I would say we don't know much about evolution or ID. But, to presume one over the other and attack the other side is both wrong for anyone.
You don't know much about evolution.
Humanity as a whole, however, does.
You speak from ignorance. Your points are all well-taken, except that you assume that nobody else knows more about evolution than you. They do. Which means that your whole post is "wrong" by your own definition.
I'll start by saying I am a christian so you know where I stand.
You lost me already.
There are Christians and there are Christians. It's an extremely diverse religion.
I am a Christian. However, I accept the evidence for evolution and believe (not in the faith sense, but in the same sense that I believe that a neutral Hydrogen atom has one electron) that all complex life evolved from simpler forms through a process of mutation and natural selection (which is well established, though not perfectly understood). I believe that the Universe is at least 13.7 billion years old, and that it was once extremely hot and dense. (Science right now can't really take us to the moment of the big bang, but it does take us back to a when the Universe was a soup of protons and neutrons and electrons that hadn't formed into elements yet.)
All of that, yet I'm a Christian. So how can I know where you stand?
I am also extremely angry when religions try to interfere with the progress of science, and when creationists (whether they call themselves that or intelligent design advocates) assert that science must be wrong when it disagrees with the Bible, or when ID advocates assert something like irreducable complexity simply because they don't have the imagination or intellectual capacity to imagine how something complex could have happened without the direct interference of a supreme being. I'm very angry when Christians assert that to be a Christian, you must believe the literal truth of the Bible, even though reading just the first few chapters of Genesis shows that the Bible contradicts itself and that any reasonable thinking person can't accept it all as literally true. I'm boggled that some Christians think that for something to contain wisdom and truth, it must be literally true-- is your view of God so amazingly simplistic? For heaven's sake, Jesus taught in parables! Make the connection, people! And meanwhile, stop trying to spread ignorance about science in our schools and set our children back into the dark ages by refusing to allow them to learn about the best understanding we have of modern biology!
it is a theory people. Theory. It still has holes, giant unexplainable holes.
This also describes gravity.
General Relativity is a theory, in the same sense of the word as evolution is a theory. So is Newton's theory of gravity.
We know Newton's theory of gravity is "wrong" because in places where it makes divergent predictions from GR, observations show GR to be right. Of course, Newton's theory is a limit of GR, and the fact that it is "wrong" doesn't stop us from predicting the motions of planets or of spacecraft.
We know that GR is "wrong" because it makes nonsensical predictions in areas where it must be mixed with Quantum Mechanics (another well-tested and well-verified scientific theory). But, once again, it works extremely well where it works.
So you could say that our theory of gravity is full of holes, giant unexplanable holes, and you would be right. But that doesn't mean that I can't succesfully predict that if I drop my keys, they are going to go down. It doesn't mean that I can't explain the formation of stars through the gravitational collapse of molecular clouds.
We don't know everything, but we know something!
In fact, although we can make far more precise predictions with our theory of gravity than we can with our theory of evolution, in some sense evolution is on less shaky ground than our current theory of evolution. After all, we don't have very strong evidence that the theory of evolution is wrong somewhere, but we do for gravity!
You ID and Creationism. advocates need to get over this term "just a theory" that you use. It just shows ignorance. You need to realize that the popular use of the word "theory" (to mean "speculation") is extremely different from the scientific use of the word "theory" (to describe an explanation of natural processes which may be extremely well tested and well understood).
"I have absolutely no idea why the universe is complicated, therefore God did it."
Exactly. It's an argument through ignorance. It's just like many other things in the past which weren't explained by science, and have since been been explained by science. Well, not really, becasue we already do understand how complexity can arise from evolution, so it's even worse than that.
As an atheist, I am alarmed when people try to mark religious belief as science.
Seriously, it's apples and oranges. Intelligent design is not science. It's religion. It doesn't belong in a science class. It might be a nice idea, but it's not a real theory in the sense of the word as used by science.
Intelligent design is not a viable alternative to evolution. It is a viable alternative to young-earth creationism, perhaps. But it's not something for which there is scientific evidence.
