The Romans built a wall around my home town of Chester, large parts of it are still there... granted it has been repaired, and maintained, with parts rebuilt over the years.
The Chinese built long stretches of wall centuries ago that are still standing.
Walls can last a long time if properly built and maintained... the question is- is it smart to build the walls in the first place? In the 21st century a wall isn't very much of a barrier anymore.
And with the average broadband in the US being about 50Mb/s DL and 5 UP, I guess it should take a while to fill with content. Not to mention, Cock (or is it Cox?) will surely throttle your connection long before you ever get the chance.
It will be cheaper to have the contents of the internet delivered to your house via snail mail once a week.
something it's members might actually be interested in, instead of squabble-bait.
Don't worry, tomorrow's story will be about Trump announcing the year of the Linux desktop from his Apple phone driving his Tesla to a hyperloop test. Nothing that anyone on here could ever argue about.
Any organisms on humans are not likely to be able to compete in Mars against species that evolved in that environment. If you stick gut bacteria in a hydrothermal vent it won't outcompete it. Terran bacteria will only overrun martian bacteria if none are still alive.
Eek. Your general assumption, that an invasive species will automatically be less suited to compete in an environment against native species is flat out wrong.
You then back it up with a very strictly limited scenario where it is not.
I wouldn't underestimate the ability of Earth organisms, living in a hyper-competitive environment, to be able to completely dominate a small and constrained ecosystem if one exists.
Earth organisms would be rats on their island.
Invasive species only outcompete native species when the environment is similar. You put giant land snails in the arctic, they won't survive. You put snakehead carp in the desert they won't survive. Earth is very different in temperature, chemical make up and... well... just about everything from Mars. We're too different. Of course I'm willing to make generalizations that earth species couldn't compete (with perhaps a few extremophile exceptions- that wouldn't get there unless we deliberately placed them there).
If a species is evolved to survive Mars's chemistry- temperature- radiation levels... etc... yes... it will outcompete any species that we would accidentally take there.
And will it still work when Google abandon the project. Google are probably the most famous company on earth for abandoning projects that don't take off right away.
This hypothesis could be an early test of the panspermia speculation. If we find extremophile fossils on the Moon, it should not be hard to prove whether or not they arrived via meteoric spallation from Earth.
This hypothesis could be an early test of the panspermia speculation. If we find extremophile fossils on the Moon, it should not be hard to prove whether or not they arrived via meteoric spallation from Earth.
Life surviving a trip from the Earth to the moon would be a very different prospect than life surviving between planets, or even systems.
1) Temperature: if a minimum temperature is needed to keep the organism alive, it's not going to lose it in that distance. 2) Radiation: it would be exposed to very little radiation in that short trip compared to say... earth to mars. 3) Time: the shorter the trip- likely the less time that has passed. Less time for things to go wrong.
Finding life on the moon may help a panspermia viewpoint, but it wouldn't quiet many neighsayers because of the short distance involved.
> Mars has teased scientists with whispers of water's presence.
This is humorously bad anthropomorphizing. Mars is "teasing" and "whispering" to scientists about how wet it is?
They walk a thin line. Don't be descriptive and colourful language and you lose readers/viewers because you're boring. Use colourful and descriptive language and you're no longer accurate.
And human beings would be required to drill a mile down... and human beings contain billions of life forms on each individual. Once you send a human- life will go with them.
That said, is contamination necessarily such a bad thing? Any organisms on humans are not likely to be able to compete in Mars against species that evolved in that environment. If you stick gut bacteria in a hydrothermal vent it won't outcompete it. Terran bacteria will only overrun martian bacteria if none are still alive.
What we have to be careful of though "is detecting life" that hitched a ride with us. When you're drilling that lake you need to make sure that you don't contaminate the samples coming out.
This one about Mars having water, another one telling roughly the same about the moon. It's a draw. Not sure now if I'd prefer to go to the moon or mars!
Mars, more of an atmosphere, more gravity, larger, more complex geology and geography. The moon is relatively boring next to mars and has much less commercial interest to attract sponsors.
Probably not... and they probably wouldn't have removed the games if public attention hadn't be made. They don't care about sellers selling counterfeits- they do care about the public knowing it though.
Our customers trust that when they make a purchase through Amazon's store --either directly from Amazon or from its third-party sellers -- they will receive authentic products
We HOPE to get authentic products; however, I generally go by the belief that if it looks too good to be true, it probably isn't. Amazon sells a lot of pirated and counterfeited goods. I've seen a lot of sellers on Amazon even include in their description of a product "if you see this product sold by a different seller it is counterfeit"- sellers know just like we do that there is a lot of "not genuine" products out there.
An example would be GOP Senator John McCain. He was elected over and over again for more than 30 years. He 's said some pretty bad things about Trump, and certainly doesn't tow the party line.
