Cool, someone modded this insightful. Well actually the switch from simulation to reality happened 10 minutes ago. Setting up all the brains with all the memories was one of the easier challenges. No wait, it did happen 6000 years ago. The switch suddenly made people responsible for their actions, gave them free will and stuff. Yeah, that should be it.
Fine with me. But why start at Iron? The only element on earth that hasn't necessarily been inside a star before is hydrogen. Forget about the lithium btw, that was a mixup. Anyway, I'm not sure the sun is making carbon without looking that up, but certainly nothing above it.
I think God started the world 6000 years ago, but the only way to get everything looking right so that it looked much older, was to run a full simulation of the whole history of the universe beforehand and then switch to the real thing, like switching between a virtual machine and a physical computer. All in His Head of course. You can't put a few dinosaur bones in the ground and withstand deeper and deeper scrutiny, now and with the technology of 1000 years from now, without ever failing. Not unless you just run the complete simulated history first.
all of the elements on Earth heavier than iron were once inside a star?
Heavier than iron? don't recall exactly, but I thought our star wasn't in the stage yet where it was producing carbon. Is it making a lot of lithium yet? And now that I think of it, possibly a lot of our hydrogen has been part of a star as well. I think everything heavier than iron was made in a supernova.
I'll offer a view that goes the other way round, that of the irrelevance of panspermia. Life originated on earth because under the right conditions that is inevitable. Incoming meteorites with life or predecessors of life wouldn't have made any difference. Life on other planets is hard. Incoming seeds originating from earth wouldn't make any difference.
If you look at the origins of panspermia theories however, they're of the silly kind: "life is very difficult to start so it must have come from elsewhere".
The numbers on Iraq vary hugely depending on what you're counting. At some point the estimates varied with a factor 30. The spectrum covers - documented kills by american military. - documented violent deaths - statistical estimate of violent deaths - statistical overall excess death (including increased child mortality, epidemics etc).
The first item is the one you want to use if you want to minimize blame , and you can push it a bit by keeping as few records as possible and contesting the remaining records - but the blame can actually be extended to cover the very last item. The Lancet made estimates of overall excess deaths , see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties
People get mugged in the city for their iPhones. In this case it would mean mugging someone who's pointing a camera in your face and is instantly uploading everything to a server.
When you're pushing a basic car with a large lock-to-lock angle, hand position matters a lot if you don't want to get entangled. Not so much when driving straight, but when and how to move your hands and to what position when going fast through twisty bits, or when you're not sure whether the front or the back will break out on a highway exit. F1 drivers never have to move their hands.
I wonder if it inspired those bombs in Star Wars(the new movies, maybe movie 1). the ones that send out a disc like shocckwave. Or the explosion of Sauron's tower at the end of LOTR
To quote Jerry Haber (http://www.jeremiahhaber.com/2010/05/beinart-and-future-of-liberal-zionism.html) Yes, there was a humanistic Zionism -- the Zionism of Buber, Magnes, Einstein, Arendt, Kohn, Ernst Simon -- but it died with the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.
The doctoring up (or skewed interpretation ) won't have happened in the actual document. This usually happens in the articles about the document. Yesterday this was published, which discusses just such a case (namely another article in the independent) http://mondoweiss.net/2012/03/einsteins-crime.html . Einstein's proposal does not suport the idea of a jewish state. There is a lot of mythology about Einstein being supportive of zionism. He was not - not in the sense it's used now. Says Fred Jerome http://www.einsteinonisrael.com/index.html
(alright then , NATO does - and ok, not all countries) and defends it with the ridiculous excuse that "it's for defending against Iran" . Nobody believes that. (Ok, except for the press then). This is completely about NATO absorbing the neighborstates of Russia. Iran is irrelevant.
ut they're significantly better written than Harry Potter
I've read all the Harry Potters and I think from the third book on they're quite well written. The reasons people will say otherwise, in order of appearance, would be 1. empty posturing 2. they've only read the first book 3. more sincere posturing - based on attitudes of what serious literature should be and disdain of the rest
I would like to add a few corrections to your post. First, I think Ahmadinejad was honestly elected as well. Second, in the last 30 years there has been little evolution in the iranian willingness to normalize relations. They always wanted to normalize. What has changed is that they are less willing to do concessions of goodwill without a negotiated agreement(it's no surprise very few people here are actually aware they've done such concessions before). That means, they'll cooperate with the IAEA according the the standard protocol of agreement. If the IAEA wants them to follow the extended protocol 3.1 there will have to be negotiations about normalization. Normalization will mean accepting the civilian iranian nuclear program while the iranians provide extra guarantees that they don't develop nuclear weapons.
What also has changed little is the american attitude: Obama has followed pretty much the same strategy as Bush, even though he created the appearance of a willingness to negotiate. In fact he may have intended to open up on Iran when he campaigned but quickly gave that up.
Slashdot Mirror
Just as a matter of interest, exactly the opposite happened. In a bout of nationalist zeal, a lot of people applied for nuclear engineering studies.
If it talks like a God, walks like a God and looks like a God it's a Duck?
Cool, someone modded this insightful. Well actually the switch from simulation to reality happened 10 minutes ago. Setting up all the brains with all the memories was one of the easier challenges.
No wait, it did happen 6000 years ago. The switch suddenly made people responsible for their actions, gave them free will and stuff. Yeah, that should be it.