Having a good academic discussion which debates the merits of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory would be on the same level as a good academic discussion that debates the merits of the Apollo's chariot model as a scientific theory for the observed motion of the Sun across the sky.
She shouldn't get it on with Arthur either, the whole point is that he never does...
"So long" implies that Arthur and Trillian might have gotten it on way back when, but refuses to be more specific on the basis that it's none of our business....
Well, go and listen to the original radio series. It has lots of the events from the first two books. Not all of them, and it has some events that aren't in the first two books.
But, this is key, the events *are in a different order*. Stuff in the first radio series is spread throughout the two books.
I won't be surprised if the events in the movie follow a plot that doesn't match either the radio series or the books.
Most worrying of all is the absence of litigation around open-source projects, Brown says.
Wow. If that's not an indictment of the thinking of these sorts of people, the nature of our society, and the assumptions behind what people say about IP, then I don't know what is.
If people aren't getting sued, then something must be wrong, eh? My god, what a depressing thought.
Not to defend what the applicants did -- unethical, sure, although not horribly so, and easy to understand.
Still, the real story here is that Harvard screwed the pooch big time, but is going to try to deflect any blame from themselves by pointing out loudly how naughty the applicants were. This, they hope, will generate enough smoke so that nobody will notice their goof.
Manufacturers of pens must be held liable if they do not take reasonable care that their pens aren't used to write libel, or to write things that support the cause of terrorists.
And as far as inaccurate information goes, I have a two word response for that: political blogs. Many people are perfectly happy to get their Important Information a blog by somebody who can't name their sources and who has no responsibility to be accurate. The modern measure of accuracy is simply a matter of how many people believe and repeat a statement.
Err... you confuse accuracy and popularity.
The modern measure of perceived accuracy may be that, but that doesn't make it right.
If enough people believe that the world is flat, that won't make it so. Even if lots and lots of blogs talk about it.
I would rather think that track record would be more important.
After all, for a long time (and even still), one argument against Linux is that it isn't backed by leading institutions with impeccable credtials; it's written by the groundlines. (This is why you still see people confusing "Red Hat" with "Linux", since they don't understand that something succesful couldn't come from something that's not monolithic.)
Yet, despite not having the credentials, it's still become popular. Why? Because it works. Track record.
Wikipedia doesn't need credentials, it just needs to show that it's working.
I will grant you that approval and endorsement (though not necessarily support) by leading educational institutions would be a good indication of positive track record, however.
That it's implausible to suppose that a large community of contributors might eventually write an operating system that could challenge Windows in the market.
Of course, the comparison isn't completely accurate, since Linux and *BSD do have "gatekeepers", people like Linus and lieutenants, who at least in theory are vetting everything that makes it into the main kernel.
Nonetheless, it's not a million monkeys writing Wikipedia. Many are monkeys, but there are also lots of intelligent peope out there.
It's also naive to suppose that every "traditional" encyclopedia article has been completely free of error. (Just as naive as the assertion that Microsoft's quality control makes Windows free of security holes.)
Sure, Wikipedia isn't perfect. Sure, it's very easy to see how bad information can get in there (not even creep in, but stroll in through the front door and sit down). But if enough people are buying into it, it's also easy to see how the process can work. So far, by and large, it seems that it is working, even if not perfectly.
Given that (at least until various regulatory agencies and large intellectual property firms manage to codify their horror) the Internet allows everybody to be a "content producer", not just those who control the huge resources of a publishing company, it's only natural that there should be a sort of encyclopedia that allows each to contribute his own expertise without going through the priesthood of a encyclopedia editorial board. Will it make traditional encyclopedias obselete? Certiainly not, at least in the short term! But nor do the differences mean that something like Wikipedia shouldn't exist and that people searching for information should eschew it in favor of traditionally published encyclopedias.
The future (longer term) of encyclopedias will almost certainly look much more like Wikipedia than traditional encyclopedias. Perhaps they will have a "small" set of gatekeepers (a la Linux), but they are almost certainly going to be ready and willing to accept voluntary contributions and edits from all and sundry, just from the very raw point of view of efficiency and harnessing as diverse expertise as possible.
