You have a point. If a politician wants to be elected, they need approval by the people - but if they want to even stand for election with any chance of winning, they need the support of their party base. A faction that is often quite fanatical in their efforts to purge the party of 'traitors' who they see as going against what the party stands for.
Sneaky back-room negotiations do undermine the democratic ideal, but the alternative would be an unbreakable stalemate as no politician wants to lose the support of their party by being seen to concede ground to the enemy.
I think you are overthinking the positions on surpreme court judges. While political analysts and commentators might like to talke about 'constructionist' and terms like that, both the run-of-the-mill voter and most members have a much simpler question: "Will the candidate appoint a judge who promises to advance my agenda on abortion/marriage/deregulation/guns?"
It may not be email in the way we use it today, but it is a text message transmitted electronically to destination address specified in the message header, and that sounds like email to me.
There was a study some years ago that found abortion increased the risk of breast cancer vs continuing pregnancy to term. But on further examination of the numbers, it turned out to be the other way around: Pregnancy reduces the risk. Humans evolved for an environment in which most women would spend a good part of their adult life either pregnant or nursing, and are biochemically tuned accordingly. Once a control group was added that were never pregnant at all, it was clear what had happened.
You still see the old 'ABC' claim popping up on pro-life websites all the time though, usually along with accusations that the medical establishment is conspiring to hide the truth. Much like the vaccination-MMR link, even after the initial study is discredited the claims continue to be believed because some people just really wish they were true.
The human reproductive system, compared to other animals, is awful. Fertility rates are pathetic.
This is probably because sex in humans isn't just for fertilisation, it also cements pair bonds. If you have lots and lots of sex with a partner, it increases the chance they'll stick together and contribute resources to raise the offspring.
Abstinance works every time, in the same way that resisting delicious food and exercising every day will protect against obesity. They don't work at a population level for the same reason: You are fighting billions of years worth of ingrained instinct. Lots of people are not going to be capable of obeying this advice, even if intellectually they know that it is the right decision.
The subject has been studied quite throughly. There is a good scientific consensus on the issue now: There are inheritable genetic factors that influence sexuality, but they alone are not enough to determine it. Environment matters too, but the environmental factors also have not been isolated.
You can't go to war with Russia. Everyone gets nuked, and both sides know it.
Instead you go to war with the latest in a line of smalltime dictators, who Russia then covertly funds and supplies with weapons, while you do exactly the same to some local militia groups and declare them freedom fighters.
I think the Republican leadership might regard Trump as a manipulatable puppet. It is better to have an inept poser in the white house who will advance the positions the party advocates than a competent person who will actively fight against those positions. With any luck he'll just strut around, occasionally say something offensive, but mostly just carry out what is one of the main responsibilities of any modern president: Put on a big show and serve as a focal point for the public while congress and the network of commitees, subcommitees and appointees gets on with the task of actually running the country.
It may be a stupid-ass canard, but can it work? I imagine right now every congressman and senator with an R after their name is leaning hard on every unofficial FBI contact they have to investigate hard any tiny infraction, just because it makes Hillary look bad - and if they investigate hard enough and from enough angles, eventually something has to stick. No person is entirely law-abiding.
Arguing about the religion of politicians is seldom worthwhile. They lie. Even Lincoln. You don't get elected without a good instinct for which beliefs to proclaim from your podium and which are too dangerous to ever admit.
Not for lack of trying. Scientists have been working on it for years, and a few hopefuls made it to clinical trials, but nothing has proven reliable yet. HIV mutates like crazy - no matter what scientists come up with, the virus always manages to evolve a workaround. It's so adaptable that even when treating a single patient with antiretrovirals, the drugs have to be changed after a time because the virus evolves resistance.
While that possibility cannot be entirely eliminated, it is highly unlikely. Consuming chimps as bushmeat was a common practice, but they seldom make convenient sexual partners.
There's also the evolutionary psychology angle: The optimal reproductive strategy differs. Men have the option of fathering a vast number of offspring and potentially abandoning them, while women can produce only a small number and so have a reason to hold out for the most-fit partner. As the post below explains. I would expect it to be a combination of biological and social factors.
This statistic fails the basic sanity check: It's simply too high to be believable without some overwhelming evidence.
I've seen studies mentioned claiming to show that gay men have more sexual partners than straight men. I've never actually looked into the question myself so I don't know how reliable they are, but it does seem very plausible. But 200+ sexual partners a year? That wouldn't leave enough time to hold down a job. You'd have to devote your leisure time entirely to the task of getting laid, touring the seediest gay clubs every evening - and you'd have to keep moving between them to gain access to new partners. That's assuming you pair up with each one exactly once, no repeats, and who would want that?
Maybe you could find a couple of men who are just that dedicated to making the high score table, but 'not uncommon' is ridiculous.
A manned mars mission would run about eighteen months on the surface, as that's how the launch window line up.
