"Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the serious hindering without right of the functioning of a computer system by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data."
When will things have gone far enough to justify a revolution? We are taliking about basic rights and freedoms here! These are rights and freedoms that PEOPLE DIED FOR!!!!Earlier today there was an anouncement on slashdot that now even math can be patented. Governmnet and corperations can now TELL US WHAT WE CAN DO WITH OUR OWN THOUGHTS AND IDEAS!!!Now we will be loosing our right to laywer clien confidentiality! This is argualby one of the most basic rights that we have! so when will the relolution come? how much longer can this go on? I say that a revolution would be moraly acceptable now. I do not think that that would be the most likely way to achieve the goal of getting our freedoms back. Nor do I think it would be the best way. I do however think that RIGHT NOW a revolution would be acceptable. That is scarry! If and when the revolution comes I suggest that the DOJ is the first against the wall. Then the Republicans. Then The Democrats. Then Microsoft! Wohoo! Just what I think.
Actually this happened once. We have the cable burried wherever we can. However for various reasons it comes out in the middle of the yard. My mom hit it with the weed wacker. It actually survived the attack though. So we taped it up and its still working.
I actually have a "Network Neighborhood"!! It is not that hard to do. Me and a friend live two doors down. We asked the neigbors if it was ok if we ran a cable across their yard. They said Yes. So we went to our friendly local computer dealer asked for 270 feet of network cable. He pluged it into his computer I plugged it into my hub. Click a few widgets and BOOM BANG We have a NAN.
I am a student. As such I have NO MONNEY! These kinds of ads will directly bennifit me. Tell me what student is going to complain about $100 bucks being knocked off of his/her tuition? Ya sure I don't apreciate the ads that are now everywhere in our lives. However, most of those ads bennifit someone else. These are for our financial(or quality of education) bennifit. Besides ads are already everywhere. I think for the most part we just ignore them. A few more are not going to make a major effect on our spending habits.
The code is just algorithms (math) but the program is the art (speech). Take DECSS, the code is just an algorithm but the program is making a statemnet hence it is speach.
For heavens sake slashdot make up your mind! I cant count the number of times that it has been repeated again and again that code is artistic expression. Slashdot insists that it is Free Speech and should not be restricted (ie DECSS). Now that it is convenient for Code to be "fancy math" with just the whim of a moderator or to Code turns into "fancy math". So which is it slashdot: Math or Free Speech?
There should be software that basically monitors what comes through the modem and saves it to the hard drive. The content could be password protected so a child cant delete it. The parent could then enter the password and have the program take the parent on a "walk in the steps (umm surfs) of the child". Basically the program would be like a replay of what the child saw. If such software exists let me know if not then lets program it.
I also would like to give money to artists when I enjoy their songs. However I want to give monney to the artist and NOT EMI or any other big label. ESPECIALY when those companies go arround restricting my freedoms.
The FTAA stands for Free Trade Area of the Americas. It will be in effect by 2005. Under that law, like the NAFTA, Any law that interfears with the profits of a corperation is deamed illegal. An example of this is: Here in Canada all mail is handled by a government agency. That agency is being sued under NAFTA by UPS because it interfears with their profits. This agreement(FTAA) is an attack on the sovernty of every country (except Cuba) in N & S America. This free software law would be illegal under the terms of FTAA because it would interfear with the profits of corperations like Microsoft. This is only one reason there was such a large protest against the FTAA in Quebec at the summit of the Americas.
Free trade is good.
Giving the US absolute control over the entire Hemisphere is very very bad.