I mean, outside of hourly jobs like working the grill at McDonalds or selling pants at the Gap. Sure, you get overtime for those kinds of jobs. But not office work... right?
Agreed... BUT.
First, the agreed part. I like being salaried. I like the fact that what I'm doing depends more on actually doing a good job and getting the job done than simply putting in time. Now, granted, this usually leads to well more than a 40 hour week for me, but it only occasionally leads to more than a 60 hour week, and by and large I like what I'm doing. And, I know that I'm well paid (although many of you guys in the software industry might scoff at what I'm paid).
HOWEVER.
Having salaried employees should not mean that one can take infinite advantage of your employees' time, nor does it mean that it's a good idea. First and formost, humans are humans, and it is (literally) inhumane to treat them otherwise. Doing so is immoral and unethical, regardless of whether or not your bottom line lets you.
Second, it is extremely short-sighted. Sure, the bean counters may thing, hey, I got 80 hours of work out of that guy each week even though I was only paying one salary! Cool! On the other hand, you may get 80 hours of work for a week or two, but after that you get 80 hours of presence but far, far fewer effective hours of work. Eventually, it becomes negative work. If you want your people to continue to be productive, you have to allow them enough time to rest and recover and stay human so that they can continue to have functional brains, to work productively, and to stay motivated.
I know myself that when I have to pull an 80 hour week (it happens sometimes) that I'm bordeline useless for the next week or two. I get done the minimum that I need to get done (keep up with my classes, etc.), but don't get any effective research done. As university faculty, I'm effectively my own day-to-day boss, even though rehiring and performance evaluation each year comes from above. This means when I abuse myself, it's my own foot I'm shooting. But I recognize this also for the grad students and post-docs who work for me.
Depends on which theory of dark matter you subscribe to. I don't think WIMPs could be considered "normal" matter.
Really it depends on what you mean by "normal"....
Compared to dark energy, WIMPs are normal.
In the extremely simplified model of matter I was talking about, I was only considering one parameter-- the equation of state parameter, or, the ratio of the pressure to the energy denstiy. For normal non-relativistic matter, this is zero. It's also zero for cold dark matter. So, as far as this parameter goes, cold dark matter is just like "normal" matter.
For radiation or relativistically moving matter, this parameter is 1/3 (their pressure is 1/3 their energy density in the proper relativistic units).
For dark energy, this parmaeter is something less than -1/3, giving you negative pressure. Vacuum energy-- one possibility (perhaps the leading one) for dark energy has a parmeter of -1.
Dark matter is normal matter. "Cold dark matter" has a pressure of 0 (or very low in relativistic terms), just like all regular gas, stars, planets, etc.
Dark energy is freaky. It has *negative* pressure.
The real tragedy is that Slashdot could post a story that uses the phrase:
legal commercial DVD playback
and not leave everybody scratching their head saying, "Huh?"
Playback. Just playing the frikkin' things, even if you own them completely on the up-and-up, is of questionable legality unless you do it in an Officially Sanctioned Manner. How stupid is that?
Our society has lost so much perspective it's very scary.
Their claims against Linux are pure science fiction.
Ak! No, don't nominate SCO. That would raise the whole spectre of "should fantasy be included in the Hugo awards" that we dealt with during Harry Potter IV years.
Naah... because by then there will be a crew of people who a few years previously will have saved the world once a week for 26 weeks out of the year. We'll be in good hands.
Carbon doesn't give off electromagnetic radiation,
Carbon *does* give off electromagnetic radiation. Exactly what wavelengths depend on the physical situation. But if you have a lot of *anything*, and it's not at absolute zero temperature, it gives off electromagnetic radiation. The white dwarf is probably at several thousand degrees C, and as such gives off a good quantity of electromagnetic radiation.
Lots and lots and lots of white dwarves are known. What's new is the observational evidence of crystalline structure inside.
That said, could one possible reason be that the astronomical community at large simply doesn't have enough resources to interpret both sets of data?
