The answer is, not much. It's a vanishingly small return on a huge investment to explore the galaxy, especially when we've got bigger problems at home and so much raw material in our own solar system.
That's an unprovable claim. The return on investment could be arbitrarily large.
We could probably build a few hundred.1c probes for a cost of no more than ten trillion dollars using current technology. Assuming just one of those probes sent us back information from a more advanced alien race, we could well recoup that investment a millionfold.
It may be cheaper to send robotic missions, but probably not as much fun. For a race serious about exploring a significant fraction of the galaxy, I doubt if the manned vs unmanned costs are an issue driving the choice of exploration method.
Sorry, you're wrong. There are quite often two sides to a scientific debate when the overwhelming majority is on one side, and history has proven the minority opinion right plenty of times. Consensus is not the end of debate, nor proof of correctness.
You're also wrong about the people on the non-man caused global warming. Many non oil industry funded scientists have alternative theories.
None of your 3 arguments against the church vs school is really relevant: 1) tax exemption isn't the same as tax funding. When you build a school, the taxpayers pay. When you build a church, they don't. Neither happens to pay into the tax system.
2) tax deductions on donations don't force you to donate. And even if you feel coerced: take your pick of churches. With the schools, you pay the government, no choice.
3) same thing as #1 essentially.
And better than saying that there is no controversy, and looking foolish, it would be better to say things like: a) There is limited controversy over whether or not global warming is happening. The evidence for this claim is temperature measurements which are hard to dispute, but some scientists question whether this may be a short term trend. b) There is a fair amount of controversy over whether or not global warming has human causes, but a majority of scientists think so. There are many competing theories for just what may be causing the measured temperature increases.
Your one-off non-statistic of warmer montreal winter is not evidence for global warming. Do some research to understand why not.
I believe global warming is occurring and man-caused. Writing about it in a misleading way doesn't help our cause.
And most is the keyword when considering scientists who do or don't believe in human caused global warming. And not all of the non-human causes people are shills, that's just blatantly false.
Lying about your opposition is not the scientific way.
Then you're just going to shift these issues to the federal level. Where no doubt we'll quickly see that the minimum regulations on a school will require that it must teach evolution and not creationism, and must show an inconvenient truth to every child. Etc.
But... the schools are publicly (tax) supported, while churches are privately funded. Surely you can see why one would suggest that the schools should not be for indoctrination, but instead be places of learning where balanced viewpoints are presented about controversial issues.
I don't have a car. The last time I bought new clothes was over a year ago, and I'm normal weight. I voted against everyone involved in starting the current war (yes, including the congresscritters who authorized war). There's not a great deal more I can do unless things around me actually cost less.
8 people have a physical ailment. 4 people receive surgery, 4 don't. The 4 receivers live, the 4 non-receivers all die. You have the ailment. Surgery or no surgery for you?
2 people guess a million times. They each get the right answer 600,000 each. Do you still assume it's a random guess? You may not believe that their power generalizes, but you darn well better believe in their power.
It's the slashdot summary, they misquoted the Daily Mail by inserting the word 'more'. It's really just 60% right guesses vs expected 50% right guesses.
30 is a low sample size, but would not be unusual in psychology studies. There are statistical tests you can perform to find out the minimum effect size to declare significance. I've seen studies with meaningful results in as few as 8 samples.
Nevertheless, this particular study had 1260 samples. 42 guessers * 30 guesses each. More than a thousand samples is plenty for significance.
The article is clear on this, the slashdot summary is wrong. It's 60% right guesses for 42 guessers against 30 pictures, over a thousand total guesses, with 60% right instead of 50% right.
The article and summary are in disagreement. Choosing to assume the article is more likely to be right, it is 60% right guesses vs expected 50% right guesses.
However, also omitted from the summary is 42 guessers guessing on the 30 dress-up-women in the study. That's 42x30 guesses, with a 60% correct guess rate overall. 60% with more than a thousand sample points is well within the usual scientific standard for statistically significant.
Slashdot Mirror
The answer is, not much. It's a vanishingly small return on a huge investment to explore the galaxy, especially when we've got bigger problems at home and so much raw material in our own solar system.
.1c probes for a cost of no more than ten trillion dollars using current technology. Assuming just one of those probes sent us back information from a more advanced alien race, we could well recoup that investment a millionfold.
That's an unprovable claim. The return on investment could be arbitrarily large.
We could probably build a few hundred
Didn't hurt them, and encouraged people to visit. Worked out pretty well I'd say.
It may be cheaper to send robotic missions, but probably not as much fun. For a race serious about exploring a significant fraction of the galaxy, I doubt if the manned vs unmanned costs are an issue driving the choice of exploration method.
I'm right at 35, and clearly still on an upward trajectory with my abilities.
Sorry, you're wrong. There are quite often two sides to a scientific debate when the overwhelming majority is on one side, and history has proven the minority opinion right plenty of times. Consensus is not the end of debate, nor proof of correctness.
You're also wrong about the people on the non-man caused global warming. Many non oil industry funded scientists have alternative theories.
None of your 3 arguments against the church vs school is really relevant:
1) tax exemption isn't the same as tax funding. When you build a school, the taxpayers pay. When you build a church, they don't. Neither happens to pay into the tax system.
