The Great Lakes or a finite resource. The midwest is already draining them on it's own. I've seen photos of boats sitting on mud dozens of feet from water. I grew up in Michigan and I never heard of such a thing. Climate change has reduced the water flowing into the Great Lakes and irrigation is draining them. Build a giant irrigation pipe and you get the great mud lakes. Most of the food grown in this country relies on irrigation. When I was in Los Angeles we were all told to conserve water yet 90% went to agriculture so cutting your water useage in half would have little impact since I believe another 6% was used in industry so personal use was negligible. My whole life we've been told we can feed the world but that's a myth.
The point though is legitimate because the population has exploded with most people living not much different than they did a hundred years ago. Everyone shares this naive belief that all we need to do is feed the hungry people. Feeding them without education gives you two hungry people instead of one. Every documentary I've ever seen showing starving single mothers in Africa they ask how many kids they have and it turns out they are trying to raise 6 or 8 kids on $2 or less a day. It's impossible so most starve. The only sure cure for out of control fertility rates is education and improved lifestyles. Where are the lowest fertility rates in the world? Japan, the US and most of Europe where they have strong economies. The exception being religious groups that insist the members have as many kids as possible. Conditions weren't that different in this country a 100+ years ago except we had the resources to feed them. Send them drills and water pumps as well as condoms and tell the Pope to go fuck himself since they aren't willing to help feed the people his and the church's policies help create. If we've been exceeding the Earth's resources since the early 80s every one born since then will eventually have to find some place else to live. It's not opinion if the numbers are right it's a fact. The only real solution in the long run is that there are fewer people using the resources. If we don't fix the problem nature will do it herself. Fewer kids born or mass starvation, which is crueler?
Odds are most of the asteroids are made of lighter less valuable elements and the rest are mostly iron. The majority seem to be made of loosely assembled gravel. The only way it becomes cost effective is if you have a permanent space colony mining the resources that is self sufficient. Most of the expense comes from the Earth based resources it takes to mine the elements and return them to Earth. The other issue is the most cost effective way to return them here is to let them fall like meteors do with a disposable outer crust that would burn away. Now get permission to do this? Good luck. Robotics sound attractive but you are still talking about vast resources from this planet used to mine questionable resources in asteroids. It would have to add greatly to what we have now to make any sense. It'd make more sense to mine magma or black smokers on the ocean floor. I'm all in favor of mining asteroids but sending out robots to make a quick buck will loose money and in the end kill off any hope of doing it for real. We need to take the baby steps. Build a space elevator then you can cheaply orbit what's needed and potentially have a way to return the resources. They also need to come up with better ways to determine asteroid composition or else you are playing the lottery. You're hoping for 20% gold and you end up with 95% rock. Rare earth elements really are the reason to do it. They are likely in higher concentrations in asteroids and they are worth more than gold.
What I found interesting is something similar happened to Chuck Yeager when he was trying to hit Mach 1. The aircraft developed a strong vibration as he approached Mach 1. At the time Mach 1 was pushing the limits of what materials and technology could handle. The forces involved at Mach 20 are insane so I would also consider it a major success and it proves the technology. Now it's a matter of refining the construction and materials to avoid the failure issue but it looks very possible. I do have to question the commercial potential though. I'm not convinced that material fatigue won't be an ongoing issue with that kind of constant stress. Even with the space shuttles which didn't face a fraction of the stresses they had two blow up. Both accidents were avoidable but what accident isn't with prior knowledge. The engines are capable but it could be a very long time until the materials are reliable enough for extended commercial use.
When I was growing up in the 60s the only ones in the school that didn't believe in evolution and the Earth being billions of years old were the couple of jehovah witness kids. Now we have members of Congress proudly proclaiming they are Creationists. Roughly a quarter to a third of the country is anti science which is a huge number of potential scientists and futurists. I'm sure many will pointy out that they aren't the mostly likely candidates for scientists but that's not entirely true because some scientists are calling themselves Creationists. Add to this the end of the world belief a lot of religious extremists have and it no wonder many see a bleak future. I'm not blaming it all on religion there's a lot of doom in gloom in most of the likely future predictions. I'm saying that I think religion is having a bigger impact than bleak scifi stories.
Glad some one else brought this up. Naming the states and calling them particles is a little like saying three dimensions are three particles. Shouldn't there be a particle for height, width, depth? At a certain stage it's pointless naming to rationalize publishing a paper. Is dividing an electron proving multiple particles or is it in fact like splitting a glass of water and claiming that it's two new atoms? And yes I know there are two atoms making up a glass of water so in this case it would mean four atoms since you can divide a glass of water in half. Unless unique properties can be established for the resulting two electrons then you haven't found two new particles you have simply split a single particle in to two pieces.