Given that the Hubble Space Telescope is oversubscribed by a huge factor-- that is, there are many more astronomers wanting to use it than there is time-- this sounds pretty unlikely.
Plus, nobody's talking about having the HST remain online after the JWST is launched. At best, the HST will last until the JWST's ostensible launch date, and we all know that the JWST's real launch date is going to be long after today's ostensible launch date.
They are engineers. Thats what they do. Talk to a professional engineer or read up on professional ethics. Public safety superseeds costs.
Nothing is 100% safe. Otherwise we wouldn't launch the Shuttle at all. Otherwise you wouldn't leave your house every day.
If professional ethics prevented engineers from doing something that had a 1-in-700 chance of doing property damage, then no ethical engineer would design a road. I guarantee you that many people will die on highways in the next week. That's not a 1-in-700 chance of property damage somewhere in the world; that's a 100% chance of multiple human lives lost.
The risk of damage goes into the equation of costs. If any chance at all is unacceptable, then we can't ever do anything.
It's all about politics. The safety issues are largely an excuse.
The amount of money that will be spent on an automatic de-orbiting rocket for the HST to overcome a 1-in-700 (yes, that small) chance of some *property damage* (not even human injury) is going to be huge. Which would seem to indicate an obsession with safety, but really at its core it is an obsession with PR. I simply cannot believe that there aren't engineers capable of coming up with a last-ditch backup plan should a spacewalk inspection of the shuttle servicing Hubble show that there is damage. (And they're going to be spacewalking anyway if they're going to Hubble; not a big deal to go take a look at the bottom fo the spacecraft.) There are other shuttles...!
Slashdot Mirror
I would say we don't know much about evolution or ID. But, to presume one over the other and attack the other side is both wrong for anyone.
You don't know much about evolution.
Humanity as a whole, however, does.
You speak from ignorance. Your points are all well-taken, except that you assume that nobody else knows more about evolution than you. They do. Which means that your whole post is "wrong" by your own definition.
-Rob
I'll start by saying I am a christian so you know where I stand.
You lost me already.
There are Christians and there are Christians. It's an extremely diverse religion.
I am a Christian. However, I accept the evidence for evolution and believe (not in the faith sense, but in the same sense that I believe that a neutral Hydrogen atom has one electron) that all complex life evolved from simpler forms through a process of mutation and natural selection (which is well established, though not perfectly understood). I believe that the Universe is at least 13.7 billion years old, and that it was once extremely hot and dense. (Science right now can't really take us to the moment of the big bang, but it does take us back to a when the Universe was a soup of protons and neutrons and electrons that hadn't formed into elements yet.)
All of that, yet I'm a Christian. So how can I know where you stand?
I am also extremely angry when religions try to interfere with the progress of science, and when creationists (whether they call themselves that or intelligent design advocates) assert that science must be wrong when it disagrees with the Bible, or when ID advocates assert something like irreducable complexity simply because they don't have the imagination or intellectual capacity to imagine how something complex could have happened without the direct interference of a supreme being. I'm very angry when Christians assert that to be a Christian, you must believe the literal truth of the Bible, even though reading just the first few chapters of Genesis shows that the Bible contradicts itself and that any reasonable thinking person can't accept it all as literally true. I'm boggled that some Christians think that for something to contain wisdom and truth, it must be literally true-- is your view of God so amazingly simplistic? For heaven's sake, Jesus taught in parables! Make the connection, people! And meanwhile, stop trying to spread ignorance about science in our schools and set our children back into the dark ages by refusing to allow them to learn about the best understanding we have of modern biology!
-Rob
it is a theory people. Theory. It still has holes, giant unexplainable holes.
This also describes gravity.
General Relativity is a theory, in the same sense of the word as evolution is a theory. So is Newton's theory of gravity.
We know Newton's theory of gravity is "wrong" because in places where it makes divergent predictions from GR, observations show GR to be right. Of course, Newton's theory is a limit of GR, and the fact that it is "wrong" doesn't stop us from predicting the motions of planets or of spacecraft.
