[I] Wouldn't be surprised if the MPAA ran a campaign saying that passing ACTA into law worldwide will stop terrorists, child porn, small arms traders, drugs, wildfires, Satan, etc.
Seriously, wanting to persue peaceful nuclear power isn't an issue. Hell, if they wanted warheads they could just BUY them.
Oh, come on! Anyone with the intention of causing international trouble and strife must have long since figured out that giving the Iranians sufficient nukes to make a significant dent in Israel (using Iranian-developed launch systems) and a few spares to make any subsequent invasion really difficult, would be a far cheaper way of causing their enemies (i.e., the West) immense political, military and financial grief. The trick would, of course, be making sure that someone else got the blame. Contenders? DPRK may not have enough fissile material yet ; Pakistan (either the government, or dissident elements within the military) is certainly in the frame ; China has got to be a contender ; I wouldn't rule out Russia either ; and I certainly wouldn't put it past some of the whack-jobs in America, or in South Africa either, though whether they'd be able to get hold of the materials is another question. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. Live with it. Or die with it.
What are they proposing as an alternative to income taxes?
They've probably been reading their history. Slavery has a long history as well as very clear biblical precedents, so must be good ; Dean Jonathan Swift has made quite sufficient "Modest Proposal"s to light the way clearly to resolving any family's financial deficits. No problems. Or at least, no problems for important people.
Coming from an area where the vast majority of electricity, let me tell you that hydroelectric is not nearly as "green" as some people think.
I didn't (I hope) imply that hydroelectricity is "green" in any absolute sense. I doubt that anything is.
Suffice it to say that we pay for a lot of environmental damage and continuing impact from hydroelectric dams. Some of the things they destroy are irreplaceable, or will take many years after the dams are gone to recover.
You can substitute "nuclear power plant" or "coal-fired power station" or "oil-powered power station" or probably "tidal power plant" for "hydroelectric dams" in that statement and still retain pretty much all of the accuracy. I don't think that there is likely to be any power-generating technology which is going to be without impact, and few without major impacts. But I don't worry about that too much - your offspring can have the pleasure of paying for my energy usage.
(I put a "probably" against tidal power purely because it hasn't much installed base yet to assess. And BTW, we have lots of hydro here in Scotland too.)
Of course it's because Bush Junior was embarrassed by Bush Senior not having the balls to carry through on the invasion of Iraq that he performed in 1991.
I think by now most anyone could figure out that *not* invading Iraq was one of Bush the Elder's smarter moves.
As was widely said at the time (you may not have been there ; a lot of Slashdot's readership weren't), Bush The First had the reasonable option of pushing for "regime change" on the basis that Saddam had been an obnoxiously dangerous fuckker to his own people and his neighbours, and no-one would have been too upset about it. Saddam invades a neighbour ; Saddam gets ousted ; simple lesson - don't invade neighbours without at least stirring up a pretext. It would have required a degree of leadership, and possibly sticking to one's political guns. But since a lot of Iraqis at the time were in near-open rebellion against Saddam, it was on the agenda. For whatever reason(s), Bush The First didn't take the opportunity. When the second of the Bush dynasty attempted it a dozen years later, the support (internal and external) wasn't there and... well, that's how the religion wars of the twenty-first and twenty-second centuries started.
Sorry : getting into writing history from the viewpoint of your descendants. Assuming that any of them survive, of course. Whatever ; I won't see who wins, if anyone does.
Regarding petroleum consumption in farming fertilizer is not, contrary to what a lot of people think, usually made using petroleum.
Regardless of the immediate energy source, fertilizers are products that require the input of considerable energy. Chemicals are required as well - hydrogen, as you say ; nitrogen and/ or oxygen (which are reasonably readily available form the atmosphere - and a large amount of energy per mole. It doesn't much matter if the energy comes directly from hydrocarbon fuels, or from (in the 'greenest' example) hydroelectric sources which are available because distant cities run on hydrocarbon fuels. We could, in a reformed world, continue to make fertilizers from hydroelectricity, air and carbon dioxide, then ship them to the areas needing them with a hydro-electric-powered railway system. But that's getting perilously close to the White Queen's 6 impossible things before breakfast.
The question is if everyone would survive until then.
A vanishingly low probability. Whether (for example) 50% of the current human population of the globe survive to the end of my concern with such issues... I'd not be confident of it being an evens bet.