This was an obvious case of targeting children. It reminds me of an old case with Soupy Sales asking kids to send him green pieces of paper from their parent's wallets. It was meant as a joke but he got in a lot of trouble. Snopes has a great quote on this subject. I can't copy the paragraph but it starts out "It's easy for those.........."Captain Midnight". The paragraph does an excellent job of stating how corporations have always preyed on children.
http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/soupy1.asp
I've read much of this before and it still seems pointless. People keep trying to explain how dinosaurs were such poor survivors yet they are by far the most successful large terrestrial species the planet has seen. The egg thickness theories have nothing to do with dinosaurs suddenly disappearing. The only thing it really explains is why dinosaurs had to have such a rapid growth rate. They ranged in size from around the size of a chicken to nearly the size of a Blue Whale with the largest eggs being not much larger than an Ostrich egg and the smallest on pare with a chicken egg. Those conditions existed for tens of millions of years before their extinction so egg size and shell thickness couldn't have been a factor in their extinction. Mammals also didn't suddenly change towards the end of their reign so it's unlikely that they suddenly found dinosaurs and their eggs tasty. The mammals driving dinosaurs into trees is silly since birds had been around for tens of millions of years before their extinction and T-Rexs didn't suddenly decide they had to climb trees. Birds were better at exploiting the nitch than the flying reptiles. Like most extinction events it's complicated and other than the meteor impact there aren't any smoking guns. Odds are it was climate change than was the death blow to the ones that survived the impact. The more interesting fact is the only species that survived were either small so they needed less food or they were able to go for long periods without eating like Alligators. Odds are most starved to death since some were even cold adapted and survived in higher latitudes than even alligators so the freezing theory wouldn't explain all the deaths. Ultimately the best explanation is starvation brought on by climate change caused by a meteor strike. Odds are it was that simple.
New regulations are expected after it was revealed that the pilot in fact knew it was the planet Venus but the mushrooms he had taken had just kicked in and he was afraid of hitting the planet. New regulations will restrict the use of mushrooms to really long and boring daytime flights
It's interesting how often myth and legend end up being scientific fact. There has been talk since sailors took to the sea of rogue waves that reached a 100' or more. Science has been confirming these myths in recent years. Most myths have an element of truth in them. On the practical side it's a serious concern since surviving a 100' rogue wave is not something all sea worthy ships can do yet they can face them without warning. I read years ago the theoretical limit was twice what has been recorded so the potential is far beyond the proven fact.
B-52s, A-10s, F15, F16s all saw heavy use and cost a tenth or less than the modern high tech planes. Now look at the track record for next generation aircraft. B-1 never saw a day of service, after years of testing the B-2 finally saw light use in the first gulf war and more in the latest, F-22 not a day of service. These aircraft cost 400 million to 3 billion. The military keeps insisting they need the latest and best but once they get them they rarely use them. Another plane that cost a fortune and took forever to see service was the Osprey. They finally saw service in the latest wars but development started before a lot of people on this site were born. Better to focus effort and limited funds on aircraft that actually get used. Most of these next generation aircraft were pork barrel projects. That's why they were never able to kill the Osprey. The Senator whose home state had the contract fought every attempt to shut down the program so billions were wasted.
And there in lays the problem. The elderly vote in large numbers and they care about retirement, health care and defense. Until young voters vote in numbers greater than the elderly don't expect change.
They need to look for direct evidence of life and not gases and such that they can later claim are caused by geological processes. Strap a microscope onto a lander and take soil samples at the surface, 1", 1' and 3' depths and subject them to several conditions that should stimulate growth. Do a pass over each sample with a microscope before and after and look for biological action. Until they see actual cell division happening the debate will go on. Apparently there's no higher lifeforms so you have to look for bacteria or other simple lifeforms. We're talk about what amounts to petri dishes and a basic microscope and we may have an answer. They are spending billions to go to Mars and seem to be making an effort to no look for life. Want more funding? Find life!
I faced something similar except with no ticket. I was driving on a washboard street near my home. If you did more than 20 mph it would tear the undercarriage from your car yet they claimed I was speeding, which was impossible. Turns out there was a drug bust in a nearby apartment and they wanted an excuse to search my vehicle. I was sit on a curb with my hands on my head while they searched my car. They couldn't find anything so I was let go without even a ticket. Sometimes these traffic stops are an excuse to search your car in hopes of finding something more interesting. If they don't ticket you there's nothing to fight so they get away with a blatant breech of the law. It's sad that they feel they need to stop as many cars as possible in hopes of finding something more serious to charge you with.
I was always into photography and this was the 70s. My father got ticketed for parking on a cross walk in our small town around midnight. It was the dead of winter and snow covered all the streets. He wanted to fight it so I photographed the place in the middle of the day showing how thoroughly the snow covered the streets making it impossible to see the cross walks. The judge took one look at the photos and motioned for the cop to approach the bench where he chewed him out for wasting his time on such a ridiculous case. It is possible to fight tickets with evidence but so rarely do people have evidence to fight them with.
