Sorry, spores can't survive in space (not that we know of); it's bacteria that we have tested. And that was only tested in low earth orbit, not outer space.
Yes, you must admit, life popped up here, but I think it's an extremely improbable event to happen. We are anomalies to me!
Oh, and if you flipped that coin and got heads the past 100 times, the chances are that coin is loaded. There is a higher probability that you'll get heads next!
So, probabilities don't really predict anything, and I'm not saying they do. BUT in the most likely event, there is not life on Europa. But there still might be. You still might get tails with a loaded coin;)
Flawed argument, sorry to say. The reason the bread gets moldy is because there are mold spores in the air and the bread is an environment which nurtures the spores. If we were floating around in space and happened to land on planet like Earth, then we would probably colonize that. But that is not the case for Europa. Sugars do not mean life.
I know that when I first started playing around with linux, I knew nothing about UNIX systems at all. However, I found the HOWTOs useful at both a) setting up my linux system and b) educating me. There are lots of great resources out there to help you out, telling you how these systems work and how to work with them. Sure, books are great, but the Internet is a lot bigger;)
I'm sorry, but I think your argument is flawed. In Darwinian natural selection, the species which can survive the best in an environment will. If life developed far from the sun, even very primitive "life" like RNA strands capable of transferring information, it would have been more adapt to deal with conditions far from the sun. Now consider how it might have come to Earth, under the assumption that it had developed elsewhere. Perhaps it was blasted off of its home planet or environment by debris from the cosmos and hitched a ride here? The energy (heat) from a collision with space debris is much greater than that which it may have been accustomed to and would most likely destroy life localized where such debris might have hit. This seems very unlikely. Even if somehow it survived the radical conditions to which it was not accustomed (the debris flying through space) the probability of the debris hitting anything less an object in a dense field like the asteriod belt or hurtling into the sun is unlikely. If the debris doesn't hit something in the asteroid belt, it will most likely fall to the sun. And supposing that it miraculously hits Earth, it would probably burn up in its atmosphere. Not because the life itself was subjected to much frictional heat, but rather its host debris would burst into flame as it disintigrated (well not really flame but it would vaporize).
> the conditions on Venus are not only more "extreme" than the conditions on Europa,
The reason Europa's conditions would be extreme is that it is hidden in darkness behing voluminous Jupiter for half of it's period of revolution about Jupiter. I'm not sure about it's period, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it's long enough that while it is behind Jupiter it gets so cold that no, I mean NO, earthly life could survive there, not even bacteria which can brave the arctic or whatnot. Not to mention that Jupiter is the first gas giant, so far away that temperatures in the sun's light are also extremely low.
So maybe it's at the other end of the scale, but that doesn't mean it's less extreme.
No, I don't think NASA would do this. NASA is very careful about disturbing possible developing life. They are very careful to disinfect their probes lest microbes somehow survive the trip and colonize a far-away world. As impossible as it might sound, they are cautious about that. So I doubt NASA would send anything to a planet that might have the remote possibility of somehow containing developing life forms. Even if they just want to take a few shots.
True, these may be valid conditions for life on a planet, but what is the probability of life spawning on a planet? You have to admit, it seems very improbable that even we are here. Plus, what would life be like under such conditions, should life spontaneously form? And the intelligence of these beings is even less likely to develop. Being on a moon, the conditions are more extreme than most in this solar system.
Come on, there's got to be a way to do it! I'm suffering from GIS withdrawal, and if you don't put out a new episode, no matter how lame, I think I might have to be committed.
Well, not really, but you could just have a tele-conference. I KNOW you can afford it.
Well, if they have a good service or useful product, they shouldn't need to rely on IPO money. It's not a very trustworthy form of currency - investors could pull out at any time. But if you have something genuine, you should have real investors anyway.
It's based on NT, not DOS. They started trying to merge the two but moved more in the NT direction - remember, it was supposed to be the next NT? Well it's running on NTFS, not VFAT as far as I know. UMSDOS based 'OS's might be able to run if you make a VFAT partition - I believe NT can read VFAT. Anyone know for sure?
That's as much as I know.
Really, color is a subconcious phenomenon and is totally subjective. We have NO way of telling if I see "blue" the same way you do - since blue is just a name given to a common decision for the color of an object. Had this been called "blah" when you were growing up, it would have made no difference, IF the people who taught you your colors (your parents most likely) agreed upon objects whose colors where blah or were associated with blah. When we think red, we usually think apple and blood, but my eyes might SEE something totally different than yours. The only way to find out would be to put your eyes in my head. And that is very difficult if possible at all with today's medicine. So, we don't really know if colorblinds are really colorblind - their spectrum might just be tuned to a different range. Most humans see more shades of green than any other color. Other colors like orange might look the same even if the wavelengths of light are different from two different oranges, so we are more tuned to green. But maybe the "colorblinds" are more tuned to another spectrum, like grays? They might be able to see more shades of gray than anyone else. Or maybe IR - wouldn't that be nice? Other animals can "see" IR, maybe we could too.