I am not full of "Bullshit". Do you think I just made this stuff up. I just happend to "pull this out of the ass" of Dr. Hugh Ross. Dr. Hugh Ross is an award winning astrophsisyst who recieved his education at the university of Toronto. Furthermore, he is listed as one of the worlds 50 most influential people. So unless you are an astrophysysist yourself I dont believe you are qualified to comment on how his arguments for how "fine tuned" things need to be for life are "bullshit"! here is a list quoted directly from his website:
"Evidence for the fine-tuning of the galaxy-sun-earth-moon system for life support
The following parameters of a planet, its moon, its star, and its galaxy must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for life of any kind to exist. Characteristics #2 and #3 have been repeated from Table 4 since they apply to both the universe and the galaxy.
galaxy size
if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun's orbit and ignite too many galactic eruptions.
if too small: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for long enough time.
galaxy type
if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element build-up for life chemistry.
if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available.
galaxy location
if too close to a rich galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted
if too close to very large galaxy(ies): galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted.
supernovae eruptions
if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets.
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets.
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated.
if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets.
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation.
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient flourine would be produced for life chemistry to proceed.
if too many: planetary orbits disrupted by stellar density; life on planet would be exterminated.
if too soon: not enough heavy elements would be made for efficient flourine production.
if too late: flourine would be made too late for incorporation in protoplanet.
proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption
if farther: insufficient heavy elements for life would be absorbed.
if closer: nebula would be blown apart.
timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption
if earlier: nebula would be blown apart.
if later:: nebula would not absorb enough heavy elements.
parent star distance from center of galaxy
if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets.
if closer: galactic radiation would be too great; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits
parent star distance from closest spiral arm
if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets.
if closer: radiation from other stars would be too great; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits.
z-axis heights of star's orbit
if too large: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be too great.
number of stars in the planetary system
if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits.
if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life.
parent star birth date
if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; stellar system would contain too many heavy elements.
if less recent: stellar system would not contain enough heavy elements.
parent star age
if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
parent star mass
if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would burn too rapidly.
if less: luminosity of star would change too slowly; range of planet distances for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the life planet's rotational period; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen.
parent star metallicity
if too small: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist.
if too large: radioactivity would be too intense for life; life would be poisoned by heavy element concentrations.
parent star color
if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
H3+ production
if too small: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life chemistry will not form.
if too large: planets will form at wrong time and place for life.
parent star luminosity relative to speciation
if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop.
if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop.
surface gravity (escape velocity)
if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane.
if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water.
distance from parent star
if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle.
if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle.
inclination of orbit
if too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme.
orbital eccentricity
if too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.
axial tilt
if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great.
if less: surface temperature differences would be too great.
rate of change of axial tilt
if greater: climatic changes would be too extreme; surface temperature differences would become too extreme.
rotation period
if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great.
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.
rate of change in rotation period
if longer: surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained.
if shorter: surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained.
age
if too young: planet would rotate too rapidly.
if too old: planet would rotate too slowly.
magnetic field
if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe.
if weaker: ozone shield would be inadequately protected from hard stellar and solar radiation.
thickness of crust
if thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust.
if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.
albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)
if greater: runaway glaciation would develop.
if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
asteroidal and cometary collision rate
if greater: too many species would become extinct.
if less: crust would be too depleted of materials essential for life.
mass of body colliding with primordial earth
if smaller: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick; moon would be too small.
if greater: Earth's orbit and form would be too greatly disturbed.
timing of body colliding with primordial earth.
if earlier: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick; moon would be too small.
if later: sun would be too luminous at epoch for advanced life.
34. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere
if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly.
if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly.
35. carbon dioxide level in atmosphere
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis.
36. water vapor level in atmosphere
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land.
37. atmospheric electric discharge rate
if greater: too much fire destruction would occur.
if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere.
38. ozone level in atmosphere
if greater: surface temperatures would be too low.
if less: surface temperatures would be too high; there would be too much uv radiation at the surface.
39. oxygen quantity in atmosphere
if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily.
if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe.
40. seismic activity
if greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed.
if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to continents through tectonics.
41. oceans-to-continents ratio
if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
if smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
42. rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio
if smaller: advanced life will lack the needed land mass area.
if greater: advanced life would be destroyed by the radical changes.
