It seems to me that since these bacteria have been around for almost two billion years (or so the article claims), if they were capable of exploiting such a niche and eating all the crude oil in the world, they would have done it already and petroleum would be unknown to us. A billion years is a very long time. If the necessary mutations didn't occur in that period, it's not going to happen on any timescale that concerns humans. We'll have burned it all long, long before the bacteria could get to it.
I know many people who've had it done and I myself have had it done in one eye.
Everyone else I know was elated with the results.
I, however, am left with irregular astigmatism in my eye. Basically, I see double out of one eye. That sucks. I'd rather be nearsighted. It's basically untreatable except (maybe) with a hard contact. I can see better than before, without contacts, but not as good as when I had my contacts in. Now, I won't risk my right eye.
Bottom line: it's a low risk but there is still a risk. It's your eyesight. As long as you are awake and have your eyes open a PRK or LASIK fuckup will be right there bugging you. Every single minute.
Personally, if I had it to do over again I would stick with my contacts. Maybe in a few years technology will advance to the point where they can fix my messed-up eye and reduce the risk from low to astronomically low. Until then, forget it.
They're not planning to use this thing to launch the shuttle. I suppose some future manned craft might use it but not the shuttle.
The idea is to get the vehicle from 0 to 600 mph without using any fuel on the vehicle. Less fuel to carry means the craft can be either carry more cargo or be smaller, either way it reduces $$$/kg to orbit.
It's just like a multi-stage rocket, which is simply two or more rockets stacked on top of each other. In this case the "first stage" is a fixed maglev rail which can be reused. What happens on current rockets if the second stage doesn't light up after the first is through? Time for a swim. Not really much different.
Out of curiosity, how does the United States' immigration policy compare to other country's? Is it relatively restrictive or wide open? If I wanted to go work in the UK, France (well maybe not France), Australia, or India or wherever, is it more or less difficult to get the equivalent of the H1-B?
They mentioned that there could be trace amounts of liquid water underground on Mars, so I think they were assuming the microbes would live underground, where the water is and where the radiation cannot reach them.
I think I have a crude understanding of a supernova: star uses up it's fuel and collapses, core is crushed to density of a neutron star and then stops, resulting "bounce" creates shockwave which blows the star to bits, leaving a neutron star or black hole and an expanding nebula.
So what's a hypernova? How's it different from a supernova?
On the bright side, Pluto would no longer be the runt of the planetary litter but the king of its own domain as the largest, and first-discovered of the Kupier-belt objects (EKBO).
This has happened before. Ceres was discovered in 1801 and was called a planet for a while. It even got an element named after it, like Pluto. But eventually, when they found a bunch of other small bodies in similar orbits it became the biggest asteroid instead of the smallest planet.
I'd say Mercury is safe in it's planethood unless they find a horde of little Mercuroids orbiting near the Sun that have somehow escaped our notice until now. Unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that since these bacteria have been around for almost two billion years (or so the article claims), if they were capable of exploiting such a niche and eating all the crude oil in the world, they would have done it already and petroleum would be unknown to us. A billion years is a very long time. If the necessary mutations didn't occur in that period, it's not going to happen on any timescale that concerns humans. We'll have burned it all long, long before the bacteria could get to it.
I know many people who've had it done and I myself have had it done in one eye.
Everyone else I know was elated with the results.
I, however, am left with irregular astigmatism in my eye. Basically, I see double out of one eye. That sucks. I'd rather be nearsighted. It's basically untreatable except (maybe) with a hard contact. I can see better than before, without contacts, but not as good as when I had my contacts in. Now, I won't risk my right eye.
Bottom line: it's a low risk but there is still a risk. It's your eyesight. As long as you are awake and have your eyes open a PRK or LASIK fuckup will be right there bugging you. Every single minute.
Personally, if I had it to do over again I would stick with my contacts. Maybe in a few years technology will advance to the point where they can fix my messed-up eye and reduce the risk from low to astronomically low. Until then, forget it.
They're not planning to use this thing to launch the shuttle. I suppose some future manned craft might use it but not the shuttle.
The idea is to get the vehicle from 0 to 600 mph without using any fuel on the vehicle. Less fuel to carry means the craft can be either carry more cargo or be smaller, either way it reduces $$$/kg to orbit.
It's just like a multi-stage rocket, which is simply two or more rockets stacked on top of each other. In this case the "first stage" is a fixed maglev rail which can be reused. What happens on current rockets if the second stage doesn't light up after the first is through? Time for a swim. Not really much different.
Out of curiosity, how does the United States' immigration policy compare to other country's? Is it relatively restrictive or wide open? If I wanted to go work in the UK, France (well maybe not France), Australia, or India or wherever, is it more or less difficult to get the equivalent of the H1-B?
CP
They mentioned that there could be trace amounts of liquid water underground on Mars, so I think they were assuming the microbes would live underground, where the water is and where the radiation cannot reach them.
CP
I think I have a crude understanding of a supernova: star uses up it's fuel and collapses, core is crushed to density of a neutron star and then stops, resulting "bounce" creates shockwave which blows the star to bits, leaving a neutron star or black hole and an expanding nebula.
So what's a hypernova? How's it different from a supernova?
On the bright side, Pluto would no longer be the runt of the planetary litter but the king of its own domain as the largest, and first-discovered of the Kupier-belt objects (EKBO).
This has happened before. Ceres was discovered in 1801 and was called a planet for a while. It even got an element named after it, like Pluto. But eventually, when they found a bunch of other small bodies in similar orbits it became the biggest asteroid instead of the smallest planet.
I'd say Mercury is safe in it's planethood unless they find a horde of little Mercuroids orbiting near the Sun that have somehow escaped our notice until now. Unlikely.