That analogy would work, except that Lucas created it...he didn't buy it. If you create a masterpiece you can do whatever the hell you want with it, including destroying it.
(note: the above comment does not infer I think SW is or is not a masterpiece, so no flaming fanboys/antifanboys please)
Starbucks does pay better than your average food serving chain, but all the Big Evil Corp BS is still there. Any differing from the company policy is quickly stiffled, and most employees burn out, get fed up and leave within about a year.
While they don't undercut on prices, they do flood the market (they build so many stores that they actually take their own business). Out west they aren't as dominant because were many preexisting shops with loyal customers, but in the east they are the only game in town and nobody else can get started.
Note: I've never worked there but know several people who have.
No, you're not. Despite having been at college (undergrad and grad) for 7 years straight now I'm still coffee free.
Re:Unlikely to run out of oil -- ever!!
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Not that interesting...unless you like tinfoil hats....
You're correct that most oil doesn't orginate from dinosaur era plant life, most of it is (or was before we burned it) older than that. Aboitic oil formation however does not account for any significant amount of oil.
Oil does not only form from marine life, so primordial seas are irrelevant. The basins are so deep because they have been buried by miles and miles of sediment being continuously deposited over millions of years. In fact it is the burial (heat + pressure, you were partly right about that) that produces oil from the organic matter, so all oil originates fairly deep. Oil that is found in shallower rocks has migrated upwards over time due to it's low density or the rocks themselves have been uplifted.
The rocks that the oil is found in (reservoir rock) is not usually the rock that the oil formed from (source rock) and remains of life are often found in reservoir and source rocks (which is why oil companies are the main employers of paleontologists) so that part is just plain wrong.
I don't know what the statement about chondrites is based on, but about the only thing carbonaceous chondrites have in common with oil is carbon and oxygen, so by that reckoning oil is consistent with the makeup of cement or cardboard. The isotopic signatures of carbon and oxygen will be very different in a chondrite than in organic matter though, and oil's signature matches what would be expected from an organic origin.
Disclaimer: IAA(Geologist), but not a paleotologist, and I don't work for an oil company.
The most likely place for a similar event (Continental Basalt Flood Eruption) on the earth today is the east african rift system....Yellowstone also has that potential, but the last couple eruptions have been more explosive and rhyolitic (like Mt. St. Helens times a few orders of magnitude).
That said, I haven't heard of any indications that such an event is likely soon (even when soon is taken in the context of the geological time scale). CBFE's are very rare (thank goodness!).
Not only is the parent offtopic (note: "cable", whereas article refers to broadcast TV), but a one line personal anecdote is not worthly of + moderation in the first place.
The volcanic activity on the opposite side of the earth after an impact is an interesting topic, which hopefully somebody will do a detailed study on someday.
Just looking at the paleogeography globe illustrations I have available, it seems that Chicxulub and Deccan were closer to opposite sides of the world (150-160deg), while Bedout and Siberia were both at about the same paleolongitude but about 130-140deg from each other.
I'm wondering if an impact would have enough force to produce a large enough shockwave that it would drive mantle material upwards on (roughly) the opposite side of the planet. At first thought I'd think not, but it's possible.
There would probably be some time delay (for displaced magma to melt up through the crust). The main Deccan event (KT boundary event) occured ~300kyrs after Chicxulub, although there was a small pulse of volcanism roughly coincident with the strike.
Disclaimer: I am a geologist, but this particular subject is not my speciality.
Yes, linger. The vertical velocity of the rocket decreases to 0 at the top of its trajectory and then accelerates downward due to gravity, therefore the rocket will spend a longer time at the top than at any other point in its journey (besides the ground...). Thus linger is the appropriate term.
If people simply did studies of how many women are being raped and then posted headlines: "RAPE RATE INCREASING!!!!" without doing anything else, that would be comparable to these global warming studies. But in the case of rape, people actually are doing something substantive about the problem. This is not so with global warming, where people insist on being alarmists.
I never stated that we shouldn't try to alleviate global warming. In fact I'm all for reducing whatever emmissions we can, but there is no way we can have a zero impact society. Thus we have to cope with the changes we cause or become extinct, as do all other organisms on the planet (as unfortunateas that may be).
In the end reckoning, despite our technology and global influence we still are at the whim of natural global climate (iceage and hothouse cycles), not to mention the periodic catastophic events that are common to our planet (asteroids, comets, supervolcanoes). The mass extinctions in the past were far more complete than anything we could cause even if we were trying to wipe out all other life on the planet (the Permian extinction event, for example, wiped out >75% of all prexisting species).
I have to say I agree completely with the analysis given. The difference is that I think all of those things are good things, whereas Mr. Brown thinks they're bad (or is being paid to say so).
The economy in general is very resilient. Yes, some companies may fail to adapt to the changing business climate and fail, but new companies will take their place. Big companies might be able to fight the changes for a while, but in the end change is inexorable and those who embrace it will prosper.
By this point everybody (except some stubborn idiots) admits that the earth is getting warmer. The real question is: Why?