43. global distribution of continents (for Earth)
if too much in the southern hemisphere: seasonal differences would be too severe for advanced life.
44. frequency and extent of ice ages
if smaller: insufficient fertile, wide, and well-watered valleys produced for diverse and advanced life forms; insufficient mineral concentrations occur for diverse and advanced life.
if greater: planet inevitably experiences runaway freezing.
45. soil mineralization
if too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
if too nutrient rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
46. gravitational interaction with a moon
if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe.
if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient; magnetic field would be too weak.
47. Jupiter distance
if greater: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth.
if less: Earth's orbit would become unstable.
48. Jupiter mass
if greater: Earth's orbit would become unstable.
if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth.
49. drift in major planet distances
if greater: Earth's orbit would become unstable.
if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth.
50. major planet eccentricities
if greater: orbit of life supportable planet would be pulled out of life support zone.
51. major planet orbital instabilities
if greater: orbit of life supportable planet would be pulled out of life support zone.
52. atmospheric pressure
if too small: liquid water will evaporate too easily and condense too infrequently.
if too large: liquid water will not evaporate easily enough for land life; insufficient sunlight reaches planetary surface; insufficient uv radiation reaches planetary surface.
53. atmospheric transparency
if smaller: insufficient range of wavelengths of solar radiation reaches planetary surface
if greater: too broad a range of wavelengths of solar radiation reaches planetary surface.
54. chlorine quantity in atmosphere
if smaller: erosion rates, acidity of rivers, lakes, and soils, and certain metabolic rates would be insufficient for most life forms.
if greater: erosion rates, acidity of rivers, lakes, and soils, and certain metabolic rates would be too high for most life forms.
55. iron quantity in oceans and soils
if smaller: quantity and diversity of life would be too limited for support of advanced life;
if very small, no life would be possible.
if larger: iron poisoning of at least advanced life would result.
56. tropospheric ozone quantity
if smaller: insufficient cleansing of biochemical smogs would result.
if larger: respiratory failure of advanced animals, reduced crop yields, and destruction of ozone-sensitive species would result.
57. stratospheric ozone quantity
if smaller: too much uv radiation reaches planet's surface causing skin cancers and reduced plant growth.
if larger: too little uv radiation reaches planet's surface causing reduced plant growth and insufficient vitamin production for animals.
58. mesospheric ozone quantity
if smaller: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases so disturbed as to upset relative abundances of life essential gases in lower atmosphere.
if greater: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases so disturbed as to upset relative abundances of life essential gases in lower atmosphere.
59. quantity and extent of forest and grass fires
if smaller: growth inhibitors in the soils would accumulate; soil nitrification would be insufficient; insufficient charcoal production for adequate soil water retention and absorption of certain growth inhibitors.
if greater: too many plant and animal life forms would be destroyed
60. quantity of soil sulfur
if smaller: plants will become deficient in certain proteins and die.
if larger: plants will die from sulfur toxins; acidity of water and soil will become too great for life; nitrogen cycles will be disturbed.
61. quantity of sulfur in the life planet's core
if smaller: solid core formation begins too soon causing it to grow too rapidly --disrupts magnetic field.
if larger: sold inner core never forms--disrupts magnetic field.
62. quantity of sea salt aerosols
if smaller: insufficient cloud formation and thus inadequate water cycle; disrupts atmospheric temperature balances.
if larger: too much and too rapid cloud formation over the oceans disrupting the climate; disrupts atmospheric temperature balances.
63. volcanic activity
if lower: insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor would be returned to the atmosphere; soil mineralization would become too degraded for life.
if higher: advanced life, at least, would be destroyed.
64. rate of decline in tectonic activity
if slower: advanced life can never survive on the planet.
if faster: advanced life can never survive on the planet.
65. rate of decline in volcanic activity
if slower: advanced life can never survive on the planet.
if faster: advanced life can never survive on the planet.