Fine with me. But why start at Iron? The only element on earth that hasn't necessarily been inside a star before is hydrogen. Forget about the lithium btw, that was a mixup. Anyway, I'm not sure the sun is making carbon without looking that up, but certainly nothing above it.
I think God started the world 6000 years ago, but the only way to get everything looking right so that it looked much older, was to run a full simulation of the whole history of the universe beforehand and then switch to the real thing, like switching between a virtual machine and a physical computer. All in His Head of course. You can't put a few dinosaur bones in the ground and withstand deeper and deeper scrutiny, now and with the technology of 1000 years from now, without ever failing. Not unless you just run the complete simulated history first.
Like Iran? If you read there are more female university students than males, ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5359672.stm ) I think they won't do too badly.
Heavier than iron? don't recall exactly, but I thought our star wasn't in the stage yet where it was producing carbon. Is it making a lot of lithium yet? And now that I think of it, possibly a lot of our hydrogen has been part of a star as well.
I think everything heavier than iron was made in a supernova.
I'll offer a view that goes the other way round, that of the irrelevance of panspermia. Life originated on earth because under the right conditions that is inevitable. Incoming meteorites with life or predecessors of life wouldn't have made any difference. Life on other planets is hard. Incoming seeds originating from earth wouldn't make any difference.
If you look at the origins of panspermia theories however, they're of the silly kind: "life is very difficult to start so it must have come from elsewhere".
This is quite clear in the recent case of Iraq.
The numbers on Iraq vary hugely depending on what you're counting. At some point the estimates varied with a factor 30. The spectrum covers
- documented kills by american military.
- documented violent deaths
- statistical estimate of violent deaths
- statistical overall excess death (including increased child mortality, epidemics etc).
The first item is the one you want to use if you want to minimize blame , and you can push it a bit by keeping as few records as possible and contesting the remaining records - but the blame can actually be extended to cover the very last item. The Lancet made estimates of overall excess deaths , see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties
You sure manage to give the impression you're talking from experience. And you could be right.
People get mugged in the city for their iPhones. In this case it would mean mugging someone who's pointing a camera in your face and is instantly uploading everything to a server.
Or we just hang it in there. Obviously.
I think I'll put those glasses on record for the first half of my life and then sit back and watch.
I thought it was the Kobayashi Marooned.
I did like that joke, but maybe I should have typed more slowly so you could understand. I do drive a small car btw.
That is why I drive such a small car. I'm compensating for something.
When you're pushing a basic car with a large lock-to-lock angle, hand position matters a lot if you don't want to get entangled. Not so much when driving straight, but when and how to move your hands and to what position when going fast through twisty bits, or when you're not sure whether the front or the back will break out on a highway exit. F1 drivers never have to move their hands.
I wonder if it inspired those bombs in Star Wars(the new movies, maybe movie 1). the ones that send out a disc like shocckwave.
Or the explosion of Sauron's tower at the end of LOTR
To quote Jerry Haber (http://www.jeremiahhaber.com/2010/05/beinart-and-future-of-liberal-zionism.html) Yes, there was a humanistic Zionism -- the Zionism of Buber, Magnes, Einstein, Arendt, Kohn, Ernst Simon -- but it died with the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.
The doctoring up (or skewed interpretation ) won't have happened in the actual document. This usually happens in the articles about the document.
Yesterday this was published, which discusses just such a case (namely another article in the independent) http://mondoweiss.net/2012/03/einsteins-crime.html .
Einstein's proposal does not suport the idea of a jewish state. There is a lot of mythology about Einstein being supportive of zionism. He was not - not in the sense it's used now. Says Fred Jerome http://www.einsteinonisrael.com/index.html
(alright then , NATO does - and ok, not all countries)
and defends it with the ridiculous excuse that "it's for defending against Iran" . Nobody believes that. (Ok, except for the press then). This is completely about NATO absorbing the neighborstates of Russia. Iran is irrelevant.
I think belgian society considers SABAM to be opportunistic sharks.
I've read all the Harry Potters and I think from the third book on they're quite well written. The reasons people will say otherwise, in order of appearance, would be
1. empty posturing
2. they've only read the first book
3. more sincere posturing - based on attitudes of what serious literature should be and disdain of the rest
Here's an article about the iran elections that sums up the arguments for a legitimate win for Ahmadinejad
http://www.raceforiran.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/IranArticle-060110.pdf
I would like to add a few corrections to your post. First, I think Ahmadinejad was honestly elected as well.
Second, in the last 30 years there has been little evolution in the iranian willingness to normalize relations. They always wanted to normalize. What has changed is that they are less willing to do concessions of goodwill without a negotiated agreement(it's no surprise very few people here are actually aware they've done such concessions before). That means, they'll cooperate with the IAEA according the the standard protocol of agreement. If the IAEA wants them to follow the extended protocol 3.1 there will have to be negotiations about normalization. Normalization will mean accepting the civilian iranian nuclear program while the iranians provide extra guarantees that they don't develop nuclear weapons.
What also has changed little is the american attitude: Obama has followed pretty much the same strategy as Bush, even though he created the appearance of a willingness to negotiate. In fact he may have intended to open up on Iran when he campaigned but quickly gave that up.
As about that nuke project, the US and israeli intelligence organisations agree that Iran has not shown an intent to create a bomb. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html