Now, you can't breath air (for long) at 3 psi, it won't have enough O2 in it, so you make it pure O2.
Why? Is there some reason you *want* to go balls-deep? Why not just make it 50-50 oxygen and air, or whatever the minimum amount the astronauts needed +10% or something?
Like if you hand it a book of chess rules it should be able to work out by itself that an opening book is useful, maybe an end-game database, maybe some brute force search, some positional analysis, monte carlo searches, neural nets, whatever.
Did you figure these things out on your own, or read them somewhere, or someone told you?
For anyone who wants to enjoy playing chess, I don't think memorizing a book full of openings is going to be "obvious."
Magellan (well, some of his men, technically) completed his circumnavigation in 1522, a few decades after Columbus, who didn't circumnavigate shit. He went out and came back. I would guess that Tyson meant, "it wasn't proven experimentally that the earth was round until 500 years ago" (494 to be exact).
The first person known to have proposed a heliocentric system, however, was Aristarchus of Samos (c. 270 BC).
No of course not--don't be ridiculous. We are known to, however, find surprising loopholes from time to time, that lead to reconsidering theories formerly considered set in stone. Not to dismiss them*, but to revise and make them more accurate.
The very spirit of science is skepticism. And you're bashing me because I still think surprising discoveries might be made at some point in the future? Get real. One can be skeptical without diving into "the land of magical unicorns," as you put it.
I say good day, sir.
* Have we dismissed Newtonian physics already? Superseded by relativity? I'm not cozy with the terminology.
For the record, I have no problem with the universe being filled with life. I suspect it's rather common, but given what we know about the reality of physics, chemistry, biology and engineering, these aliens won't have any better technology than we do.
given what we know
Who's the "space nutter" now?
So sorry, no magical materials, no magical energy sources, no force fields, no tractor beams, no transporters, no Dyson spheres.
Just because we don't currently know how to do it doesn't make it impossible, no matter how much you whine about "space nutters" (A.K.A. optimists). Scientists have already figured out how to transmit information via quantum entanglement. Is it really so hard to believe that in another few hundred years that could maybe be developed into a transporter?
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
I'm not sure whether EzInKy was using "discovery" in the vernacular or legal sense. In any case I was using the common English definition of the word. I blame OP for trying to draw a distinction in an insufficiently clear context;)
As you and the other guy said, it's not a question of whether they had sex, but whether it was consensual. I was trying to make a distinction between "hard evidence" and "he said/she said" and it appears my mentioning of DNA spectacularly failed to convey that:P
One of my favorites I've seen recently near me, is major city street intersections where one side of the 4-way is an on and off ramp for a highway. And of course the several lanes leading up to the intersection are straight/turn-only so if you can't figure out which one you need to be in in advance, you're screwed.
And good luck finding a left turn where you can turn around when you make the wrong choice. Direct left turn nope, then you turn off on the right, do a U-turn, then realize that coming back out, you have to turn right again anyway. Because there's nothing I love better than when I take a wrong turn, the road rubs it in my face and forces me to drive out for a few miles in order to turn around.
And it's always fun when you're driving along in unfamiliar territory and you come across some new and exciting "safer" type of intersection that you have to figure out as you're coming towards it at 30mph and it's got lanes and turns and signs diverging in several directions.
Slashdot Mirror
wrote two words on a blackboard, to NEVER be erased..."tough & competent".
I suppose that reads better than "do your fucking job; don't cut corners." Although it doesn't really convey the same amount of information...
Patriotism & Righteousness!
Now, you can't breath air (for long) at 3 psi, it won't have enough O2 in it, so you make it pure O2.
Why? Is there some reason you *want* to go balls-deep? Why not just make it 50-50 oxygen and air, or whatever the minimum amount the astronauts needed +10% or something?
There were very good reasons to use a pure oxygen atmosphere.
Such as...?
Like if you hand it a book of chess rules it should be able to work out by itself that an opening book is useful, maybe an end-game database, maybe some brute force search, some positional analysis, monte carlo searches, neural nets, whatever.
Did you figure these things out on your own, or read them somewhere, or someone told you?
For anyone who wants to enjoy playing chess, I don't think memorizing a book full of openings is going to be "obvious."
How about any source that isn't a blog or religious organization webpage? (heck this one even has "blog" in the URL)
Hey look, I can do the same thing, only in the opposite direction.