66. biomass to minicomet infall ratio
if smaller: greenhouse gases accumulate, triggering runaway surface temperature increase.
if larger: greenhouse gases decline, triggering a runaway freezing."
I have a quote from a qualified professional saying it is so. See if you can do the same.
It was NOT a troll as Im sure you now realize.
Also slashdot is not supposed to moderate based on whether they agree with you or not but on how interresting a post is. I see that this just does not work.
First of all I don't buy into evolution. However that is a different topic. Second this is not a troll I am serious.The point I wish to make here is buy strict odds we should not be here so the chances of there being other life in the universe is slim. For the sake of this post I will even assume evolution can and did take place on earth. When you look into the sky you see thousands of Stars. When you look through a night vision telescope you see millions times that. When you consider that every one of those stars might have 9 planets or more you cant help but wonder if life may have evolved on one of those planets. But that is before you take into account the conditions that are neccisary for even the simplest life to exist let alone evolve into higher life forms. First of all there is the galaxy; it needs to be very very specific in both size, age, and type. The star has to be exacly the right size nad exactly the right point in its life. The planet has to be composed of exactly the right material be the right size and be at exactly the right distance from the sun. There has to be a moon at exactly the right distance and exactly the right size. The list goes on and on and on. The odds of all the things that need to be just right are astronomical(pun intended). And this is just for the simplest bacteria! After you calculate all the odds WE SHOULD NOT EXIST! Personally that is why I believe we were created by God. But if We should not exist then we have no reason to believe there are other life forms in the universe. But hey I could be wrong about God and lightning does strike twice. But even if I am wrong on both counts If there are aliens WE WILL NEVER KNOW ABOUT THEM(unless they are from mars). We will not know about them strictly from physical limitations. Well that ends my rant. It just pisses me off when people talk about other life in the universe, but hey you can never disprove a good conspiracy.
curious go to www.reasons.org or read a book by Hugh Ross
Re:I just wanted to point out...
on
The DeCSS Haiku
·
· Score: 1
That is the point I was trying to make! Sorry about the Quote; I didnt have time to go watch the movie just to make sure I got it right!
If only I could dance that good I'd be pulling in all the babes!
I just wanted to point out...
on
The DeCSS Haiku
·
· Score: 1
that the MPAA say that it is illegal to host a web site that links to any other web site.
they claim, "...linking (to)any Internet web site, either directly
or through a series of links, to any other Internet web site
containing DeCSS." is illegal. Is it just me or does that include THE ENTIRE INTERNET!!! This is just one more example of the government making innocent ordinary people into criminlas.
"if I had emotions I believe my response would be 'go to hell'" - Spock
Re:I know exactly where this is going
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
harsh words for an anonymous coward
I know exactly where this is going
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
Im sure you have all read the story about the boy here in canada who is in jail for writing a fictional account, for a class assignment, about him blowing up his school. So where do I think this is going? It is going towards if you even try to read about anything the government doesnt like, let alone write about anything the government doesnt like you'll be thrown in jail. The web is the greatest tool of free speech ever invented. The government is trying to make it the greatest tool of propaganda.
I will die for free speech. will you? the time may be soon!
Genesis 6:3 - And Jehovah said, My Spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.(ASV)
"(This means) corrupting two universal languages that deserve the utmost respect: English and Spanish."
I would strongly disagree. English Is a combination of other languages already. Adding another language would serve to enhance it not corrupt it. Second as a Canadian I can testify to the destructive nature of Quebec speaking another language from the rest of the country. That one just about caused our country to break up. (less than 1% in a reffurendum). So Refusing to accept incorperation of another language into your own does far more damage than the alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
If you would like to discuss this patent with the inventor or the attorney I believe you can do so with this number.
Olson, Peter L
337 Otis Ave
Saint Paul, MN 55104
651-645-2251
Actually I think Lindows is more analagous to McKing.
"...instead of 13-year-old wannabes spending all their time attempting (and failing) to hack into their school network..."