There are quite a few Republicans whose views and understanding of the issues go well beyond the "us vs them" you get from Bill Maher and many liberal figures.
John McCain is one; Lindsay Graham is another. What I think of as common-sense politicians (not that I always think they're right). I respect a politician who will vote in opposition to his party when it makes obvious sense. I don't respect politicians who just follow a partial line and don't use common sense or realize that their party might not always be 100% correct on every issue.
Fair enough I guess, although my reason for posting was that this isn't an "Eastern-only" concept- it's something that has existed in Western culture for millennia too.
I refuse to pay for CBS out of principle. I don't want to support the fragmentation of online streaming. I'd rather go without than steadily pay more and more until my streaming costs are higher than what cable used to be.
That and the fact that their new Star Trek show is garbage.
Not seen it unfortunately. Strangely, the Orville on Fox is a lot better than I expected it to be. I can live with that as my "new Trek".
I return because I'm a creature of habit more than any other reason, but I do generally enjoy Slashdot, be it the geekyside or the more mainstream side.
because he said Musk's submarine wouldn't have helped. It was a bizarre baseless attack on a legit hero.
Well... actually, he told Musk to shove it up his arse- which is a little more harsh than just saying "it wouldn't help".
It doesn't justify Musk's response which is libelous, and orders of magnitude worse; but it's only fair to point out that he WAS goading Musk- this wasn't just constructive criticism. Stocks in Musk's companies fell as a result; I think that's a fair punishment for his crime of being a barsteward.
CBS spent around 8 million dollars an episode for their star trek series.. and then didn't even put it on TV. You've got to be a private subscriber and stream it because they know that live tv is not the future.
Instead of paying for 700 channels you don't watch people will subscribe to 4-5 different streaming services that interest them.
I refuse to pay for CBS out of principle. I don't want to support the fragmentation of online streaming. I'd rather go without than steadily pay more and more until my streaming costs are higher than what cable used to be.
Slashdot Mirror
When has a wall ever stood the face of time.
The Romans built a wall around my home town of Chester, large parts of it are still there... granted it has been repaired, and maintained, with parts rebuilt over the years.
The Chinese built long stretches of wall centuries ago that are still standing.
Walls can last a long time if properly built and maintained... the question is- is it smart to build the walls in the first place? In the 21st century a wall isn't very much of a barrier anymore.
To clarify... that is- once storage gets so small (and cheap)
And with the average broadband in the US being about 50Mb/s DL and 5 UP, I guess it should take a while to fill with content.
Not to mention, Cock (or is it Cox?) will surely throttle your connection long before you ever get the chance.
It will be cheaper to have the contents of the internet delivered to your house via snail mail once a week.
Imagine, more porn than one can possibly watch in a lifetime in the palm of my hand
I really don't want to think about the palm of your hand right now.
"Very Large Telescope"
I suppose the next will be the "Quite Big, Actually, Telescope".
That's a very British sounding telescope. The only Britisher telescope would be the "Oh my, that's rather large, innit, Telescope".
something it's members might actually be interested in, instead of squabble-bait.
Don't worry, tomorrow's story will be about Trump announcing the year of the Linux desktop from his Apple phone driving his Tesla to a hyperloop test. Nothing that anyone on here could ever argue about.
Making reboots less annoying? So Microsoft is taking on Hollywood now?
I agree, Trump is very incompetent at most things he does.
Putin doesn't need a listening device to know he has Trump by the ball.
Any organisms on humans are not likely to be able to compete in Mars against species that evolved in that environment. If you stick gut bacteria in a hydrothermal vent it won't outcompete it. Terran bacteria will only overrun martian bacteria if none are still alive.
Eek.
Your general assumption, that an invasive species will automatically be less suited to compete in an environment against native species is flat out wrong.
You then back it up with a very strictly limited scenario where it is not.
I wouldn't underestimate the ability of Earth organisms, living in a hyper-competitive environment, to be able to completely dominate a small and constrained ecosystem if one exists.
Earth organisms would be rats on their island.
Invasive species only outcompete native species when the environment is similar. You put giant land snails in the arctic, they won't survive. You put snakehead carp in the desert they won't survive. Earth is very different in temperature, chemical make up and... well... just about everything from Mars. We're too different. Of course I'm willing to make generalizations that earth species couldn't compete (with perhaps a few extremophile exceptions- that wouldn't get there unless we deliberately placed them there).
If a species is evolved to survive Mars's chemistry- temperature- radiation levels... etc... yes... it will outcompete any species that we would accidentally take there.
And will it still work when Google abandon the project. Google are probably the most famous company on earth for abandoning projects that don't take off right away.
This hypothesis could be an early test of the panspermia speculation. If we find extremophile fossils on the Moon, it should not be hard to prove whether or not they arrived via meteoric spallation from Earth.