And which western oil company would you be selling your geology expertise to?
An Ankara and Istanbul company ; the name is not important to me. They've been paying a friend of mine, on time, for nearly 5 years now, so they're solid. What? You don't consider Turkey to be a "western country"? But they've been fighting Islamic extremism for about 80 years, so what the fuck would they know about it, compared to countries that have a whole decade of experience?
It'd be a bit foolish of you to take a job in that area when you don't know the reason for the 2003 US/UK invasion of Iraq.
What on earth makes you think that I don't know the reasons for Bush (a politician I've no loyalty to, in a country I've no loyalty to) and Bliar (a politician I've no loyalty to, in a country I pay taxes to, but wish to stop paying taxes to) sending their countries' unemployable children to die in another country? Of course it's because Bush Junior was embarrassed by Bush Senior not having the balls to carry through on the invasion of Iraq that he performed in 1991.
Winston was right. Ungood history is a doubleplus ungood nonthink, which is a temptation to thoughtcrime! The proles must be prevented from thoughtcrime.
It'll come to a choice between driving and eating.
Considering that a significant part of the cost of getting food to the consumer is in the cost of fuel to get it there, and the fuel used in making fertilizer, ploughing, treating and harvesting the foods... then as the cost of driving goes up (rapidly), the cost of food will also be going up (not so rapidly, but to a non-trivial amount), and the two will come into conflict sooner than most expect, and the rates of change will be faster.
Getting Iraq under western control was only a start.
That's an interesting idea. Who is going to put that into practice, and when do they intend to start? Have the western controllers asked the permission of the people of Iraq? And, as the Western neighbours of Iraq, what opinion do the Syrians have of this? (I speak as someone who is considering offers of work in Kurdish Iraq.)
There is evidence that the most public organiser of WikiLeaks is not an American. But his deputies? The people to whom he has to justify his actions? Some of the funders are certainly not American - I know that I'm not - but I'd be astonished if there was not one American involved in the funding and running of WikiLeaks. I haven't yet heard of any American funders waking to the 03:00 sledgehammer-knock, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist and aren't known to the authorities. It only indicates that the authorities have chosen to not act so far.
I think you missed my point about extraterritorial laws. As I thought I understood the situation, there are some laws which Americans have to obey, regardless of whether the country they reside in expresses an opinion on the subject. In particular, if I understand it properly, Americans have to pay tax on their earnings in their home country to the government of their country of nationality, regardless of whether they're already paying tax to their home country. For most other countries, it's a matter of negotiation or choice which country you pay tax in (or to), but I understand that's not the case for Americans.
I don't know about you, but I look out of the window and I can see a black, white, orange and red dinosaur sitting on top of a street light and shitting onto my car.
I guess since food, shelter, medicine and many other "necessities/comforts" are a Germans God given right, why not give away your cash?
Apart from the fact that the rights in question are granted by the German Volk acting through their parliament, not by some non-existent theistic entity, then you're entirely right.
What almost beggars belief is that this is considered a story. Even by the pretty lax standards of 'Idle', this is barely an odd event, let alone a story.
To complete the metaphor, in this specific case the "art" is clearly labeled with the information that displaying it publicly is a felony according to US law.
Which only applies on US territory.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't some aspects of US law (and many other countries in comparable situations) also apply to it's citizens when they're living and acting outside of the US. For example, if the US has laws against defacing the currency, then a US citizen resident outside of the US who wipes their arse with a dollar bill has committed a crime regardless of whether they're on US territory or not.
Not that that would prevent a non-US citizen from wiping their arse with a greenback without fear of retribution. (Or in my case, the only retribution is likely to be from a notaphilist (OK, numismatist) wife, whose collection I'd have to raid to reclaim my remaining greenbacks.)
There's a local station near where I live in northern england. It serves a small rural town, has two platforms, a carpark and a ticket office.
I count 4 zones of interest - either from a crime point of view, or from the number of different locations that you'd wish to be able to direct a fire engine to. If the lay out were ideal, you'd want redundant cover of each zone, which would require a minimum of two cameras per zone (so that if one fails, the other is still working ; if both are working, then you've got stereoscopic cover). If the layout were not ideal for CCTV cover - which on anything other than a brand-new greenfield site, it's unlikely to be - then you're likely to need more than 2 per zone.
How many CCTV cameras does it have?