ANYway, colorblindness is just a subjective idea! The might be able to see the most brilliant UV, but our "red" and "blue" might seem the same.
Believing something to not be extraordinary is not conceited, unless my perception is skewed. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but most average things aren't too special compared to the above-average (or even the below average).
"Manly" yellow star? Our star is as average as one could get. It's more powerful than a dwarf star, but by no means is it "manly". And I guess that shows that we are not as special as we once thought we were - people used to think the universe revolves around the Earth! Think of it, the entire mass of our cosmos all equally distributed about a smallish-medium sized planet third from an average star. So, no, there isn't really anything "manly" about it.
If you really want to teach the kids something, try getting them to write something low-level and try to make it cross platform. These days they all use ANSI C and everything that is cross platform, but the low-level stuff isn't. Most people don't/really/ know how the stuff works, and if you try to get them to program at the lower levels then they'll really learn.
Remember when Microsoft put up their Windows 2000 test box and they asked anybody to try and crack it? Well remember how the people who ran SATAN on that IP got the result from SATAN that the network stack resembled a Linux style stack (in the types of responses and whatever SATAN uses to diagnose this). Will I wonder if Windoze 2000 really has a different network stack, and if so, what implementation is it based on (BSD, Linux, whatever), and if so does it really hold up under high strain now? Otherwise, will they just change the OS name returned by uname so that some of the BSD boxen look like windoze boxen (an idea some conspiracy theorists insisted upon back when M$ ran windows 2000 test box)? So does anyone know what type of network stack windoze 2000 uses?
Well the people behind these projects seems to want to draw people to linux by showing others that it is as user-friendly as Windoze. However, Linux was not really ever ment to be a desktop platform! It was meant for the server, but people keep trying to use it for the desktop. And since the people writing the code are very familiar with servers, they don't have much of a user-friendly base except MacOS and (shudder) Windoze. If the people from Be or NeXT came over to write some stuff, linux could become a desktop OS. However, I think it rightfully belongs in the server market, where its true power is.
Slashdot Mirror
That wouldn't have stopped users on oher OSs from using it. In fact it would have made it easier.
I'm not apologizing, I'm saying I'm sorry for you ;)
Sorry, spores can't survive in space (not that we know of); it's bacteria that we have tested. And that was only tested in low earth orbit, not outer space.
Yes, you must admit, life popped up here, but I think it's an extremely improbable event to happen. We are anomalies to me! ;)
Oh, and if you flipped that coin and got heads the past 100 times, the chances are that coin is loaded. There is a higher probability that you'll get heads next!
So, probabilities don't really predict anything, and I'm not saying they do. BUT in the most likely event, there is not life on Europa. But there still might be. You still might get tails with a loaded coin
Flawed argument, sorry to say. The reason the bread gets moldy is because there are mold spores in the air and the bread is an environment which nurtures the spores. If we were floating around in space and happened to land on planet like Earth, then we would probably colonize that. But that is not the case for Europa. Sugars do not mean life.
Have you heard of the anthropic principle? Just because something exists, does not mean it is reproducible ;)
I know that when I first started playing around with linux, I knew nothing about UNIX systems at all. However, I found the HOWTOs useful at both a) setting up my linux system and b) educating me. There are lots of great resources out there to help you out, telling you how these systems work and how to work with them. Sure, books are great, but the Internet is a lot bigger ;)
I'm sorry, but I think your argument is flawed. In Darwinian natural selection, the species which can survive the best in an environment will. If life developed far from the sun, even very primitive "life" like RNA strands capable of transferring information, it would have been more adapt to deal with conditions far from the sun. Now consider how it might have come to Earth, under the assumption that it had developed elsewhere. Perhaps it was blasted off of its home planet or environment by debris from the cosmos and hitched a ride here? The energy (heat) from a collision with space debris is much greater than that which it may have been accustomed to and would most likely destroy life localized where such debris might have hit. This seems very unlikely. Even if somehow it survived the radical conditions to which it was not accustomed (the debris flying through space) the probability of the debris hitting anything less an object in a dense field like the asteriod belt or hurtling into the sun is unlikely. If the debris doesn't hit something in the asteroid belt, it will most likely fall to the sun. And supposing that it miraculously hits Earth, it would probably burn up in its atmosphere. Not because the life itself was subjected to much frictional heat, but rather its host debris would burst into flame as it disintigrated (well not really flame but it would vaporize).
The amount of heat it gets from the sun is negligible anyway.
Then why is it covered in ice? The heat must not be great enough. Unless I'm grossly mistaken or just a fool, or it's past my bedtime or something.