We know that GR is "wrong" because it makes nonsensical predictions in areas where it must be mixed with Quantum Mechanics (another well-tested and well-verified scientific theory). But, once again, it works extremely well where it works.
So you could say that our theory of gravity is full of holes, giant unexplanable holes, and you would be right. But that doesn't mean that I can't succesfully predict that if I drop my keys, they are going to go down. It doesn't mean that I can't explain the formation of stars through the gravitational collapse of molecular clouds.
We don't know everything, but we know something!
In fact, although we can make far more precise predictions with our theory of gravity than we can with our theory of evolution, in some sense evolution is on less shaky ground than our current theory of evolution. After all, we don't have very strong evidence that the theory of evolution is wrong somewhere, but we do for gravity!
You ID and Creationism. advocates need to get over this term "just a theory" that you use. It just shows ignorance. You need to realize that the popular use of the word "theory" (to mean "speculation") is extremely different from the scientific use of the word "theory" (to describe an explanation of natural processes which may be extremely well tested and well understood).
-Rob
"I have absolutely no idea why the universe is complicated, therefore God did it."
Exactly. It's an argument through ignorance. It's just like many other things in the past which weren't explained by science, and have since been been explained by science. Well, not really, becasue we already do understand how complexity can arise from evolution, so it's even worse than that.
As an atheist, I am alarmed when people try to mark religious belief as science.
As a Christian, I am too.
-Rob
What's the difference?
Seriously, it's apples and oranges. Intelligent design is not science. It's religion. It doesn't belong in a science class. It might be a nice idea, but it's not a real theory in the sense of the word as used by science.
Intelligent design is not a viable alternative to evolution. It is a viable alternative to young-earth creationism, perhaps. But it's not something for which there is scientific evidence.
Having a good academic discussion which debates the merits of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory would be on the same level as a good academic discussion that debates the merits of the Apollo's chariot model as a scientific theory for the observed motion of the Sun across the sky.
-Rob
She shouldn't get it on with Arthur either, the whole point is that he never does...
"So long" implies that Arthur and Trillian might have gotten it on way back when, but refuses to be more specific on the basis that it's none of our business....
-Rob
Well, go and listen to the original radio series. It has lots of the events from the first two books. Not all of them, and it has some events that aren't in the first two books.
But, this is key, the events *are in a different order*. Stuff in the first radio series is spread throughout the two books.
I won't be surprised if the events in the movie follow a plot that doesn't match either the radio series or the books.
-Rob
From the article:
Most worrying of all is the absence of litigation around open-source projects, Brown says.
Wow. If that's not an indictment of the thinking of these sorts of people, the nature of our society, and the assumptions behind what people say about IP, then I don't know what is.
If people aren't getting sued, then something must be wrong, eh? My god, what a depressing thought.
-Rob
Not to defend what the applicants did -- unethical, sure, although not horribly so, and easy to understand.
Still, the real story here is that Harvard screwed the pooch big time, but is going to try to deflect any blame from themselves by pointing out loudly how naughty the applicants were. This, they hope, will generate enough smoke so that nobody will notice their goof.
-Rob
Manufacturers of pens must be held liable if they do not take reasonable care that their pens aren't used to write libel, or to write things that support the cause of terrorists.
Hey, I love Linux, but I don't see it challenging Windows in the (desktop) market. So you're not really backing up your argument.
The fact that you needed that parenthetical comment pretty much undermines your statement all by itself.
-Rob
And as far as inaccurate information goes, I have a two word response for that: political blogs. Many people are perfectly happy to get their Important Information a blog by somebody who can't name their sources and who has no responsibility to be accurate. The modern measure of accuracy is simply a matter of how many people believe and repeat a statement.
Err... you confuse accuracy and popularity.
The modern measure of perceived accuracy may be that, but that doesn't make it right.
If enough people believe that the world is flat, that won't make it so. Even if lots and lots of blogs talk about it.
-Rob
I would rather think that track record would be more important.
After all, for a long time (and even still), one argument against Linux is that it isn't backed by leading institutions with impeccable credtials; it's written by the groundlines. (This is why you still see people confusing "Red Hat" with "Linux", since they don't understand that something succesful couldn't come from something that's not monolithic.)