12+
4 zones * 3 cameras per zone = 12 cameras. I deduce that your station is not brand new, and has a number of nooks and crannies. I suppose that I'd better look at the link now... which doesn't look at the interior of the ticket office. It looks like 2 to 4 cameras on the car park (with a break-in problem, from the log posts), two cameras on the platform with the offices, 5 on the other (possibly the cameras on one platform actually get a better view across to the other platform, in which case some would provide cross-cover of the car park and offices). And it looks like 3 cameras that are around the passenger footbridge that links the platforms. What did that blog post say about an armed robbery there a few years ago?
I don't dispute that CCTV coverage can be excessive, but this does not seem to me to be a good example to cite.
What's the triffid? A Fuschia? I was expecting a Fly Trap, or a Sun Dew, both of which are useful as well as intermittently pretty.
As the saying goes, history is written by the winners.
s/is/was/ (Or for those who don't know this editor script... substitute "is" with "was", producing "history was written by the winners.") One of the few things that can be said for sure... sorry, that's a little overconfident. One of the few things that can be said with a high degree of confidence about the consequences of the Internet, and it's significant democratisation of the production, retention and distribution of information, is that people who are not "the winners" will be able to have their say, and for that to be heard by generations to come. Once you view, for example, the Facebook chatter of people who've just been dumped (by their employer, significant other, cricket team, whatever) in that light, you'll see that our history has so far generally been written from the winner's point of view. On precisely the same point is the way that Wikileaks (with the essential assistance of the people who actually leak the information) is disseminating information about the true consequences of modern warfare.
Which reminds me to make this month's payment to Wikileaks, to do my bit to mollify my conscience that I've done something to fight back against the governments that are doing terrible things to people that I don't know, and doing them in my name. There's not a lot that I can do about the misuse of my name, but I can damage the governments that are doing it.
It must be terribly galling to politicians to have people holding them to account for their lies and deceits while they're still in power. I'm not surprised that they're trying to put the genie back into the bottle.
According to http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news169.html, they're actually on not-dissimilar trajectories. So, it's not incredible that they could be both affected by, for example, a point source of a simple field. Such as an undetected mass. Not that I'm trying to start rumours.
One is 6-14 meters and the other is 10-20, so even if they change course, don't expect Bruce Willis to be called in.
If they changed course significantly in the time between (say) this press release and their closest approach, then it is time to be calling Bruce Willis. For them to garner an appreciable course change on that timescale, then they've got to pass relatively close to something pretty big. CORRECTION : something pretty massive, not necessarily something particularly big. And more importantly, it's something massive, pretty near the Earth, and which hasn't been seen before until now. That makes it something that's either extraordinarily dark, or very small and massive. I'd be calling up Bruce Willis and sending him up there to find out what the hell this massive, dark/small object is. I doubt that Willis would do anything useful, compared to the roboticised observatories that would go along with him, but it'd be fun to watch him choke when the air runs out and he realises that it's a one-way ticket.
Oh, I missed one possibility - that the unknown object has a peculiarly strong electromagnetic field associated with it. Bussard Ramjet, anyone?
Damn, now I'm going to have to do some research to find out the trajectories and see if one simple perturbing object is possible.
Business 201 modifies this slightly by noting that statutory regulations and standards usually place a lower bound on how shitty stuff can get. MBA courses subsequently add an "unfortunately" to the latter observation.
As in "statutory regulations and standards usually place a(n) unfortunately (low) lower bound on how shitty stuff can get."
Hazen's dead-tree books are worth a read too. Without digging mine off the shelf in the other room, I think that he's shared lab space or mind-space with Morowitz as well. I didn't see much in the summary that was new to me, but I know that I've been an interested follower of origin-of-life studies for a lot longer than most people I've heard of, and almost everyone that I know. (For example, Dad, who was a professional chemist, acknowledges the importance of the subject but doesn't really get excited about it.)
Definition does not mean to come up with something on our own.
It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. Which in areas with a general consensus (for example, radiometric dating, which I was having to do some poking around in the depth of for work last month), then the detail work would normally be delegated to a committee of some relevant professional body. However, as I said earlier, what "life" is is not an area of consensus ; doubly-so for "life" in the study area "origin of life". So it's (generally) necessary for workers in that field to either choose someone else's definition, or to think long and hard about what they mean and define their terms very carefully. That's one of the differences between being a pupil and being a student - having to think for your self, then say what you mean and be prepared for other people to disagree with you. In public. In print. And if they think it's necessary, to try to get you sacked.