2) tax deductions on donations don't force you to donate. And even if you feel coerced: take your pick of churches. With the schools, you pay the government, no choice.
3) same thing as #1 essentially.
And better than saying that there is no controversy, and looking foolish, it would be better to say things like:
a) There is limited controversy over whether or not global warming is happening. The evidence for this claim is temperature measurements which are hard to dispute, but some scientists question whether this may be a short term trend.
b) There is a fair amount of controversy over whether or not global warming has human causes, but a majority of scientists think so. There are many competing theories for just what may be causing the measured temperature increases.
Your one-off non-statistic of warmer montreal winter is not evidence for global warming. Do some research to understand why not.
I believe global warming is occurring and man-caused. Writing about it in a misleading way doesn't help our cause.
Have you even seen a picture of the earth from space? It's obviously flat.. lunaroutpost.com/gallery/earth/images/earth_full_h ires%2520copy.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.lunaroutpos t.com/gallery/earth/pages/earth_full_hires%2520cop y.htm&h=1050&w=1050&sz=133&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=jva wRrTZqZIg-M:&tbnh=150&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3D earth%2Bfrom%2Bspace%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3 D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:o fficial%26hs%3Ds8W%26sa%3DX
Here's a google image cache of a good one:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www
The earth is obviously a sort of flat coin shape.
And most is the keyword when considering scientists who do or don't believe in human caused global warming. And not all of the non-human causes people are shills, that's just blatantly false.
Lying about your opposition is not the scientific way.
complaints of a parent: '"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher," said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven
That explains all. Looks like intelligent design didn't quite work out for him!
That guy has had sex a minimum of seven times more than most slashdotters, so I'd say creationism worked out quite well for him.
Then you're just going to shift these issues to the federal level. Where no doubt we'll quickly see that the minimum regulations on a school will require that it must teach evolution and not creationism, and must show an inconvenient truth to every child. Etc.
But ... the schools are publicly (tax) supported, while churches are privately funded. Surely you can see why one would suggest that the schools should not be for indoctrination, but instead be places of learning where balanced viewpoints are presented about controversial issues.
I don't have a car. The last time I bought new clothes was over a year ago, and I'm normal weight.
I voted against everyone involved in starting the current war (yes, including the congresscritters who authorized war).
There's not a great deal more I can do unless things around me actually cost less.
Well, to be fair to me, I'm reaping what someone else sowed. Which would be hard to describe as fair or just to me.
8 people have a physical ailment. 4 people receive surgery, 4 don't. The 4 receivers live, the 4 non-receivers all die.
You have the ailment. Surgery or no surgery for you?
2 people guess a million times. They each get the right answer 600,000 each. Do you still assume it's a random guess? You may not believe that their power generalizes, but you darn well better believe in their power.
Indeed, that was my conclusion as well.
Yep, sorry, I had RTFA, but not realized there was a second FA to read. The new scientist is indeed apparently the one that got it wrong.
Thanks, and sorry about that, I had RTFA without noticing there was a second FA to read.
Indeed, the New scientist is off.
The slashdot summary misquoted the daily mail, which summarized the study reasonably correctly.
It was just plain 60% right guesses vs expected 50% right guesses.
And the sample size was roughly a total of 1200 guesses. So roughly 720 guesses right vs expected 600 guesses right.
It's the slashdot summary, they misquoted the Daily Mail by inserting the word 'more'.
It's really just 60% right guesses vs expected 50% right guesses.
Allow me to quote direct from the Daily Mall:
R L&_udi=B6WGC-4M3J10P-1&_user=10&_handle=C-WA-A-WB- WB-MsSAYZW-UUA-U-U-WB-U-U-AADUEEYDVD-AAZYCDECVD-WU BCYWEWC-WB-U&_fmt=full&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2007&_ rdoc=7&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236819%232007%239 99489998%23638753!&_cdi=6819&_acct=C000050221&_ver sion=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=444a5bf43b7599 407cecc16ac1560df4
The judges chose the photo taken during the fertile phases 60 per cent of the time.
According to New Scientist, this is "well beyond random chance".
Where the word 'more' came from, other than slashdot summary, I don't know.
The real study is here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleU
30 is a low sample size, but would not be unusual in psychology studies. There are statistical tests you can perform to find out the minimum effect size to declare significance. I've seen studies with meaningful results in as few as 8 samples.
Nevertheless, this particular study had 1260 samples. 42 guessers * 30 guesses each. More than a thousand samples is plenty for significance.
42 judges * 30 subjects = 1260 samples. 60% right is well outside of random chance for that many samples.
There are over a thousand coin flip equivalents in this study.
42 guessers * 30 pictures each = 1260 samples.
The article is clear on this, the slashdot summary is wrong. It's 60% right guesses for 42 guessers against 30 pictures, over a thousand total guesses, with 60% right instead of 50% right.
The article and summary are in disagreement. Choosing to assume the article is more likely to be right, it is 60% right guesses vs expected 50% right guesses.
However, also omitted from the summary is 42 guessers guessing on the 30 dress-up-women in the study. That's 42x30 guesses, with a 60% correct guess rate overall. 60% with more than a thousand sample points is well within the usual scientific standard for statistically significant.
That's not his fault, it's the summaries fault. His interpretation is actually correct if you read the actual article.
Nevertheless, he is still wrong about the statistical significance.