Yet, despite not having the credentials, it's still become popular. Why? Because it works. Track record.
Wikipedia doesn't need credentials, it just needs to show that it's working.
I will grant you that approval and endorsement (though not necessarily support) by leading educational institutions would be a good indication of positive track record, however.
-Rob
That it's implausible to suppose that a large community of contributors might eventually write an operating system that could challenge Windows in the market.
Of course, the comparison isn't completely accurate, since Linux and *BSD do have "gatekeepers", people like Linus and lieutenants, who at least in theory are vetting everything that makes it into the main kernel.
Nonetheless, it's not a million monkeys writing Wikipedia. Many are monkeys, but there are also lots of intelligent peope out there.
It's also naive to suppose that every "traditional" encyclopedia article has been completely free of error. (Just as naive as the assertion that Microsoft's quality control makes Windows free of security holes.)
Sure, Wikipedia isn't perfect. Sure, it's very easy to see how bad information can get in there (not even creep in, but stroll in through the front door and sit down). But if enough people are buying into it, it's also easy to see how the process can work. So far, by and large, it seems that it is working, even if not perfectly.
Given that (at least until various regulatory agencies and large intellectual property firms manage to codify their horror) the Internet allows everybody to be a "content producer", not just those who control the huge resources of a publishing company, it's only natural that there should be a sort of encyclopedia that allows each to contribute his own expertise without going through the priesthood of a encyclopedia editorial board. Will it make traditional encyclopedias obselete? Certiainly not, at least in the short term! But nor do the differences mean that something like Wikipedia shouldn't exist and that people searching for information should eschew it in favor of traditionally published encyclopedias.
The future (longer term) of encyclopedias will almost certainly look much more like Wikipedia than traditional encyclopedias. Perhaps they will have a "small" set of gatekeepers (a la Linux), but they are almost certainly going to be ready and willing to accept voluntary contributions and edits from all and sundry, just from the very raw point of view of efficiency and harnessing as diverse expertise as possible.
-Rob
I mean, outside of hourly jobs like working the grill at McDonalds or selling pants at the Gap. Sure, you get overtime for those kinds of jobs. But not office work... right?
Agreed... BUT.
First, the agreed part. I like being salaried. I like the fact that what I'm doing depends more on actually doing a good job and getting the job done than simply putting in time. Now, granted, this usually leads to well more than a 40 hour week for me, but it only occasionally leads to more than a 60 hour week, and by and large I like what I'm doing. And, I know that I'm well paid (although many of you guys in the software industry might scoff at what I'm paid).
HOWEVER.
Having salaried employees should not mean that one can take infinite advantage of your employees' time, nor does it mean that it's a good idea. First and formost, humans are humans, and it is (literally) inhumane to treat them otherwise. Doing so is immoral and unethical, regardless of whether or not your bottom line lets you.
Second, it is extremely short-sighted. Sure, the bean counters may thing, hey, I got 80 hours of work out of that guy each week even though I was only paying one salary! Cool! On the other hand, you may get 80 hours of work for a week or two, but after that you get 80 hours of presence but far, far fewer effective hours of work. Eventually, it becomes negative work. If you want your people to continue to be productive, you have to allow them enough time to rest and recover and stay human so that they can continue to have functional brains, to work productively, and to stay motivated.
I know myself that when I have to pull an 80 hour week (it happens sometimes) that I'm bordeline useless for the next week or two. I get done the minimum that I need to get done (keep up with my classes, etc.), but don't get any effective research done. As university faculty, I'm effectively my own day-to-day boss, even though rehiring and performance evaluation each year comes from above. This means when I abuse myself, it's my own foot I'm shooting. But I recognize this also for the grad students and post-docs who work for me.
-Rob
Dark matter is normal matter.
Depends on which theory of dark matter you subscribe to. I don't think WIMPs could be considered "normal" matter.
Really it depends on what you mean by "normal"....
Compared to dark energy, WIMPs are normal.