I have never heard a biologist include prions in the definition of life. I have however heard them give a long list of reasons they are NOT life.
So, you are comparing the content (and implications) of several definitions of "life". Welcome to the coal-face.
Viruses are a little bit more complicated but the general consensus is despite having RNA (the equivalent to DNA in fact iirc it was the pre cursor to DNA) they are not alive.
That RNA was a predecessor to DNA in the development of the biochemistry of the LCA (Last Common Ancestor) is a popular hypothesis, and for good reason. But it's not by any means universally accepted as having been "the" way. And it's not implausible that there were really several different information-processing and material-processing chemical reaction sets going on, which intermeshed through common small molecules and influenced each other, and which came together to form primitive "life" and that then evolved considerably before it reached a point that present-day genetic and biochemical studies would recognise as being the LCA. It's by no means implausible that the LCA, when viewed through the tools of genetics, is different - by billions of "generations" - from the LCA that might be revealed by studies of biochemistry. (If the idea of "generation" is applicable.) It's certainly plausible that the information to resolve the question does not exist any more.
Origin of life is a fascinating field. And it's potentially a real time-sink away from paying work (except for a few lucky minds, who get paid to think about it).
From the wikipedia article "From July 25 to September 23, 2001, red rain sporadically fell on the southern Indian state of Kerala." So, tell me this. How can ANY phenomena based on material being delivered from space hit the SAME small area of the earth multiple times on different days over a period of two months, and not hit other parts of the world?
Not that you'd know it from the cited article, or the other published work by these authors, but exactly that point was made multiple times within minutes of the first time this story of the "mysterious" "Red Rain" was touted as evidence for panspermia.
They still haven't addressed this challenge.
(BTW : I'm not being hyperbolic about the "minutes" : it was around the time I'd just got a reasonable price for internet connectivity and I remember firing up the modem when I first came across this in my news inbox to find out WTF Wickramasinghe was on about this time. Literally, "minutes".)
how could they miss such a great headline opportunity?
And more importantly, how did I miss that this is a young nebula? Probably because I was having to make a deliberate effort to treat the article with respect. Panspermia implies that "spores" (in some poorly-defined sense) travel from established "live" planetary systems to new, "dead" systems. But for there to be significant amounts of fluorescing "spores" in this nebula, then EITHER life originated there pretty damned quickly and is now shedding "spore", or by some mystical process, the "spores" "know" how to identify a "dead" "young" "system" and "congregate" there.
What could the White Queen do? Believe six impossible things before breakfast, if I recall correctly. But I think even she'd get indigestion over that lot.
The points they list are what they teach in just about any biology course you take at the college level as the definition of life.
[Not having read the wikipedia article recently.] And once you get beyond college level (which means - once you start to have to read the literature for yourself instead of relying on someone else to do the hard work for you), you'll find that there is still no consensus about a working definition for "life". The last time I tried to come up with one that I was happy with it took me several hours, and I knew that there were aspects of it that I wasn't terribly confident of.
One of the "Origin Of Life" conferences around a decade ago spent about a third of it's conference proceedings report doing nothing but presenting different active OOL researcher's definitions of "life".
Slashdot Mirror
They haven't already? I'm surprised.
Oh, come on! Anyone with the intention of causing international trouble and strife must have long since figured out that giving the Iranians sufficient nukes to make a significant dent in Israel (using Iranian-developed launch systems) and a few spares to make any subsequent invasion really difficult, would be a far cheaper way of causing their enemies (i.e., the West) immense political, military and financial grief. The trick would, of course, be making sure that someone else got the blame.
Contenders? DPRK may not have enough fissile material yet ; Pakistan (either the government, or dissident elements within the military) is certainly in the frame ; China has got to be a contender ; I wouldn't rule out Russia either ; and I certainly wouldn't put it past some of the whack-jobs in America, or in South Africa either, though whether they'd be able to get hold of the materials is another question.
The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. Live with it. Or die with it.
They've probably been reading their history. Slavery has a long history as well as very clear biblical precedents, so must be good ; Dean Jonathan Swift has made quite sufficient "Modest Proposal"s to light the way clearly to resolving any family's financial deficits.
No problems.
Or at least, no problems for important people.
