Haven't there been a few stories recently on the "no possibility of rehabilitation" part? When your M.O. is kill the zombies on sight, how are you ever going to know if you can help them?
a) If I do indeed have a bomb then unless I'm incredibly stupid it's either going to go off when I die (something akin to a deadman switch), or it's not going to matter whether I'm alive or dead (sms from my boss setting it off). b) The point of security is to find bombs, if people who had bombs told you about them, we could skip the security checkpoint entirely. If you have a bomb, they'll find it. If you don't have a bomb they won't find one. c) Overreacting is never a good idea.
You are aware that making a joke about a bomb won't make a bomb appear in my luggage. I could in fact make jokes about killing you all day with no ill effects other than you getting pissed off at me (maybe some hearing damage if I make the jokes exceptionally loud.)
"created in a lab and seeded onto earth" has absolutely no evidence to back it up. Ignoring the fact that you don't understand the second law of thermodynamics, flowering plants have the advantage of promoting genetic diversity, which has allowed them to evolve faster and be more adaptable to the conditions in which they're trying to live.
It would be a problem because if we go looking for life we'll find the contaminations we brought, and it'll be difficult to tell if life arose on Europa or not. As they're not landing I assume they won't be sterilizing the craft at all. Why would we sterilize the planet? The last question is interesting, we could use the same techniques we plan on using to find life on the planet to see if any show up on the spacecraft, although no matter how good you can do it, the possibility remains that in (some) years time better techniques will be developed and we'll want to try again. Then we'll have difficulty determining if the life we find grew there on its own, or came from the last lander.
If we actually had Keynesianism maybe we could "prove" that it works. Everyone wants to spend money in a recession, but no one wants to stop the spending when the economy starts to turn good again. Hence we get these booms, which inevitably lead to busts.
I'm not sure if I'm missing your sarcasm, but I'm fairly certain he wasn't being sarcastic. The big V-8s in American trucks produce more torque at low revs than smaller engines, but less power at high revs. They could easily have smaller diesel engines, with the same torque, more power, and less fuel consumption. The older Fords with the 7.3 L diesel show that it can be done (albeit with far more engine than most pickup drivers need.)
We are indeed "mere stewards of the planet". Which is why we should be looking at the safest and most efficient means of generating the power we use. (i.e. nuclear)
Things like this will happen from time to time, which is why the system is built to remain safe for four days after a loss of power (and probably quite a bit longer than that in extreme conditions.) Granted, it would be a lot more preferable to have a passive cooling system so you don't even care if your power gets knocked out, but then you run into problems with environmentalists screaming "no new nukes" at you, so we'll do our best to keep these old bastards running as long as we can.
a) The speed at which gravity propagates really is a mystery....
b) The Sun didn't spring into existence from nothingness, matter came together and started fusion-ing itself 4.6 billion years ago, but the matter existed (and had gravitational pull) before that happened, so even if gravity does propagate at the speed of light, and you somehow managed to get 4.7 billion light-years away from the sun (in less than 100 million years) you'd still be feeling the gravity of the stuff that made up the sun.
There are two major hurdles that come to me immediately that make the kind of study you suggest practical: 1. Evolution doesn't happen quickly, it takes many generations. Using fast breeding species, like flies, is one way to get some results in a "reasonable" period of time. You can also look at historical accounts: breeding wild dogs into the range of dogs we see today, for instance. We can predict that breeding small dogs with other small dogs will eventually get you really tiny dogs, can you imagine something like a teacup chihuahua surviving in the wild? 2. The interesting parts of evolution are pretty much random. The feathers that appeared on dinosaurs could not have been predicted, they just happened one day and now we have birds. Around the time of the industrial revolution there were white moths who could camoflage themselves on the predominantly white trees in the area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution). Luckily for them, there was a freak mutation that turned some of them black, allowing them to hide against trees covered in coal dust. A scientist would predict that these moths would just go extinct (or at least not live around coaly areas) but the unexpected changes have altered their evolutionary course completely.