Hey! I suceeded in hacking into my school network!
Article 5 - System interference
"Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the serious hindering without right of the functioning of a computer system by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data."
Does that mean that Windows will become illegal?
When will things have gone far enough to justify a revolution? We are taliking about basic rights and freedoms here! These are rights and freedoms that PEOPLE DIED FOR!!!!Earlier today there was an anouncement on slashdot that now even math can be patented. Governmnet and corperations can now TELL US WHAT WE CAN DO WITH OUR OWN THOUGHTS AND IDEAS!!!Now we will be loosing our right to laywer clien confidentiality! This is argualby one of the most basic rights that we have! so when will the relolution come? how much longer can this go on? I say that a revolution would be moraly acceptable now. I do not think that that would be the most likely way to achieve the goal of getting our freedoms back. Nor do I think it would be the best way. I do however think that RIGHT NOW a revolution would be acceptable. That is scarry! If and when the revolution comes I suggest that the DOJ is the first against the wall. Then the Republicans. Then The Democrats. Then Microsoft! Wohoo! Just what I think.
Actually this happened once. We have the cable burried wherever we can. However for various reasons it comes out in the middle of the yard. My mom hit it with the weed wacker. It actually survived the attack though. So we taped it up and its still working.
Make sure you ask permmission before you do anything. All we did was staple the cable descretly along the fence.
I actually have a "Network Neighborhood"!! It is not that hard to do. Me and a friend live two doors down. We asked the neigbors if it was ok if we ran a cable across their yard. They said Yes. So we went to our friendly local computer dealer asked for 270 feet of network cable. He pluged it into his computer I plugged it into my hub. Click a few widgets and BOOM BANG We have a NAN.
Ya lets hope s/he is as smart as Slashdot.
I rest my case. However, it is monney because I AM CANADIAN!!!!
I am a student. As such I have NO MONNEY! These kinds of ads will directly bennifit me. Tell me what student is going to complain about $100 bucks being knocked off of his/her tuition? Ya sure I don't apreciate the ads that are now everywhere in our lives. However, most of those ads bennifit someone else. These are for our financial(or quality of education) bennifit. Besides ads are already everywhere. I think for the most part we just ignore them. A few more are not going to make a major effect on our spending habits.
thats just my 2 bits.
"The code is speech. The program is math."
I would think it is just the opposite.
The code is just algorithms (math) but the program is the art (speech). Take DECSS, the code is just an algorithm but the program is making a statemnet hence it is speach.
For heavens sake slashdot make up your mind! I cant count the number of times that it has been repeated again and again that code is artistic expression. Slashdot insists that it is Free Speech and should not be restricted (ie DECSS). Now that it is convenient for Code to be "fancy math" with just the whim of a moderator or to Code turns into "fancy math". So which is it slashdot: Math or Free Speech?
There should be software that basically monitors what comes through the modem and saves it to the hard drive. The content could be password protected so a child cant delete it. The parent could then enter the password and have the program take the parent on a "walk in the steps (umm surfs) of the child". Basically the program would be like a replay of what the child saw. If such software exists let me know if not then lets program it.
I also would like to give money to artists when I enjoy their songs. However I want to give monney to the artist and NOT EMI or any other big label. ESPECIALY when those companies go arround restricting my freedoms.
just my 2bits
The FTAA stands for Free Trade Area of the Americas. It will be in effect by 2005. Under that law, like the NAFTA, Any law that interfears with the profits of a corperation is deamed illegal. An example of this is: Here in Canada all mail is handled by a government agency. That agency is being sued under NAFTA by UPS because it interfears with their profits. This agreement(FTAA) is an attack on the sovernty of every country (except Cuba) in N & S America. This free software law would be illegal under the terms of FTAA because it would interfear with the profits of corperations like Microsoft. This is only one reason there was such a large protest against the FTAA in Quebec at the summit of the Americas.
Free trade is good.