In the extremely simplified model of matter I was talking about, I was only considering one parameter-- the equation of state parameter, or, the ratio of the pressure to the energy denstiy. For normal non-relativistic matter, this is zero. It's also zero for cold dark matter. So, as far as this parameter goes, cold dark matter is just like "normal" matter.
For radiation or relativistically moving matter, this parameter is 1/3 (their pressure is 1/3 their energy density in the proper relativistic units).
For dark energy, this parmaeter is something less than -1/3, giving you negative pressure. Vacuum energy-- one possibility (perhaps the leading one) for dark energy has a parmeter of -1.
-Rob
(And in case you wonder if I know what I'm talking about, see http://brahms.phy.vanderbilt.edu/deepsearch/hstpap er/)
Dark matter and dark energy are different.
Dark matter is normal matter. "Cold dark matter" has a pressure of 0 (or very low in relativistic terms), just like all regular gas, stars, planets, etc.
Dark energy is freaky. It has *negative* pressure.
The two are extremely different things.
-Rob
The real tragedy is that Slashdot could post a story that uses the phrase:
and not leave everybody scratching their head saying, "Huh?"
Playback. Just playing the frikkin' things, even if you own them completely on the up-and-up, is of questionable legality unless you do it in an Officially Sanctioned Manner. How stupid is that?
Our society has lost so much perspective it's very scary.
-Rob
Their claims against Linux are pure science fiction.
Ak! No, don't nominate SCO. That would raise the whole spectre of "should fantasy be included in the Hugo awards" that we dealt with during Harry Potter IV years.
-Rob
Ok, so maybe there is reason to worry....
Naah... because by then there will be a crew of people who a few years previously will have saved the world once a week for 26 weeks out of the year. We'll be in good hands.
-Rob
Carbon doesn't give off electromagnetic radiation,
Carbon *does* give off electromagnetic radiation. Exactly what wavelengths depend on the physical situation. But if you have a lot of *anything*, and it's not at absolute zero temperature, it gives off electromagnetic radiation. The white dwarf is probably at several thousand degrees C, and as such gives off a good quantity of electromagnetic radiation.
Lots and lots and lots of white dwarves are known. What's new is the observational evidence of crystalline structure inside.
-Rob
"Our Sun will become a diamond that truly is forever," says Metcalfe.
That is, unless the proton is unstable.
-Rob
That said, could one possible reason be that the astronomical community at large simply doesn't have enough resources to interpret both sets of data?
Given that the Hubble Space Telescope is oversubscribed by a huge factor-- that is, there are many more astronomers wanting to use it than there is time-- this sounds pretty unlikely.
Plus, nobody's talking about having the HST remain online after the JWST is launched. At best, the HST will last until the JWST's ostensible launch date, and we all know that the JWST's real launch date is going to be long after today's ostensible launch date.
-Rob
They are engineers. Thats what they do. Talk to a professional engineer or read up on professional ethics. Public safety superseeds costs.
Nothing is 100% safe. Otherwise we wouldn't launch the Shuttle at all. Otherwise you wouldn't leave your house every day.
If professional ethics prevented engineers from doing something that had a 1-in-700 chance of doing property damage, then no ethical engineer would design a road. I guarantee you that many people will die on highways in the next week. That's not a 1-in-700 chance of property damage somewhere in the world; that's a 100% chance of multiple human lives lost.
The risk of damage goes into the equation of costs. If any chance at all is unacceptable, then we can't ever do anything.
-Rob
It's all about politics. The safety issues are largely an excuse.
The amount of money that will be spent on an automatic de-orbiting rocket for the HST to overcome a 1-in-700 (yes, that small) chance of some *property damage* (not even human injury) is going to be huge. Which would seem to indicate an obsession with safety, but really at its core it is an obsession with PR. I simply cannot believe that there aren't engineers capable of coming up with a last-ditch backup plan should a spacewalk inspection of the shuttle servicing Hubble show that there is damage. (And they're going to be spacewalking anyway if they're going to Hubble; not a big deal to go take a look at the bottom fo the spacecraft.) There are other shuttles...!
-Rob