The equipment needed for eighteen months would also be far too bulky to land safely, so it would have to be done with multiple landings: One manned, many unmanned 'cargo pods' full of supplies and equipment. Such a mission would probably include a small farm - not just for a bit more food, but for research.
It doesn't matter how you plan it, there's no escaping that even the most basic flag-planting mission to Mars is going to be tremendously expensive.
Colonists stay behind. But the first people there wouldn't be colonists - they'd be explorers, going up there to do science for a year or so before coming home. Letting your brave scientists eventually die when the food runs out is really bad publicity.
Look at the options though. Option one: Enjoy a long, healthy life on earth. Raise a family if you can. Grow old. Spent the last decade of your life in a care home as your mind decays before dying of natural causes. Your immediate family will mourn you for a few years, but in the end you will leave no legacy but a headstone. Option two: Volunteer for the mars colony mission in thirty years and head off. Spend your life advancing mankind, breaking new ground, and solving exciting problems on the frontier. Enjoy seeing the whole world follow the exploits of you and your team, via somewhat-delayed radio link. Die of radiation-induced cancer ten years later because Mars' medical facilities are still lacking compared to those of Earth. Have a mountain named after you.
Lots of people will pick option two. You're dead either way in the end.
The big space rock is coming. Perhaps not today, perhaps not this century, perhaps not for another ten million years. But the question is when, not if, it will hit.
What available resources? Mars has no petrochemicals. It's very rich in iron, which is certainly nice, and I'm sure there are other metals you can find and mine - but doing so needs industrial machines, and smelting/refining equipment, and a lot of power.
I do think that eventual colonisation is a worthwhile goal to pursue. In the spirit of exploration, and advancement, and as insurance against a possible planet-wide disaster. But I also know that realistically, it's probably going to be the single most expensive project in the history of mankind to date and on a time scale of a century or more. But this is the time to start laying the foundations that later generations will build upon. I don't expect to see a self-sustaining mars colony any time soon, but someone has to start the project - even knowing they won't see it finished.
Right now, those foundations mean developing a safer, more reliable and cheaper means of getting there and landing, and eventually a limited-duration manned research mission. Small steps, but the eager potential-Martians of 2080 will thank us for laying the groundwork.
And to keep the plants powered. Mars is at 1.5AU, which gives less than half the sunlight intensity of earth - your crop would grow very slowly and very small.
Slashdot Mirror
You have a point. If a politician wants to be elected, they need approval by the people - but if they want to even stand for election with any chance of winning, they need the support of their party base. A faction that is often quite fanatical in their efforts to purge the party of 'traitors' who they see as going against what the party stands for.
Sneaky back-room negotiations do undermine the democratic ideal, but the alternative would be an unbreakable stalemate as no politician wants to lose the support of their party by being seen to concede ground to the enemy.
I think you are overthinking the positions on surpreme court judges. While political analysts and commentators might like to talke about 'constructionist' and terms like that, both the run-of-the-mill voter and most members have a much simpler question: "Will the candidate appoint a judge who promises to advance my agenda on abortion/marriage/deregulation/guns?"
Francis Ronalds, 1816. First practical telegraph.
It may not be email in the way we use it today, but it is a text message transmitted electronically to destination address specified in the message header, and that sounds like email to me.
Biology is weird.
There was a study some years ago that found abortion increased the risk of breast cancer vs continuing pregnancy to term. But on further examination of the numbers, it turned out to be the other way around: Pregnancy reduces the risk. Humans evolved for an environment in which most women would spend a good part of their adult life either pregnant or nursing, and are biochemically tuned accordingly. Once a control group was added that were never pregnant at all, it was clear what had happened.
You still see the old 'ABC' claim popping up on pro-life websites all the time though, usually along with accusations that the medical establishment is conspiring to hide the truth. Much like the vaccination-MMR link, even after the initial study is discredited the claims continue to be believed because some people just really wish they were true.
The human reproductive system, compared to other animals, is awful. Fertility rates are pathetic.
This is probably because sex in humans isn't just for fertilisation, it also cements pair bonds. If you have lots and lots of sex with a partner, it increases the chance they'll stick together and contribute resources to raise the offspring.
Sex doesn't have a purpose. It just *is.* We can tell why it came to be, but that doesn't mean that is its purpose.
Abstinance works every time, in the same way that resisting delicious food and exercising every day will protect against obesity. They don't work at a population level for the same reason: You are fighting billions of years worth of ingrained instinct. Lots of people are not going to be capable of obeying this advice, even if intellectually they know that it is the right decision.
Many STIs can be contagious for years, some even decades, before they produce any symptoms.
The subject has been studied quite throughly. There is a good scientific consensus on the issue now: There are inheritable genetic factors that influence sexuality, but they alone are not enough to determine it. Environment matters too, but the environmental factors also have not been isolated.
You can't go to war with Russia. Everyone gets nuked, and both sides know it.
Instead you go to war with the latest in a line of smalltime dictators, who Russia then covertly funds and supplies with weapons, while you do exactly the same to some local militia groups and declare them freedom fighters.