One of the reasons "dirty" tech is cheaper is because you're making other people pay for the consequences of your actions. I could save myself some money on trash pickup if I just throw all my trash into my neighbors yard, but as a society we've decided that you're not allowed to shove your problems onto other people like that. We're not artificially raising prices, we're just making people pay for what they're already using.
The article isn't explicit, but it's not uncommon for people who like these high-stakes poker games to play heads-up. Most of the famous poker players will tell stories about how some super-rich dude wanted to play poker one-on-one with them and ended up losing some obscene amount of money.
That's what I thought at first, but if you read to the end of the summary, you'll find out that they're actually talking about how calls drop unexpectedly all the time any way so, the person on the other end is never sure if you hung up on them or if the call just dropped.
Well, for the sodium it'd be easier to weigh it, but chlorine is gaseous at normal conditions so a volumetric measurement would be easier, which is a proxy for counting the atoms.
Firstly, a lot of people do use their belief in God to harm others, from opposing gay marriage to the twin tower attack, belief has caused a lot of harm.
Secondly, 'belief' in the Big Bang is different from belief in God, in that if a scientist discovered something which would make the Big Bang an unlikely explanation we'd all say 'oh, ok' and start believing the new hypothesis. There are still people trying to argue that the Earth is only 6,000 years old...
Interesting side note, my iPhone capitalized Big Bang for me, but not God...
Slashdot Mirror
Haven't there been a few stories recently on the "no possibility of rehabilitation" part? When your M.O. is kill the zombies on sight, how are you ever going to know if you can help them?
a) If I do indeed have a bomb then unless I'm incredibly stupid it's either going to go off when I die (something akin to a deadman switch), or it's not going to matter whether I'm alive or dead (sms from my boss setting it off).
b) The point of security is to find bombs, if people who had bombs told you about them, we could skip the security checkpoint entirely. If you have a bomb, they'll find it. If you don't have a bomb they won't find one.
c) Overreacting is never a good idea.
You are aware that making a joke about a bomb won't make a bomb appear in my luggage. I could in fact make jokes about killing you all day with no ill effects other than you getting pissed off at me (maybe some hearing damage if I make the jokes exceptionally loud.)
People should be killed for making bad jokes?
The X-ray machine for the bags, and the metal detector for the people are all you need to find guns. All the rest of it is just theatre.
"created in a lab and seeded onto earth" has absolutely no evidence to back it up. Ignoring the fact that you don't understand the second law of thermodynamics, flowering plants have the advantage of promoting genetic diversity, which has allowed them to evolve faster and be more adaptable to the conditions in which they're trying to live.
If you weighed in at 508 pounds you probably broke the scale...
It would be a problem because if we go looking for life we'll find the contaminations we brought, and it'll be difficult to tell if life arose on Europa or not.
As they're not landing I assume they won't be sterilizing the craft at all.
Why would we sterilize the planet?
The last question is interesting, we could use the same techniques we plan on using to find life on the planet to see if any show up on the spacecraft, although no matter how good you can do it, the possibility remains that in (some) years time better techniques will be developed and we'll want to try again. Then we'll have difficulty determining if the life we find grew there on its own, or came from the last lander.
Fun fact: Water vapour comes from heating up water. It's called a feedback loop. Once you kick it off it keeps going all by itself.
If we actually had Keynesianism maybe we could "prove" that it works. Everyone wants to spend money in a recession, but no one wants to stop the spending when the economy starts to turn good again. Hence we get these booms, which inevitably lead to busts.
I'm not sure if I'm missing your sarcasm, but I'm fairly certain he wasn't being sarcastic. The big V-8s in American trucks produce more torque at low revs than smaller engines, but less power at high revs. They could easily have smaller diesel engines, with the same torque, more power, and less fuel consumption. The older Fords with the 7.3 L diesel show that it can be done (albeit with far more engine than most pickup drivers need.)
