What would happen if someone were to release a version that created bogus and unreliable information making their data collection unreliable and worthless?
The data would have to be indestiguashable from real data or at lease hard to distiguish and yet provide enough noise to make the current collection of data unreliable
Putting national guardsmen in our airports with M16s (do they have magic terrorist detecting powers) to watch over law abiding citizens is unpatriotic. Holding people without charges is unpatriotic. Even with the best intentions.
Why? Because there are some things more important than the war against terrorism, but Ascroft and his cronies don't see it.
Re:An indication(not proof) for God
on
Rare Earth
·
· Score: 1
Believing that God made the BigBang is as plausible as any other theorie...
True, but it's not an indication of the existence of God, since believing that God didn't create the BigBang is just as good a theory.
Re:When I'm not so egotistical
on
Rare Earth
·
· Score: 1
That's even more depressing than being alone.
Re:The problem with all these equations...
on
Rare Earth
·
· Score: 1
Or, alternately, advanced life is common but we just happen to be the first....)
That would rock. *We* get to be the Galactic Overlords, the father species, the Precursors, the Ancients, cool.
For millions of years, aliens will be excavating our pyramids on far of planets, wondering at our magical technology, searching for clues as to why we all of a sudden left our homes to disappear into the galactic core, orphanning all the myriad civilizations of the galaxy that revered us.
Re:The problem with all these equations...
on
Rare Earth
·
· Score: 1
What the theory does is allow us to imagine almost any possible environment for the life to have evolved in.
Proper distance from the star. If a planet orbits its sun too closely or too far away, liquid water would not exist. There isn't much margin for error here: a change of 5 to 15 percent in Earth's distance from the Sun would lead to the freezing, or boiling, of all water on Earth.
Bull. Martian tropics can get above freezing in the summer. Mars is 50% further away than Earth.
A star of a proper mass. A too-massive star would emit too much ultra-violet energy, preventing the development of life.
*Our* star emits too much U-V. Did you ever hear of the ozone layer? What did life use for shielding before the you ask? Ocean water blocks U-V.
A proper mass. A planet that is too small will not be able to maintain any atmosphere.
How much smaller? Mars could probably hold a thicker atmosphere than its got, Venus, and Earth sized planet, can hold a much thicker atmosphere than Earths. Smaller planets may actually be better. A bigger problem with small planets is low volcanic activity.
A planet that is too massive would attract a larger number of asteroids, increasing the chances of life-destroying cataclysms.
Oceans.
The Earth hasn't experience one life-destroying cataclysm. It seems logical that it would be harder to destroy all life on a larger planet than a smaller one.
The ability to maintain liquid water does not automatically imply that there will be any on the planet's surface. It looks like Earth acquired its own water from asteroids made of ice that crashed here billions of years ago.
There is no evidence that these comets are rare.
On the other hand, too much water (i.e., a planet with little or no land) will lead to an unstable atmosphere, unfit for maintaining life.
How, or do you just mean higher winds? What bearing does this have on life.
A constant energy output from the star. If the star's energy output suddenly decreases, even for a relatively short while, all the water on the planet would freeze. This situation is irreversible, since when the star resumes its normal energy output, the planet's now-white surface will reflect most of this energy, and the ice will never melt.
I suppose this is why the ice ages never reversed. A high C02 atmosphere might negate this argument. The sun has not been consistant in its output, and there is no evidence that stars as constant as the sun are rare.
Successful evolution. Even if all of these conditions hold, and simple life evolves (which probably happens even if some of these conditions aren't met), this still does not imply that the result is animal (multi-cellular) life. The evolution of life on Earth included some surprising leaps; two worth mentioning are the move from simple, single-cellular life to cells which contain internal organs, and the appearance of calcium-based skeletons. It appears like the first of these leaps took more time than the evolution from complex single-celled life to full-blown humans.
The evolution of increased cooperation could be inevitable. There is no evidence that the events mentioned above were random singular events as opposed to the culmination of eons of progressive evolution.
Avoiding disasters. Any number of disasters can lead to the complete extinction of all life on a planet. This include the supernova of a nearby star; a massive asteroid impact (like the one that probably caused the extinction of dinosaurs, and 70% of all other life-forms at the time); drastic changes of climate; and so on.
I'm not sure about the supernova, but everything else you've mentioned here *has happened to Earth*, yet here we are. Not only did life survive, but maybe they are essential to the evolution of complex life.
The existence of a Jupiter-like planet in the system. Apparently, Jupiter's large mass attracted many of the asteroids that would have otherwise hit Earth. Could life evolve in a system with no Jovian planet? On the other hand, too many Jovian planets, or one that is too large, could lead to a non-stable solar system, sending the smaller planets into the central sun or ejecting them into the cold of space.