Giving the US absolute control over the entire Hemisphere is very very bad.
I am not full of "Bullshit". Do you think I just made this stuff up. I just happend to "pull this out of the ass" of Dr. Hugh Ross. Dr. Hugh Ross is an award winning astrophsisyst who recieved his education at the university of Toronto. Furthermore, he is listed as one of the worlds 50 most influential people. So unless you are an astrophysysist yourself I dont believe you are qualified to comment on how his arguments for how "fine tuned" things need to be for life are "bullshit"! here is a list quoted directly from his website:
"Evidence for the fine-tuning of the galaxy-sun-earth-moon system for life support
The following parameters of a planet, its moon, its star, and its galaxy must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for life of any kind to exist. Characteristics #2 and #3 have been repeated from Table 4 since they apply to both the universe and the galaxy.
galaxy size
if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun's orbit and ignite too many galactic eruptions.
if too small: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for long enough time.
galaxy type
if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element build-up for life chemistry.
if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available.
galaxy location
if too close to a rich galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted
if too close to very large galaxy(ies): galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted.
supernovae eruptions
if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets.
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets.
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated.
if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets.
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation.
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient flourine would be produced for life chemistry to proceed.
if too many: planetary orbits disrupted by stellar density; life on planet would be exterminated.
if too soon: not enough heavy elements would be made for efficient flourine production.
if too late: flourine would be made too late for incorporation in protoplanet.
proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption
if farther: insufficient heavy elements for life would be absorbed.
if closer: nebula would be blown apart.
timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption
if earlier: nebula would be blown apart.
if later:: nebula would not absorb enough heavy elements.
parent star distance from center of galaxy
if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets.
if closer: galactic radiation would be too great; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits
parent star distance from closest spiral arm
if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets.
if closer: radiation from other stars would be too great; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits.
z-axis heights of star's orbit
if too large: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be too great.
number of stars in the planetary system
if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits.
if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life.
parent star birth date
if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; stellar system would contain too many heavy elements.
if less recent: stellar system would not contain enough heavy elements.
parent star age
if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
parent star mass
if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would burn too rapidly.
if less: luminosity of star would change too slowly; range of planet distances for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the life planet's rotational period; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen.
parent star metallicity
if too small: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist.
if too large: radioactivity would be too intense for life; life would be poisoned by heavy element concentrations.
parent star color
if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
H3+ production
if too small: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life chemistry will not form.
if too large: planets will form at wrong time and place for life.
parent star luminosity relative to speciation
if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop.
if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop.
surface gravity (escape velocity)
if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane.
if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water.
distance from parent star
if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle.
if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle.
inclination of orbit
if too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme.
orbital eccentricity
if too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.
axial tilt
if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great.
if less: surface temperature differences would be too great.
rate of change of axial tilt
if greater: climatic changes would be too extreme; surface temperature differences would become too extreme.
rotation period
if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great.
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.
rate of change in rotation period
if longer: surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained.
if shorter: surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained.
age
if too young: planet would rotate too rapidly.
if too old: planet would rotate too slowly.
magnetic field
if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe.
if weaker: ozone shield would be inadequately protected from hard stellar and solar radiation.
thickness of crust
if thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust.
if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.
albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)
if greater: runaway glaciation would develop.
if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
asteroidal and cometary collision rate
if greater: too many species would become extinct.
if less: crust would be too depleted of materials essential for life.
mass of body colliding with primordial earth
if smaller: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick; moon would be too small.
if greater: Earth's orbit and form would be too greatly disturbed.
timing of body colliding with primordial earth.
if earlier: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick; moon would be too small.
if later: sun would be too luminous at epoch for advanced life.
34. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere
if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly.
if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly.
35. carbon dioxide level in atmosphere
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis.
36. water vapor level in atmosphere
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land.
37. atmospheric electric discharge rate
if greater: too much fire destruction would occur.
if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere.
