an atmospheric contribution.)
1700km according to Wiki, and "a thousand miles" according to my memory. The point stands, though most of the effect is from movement rather than compression/ decompression. Typically on the continental crust the diurnal solid-body tide is on the order of a metre. People like LIGO and gravimetric surveys (e.g. for mineral prospecting) need to take this into account - it's a routine correction factor.
Roche's limit isn't a razor-edge dividing line, even in a system approaching equilibrium. The post-impact state of the Earth-Moon system as decidedly not near equilibrium, which is why modelling of the system has to be by running numerical integrations rather than attempting analytical solution. Well, so far anyway.
What we do know (from the status of Pluto-Charon, Uranus, and Venus) with a fair degree of confidence is that large collisions were common in the late stages of the construction of the Solar system. (Unless you have a better way of accounting for the structure and orientation of these objects. Which would be a new piece of planetary science deserving of publication.)
Surprising that our rates are so similar.
Why are the promulgating eyesores like poles, when anyone sensible has been u=putting infrastructure in the ground for decades.
That's a pretty good rate, actually. I wonder what mine is.
Excessively simplistic, for the reasons I gave in a post somewhere up thread.
What would be the problem about pushing Christmas back to once every four years? Isn't that about the number of practising Christians in your country (it's certainly too high an estimate for mine)?
Why do you think this is a question that affects the USA more or less than any other country? Issues of time management affect anyone who has to operate outside the borders of their parochial little country. (Which goes for any country with less than 1/5 of the Earth's land surface, e.g. Russia, at 1/8th and 10 time zones.)
Correct answer (we can't simple extrapolate backwards) but for the wrong reasons (it's not uncertainty about the date of formation of the Moon that's the issue, it's the variable torque between the oceans and the seabed).
I didn't bother to follow Ethan-ends-With-A-Whimper's links, but I welcom his movement from Forbes.com to the Torygraph and Nat.Geo (both Murdoch rags, IIRC), so one expects the former to get the science wrong, and the latter to over-simplify it.
The actual science is that for some decades, geologists have been examining rock deposits which contain both daily and more-than-daily cycles of deposition. (For example, twice-daily cycles of tidal sand/ mud alternations and 21-day cycles that appear to represent the spring/ neap tidal cycle, in the same rock sequences.) There had been three reasonable quality measurements of this sort of data when I was a student (and wrote an essay on the topic) in the 1980s, and the number of measurements (in different formations at different eras) has increased since, with the noise reducing.
The data is not consistent with a simple linear change, and therefore with any simple extrapolation.
Further study of the interactions of the Moon-Earth system elucidates what is happening. The evolution of the Earth-Moon system is dominated by the drag between the oceans and the seabed. The rotation of the Earth drags the bulge of the ocean's high tides ahead of the line joining Earth-centre and Moon centre, so the bulge exerts a torque on the Moon, increasing it's orbital speed and therefore resulting in the Moon moving further away from the Earth. That much is well known and understood. What is less-well understood is that the drag between the seabed and the oceans is a very complex function of the shape of the seabed, the nature of the seabed (mud, boulders, seaweed, coral) and of course, the viscosity of the water. Just for entertainment, every such calculation for a deep ocena has to have a measure of the temperature profile between surface and seabed. The last time I did such a profile, the seabed was at 3.6 centigrade and the surface at nearly 30 centigrade ; the previous profile, the range was 9.6 to 15-20 centigrade (it varied with season, as did the isolation suits we were required to wear during transit). Even if you simplify the shape of the continents and the nature of the seabed, just the temperature variations is going to make it very hard to predict the efficiency of that torque transfer from the Earth's rotation to the Moon's orbit.
And that is why a simple extrapolation doesn't work.
We can be pretty sure that the Moon was closer to the Earth in the past, and there still is no better model for the formation of the Moon than the "Giant Impact" (not that that is without issues; but fewer issues than other models proposed to date). But we don't know exactly when, for example, the oceans formed (before 4300Myr ago, probably - but were they party evaporated by impacts later?).
There is no reason to expect that the orbital motion of a planet and it's rotational motion to be related in a simple ratio. (Except in the case of tidal locking, where the ratio is 1:1). So, unless you're going to go around adjusting rotation rates or orbits, then the slip between the two measures of time is just something you're going to have to deal with.
I think you mean that your friends are Young Earth Creationists. In which case, they're the clods. The phrase "Liars For Jesus" is often used, though a small number are "Liars For Mohammed" instead (though they copy the same errors of logic and fact, and often of spelling).
Haven't you read the fucking manual on how to manipulate corporations by denying them business?
OK, there is also the possibility that they'll say, "fuck that idiot, we're going to continue using $COMPANY_OR_SERVICE$," and wave goodbye to you. But since you were going to have to find a substitute for that site anyway, you've not actually lost anything.
Just stopping use of the service isn't effective. The reason for the cessation of use needs to be communicated too.
I'll bet they're doing it with people who are not US subjects, and through a management chain which removes them from US legislation. And they've got enough financial and political muscle that they may make it stick.
Reading? But script (and therefore both writing and reading) were invented by un-saved people, so saved people cannot use that technology.
The AC bullshit-artist at the root of this thread clearly has never had to deal with devices that work in explosive or flammable atmospheres, or for that matter, the distinction between "power" and "intrinsically safe" circuitry in sensor suites. As such, his opinion is of no weight. If he weren't an AC, then it might be worth replying to her directly, but she is an AC, so her opinion does not deserve direct refutation.
That's a new joke to me.
How exactly is the presence or absence of glaciers going to make searching for and exploiting hydrocarbon reserves any more difficult? In my almost 30 years of drilling experience, I've never once seen a location where the presence or absence of glaciers has been a consideration in the slightest, and only a couple of locations where the presence of glaciers a thousand or so kilometres away led to a minor and very manageable concern about icebergs.
Why would you be doing a compression operation OVER AN EXTERNAL NETWORK, rather than crunching the file locally, then transmitting the compressed data over the internet. Unless you're seriously of the opinion that you can get higher actual communication speeds over a shared line servicing hundreds or thousands of other customers (compared to cables in your own wiring loom). That's to say nothing about the latencies and delays that are inherent in the Tor system itself.