No evidence that these are rare. Earth has two (is uranus/neptune Jovian?) Jovian neighbors. How many is too many? How many planets have been ejected from our system?
The existence of a large, nearby moon. Luna, Earth's moon, is atypically large and close. Both of Mars's moons, for example, are minor rocks by comparison. What does this have to do with life? Well, it turns out that Luna kept (and still keeps) Earth's tilt stable. Without Luna, the tilt would have changed drastically over time, and no stable climate could exist. If the tilt would have stabilized on a too-large or too-small value, the results could also be disastrous; 1Earth's tilt is "just right."
Earth's moon is atypical. But how does it affect life? It's not plausible that a change in Earth's tilt would wipe out all life, or negate the possiblity of life forming. The Earth has experienced a lot of dramatic climate change, even with the Moon's steadying power. Yet life trucks on.
Plate tectonics. Surprisingly enough, it seems like plate tectonics are required for maintaining a stable atmosphere. Plate tectonics play an important role in a complex feedback system (explained in detail in the book) that prevents too many greenhouse gases from existing in the atmosphere. No other planet (except maybe for Jupiter's moon Europa) is known to have plate tectonics. Is this a rare phenomenon, but required for life?
Interesting idea. Another planet that probably has plate techtonics is Venus. Yet it is loaded with greenhouse gasses. The Earth probably has other mechanism for reducing greenhouse gasses.
"No! Google is a peacful website!"
Cmdr. Taco: "Perhaps you'd prefer another target, a *nerdly* target? I grow tired of asking, so this will be the last time: Where is the hidden beowulf cluster of Natalie Portman pr0n?"
Re:Chaos is Fractal, a second-order derivative.
on
Simulating Societies
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately for people who maintain that man is ineffable and that God is unknowable, the facts are that man is statistically predictable, easily manipulatable and, while he is imbued with a lab animal's right to do whatever he damn well chooses in a carefully controlled experiment, he rarely does so he is reducible to a mathematical theorem.
New Country is soft rock with a twangy guitar or a texas accent.
CMT recently had a tribute to Waylon Jennings, and played him up as an outlaw hero. Nashville wouldn't touch Waylon with a ten foot pole when he was alive.
It's rather that the ultra conservative press doesn't bother with the many reports that there in many areas adult stem cells are deficient when compared to fetal stem cells.
Readers of such liberal papers as the Wall Street Journal (sarcasm) would know about this, while those who think that National Review is about as much journalistic integrity as they can stand may not.
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words - "mank" and "ind". What do these words mean ? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind -- Jack Handey
Slashdot Mirror
Reposting an Ac who got modded down.
Moderators: If you don't get the reference, it doesn't mean it's off topic.
Jesus, that article in Nature tried to store 30-40 cookies.
What would happen if someone were to release a version that created bogus and unreliable information making their data collection unreliable and worthless?
The data would have to be indestiguashable from real data or at lease hard to distiguish and yet provide enough noise to make the current collection of data unreliable
I't only entrapment if they hire somebody to convince someone they want to arrest to steal the car.
All they would have to claim is that the guy gets off on police brutality, and they could throw him in jail.
Why? Because there are some things more important than the war against terrorism, but Ascroft and his cronies don't see it.
True, but it's not an indication of the existence of God, since believing that God didn't create the BigBang is just as good a theory.
That's even more depressing than being alone.
That would rock. *We* get to be the Galactic Overlords, the father species, the Precursors, the Ancients, cool.
For millions of years, aliens will be excavating our pyramids on far of planets, wondering at our magical technology, searching for clues as to why we all of a sudden left our homes to disappear into the galactic core, orphanning all the myriad civilizations of the galaxy that revered us.
What the theory does is allow us to imagine almost any possible environment for the life to have evolved in.
Bull. Martian tropics can get above freezing in the summer. Mars is 50% further away than Earth.
A star of a proper mass. A too-massive star would emit too much ultra-violet energy, preventing the development of life.
*Our* star emits too much U-V. Did you ever hear of the ozone layer? What did life use for shielding before the you ask? Ocean water blocks U-V.
A proper mass. A planet that is too small will not be able to maintain any atmosphere.
How much smaller? Mars could probably hold a thicker atmosphere than its got, Venus, and Earth sized planet, can hold a much thicker atmosphere than Earths. Smaller planets may actually be better. A bigger problem with small planets is low volcanic activity.
A planet that is too massive would attract a larger number of asteroids, increasing the chances of life-destroying cataclysms. Oceans.
The Earth hasn't experience one life-destroying cataclysm. It seems logical that it would be harder to destroy all life on a larger planet than a smaller one.
The ability to maintain liquid water does not automatically imply that there will be any on the planet's surface. It looks like Earth acquired its own water from asteroids made of ice that crashed here billions of years ago.
There is no evidence that these comets are rare.