I laugh at your puny 65.5 mw laser: http://www.wickedlasers.com.hk/krypton
We've all wanted smart watches since Q gave the first one to 007. It has taken a while, but I'm glad my dreams will finally come true.
We are indeed "mere stewards of the planet". Which is why we should be looking at the safest and most efficient means of generating the power we use. (i.e. nuclear)
Things like this will happen from time to time, which is why the system is built to remain safe for four days after a loss of power (and probably quite a bit longer than that in extreme conditions.) Granted, it would be a lot more preferable to have a passive cooling system so you don't even care if your power gets knocked out, but then you run into problems with environmentalists screaming "no new nukes" at you, so we'll do our best to keep these old bastards running as long as we can.
a) The speed at which gravity propagates really is a mystery....
b) The Sun didn't spring into existence from nothingness, matter came together and started fusion-ing itself 4.6 billion years ago, but the matter existed (and had gravitational pull) before that happened, so even if gravity does propagate at the speed of light, and you somehow managed to get 4.7 billion light-years away from the sun (in less than 100 million years) you'd still be feeling the gravity of the stuff that made up the sun.
So if bush was a big government, overspending so and so, and Obama isn't Bush 2.0, does that mean that Obama is a small-government conservative?
Yeah, people were complaining about that panorama app last week, but that was at least interesting. This is just a lame joke about a stereotype.
This isn't the exact study I was thinking about, but it makes some of the same points: http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/sexually-precocious-super-flies-decoded/
There are two major hurdles that come to me immediately that make the kind of study you suggest practical:
1. Evolution doesn't happen quickly, it takes many generations. Using fast breeding species, like flies, is one way to get some results in a "reasonable" period of time. You can also look at historical accounts: breeding wild dogs into the range of dogs we see today, for instance. We can predict that breeding small dogs with other small dogs will eventually get you really tiny dogs, can you imagine something like a teacup chihuahua surviving in the wild?
2. The interesting parts of evolution are pretty much random. The feathers that appeared on dinosaurs could not have been predicted, they just happened one day and now we have birds. Around the time of the industrial revolution there were white moths who could camoflage themselves on the predominantly white trees in the area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution). Luckily for them, there was a freak mutation that turned some of them black, allowing them to hide against trees covered in coal dust. A scientist would predict that these moths would just go extinct (or at least not live around coaly areas) but the unexpected changes have altered their evolutionary course completely.
One of the reasons "dirty" tech is cheaper is because you're making other people pay for the consequences of your actions. I could save myself some money on trash pickup if I just throw all my trash into my neighbors yard, but as a society we've decided that you're not allowed to shove your problems onto other people like that. We're not artificially raising prices, we're just making people pay for what they're already using.
The article isn't explicit, but it's not uncommon for people who like these high-stakes poker games to play heads-up. Most of the famous poker players will tell stories about how some super-rich dude wanted to play poker one-on-one with them and ended up losing some obscene amount of money.
That's what I thought at first, but if you read to the end of the summary, you'll find out that they're actually talking about how calls drop unexpectedly all the time any way so, the person on the other end is never sure if you hung up on them or if the call just dropped.
Doesn't even have to be fresh. I left a Twinkie sitting out for a year and it still tasted amazing.
Obligatory? http://theoatmeal.com/pl/state_web_winter_2012/twinkies
Well, for the sodium it'd be easier to weigh it, but chlorine is gaseous at normal conditions so a volumetric measurement would be easier, which is a proxy for counting the atoms.
Two points:
Firstly, a lot of people do use their belief in God to harm others, from opposing gay marriage to the twin tower attack, belief has caused a lot of harm.
Secondly, 'belief' in the Big Bang is different from belief in God, in that if a scientist discovered something which would make the Big Bang an unlikely explanation we'd all say 'oh, ok' and start believing the new hypothesis. There are still people trying to argue that the Earth is only 6,000 years old...
Interesting side note, my iPhone capitalized Big Bang for me, but not God...