Oh dammit, there we go again. After all the effort people went to to get Chthulu back to sleep again, and you've got him stirring in his slumber.
Don't you know how difficult it is to get virgins (in thought as well as in deed) to the tops of volcanoes these days?
Never? You don't say? Shock! Horror! Saying things like that is going to get you into trouble.
I didn't (I hope) imply that hydroelectricity is "green" in any absolute sense. I doubt that anything is.
You can substitute "nuclear power plant" or "coal-fired power station" or "oil-powered power station" or probably "tidal power plant" for "hydroelectric dams" in that statement and still retain pretty much all of the accuracy. I don't think that there is likely to be any power-generating technology which is going to be without impact, and few without major impacts. But I don't worry about that too much - your offspring can have the pleasure of paying for my energy usage.
(I put a "probably" against tidal power purely because it hasn't much installed base yet to assess. And BTW, we have lots of hydro here in Scotland too.)
As was widely said at the time (you may not have been there ; a lot of Slashdot's readership weren't), Bush The First had the reasonable option of pushing for "regime change" on the basis that Saddam had been an obnoxiously dangerous fuckker to his own people and his neighbours, and no-one would have been too upset about it. Saddam invades a neighbour ; Saddam gets ousted ; simple lesson - don't invade neighbours without at least stirring up a pretext. ... well, that's how the religion wars of the twenty-first and twenty-second centuries started.
It would have required a degree of leadership, and possibly sticking to one's political guns. But since a lot of Iraqis at the time were in near-open rebellion against Saddam, it was on the agenda.
For whatever reason(s), Bush The First didn't take the opportunity. When the second of the Bush dynasty attempted it a dozen years later, the support (internal and external) wasn't there and
Sorry : getting into writing history from the viewpoint of your descendants. Assuming that any of them survive, of course. Whatever ; I won't see who wins, if anyone does.
Regardless of the immediate energy source, fertilizers are products that require the input of considerable energy. Chemicals are required as well - hydrogen, as you say ; nitrogen and/ or oxygen (which are reasonably readily available form the atmosphere - and a large amount of energy per mole. It doesn't much matter if the energy comes directly from hydrocarbon fuels, or from (in the 'greenest' example) hydroelectric sources which are available because distant cities run on hydrocarbon fuels. We could, in a reformed world, continue to make fertilizers from hydroelectricity, air and carbon dioxide, then ship them to the areas needing them with a hydro-electric-powered railway system. But that's getting perilously close to the White Queen's 6 impossible things before breakfast.
A vanishingly low probability. ... I'd not be confident of it being an evens bet.
Whether (for example) 50% of the current human population of the globe survive to the end of my concern with such issues
An Ankara and Istanbul company ; the name is not important to me. They've been paying a friend of mine, on time, for nearly 5 years now, so they're solid. What? You don't consider Turkey to be a "western country"? But they've been fighting Islamic extremism for about 80 years, so what the fuck would they know about it, compared to countries that have a whole decade of experience?
What on earth makes you think that I don't know the reasons for Bush (a politician I've no loyalty to, in a country I've no loyalty to) and Bliar (a politician I've no loyalty to, in a country I pay taxes to, but wish to stop paying taxes to) sending their countries' unemployable children to die in another country? Of course it's because Bush Junior was embarrassed by Bush Senior not having the balls to carry through on the invasion of Iraq that he performed in 1991.
Winston was right. Ungood history is a doubleplus ungood nonthink, which is a temptation to thoughtcrime! The proles must be prevented from thoughtcrime.
Considering that a significant part of the cost of getting food to the consumer is in the cost of fuel to get it there, and the fuel used in making fertilizer, ploughing, treating and harvesting the foods ... then as the cost of driving goes up (rapidly), the cost of food will also be going up (not so rapidly, but to a non-trivial amount), and the two will come into conflict sooner than most expect, and the rates of change will be faster.
That's an interesting idea. Who is going to put that into practice, and when do they intend to start? Have the western controllers asked the permission of the people of Iraq? And, as the Western neighbours of Iraq, what opinion do the Syrians have of this? (I speak as someone who is considering offers of work in Kurdish Iraq.)
Do you have evidence to bolster this assertion?
There is evidence that the most public organiser of WikiLeaks is not an American. But his deputies? The people to whom he has to justify his actions? Some of the funders are certainly not American - I know that I'm not - but I'd be astonished if there was not one American involved in the funding and running of WikiLeaks. I haven't yet heard of any American funders waking to the 03:00 sledgehammer-knock, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist and aren't known to the authorities. It only indicates that the authorities have chosen to not act so far.