38. ozone level in atmosphere
if greater: surface temperatures would be too low.
if less: surface temperatures would be too high; there would be too much uv radiation at the surface.
39. oxygen quantity in atmosphere
if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily.
if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe.
40. seismic activity
if greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed.
if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to continents through tectonics.
41. oceans-to-continents ratio
if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
if smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
42. rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio
if smaller: advanced life will lack the needed land mass area.
if greater: advanced life would be destroyed by the radical changes.
43. global distribution of continents (for Earth)
if too much in the southern hemisphere: seasonal differences would be too severe for advanced life.
44. frequency and extent of ice ages
if smaller: insufficient fertile, wide, and well-watered valleys produced for diverse and advanced life forms; insufficient mineral concentrations occur for diverse and advanced life.
if greater: planet inevitably experiences runaway freezing.
45. soil mineralization
if too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
if too nutrient rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
46. gravitational interaction with a moon
if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe.
if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient; magnetic field would be too weak.
47. Jupiter distance
if greater: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth.
if less: Earth's orbit would become unstable.
48. Jupiter mass
if greater: Earth's orbit would become unstable.
if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth.
49. drift in major planet distances
if greater: Earth's orbit would become unstable.
if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth.
50. major planet eccentricities
if greater: orbit of life supportable planet would be pulled out of life support zone.
51. major planet orbital instabilities
if greater: orbit of life supportable planet would be pulled out of life support zone.
52. atmospheric pressure
if too small: liquid water will evaporate too easily and condense too infrequently.
if too large: liquid water will not evaporate easily enough for land life; insufficient sunlight reaches planetary surface; insufficient uv radiation reaches planetary surface.
53. atmospheric transparency
if smaller: insufficient range of wavelengths of solar radiation reaches planetary surface
if greater: too broad a range of wavelengths of solar radiation reaches planetary surface.
54. chlorine quantity in atmosphere
if smaller: erosion rates, acidity of rivers, lakes, and soils, and certain metabolic rates would be insufficient for most life forms.
if greater: erosion rates, acidity of rivers, lakes, and soils, and certain metabolic rates would be too high for most life forms.
55. iron quantity in oceans and soils
if smaller: quantity and diversity of life would be too limited for support of advanced life;
if very small, no life would be possible.
if larger: iron poisoning of at least advanced life would result.
56. tropospheric ozone quantity
if smaller: insufficient cleansing of biochemical smogs would result.
if larger: respiratory failure of advanced animals, reduced crop yields, and destruction of ozone-sensitive species would result.
57. stratospheric ozone quantity
if smaller: too much uv radiation reaches planet's surface causing skin cancers and reduced plant growth.
if larger: too little uv radiation reaches planet's surface causing reduced plant growth and insufficient vitamin production for animals.
58. mesospheric ozone quantity
if smaller: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases so disturbed as to upset relative abundances of life essential gases in lower atmosphere.
if greater: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases so disturbed as to upset relative abundances of life essential gases in lower atmosphere.
59. quantity and extent of forest and grass fires
if smaller: growth inhibitors in the soils would accumulate; soil nitrification would be insufficient; insufficient charcoal production for adequate soil water retention and absorption of certain growth inhibitors.
if greater: too many plant and animal life forms would be destroyed
60. quantity of soil sulfur
if smaller: plants will become deficient in certain proteins and die.
if larger: plants will die from sulfur toxins; acidity of water and soil will become too great for life; nitrogen cycles will be disturbed.
61. quantity of sulfur in the life planet's core
if smaller: solid core formation begins too soon causing it to grow too rapidly --disrupts magnetic field.
if larger: sold inner core never forms--disrupts magnetic field.
62. quantity of sea salt aerosols
if smaller: insufficient cloud formation and thus inadequate water cycle; disrupts atmospheric temperature balances.
if larger: too much and too rapid cloud formation over the oceans disrupting the climate; disrupts atmospheric temperature balances.