On the other hand, too much water (i.e., a planet with little or no land) will lead to an unstable atmosphere, unfit for maintaining life.
How, or do you just mean higher winds? What bearing does this have on life.
A constant energy output from the star. If the star's energy output suddenly decreases, even for a relatively short while, all the water on the planet would freeze. This situation is irreversible, since when the star resumes its normal energy output, the planet's now-white surface will reflect most of this energy, and the ice will never melt.
I suppose this is why the ice ages never reversed. A high C02 atmosphere might negate this argument. The sun has not been consistant in its output, and there is no evidence that stars as constant as the sun are rare.
Successful evolution. Even if all of these conditions hold, and simple life evolves (which probably happens even if some of these conditions aren't met), this still does not imply that the result is animal (multi-cellular) life. The evolution of life on Earth included some surprising leaps; two worth mentioning are the move from simple, single-cellular life to cells which contain internal organs, and the appearance of calcium-based skeletons. It appears like the first of these leaps took more time than the evolution from complex single-celled life to full-blown humans.
The evolution of increased cooperation could be inevitable. There is no evidence that the events mentioned above were random singular events as opposed to the culmination of eons of progressive evolution.
Avoiding disasters. Any number of disasters can lead to the complete extinction of all life on a planet. This include the supernova of a nearby star; a massive asteroid impact (like the one that probably caused the extinction of dinosaurs, and 70% of all other life-forms at the time); drastic changes of climate; and so on.
I'm not sure about the supernova, but everything else you've mentioned here *has happened to Earth*, yet here we are. Not only did life survive, but maybe they are essential to the evolution of complex life.
The existence of a Jupiter-like planet in the system. Apparently, Jupiter's large mass attracted many of the asteroids that would have otherwise hit Earth. Could life evolve in a system with no Jovian planet? On the other hand, too many Jovian planets, or one that is too large, could lead to a non-stable solar system, sending the smaller planets into the central sun or ejecting them into the cold of space.
No evidence that these are rare. Earth has two (is uranus/neptune Jovian?) Jovian neighbors. How many is too many? How many planets have been ejected from our system?
The existence of a large, nearby moon. Luna, Earth's moon, is atypically large and close. Both of Mars's moons, for example, are minor rocks by comparison. What does this have to do with life? Well, it turns out that Luna kept (and still keeps) Earth's tilt stable. Without Luna, the tilt would have changed drastically over time, and no stable climate could exist. If the tilt would have stabilized on a too-large or too-small value, the results could also be disastrous; 1Earth's tilt is "just right."
Earth's moon is atypical. But how does it affect life? It's not plausible that a change in Earth's tilt would wipe out all life, or negate the possiblity of life forming. The Earth has experienced a lot of dramatic climate change, even with the Moon's steadying power. Yet life trucks on.
Plate tectonics. Surprisingly enough, it seems like plate tectonics are required for maintaining a stable atmosphere. Plate tectonics play an important role in a complex feedback system (explained in detail in the book) that prevents too many greenhouse gases from existing in the atmosphere. No other planet (except maybe for Jupiter's moon Europa) is known to have plate tectonics. Is this a rare phenomenon, but required for life?
Interesting idea. Another planet that probably has plate techtonics is Venus. Yet it is loaded with greenhouse gasses. The Earth probably has other mechanism for reducing greenhouse gasses.
Creationist claptrap at its worst.
"No! Google is a peacful website!" Cmdr. Taco: "Perhaps you'd prefer another target, a *nerdly* target? I grow tired of asking, so this will be the last time: Where is the hidden beowulf cluster of Natalie Portman pr0n?"
Any one who is married already knew this.
Oh mod point, where art thou?
*Flamebait!?!?* This oft repeated one liner is the best, shortest illumination of World History.
CMT recently had a tribute to Waylon Jennings, and played him up as an outlaw hero. Nashville wouldn't touch Waylon with a ten foot pole when he was alive.
Someone mod this +1 Inciteful
Amen.
Readers of such liberal papers as the Wall Street Journal (sarcasm) would know about this, while those who think that National Review is about as much journalistic integrity as they can stand may not.
And to those A55holes who set the 20 second minimum time to post: There are people in this world that can type faster than you.
My favorite steal was as a barbarian, I found a bookstore on the second or third level. Stole and resold everyone of his books three times over.
Now that stuff is illegal to carry arround.
It's neither a car, nor a pet...
It is, however, a floor covering.
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words - "mank" and "ind". What do these words mean ? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind -- Jack Handey
We've just finished electing two draft dodging, lying, corrupt, druggie presidents in a row.
Is anti-matter positive (same as regular) gravity? Whats the theory on this? I don't suppose they've made enough of it to run an expirement...
If the disk is shadowing gravity, wouldn't that make the disk heavier? Or is it reflecting gravity?