I think you missed my point about extraterritorial laws. As I thought I understood the situation, there are some laws which Americans have to obey, regardless of whether the country they reside in expresses an opinion on the subject. In particular, if I understand it properly, Americans have to pay tax on their earnings in their home country to the government of their country of nationality, regardless of whether they're already paying tax to their home country. For most other countries, it's a matter of negotiation or choice which country you pay tax in (or to), but I understand that's not the case for Americans.
I don't know about you, but I look out of the window and I can see a black, white, orange and red dinosaur sitting on top of a street light and shitting onto my car.
Does that count as a detection?
Apart from the fact that the rights in question are granted by the German Volk acting through their parliament, not by some non-existent theistic entity, then you're entirely right.
What almost beggars belief is that this is considered a story. Even by the pretty lax standards of 'Idle', this is barely an odd event, let alone a story.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't some aspects of US law (and many other countries in comparable situations) also apply to it's citizens when they're living and acting outside of the US. For example, if the US has laws against defacing the currency, then a US citizen resident outside of the US who wipes their arse with a dollar bill has committed a crime regardless of whether they're on US territory or not.
Not that that would prevent a non-US citizen from wiping their arse with a greenback without fear of retribution. (Or in my case, the only retribution is likely to be from a notaphilist (OK, numismatist) wife, whose collection I'd have to raid to reclaim my remaining greenbacks.)
I count 4 zones of interest - either from a crime point of view, or from the number of different locations that you'd wish to be able to direct a fire engine to. If the lay out were ideal, you'd want redundant cover of each zone, which would require a minimum of two cameras per zone (so that if one fails, the other is still working ; if both are working, then you've got stereoscopic cover). If the layout were not ideal for CCTV cover - which on anything other than a brand-new greenfield site, it's unlikely to be - then you're likely to need more than 2 per zone.
4 zones * 3 cameras per zone = 12 cameras. I deduce that your station is not brand new, and has a number of nooks and crannies. I suppose that I'd better look at the link now ... which doesn't look at the interior of the ticket office. It looks like 2 to 4 cameras on the car park (with a break-in problem, from the log posts), two cameras on the platform with the offices, 5 on the other (possibly the cameras on one platform actually get a better view across to the other platform, in which case some would provide cross-cover of the car park and offices). And it looks like 3 cameras that are around the passenger footbridge that links the platforms. What did that blog post say about an armed robbery there a few years ago?
I don't dispute that CCTV coverage can be excessive, but this does not seem to me to be a good example to cite.
What's the triffid? A Fuschia? I was expecting a Fly Trap, or a Sun Dew, both of which are useful as well as intermittently pretty.
s/is/was/ ... substitute "is" with "was", producing "history was written by the winners.") ... sorry, that's a little overconfident. One of the few things that can be said with a high degree of confidence about the consequences of the Internet, and it's significant democratisation of the production, retention and distribution of information, is that people who are not "the winners" will be able to have their say, and for that to be heard by generations to come.
(Or for those who don't know this editor script
One of the few things that can be said for sure
Once you view, for example, the Facebook chatter of people who've just been dumped (by their employer, significant other, cricket team, whatever) in that light, you'll see that our history has so far generally been written from the winner's point of view. On precisely the same point is the way that Wikileaks (with the essential assistance of the people who actually leak the information) is disseminating information about the true consequences of modern warfare.
Which reminds me to make this month's payment to Wikileaks, to do my bit to mollify my conscience that I've done something to fight back against the governments that are doing terrible things to people that I don't know, and doing them in my name. There's not a lot that I can do about the misuse of my name, but I can damage the governments that are doing it.
It must be terribly galling to politicians to have people holding them to account for their lies and deceits while they're still in power. I'm not surprised that they're trying to put the genie back into the bottle.
Has anyone pointed out to them how much publicity they'll get if they hold a mass suicide?
According to http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news169.html, they're actually on not-dissimilar trajectories. So, it's not incredible that they could be both affected by, for example, a point source of a simple field. Such as an undetected mass. Not that I'm trying to start rumours.
If they changed course significantly in the time between (say) this press release and their closest approach, then it is time to be calling Bruce Willis.