This hypothesis could be an early test of the panspermia speculation. If we find extremophile fossils on the Moon, it should not be hard to prove whether or not they arrived via meteoric spallation from Earth.
Life surviving a trip from the Earth to the moon would be a very different prospect than life surviving between planets, or even systems.
1) Temperature: if a minimum temperature is needed to keep the organism alive, it's not going to lose it in that distance.
2) Radiation: it would be exposed to very little radiation in that short trip compared to say... earth to mars.
3) Time: the shorter the trip- likely the less time that has passed. Less time for things to go wrong.
Finding life on the moon may help a panspermia viewpoint, but it wouldn't quiet many neighsayers because of the short distance involved.
Dude, even simple bacterial would suggest that abiogenesis happened twice in this solar system. This will excite Drake very much.
If there is life on the moon- or ever was, it would be much more likely to originate from Earth.
> Mars has teased scientists with whispers of water's presence.
This is humorously bad anthropomorphizing. Mars is "teasing" and "whispering" to scientists about how wet it is?
They walk a thin line. Don't be descriptive and colourful language and you lose readers/viewers because you're boring. Use colourful and descriptive language and you're no longer accurate.
And human beings would be required to drill a mile down... and human beings contain billions of life forms on each individual. Once you send a human- life will go with them.
That said, is contamination necessarily such a bad thing? Any organisms on humans are not likely to be able to compete in Mars against species that evolved in that environment. If you stick gut bacteria in a hydrothermal vent it won't outcompete it. Terran bacteria will only overrun martian bacteria if none are still alive.
What we have to be careful of though "is detecting life" that hitched a ride with us. When you're drilling that lake you need to make sure that you don't contaminate the samples coming out.
This one about Mars having water, another one telling roughly the same about the moon. It's a draw. Not sure now if I'd prefer to go to the moon or mars!
Mars, more of an atmosphere, more gravity, larger, more complex geology and geography. The moon is relatively boring next to mars and has much less commercial interest to attract sponsors.
And the sellers have been removed as well?
Probably not... and they probably wouldn't have removed the games if public attention hadn't be made. They don't care about sellers selling counterfeits- they do care about the public knowing it though.
Our customers trust that when they make a purchase through Amazon's store --either directly from Amazon or from its third-party sellers -- they will receive authentic products
We HOPE to get authentic products; however, I generally go by the belief that if it looks too good to be true, it probably isn't. Amazon sells a lot of pirated and counterfeited goods. I've seen a lot of sellers on Amazon even include in their description of a product "if you see this product sold by a different seller it is counterfeit"- sellers know just like we do that there is a lot of "not genuine" products out there.
An example would be GOP Senator John McCain. He was elected over and over again for more than 30 years. He 's said some pretty bad things about Trump, and certainly doesn't tow the party line.
There are quite a few Republicans whose views and understanding of the issues go well beyond the "us vs them" you get from Bill Maher and many liberal figures.
John McCain is one; Lindsay Graham is another. What I think of as common-sense politicians (not that I always think they're right). I respect a politician who will vote in opposition to his party when it makes obvious sense. I don't respect politicians who just follow a partial line and don't use common sense or realize that their party might not always be 100% correct on every issue.
Fair enough I guess, although my reason for posting was that this isn't an "Eastern-only" concept- it's something that has existed in Western culture for millennia too.
If they were that desperate they would be training pilots themselves.
I refuse to pay for CBS out of principle. I don't want to support the fragmentation of online streaming. I'd rather go without than steadily pay more and more until my streaming costs are higher than what cable used to be.
That and the fact that their new Star Trek show is garbage.
Not seen it unfortunately. Strangely, the Orville on Fox is a lot better than I expected it to be. I can live with that as my "new Trek".
Isnt that why we return?
I return because I'm a creature of habit more than any other reason, but I do generally enjoy Slashdot, be it the geekyside or the more mainstream side.
because he said Musk's submarine wouldn't have helped. It was a bizarre baseless attack on a legit hero.
Well... actually, he told Musk to shove it up his arse- which is a little more harsh than just saying "it wouldn't help".
It doesn't justify Musk's response which is libelous, and orders of magnitude worse; but it's only fair to point out that he WAS goading Musk- this wasn't just constructive criticism. Stocks in Musk's companies fell as a result; I think that's a fair punishment for his crime of being a barsteward.
CBS spent around 8 million dollars an episode for their star trek series.. and then didn't even put it on TV.
You've got to be a private subscriber and stream it because they know that live tv is not the future.
Instead of paying for 700 channels you don't watch people will subscribe to 4-5 different streaming services that interest them.
I refuse to pay for CBS out of principle. I don't want to support the fragmentation of online streaming. I'd rather go without than steadily pay more and more until my streaming costs are higher than what cable used to be.