Which is extremely silly
20/20 hindsight
because there are Central American ruins with old Hebrew wording etched into the stone
Citation direly needed
Magellan (well, some of his men, technically) completed his circumnavigation in 1522, a few decades after Columbus, who didn't circumnavigate shit. He went out and came back. I would guess that Tyson meant, "it wasn't proven experimentally that the earth was round until 500 years ago" (494 to be exact).
The first person known to have proposed a heliocentric system, however, was Aristarchus of Samos (c. 270 BC).
Louie, Louie contains *any* lyrics?
When have you seen inflation at 625%? Is the "byte inflation" at 625%? This is a 625% increase of the standard for downloads.
If you were familiar with the history of (even just personal) computing you wouldn't find this ridiculous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What if you go with your family on a trip and your a self driving car suddenly
Do you often have a problem with suddenly becoming a self-driving car? Sounds like you should see a doctor about that.
You can run a terminal instance within emacs, on which you can open another instance of emacs.
Of course it screws up the key chords because you have to specify whether they're for the inner or outer emacs.
Because nobody's thought of code analysis before.
I'm skeptical trying to design an AI to do it would be any easier or more effective than what we're already doing.
Assuming that species advanced enough in inter-system space travel are still interested in war...
One would kind of hope not.
No of course not--don't be ridiculous. We are known to, however, find surprising loopholes from time to time, that lead to reconsidering theories formerly considered set in stone. Not to dismiss them*, but to revise and make them more accurate.
The very spirit of science is skepticism. And you're bashing me because I still think surprising discoveries might be made at some point in the future? Get real. One can be skeptical without diving into "the land of magical unicorns," as you put it.
I say good day, sir.
* Have we dismissed Newtonian physics already? Superseded by relativity? I'm not cozy with the terminology.
I know we have limited understanding of science.
Well, at least I do. Apparently you and Tenebrousedge know everything there is to know about the universe. Obviously I defer to your omniscience.
Thanks, Nostradamus.
Often the person who best understands how sucky J Random Thing is, is the one who has the most experience with it.
Not everything is bigotry FFS.
It's called "sunk costs."
As opposed to what? "If it's aliens we can't even speculate." *throws up hands*
Granted the whole line of reasoning isn't particularly productive from a scientific standpoint, perhaps.
and a huge meat eater apparently
I can't figure out why either interpretation of that would necessarily be a bad thing. Elaborate?
For the record, I have no problem with the universe being filled with life. I suspect it's rather common, but given what we know about the reality of physics, chemistry, biology and engineering, these aliens won't have any better technology than we do.
given what we know
Who's the "space nutter" now?
So sorry, no magical materials, no magical energy sources, no force fields, no tractor beams, no transporters, no Dyson spheres.
Just because we don't currently know how to do it doesn't make it impossible, no matter how much you whine about "space nutters" (A.K.A. optimists). Scientists have already figured out how to transmit information via quantum entanglement. Is it really so hard to believe that in another few hundred years that could maybe be developed into a transporter?
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
I'm not sure whether EzInKy was using "discovery" in the vernacular or legal sense. In any case I was using the common English definition of the word. I blame OP for trying to draw a distinction in an insufficiently clear context ;)
As you and the other guy said, it's not a question of whether they had sex, but whether it was consensual. I was trying to make a distinction between "hard evidence" and "he said/she said" and it appears my mentioning of DNA spectacularly failed to convey that :P
Captain Pedant (me), awaaaaaay!
So we can get screwed over even harder by the private sector instead of screwed over by both the government and PS. Hmm.
One of my favorites I've seen recently near me, is major city street intersections where one side of the 4-way is an on and off ramp for a highway. And of course the several lanes leading up to the intersection are straight/turn-only so if you can't figure out which one you need to be in in advance, you're screwed.
And good luck finding a left turn where you can turn around when you make the wrong choice. Direct left turn nope, then you turn off on the right, do a U-turn, then realize that coming back out, you have to turn right again anyway. Because there's nothing I love better than when I take a wrong turn, the road rubs it in my face and forces me to drive out for a few miles in order to turn around.
And it's always fun when you're driving along in unfamiliar territory and you come across some new and exciting "safer" type of intersection that you have to figure out as you're coming towards it at 30mph and it's got lanes and turns and signs diverging in several directions.