For them to garner an appreciable course change on that timescale, then they've got to pass relatively close to something pretty big. CORRECTION : something pretty massive, not necessarily something particularly big. And more importantly, it's something massive, pretty near the Earth, and which hasn't been seen before until now. That makes it something that's either extraordinarily dark, or very small and massive.
I'd be calling up Bruce Willis and sending him up there to find out what the hell this massive, dark/small object is. I doubt that Willis would do anything useful, compared to the roboticised observatories that would go along with him, but it'd be fun to watch him choke when the air runs out and he realises that it's a one-way ticket.
Oh, I missed one possibility - that the unknown object has a peculiarly strong electromagnetic field associated with it. Bussard Ramjet, anyone?
Damn, now I'm going to have to do some research to find out the trajectories and see if one simple perturbing object is possible.
As in "statutory regulations and standards usually place a(n) unfortunately (low) lower bound on how shitty stuff can get."
Hazen's dead-tree books are worth a read too. Without digging mine off the shelf in the other room, I think that he's shared lab space or mind-space with Morowitz as well.
I didn't see much in the summary that was new to me, but I know that I've been an interested follower of origin-of-life studies for a lot longer than most people I've heard of, and almost everyone that I know. (For example, Dad, who was a professional chemist, acknowledges the importance of the subject but doesn't really get excited about it.)
It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. Which in areas with a general consensus (for example, radiometric dating, which I was having to do some poking around in the depth of for work last month), then the detail work would normally be delegated to a committee of some relevant professional body. However, as I said earlier, what "life" is is not an area of consensus ; doubly-so for "life" in the study area "origin of life". So it's (generally) necessary for workers in that field to either choose someone else's definition, or to think long and hard about what they mean and define their terms very carefully.
That's one of the differences between being a pupil and being a student - having to think for your self, then say what you mean and be prepared for other people to disagree with you. In public. In print. And if they think it's necessary, to try to get you sacked.
So, you are comparing the content (and implications) of several definitions of "life". Welcome to the coal-face.
That RNA was a predecessor to DNA in the development of the biochemistry of the LCA (Last Common Ancestor) is a popular hypothesis, and for good reason. But it's not by any means universally accepted as having been "the" way. And it's not implausible that there were really several different information-processing and material-processing chemical reaction sets going on, which intermeshed through common small molecules and influenced each other, and which came together to form primitive "life" and that then evolved considerably before it reached a point that present-day genetic and biochemical studies would recognise as being the LCA.
It's by no means implausible that the LCA, when viewed through the tools of genetics, is different - by billions of "generations" - from the LCA that might be revealed by studies of biochemistry. (If the idea of "generation" is applicable.)
It's certainly plausible that the information to resolve the question does not exist any more.
Origin of life is a fascinating field. And it's potentially a real time-sink away from paying work (except for a few lucky minds, who get paid to think about it).
Not that you'd know it from the cited article, or the other published work by these authors, but exactly that point was made multiple times within minutes of the first time this story of the "mysterious" "Red Rain" was touted as evidence for panspermia.
They still haven't addressed this challenge.
(BTW : I'm not being hyperbolic about the "minutes" : it was around the time I'd just got a reasonable price for internet connectivity and I remember firing up the modem when I first came across this in my news inbox to find out WTF Wickramasinghe was on about this time. Literally, "minutes".)
And more importantly, how did I miss that this is a young nebula? Probably because I was having to make a deliberate effort to treat the article with respect.
Panspermia implies that "spores" (in some poorly-defined sense) travel from established "live" planetary systems to new, "dead" systems. But for there to be significant amounts of fluorescing "spores" in this nebula, then EITHER life originated there pretty damned quickly and is now shedding "spore", or by some mystical process, the "spores" "know" how to identify a "dead" "young" "system" and "congregate" there.
What could the White Queen do? Believe six impossible things before breakfast, if I recall correctly. But I think even she'd get indigestion over that lot.
[Not having read the wikipedia article recently.]
And once you get beyond college level (which means - once you start to have to read the literature for yourself instead of relying on someone else to do the hard work for you), you'll find that there is still no consensus about a working definition for "life". The last time I tried to come up with one that I was happy with it took me several hours, and I knew that there were aspects of it that I wasn't terribly confident of.
One of the "Origin Of Life" conferences around a decade ago spent about a third of it's conference proceedings report doing nothing but presenting different active OOL researcher's definitions of "life".