Yes, obsessive video hoarders will use big hard drives just as you describe. Everybody else will pay Netflix or Comcast $20 a month for hassle free access to 10,000 times the content.
ID isn't an argument against current scientific thought. It is the equivalent of insisting that we should consider whether 2 + 2 might just equal 5, and spend actual class time on it (which critical thought should suggest is not a worthwhile endeavor).
So ID replaces the lack of a well specified explanation for the structure of the eye with a creator that cannot be explained (because it is beyond experience)? What is so much more satisfying about the second one?
I assert that I can't imagine A, but since I did imagine B, B must be THE TRUTH!
On site storage seems to work just fine (there might need to be an increase in the acreage set aside when plants are built) and has the nifty advantage of being highly exposed to improvements in reprocessing technology.
I'll bet you a nickel that the S&P 500 is up in 18 months.
Despite the ongoing economic woes, the earnings power of the companies in the S&P has not eroded to the extent you are implying. Part of the reason for this is that many of them do business in Europe.
Also, stick this into your theory: People have changed their behavior at $4 gas. They apparently can't afford $8 gas, so the market will not be able to sustain $8 prices.
Finally China and India are engaged in unwinding fuel subsidies (the governments do not wish to afford the current rate of consumption increases). We could see significant price relief by the end of August.
Building any sort of meaningful colony is going to involve putting an enormous amount of equipment into orbit. At the moment, putting stuff into orbit means using chemical rockets (I apologize for my earlier offense to your sense of pedantry). I don't think chemical rockets are a practical way to lift the amount of equipment that a real colony (versus a neat research outpost that does stuff, like the ISS but further away) would require.
(for some sort of reference, the Phoenix lander has a mass of 450kg; the minimum launch mass of the rocket that put it into orbit is 335 times that. That isn't a great ratio...)
What is it that makes my view pessimistic? The energy involved in exiting a gravity well is 'ludicrous', not something that can be hand waved away as trivial.
The amount of energy involved in bringing 1 ton of extremely valuable materials from Mars (or an asteroid, etc) gives you a whole hell of a lot of earthbound options that the real pessimists from the article you link are failing to account for.
You misunderstand. Building interplanetary ships is not a practical activity when you only have chemical rockets with which to orbit things. Thus, interplanetary ships (beyond a few novelty science missions) are not a practical thing.
There will be no Mars colony if we don't figure out something better than a big explosion. This makes it very likely that there will be no Mars colony.
Yes, that was essentially my point. Note that the comment I replied to made a rather blanket recommendation and also stated that they had not read any Heinlein.
The Ultimates may rate a little higher than pre-teen. Hank Pym beats his wife and then gets beat by the Captain, and Betsy is turned on by the Hulk eating people. And so on. I guess the Spiderman series is probably aimed a little younger, but probably closer to 14 than to 12.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, were sick of it. The first couple of years were funny, but come up with something new once in a while.
What political reasons? Do you think the US government gets its intelligence from Spam?
Hell, I would think that the paranoid position is that they just go ahead and make it up...
Your comment is delightfully self-contradictory.
What's happening at work?
Yes, obsessive video hoarders will use big hard drives just as you describe. Everybody else will pay Netflix or Comcast $20 a month for hassle free access to 10,000 times the content.
I don't see a 'next thing' after video (and I don't see most people using video storage the way they use music storage).
There is nothing in copyright law preventing use of something like the GPL.
Also, the market absolutely can decide not to use proprietary software. I'm sure there is some bizarre logical contortion that I am missing though.
Current evolutionary theory doesn't hinge on speciation.
If you insist that evolution is only true if there is speciation, the problem is with what you are insisting, not with evolutionary theory.
ID isn't an argument against current scientific thought. It is the equivalent of insisting that we should consider whether 2 + 2 might just equal 5, and spend actual class time on it (which critical thought should suggest is not a worthwhile endeavor).
So ID replaces the lack of a well specified explanation for the structure of the eye with a creator that cannot be explained (because it is beyond experience)? What is so much more satisfying about the second one?
I assert that I can't imagine A, but since I did imagine B, B must be THE TRUTH!
There must be something in there about a lot of people being assholes or something.
On site storage seems to work just fine (there might need to be an increase in the acreage set aside when plants are built) and has the nifty advantage of being highly exposed to improvements in reprocessing technology.
I'll bet you a nickel that the S&P 500 is up in 18 months.
Despite the ongoing economic woes, the earnings power of the companies in the S&P has not eroded to the extent you are implying. Part of the reason for this is that many of them do business in Europe.
Also, stick this into your theory: People have changed their behavior at $4 gas. They apparently can't afford $8 gas, so the market will not be able to sustain $8 prices.
Finally China and India are engaged in unwinding fuel subsidies (the governments do not wish to afford the current rate of consumption increases). We could see significant price relief by the end of August.
Building any sort of meaningful colony is going to involve putting an enormous amount of equipment into orbit. At the moment, putting stuff into orbit means using chemical rockets (I apologize for my earlier offense to your sense of pedantry). I don't think chemical rockets are a practical way to lift the amount of equipment that a real colony (versus a neat research outpost that does stuff, like the ISS but further away) would require.
(for some sort of reference, the Phoenix lander has a mass of 450kg; the minimum launch mass of the rocket that put it into orbit is 335 times that. That isn't a great ratio...)
So if I rocket out to the left, does that mean I drag you with me?
Let me know when it changes. Things haven't improved a whole lot in the last, ya know, 40 years.
Relative to the energy density of fuels that can safely and economically be manufactured in the necessary quantities.
Quick, buy technology product before it goes up in price!
Should have signed that "Jerry Yang".
That's the best euphemism I have ever heard for hitting someone upside the head with an aluminum baseball bat.
What is it that makes my view pessimistic? The energy involved in exiting a gravity well is 'ludicrous', not something that can be hand waved away as trivial.
The amount of energy involved in bringing 1 ton of extremely valuable materials from Mars (or an asteroid, etc) gives you a whole hell of a lot of earthbound options that the real pessimists from the article you link are failing to account for.
You misunderstand. Building interplanetary ships is not a practical activity when you only have chemical rockets with which to orbit things. Thus, interplanetary ships (beyond a few novelty science missions) are not a practical thing.
There will be no Mars colony if we don't figure out something better than a big explosion. This makes it very likely that there will be no Mars colony.
Continuing to futz around with orbiting humans using chemical rockets isn't going to do much to benefit of all of humanity either.
Yes, that was essentially my point. Note that the comment I replied to made a rather blanket recommendation and also stated that they had not read any Heinlein.
The Ultimates may rate a little higher than pre-teen. Hank Pym beats his wife and then gets beat by the Captain, and Betsy is turned on by the Hulk eating people. And so on. I guess the Spiderman series is probably aimed a little younger, but probably closer to 14 than to 12.