I'm fairly sick of new studies coming out every couple weeks proving once and for all that the earth is getting warmer. Maybe some more of those research dollars should be devoted to understanding why the warming is occuring and developing ways to cope with a warmer earth, rather than redundantly measuring the temperature via every possible method and then shouting: "GLOBAL WARMING!!!! GLOBAL WARMING!!!!"
Coke is obviously going to track where the winning cans are distributed so they can have the prize stationed nearby, soooo....
Who ever wins should mess with them by finding to the most remote location they can get a cell signal before pushing the button. Go to Nome, or Yellowknife, or park a boat offshore somewhere.
As a geologist the formations in the center of the crater look like small star dunes to me. They form when winds come from multiple directions, such as the swirling winds you would get in a crater.
There are microbes everywhere, there are microbes in YOU. And most families of bacteria have at least one species the is pathogenic. Until somebody does a real study that shows that dirty shower curtains are linked to disease, I'll refrain from burning my shower curtain after each shower. If somebody did a culture from your toothbrush, dishes, or keyboard I bet you would find pretty much the same thing.
The difference here may be the weight of the object. I doubt the spy satellite film capsules weighed 420 pounds (but I couldn't find any data on what they did weigh).
Still the whole helocopter stunt does seem to be a complicated way to deorbit a payload...why not just make it waterproof, give it a bigger parachute, and have it splash down in the Pacific?
Everybody tries to make this distinction, but they all fail to remember that humans are a natural part of the earth's ecosystem. So what if we're capable of altering the climate on a global scale?...that doen't make us alien to nature. Any significantly large population will alter it's environment, and we owe our existance to that fact, since it was early populations of photosynthetic organisms that were responsible for our Oxygen rich atmosphere. People need to remember that the earth is constantly changing. All the organisms living here either must adapt or become extinct, just like they have for all of time. Humans have done more damage trying to stop "natural" changes than the "natural" changes do themselves....just look at all the coastal and riverine engineering we do that ends up backfiring with massive flooding and coastal erosion gone wild. Now, before I get flamed by econuts, that doesn't mean we should just trash the place...since we'd basically be killing ourselves. But we can't expect to stop natural processes that have been going on for eons, to "preserve" the earth as it was when we started keeping track of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Then it's:
AFFFFLAAAACK!
(sorry, couldn't help it...please don't hurt me)
That analogy would work, except that Lucas created it...he didn't buy it. If you create a masterpiece you can do whatever the hell you want with it, including destroying it.
(note: the above comment does not infer I think SW is or is not a masterpiece, so no flaming fanboys/antifanboys please)
"800 pound gorilla"
That was a Wookie, not a gorilla.
For the physics of women click here
Starbucks does pay better than your average food serving chain, but all the Big Evil Corp BS is still there. Any differing from the company policy is quickly stiffled, and most employees burn out, get fed up and leave within about a year.
While they don't undercut on prices, they do flood the market (they build so many stores that they actually take their own business). Out west they aren't as dominant because were many preexisting shops with loyal customers, but in the east they are the only game in town and nobody else can get started.
Note: I've never worked there but know several people who have.
No, you're not. Despite having been at college (undergrad and grad) for 7 years straight now I'm still coffee free.
Not that interesting...unless you like tinfoil hats....
You're correct that most oil doesn't orginate from dinosaur era plant life, most of it is (or was before we burned it) older than that. Aboitic oil formation however does not account for any significant amount of oil.
Oil does not only form from marine life, so primordial seas are irrelevant. The basins are so deep because they have been buried by miles and miles of sediment being continuously deposited over millions of years. In fact it is the burial (heat + pressure, you were partly right about that) that produces oil from the organic matter, so all oil originates fairly deep. Oil that is found in shallower rocks has migrated upwards over time due to it's low density or the rocks themselves have been uplifted.
The rocks that the oil is found in (reservoir rock) is not usually the rock that the oil formed from (source rock) and remains of life are often found in reservoir and source rocks (which is why oil companies are the main employers of paleontologists) so that part is just plain wrong.
I don't know what the statement about chondrites is based on, but about the only thing carbonaceous chondrites have in common with oil is carbon and oxygen, so by that reckoning oil is consistent with the makeup of cement or cardboard. The isotopic signatures of carbon and oxygen will be very different in a chondrite than in organic matter though, and oil's signature matches what would be expected from an organic origin.
Disclaimer: IAA(Geologist), but not a paleotologist, and I don't work for an oil company.
...is what SC map is that in #2?
Come on...somebody besides me has to recognize it....
A simple look at my number (155867) compared to yours (662830) will show you that you are mistaken.
The most likely place for a similar event (Continental Basalt Flood Eruption) on the earth today is the east african rift system....Yellowstone also has that potential, but the last couple eruptions have been more explosive and rhyolitic (like Mt. St. Helens times a few orders of magnitude).
That said, I haven't heard of any indications that such an event is likely soon (even when soon is taken in the context of the geological time scale). CBFE's are very rare (thank goodness!).
Sombody with mod points, correct this injustice.
Not only is the parent offtopic (note: "cable", whereas article refers to broadcast TV), but a one line personal anecdote is not worthly of + moderation in the first place.