> the conditions on Venus are not only more "extreme" than the conditions on Europa,
The reason Europa's conditions would be extreme is that it is hidden in darkness behing voluminous Jupiter for half of it's period of revolution about Jupiter. I'm not sure about it's period, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it's long enough that while it is behind Jupiter it gets so cold that no, I mean NO, earthly life could survive there, not even bacteria which can brave the arctic or whatnot. Not to mention that Jupiter is the first gas giant, so far away that temperatures in the sun's light are also extremely low.
So maybe it's at the other end of the scale, but that doesn't mean it's less extreme.
No, I don't think NASA would do this. NASA is very careful about disturbing possible developing life. They are very careful to disinfect their probes lest microbes somehow survive the trip and colonize a far-away world. As impossible as it might sound, they are cautious about that. So I doubt NASA would send anything to a planet that might have the remote possibility of somehow containing developing life forms. Even if they just want to take a few shots.
True, these may be valid conditions for life on a planet, but what is the probability of life spawning on a planet? You have to admit, it seems very improbable that even we are here. Plus, what would life be like under such conditions, should life spontaneously form? And the intelligence of these beings is even less likely to develop. Being on a moon, the conditions are more extreme than most in this solar system.
This is prejudiced against people who use the web! I'll fight till non-users of the web can't relate to illegality either.
Come on, there's got to be a way to do it! I'm suffering from GIS withdrawal, and if you don't put out a new episode, no matter how lame, I think I might have to be committed.
Well, not really, but you could just have a tele-conference. I KNOW you can afford it.
Well, if they have a good service or useful product, they shouldn't need to rely on IPO money. It's not a very trustworthy form of currency - investors could pull out at any time. But if you have something genuine, you should have real investors anyway.
It's based on NT, not DOS. They started trying to merge the two but moved more in the NT direction - remember, it was supposed to be the next NT? Well it's running on NTFS, not VFAT as far as I know. UMSDOS based 'OS's might be able to run if you make a VFAT partition - I believe NT can read VFAT. Anyone know for sure? That's as much as I know.
Really, color is a subconcious phenomenon and is totally subjective. We have NO way of telling if I see "blue" the same way you do - since blue is just a name given to a common decision for the color of an object. Had this been called "blah" when you were growing up, it would have made no difference, IF the people who taught you your colors (your parents most likely) agreed upon objects whose colors where blah or were associated with blah. When we think red, we usually think apple and blood, but my eyes might SEE something totally different than yours. The only way to find out would be to put your eyes in my head. And that is very difficult if possible at all with today's medicine. So, we don't really know if colorblinds are really colorblind - their spectrum might just be tuned to a different range. Most humans see more shades of green than any other color. Other colors like orange might look the same even if the wavelengths of light are different from two different oranges, so we are more tuned to green. But maybe the "colorblinds" are more tuned to another spectrum, like grays? They might be able to see more shades of gray than anyone else. Or maybe IR - wouldn't that be nice? Other animals can "see" IR, maybe we could too.
ANYway, colorblindness is just a subjective idea! The might be able to see the most brilliant UV, but our "red" and "blue" might seem the same.
What are you smoking? And where can I get some?
Believing something to not be extraordinary is not conceited, unless my perception is skewed. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but most average things aren't too special compared to the above-average (or even the below average).
I've got connections - I know ;)
"Manly" yellow star? Our star is as average as one could get. It's more powerful than a dwarf star, but by no means is it "manly". And I guess that shows that we are not as special as we once thought we were - people used to think the universe revolves around the Earth! Think of it, the entire mass of our cosmos all equally distributed about a smallish-medium sized planet third from an average star. So, no, there isn't really anything "manly" about it.
If you really want to teach the kids something, try getting them to write something low-level and try to make it cross platform. These days they all use ANSI C and everything that is cross platform, but the low-level stuff isn't. Most people don't /really/ know how the stuff works, and if you try to get them to program at the lower levels then they'll really learn.
Remember when Microsoft put up their Windows 2000 test box and they asked anybody to try and crack it? Well remember how the people who ran SATAN on that IP got the result from SATAN that the network stack resembled a Linux style stack (in the types of responses and whatever SATAN uses to diagnose this). Will I wonder if Windoze 2000 really has a different network stack, and if so, what implementation is it based on (BSD, Linux, whatever), and if so does it really hold up under high strain now? Otherwise, will they just change the OS name returned by uname so that some of the BSD boxen look like windoze boxen (an idea some conspiracy theorists insisted upon back when M$ ran windows 2000 test box)?
So does anyone know what type of network stack windoze 2000 uses?
Well the people behind these projects seems to want to draw people to linux by showing others that it is as user-friendly as Windoze. However, Linux was not really ever ment to be a desktop platform! It was meant for the server, but people keep trying to use it for the desktop. And since the people writing the code are very familiar with servers, they don't have much of a user-friendly base except MacOS and (shudder) Windoze. If the people from Be or NeXT came over to write some stuff, linux could become a desktop OS. However, I think it rightfully belongs in the server market, where its true power is.