I think the Republican leadership might regard Trump as a manipulatable puppet. It is better to have an inept poser in the white house who will advance the positions the party advocates than a competent person who will actively fight against those positions. With any luck he'll just strut around, occasionally say something offensive, but mostly just carry out what is one of the main responsibilities of any modern president: Put on a big show and serve as a focal point for the public while congress and the network of commitees, subcommitees and appointees gets on with the task of actually running the country.
It may be a stupid-ass canard, but can it work? I imagine right now every congressman and senator with an R after their name is leaning hard on every unofficial FBI contact they have to investigate hard any tiny infraction, just because it makes Hillary look bad - and if they investigate hard enough and from enough angles, eventually something has to stick. No person is entirely law-abiding.
Arguing about the religion of politicians is seldom worthwhile. They lie. Even Lincoln. You don't get elected without a good instinct for which beliefs to proclaim from your podium and which are too dangerous to ever admit.
There is no vaccine for HIV yet.
Not for lack of trying. Scientists have been working on it for years, and a few hopefuls made it to clinical trials, but nothing has proven reliable yet. HIV mutates like crazy - no matter what scientists come up with, the virus always manages to evolve a workaround. It's so adaptable that even when treating a single patient with antiretrovirals, the drugs have to be changed after a time because the virus evolves resistance.
No, that was syphilis.
While that possibility cannot be entirely eliminated, it is highly unlikely. Consuming chimps as bushmeat was a common practice, but they seldom make convenient sexual partners.
There's also the evolutionary psychology angle: The optimal reproductive strategy differs. Men have the option of fathering a vast number of offspring and potentially abandoning them, while women can produce only a small number and so have a reason to hold out for the most-fit partner. As the post below explains. I would expect it to be a combination of biological and social factors.
This statistic fails the basic sanity check: It's simply too high to be believable without some overwhelming evidence.
I've seen studies mentioned claiming to show that gay men have more sexual partners than straight men. I've never actually looked into the question myself so I don't know how reliable they are, but it does seem very plausible. But 200+ sexual partners a year? That wouldn't leave enough time to hold down a job. You'd have to devote your leisure time entirely to the task of getting laid, touring the seediest gay clubs every evening - and you'd have to keep moving between them to gain access to new partners. That's assuming you pair up with each one exactly once, no repeats, and who would want that?
Maybe you could find a couple of men who are just that dedicated to making the high score table, but 'not uncommon' is ridiculous.
A manned mars mission would run about eighteen months on the surface, as that's how the launch window line up.
The equipment needed for eighteen months would also be far too bulky to land safely, so it would have to be done with multiple landings: One manned, many unmanned 'cargo pods' full of supplies and equipment. Such a mission would probably include a small farm - not just for a bit more food, but for research.
It doesn't matter how you plan it, there's no escaping that even the most basic flag-planting mission to Mars is going to be tremendously expensive.
Colonists stay behind. But the first people there wouldn't be colonists - they'd be explorers, going up there to do science for a year or so before coming home. Letting your brave scientists eventually die when the food runs out is really bad publicity.
I think that depends if you intend to bring the ship back again.
Look at the options though.
Option one: Enjoy a long, healthy life on earth. Raise a family if you can. Grow old. Spent the last decade of your life in a care home as your mind decays before dying of natural causes. Your immediate family will mourn you for a few years, but in the end you will leave no legacy but a headstone.
Option two: Volunteer for the mars colony mission in thirty years and head off. Spend your life advancing mankind, breaking new ground, and solving exciting problems on the frontier. Enjoy seeing the whole world follow the exploits of you and your team, via somewhat-delayed radio link. Die of radiation-induced cancer ten years later because Mars' medical facilities are still lacking compared to those of Earth. Have a mountain named after you.
Lots of people will pick option two. You're dead either way in the end.
The big space rock is coming. Perhaps not today, perhaps not this century, perhaps not for another ten million years. But the question is when, not if, it will hit.
What available resources? Mars has no petrochemicals. It's very rich in iron, which is certainly nice, and I'm sure there are other metals you can find and mine - but doing so needs industrial machines, and smelting/refining equipment, and a lot of power.
I do think that eventual colonisation is a worthwhile goal to pursue. In the spirit of exploration, and advancement, and as insurance against a possible planet-wide disaster. But I also know that realistically, it's probably going to be the single most expensive project in the history of mankind to date and on a time scale of a century or more. But this is the time to start laying the foundations that later generations will build upon. I don't expect to see a self-sustaining mars colony any time soon, but someone has to start the project - even knowing they won't see it finished.
Right now, those foundations mean developing a safer, more reliable and cheaper means of getting there and landing, and eventually a limited-duration manned research mission. Small steps, but the eager potential-Martians of 2080 will thank us for laying the groundwork.
And to keep the plants powered. Mars is at 1.5AU, which gives less than half the sunlight intensity of earth - your crop would grow very slowly and very small.