63. volcanic activity
if lower: insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor would be returned to the atmosphere; soil mineralization would become too degraded for life.
if higher: advanced life, at least, would be destroyed.
64. rate of decline in tectonic activity
if slower: advanced life can never survive on the planet.
if faster: advanced life can never survive on the planet.
65. rate of decline in volcanic activity
if slower: advanced life can never survive on the planet.
if faster: advanced life can never survive on the planet.
66. biomass to minicomet infall ratio
if smaller: greenhouse gases accumulate, triggering runaway surface temperature increase.
if larger: greenhouse gases decline, triggering a runaway freezing."
I have a quote from a qualified professional saying it is so. See if you can do the same.
It was NOT a troll as Im sure you now realize.
Also slashdot is not supposed to moderate based on whether they agree with you or not but on how interresting a post is. I see that this just does not work.
First of all I don't buy into evolution. However that is a different topic. Second this is not a troll I am serious.The point I wish to make here is buy strict odds we should not be here so the chances of there being other life in the universe is slim. For the sake of this post I will even assume evolution can and did take place on earth. When you look into the sky you see thousands of Stars. When you look through a night vision telescope you see millions times that. When you consider that every one of those stars might have 9 planets or more you cant help but wonder if life may have evolved on one of those planets. But that is before you take into account the conditions that are neccisary for even the simplest life to exist let alone evolve into higher life forms. First of all there is the galaxy; it needs to be very very specific in both size, age, and type. The star has to be exacly the right size nad exactly the right point in its life. The planet has to be composed of exactly the right material be the right size and be at exactly the right distance from the sun. There has to be a moon at exactly the right distance and exactly the right size. The list goes on and on and on. The odds of all the things that need to be just right are astronomical(pun intended). And this is just for the simplest bacteria! After you calculate all the odds WE SHOULD NOT EXIST! Personally that is why I believe we were created by God. But if We should not exist then we have no reason to believe there are other life forms in the universe. But hey I could be wrong about God and lightning does strike twice. But even if I am wrong on both counts If there are aliens WE WILL NEVER KNOW ABOUT THEM(unless they are from mars). We will not know about them strictly from physical limitations. Well that ends my rant. It just pisses me off when people talk about other life in the universe, but hey you can never disprove a good conspiracy.
curious go to www.reasons.org or read a book by Hugh Ross
That is the point I was trying to make! Sorry about the Quote; I didnt have time to go watch the movie just to make sure I got it right!
If only I could dance that good I'd be pulling in all the babes!
that the MPAA say that it is illegal to host a web site that links to any other web site.
they claim, "...linking (to)any Internet web site, either directly
or through a series of links, to any other Internet web site
containing DeCSS." is illegal. Is it just me or does that include THE ENTIRE INTERNET!!! This is just one more example of the government making innocent ordinary people into criminlas.
"if I had emotions I believe my response would be 'go to hell'" - Spock
harsh words for an anonymous coward
Im sure you have all read the story about the boy here in canada who is in jail for writing a fictional account, for a class assignment, about him blowing up his school. So where do I think this is going? It is going towards if you even try to read about anything the government doesnt like, let alone write about anything the government doesnt like you'll be thrown in jail. The web is the greatest tool of free speech ever invented. The government is trying to make it the greatest tool of propaganda.
I will die for free speech. will you? the time may be soon!
"known to be around 120 years in humans"
Just a thought.
Genesis 6:3 - And Jehovah said, My Spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.(ASV)
"(This means) corrupting two universal languages that deserve the utmost respect: English and Spanish." I would strongly disagree. English Is a combination of other languages already. Adding another language would serve to enhance it not corrupt it. Second as a Canadian I can testify to the destructive nature of Quebec speaking another language from the rest of the country. That one just about caused our country to break up. (less than 1% in a reffurendum). So Refusing to accept incorperation of another language into your own does far more damage than the alternative.