"I know expecting the editors to RTFA is too much to ask"
No, it's not. That's what an editor's job IS. Print editors (good ones at least) don't just print whatever gets handed to them...they check it first.
The volcanic activity on the opposite side of the earth after an impact is an interesting topic, which hopefully somebody will do a detailed study on someday.
Just looking at the paleogeography globe illustrations I have available, it seems that Chicxulub and Deccan were closer to opposite sides of the world (150-160deg), while Bedout and Siberia were both at about the same paleolongitude but about 130-140deg from each other.
I'm wondering if an impact would have enough force to produce a large enough shockwave that it would drive mantle material upwards on (roughly) the opposite side of the planet. At first thought I'd think not, but it's possible.
There would probably be some time delay (for displaced magma to melt up through the crust). The main Deccan event (KT boundary event) occured ~300kyrs after Chicxulub, although there was a small pulse of volcanism roughly coincident with the strike.
Disclaimer: I am a geologist, but this particular subject is not my speciality.
Yes, linger. The vertical velocity of the rocket decreases to 0 at the top of its trajectory and then accelerates downward due to gravity, therefore the rocket will spend a longer time at the top than at any other point in its journey (besides the ground...). Thus linger is the appropriate term.
Your rape analogy is flawed.
If people simply did studies of how many women are being raped and then posted headlines: "RAPE RATE INCREASING!!!!" without doing anything else, that would be comparable to these global warming studies. But in the case of rape, people actually are doing something substantive about the problem. This is not so with global warming, where people insist on being alarmists.
I never stated that we shouldn't try to alleviate global warming. In fact I'm all for reducing whatever emmissions we can, but there is no way we can have a zero impact society. Thus we have to cope with the changes we cause or become extinct, as do all other organisms on the planet (as unfortunateas that may be).
In the end reckoning, despite our technology and global influence we still are at the whim of natural global climate (iceage and hothouse cycles), not to mention the periodic catastophic events that are common to our planet (asteroids, comets, supervolcanoes). The mass extinctions in the past were far more complete than anything we could cause even if we were trying to wipe out all other life on the planet (the Permian extinction event, for example, wiped out >75% of all prexisting species).
I have to say I agree completely with the analysis given. The difference is that I think all of those things are good things, whereas Mr. Brown thinks they're bad (or is being paid to say so).
The economy in general is very resilient. Yes, some companies may fail to adapt to the changing business climate and fail, but new companies will take their place. Big companies might be able to fight the changes for a while, but in the end change is inexorable and those who embrace it will prosper.
By this point everybody (except some stubborn idiots) admits that the earth is getting warmer. The real question is: Why?
I'm fairly sick of new studies coming out every couple weeks proving once and for all that the earth is getting warmer. Maybe some more of those research dollars should be devoted to understanding why the warming is occuring and developing ways to cope with a warmer earth, rather than redundantly measuring the temperature via every possible method and then shouting: "GLOBAL WARMING!!!! GLOBAL WARMING!!!!"
Coke is obviously going to track where the winning cans are distributed so they can have the prize stationed nearby, soooo....
Who ever wins should mess with them by finding to the most remote location they can get a cell signal before pushing the button. Go to Nome, or Yellowknife, or park a boat offshore somewhere.
If you had read the article you would see they did. It's shockwave they didn't install.
As a geologist the formations in the center of the crater look like small star dunes to me. They form when winds come from multiple directions, such as the swirling winds you would get in a crater.
There are microbes everywhere, there are microbes in YOU. And most families of bacteria have at least one species the is pathogenic. Until somebody does a real study that shows that dirty shower curtains are linked to disease, I'll refrain from burning my shower curtain after each shower. If somebody did a culture from your toothbrush, dishes, or keyboard I bet you would find pretty much the same thing.
Must be a slow news day...
The difference here may be the weight of the object. I doubt the spy satellite film capsules weighed 420 pounds (but I couldn't find any data on what they did weigh).
Still the whole helocopter stunt does seem to be a complicated way to deorbit a payload...why not just make it waterproof, give it a bigger parachute, and have it splash down in the Pacific?
RTFA...
It was conceived in 1963, but not born until May 1, 1964.
"is it nature or is it humans"
Everybody tries to make this distinction, but they all fail to remember that humans are a natural part of the earth's ecosystem. So what if we're capable of altering the climate on a global scale?...that doen't make us alien to nature.
Any significantly large population will alter it's environment, and we owe our existance to that fact, since it was early populations of photosynthetic organisms that were responsible for our Oxygen rich atmosphere.
People need to remember that the earth is constantly changing. All the organisms living here either must adapt or become extinct, just like they have for all of time.
Humans have done more damage trying to stop "natural" changes than the "natural" changes do themselves....just look at all the coastal and riverine engineering we do that ends up backfiring with massive flooding and coastal erosion gone wild.
Now, before I get flamed by econuts, that doesn't mean we should just trash the place...since we'd basically be killing ourselves. But we can't expect to stop natural processes that have been going on for eons, to "preserve" the earth as it was when we started keeping track of it.
That's why you need a comprehensive external review of the voting machines inner workings prior to them being certified for use.