Now people have divided into entrenched camps with little hope of changing minds no matter the evidence. Go back in time and say nothing. Now look at today. 12 years of record temperatures and ice melt. Record droughts, tornadoes and four feet of hail. Some areas that normally have white winters are getting very little snow. If no one had said anything people would be demanding answers. By telling people it's their lifestyles causing it they have decided the climate scientists are trying to take away the things that are causing the warming so are the enemy with some hidden agenda. Just look at American's reaction to food and healthy lifestyles. People are attacked for being too thin but being overweight is sacred. If you wonder why Americans are opposed to climate science try to take away junk food and make them exercise. There would be a revolt. People aren't hearing the climate is warm as in changing, they are hearing you want to take away my SUV and live on less heating and cooling and electrical conveniences. Some people are throwing a fit over incandescent light blubs claiming there's a ban when in truth they simply set efficiency standards and the companies are working of efficient incandescents, which saves them money but they are still mad. The real problem with climate change is they found it was caused by things like CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. Translated, fossil fuels, meat production and fertilizers in modern farming. Or in plain language cars and electricity, burgers and McNuggets, and cheap bread and corn. People hear you want to take those things away or make them more expensive so the simplest solution is find another cause. Suddenly natural variations in climate looks really attractive.
Corporate profits always come first. Coal fires are a problem in some areas and at least one town had to be abandoned since the fires can last for decades and possibly centuries. Many towns had to be abandoned over industrial pollution and yet I constantly hear it's government regulations that cause the problems. How much of the planet do we sacrifice to greed? I'm not talking about halting progress this is about people cutting corners to make higher profits. Coal companies were supposed to have phased in safe guards to limit mercury and other heavy metals from being released but they ignored the regulations and now want them thrown out. A lot of cheap power depends on ignoring the problems it causes. In coal country areas near power plants have cancer rates through the roof. There's a price of pain and suffering. Often in the end the government ends up picking up the bill for health care and clean up. So long as corporations are protected and the people that run them are safe from being held accountable this will continue to happen. Change the rules and bankrupt the owners and corporate heads of the companies and see how fast it all changes.
Since it formed very early on, it's most likely a proto-planet rather than a mature planet. Planetary theory is only designed for mature planets, because statistics doesn't apply to extremely small numbers and extremely small numbers is exactly what you have when dealing with proto-planets. Ergo, the theory cannot be applied sensibly, ergo there is no theory that can be described as being defied.
There's also the possibility of captured planets since there are believed to be a large number that form in the outer fringes of systems and in interstellar space. They are believed to be a large part of the missing matter. It's a tricky balance capturing a planet that far out due to the extremely low gravity. Odds are they'd have a very elliptical orbit much like Pluto.
It's obvious that the lawsuits are ridiculous but what's most ridiculous is they are allowed to file after this many years. Usually there's a three year cut off. These companies, and some of them are the majors, sit back and let the totals add up until there are businesses valued in the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to sue. It's a blatant way of preventing the offender from modifying their product to avoid being sued and to rack up as much damages as possible before filing. Some minor tweaks in WoW might have avoided the lawsuit so they sit quietly until the damages are massive then sue. Without reading the patents it's hard to say but some of their claims involve things that have been standard in gaming for more than 20 years. The biggest advance in WoW was faster computers and connections allowing multiple players to interact. Also how could it have "helped the businesses of virtual worlds gaming and the sale of virtual goods to grow into a multibillion-dollar industry" when the ones being sued were never aware of the patents in the first place. It's like patenting the wheel then keeping it to yourself then claiming the car companies stole your design.
Most of the problems have been related to people installing software from the internet manually and things like Java. I'm not saying anything pro or con about Apple I own both Mac and Windows machines so I have no horse in this race. Like Linux the core OS is pretty sound I just wish Microsoft had bitten the bullet and made the leap when they did the Vista overhaul. It was a pretty brave move for Apple at the time to switch the OS and it paid off in the long run. Add ons like Java are always going to be a source of headaches. All I know is I rarely have trouble with my Macs but the PCs are another story. One of mine I had to surrender for internet use because it got nailed by a redirect and I tried everything and short of redoing the OS there was no way to scrub it out. I find it safer to use Mac for web surfing and downloading things like software and I use a lot of licensed photos in my work. It's just my personal experience that I run into far fewer issues with the Macs.
Slashdot Mirror
The Great Lakes or a finite resource. The midwest is already draining them on it's own. I've seen photos of boats sitting on mud dozens of feet from water. I grew up in Michigan and I never heard of such a thing. Climate change has reduced the water flowing into the Great Lakes and irrigation is draining them. Build a giant irrigation pipe and you get the great mud lakes. Most of the food grown in this country relies on irrigation. When I was in Los Angeles we were all told to conserve water yet 90% went to agriculture so cutting your water useage in half would have little impact since I believe another 6% was used in industry so personal use was negligible. My whole life we've been told we can feed the world but that's a myth.
The point though is legitimate because the population has exploded with most people living not much different than they did a hundred years ago. Everyone shares this naive belief that all we need to do is feed the hungry people. Feeding them without education gives you two hungry people instead of one. Every documentary I've ever seen showing starving single mothers in Africa they ask how many kids they have and it turns out they are trying to raise 6 or 8 kids on $2 or less a day. It's impossible so most starve. The only sure cure for out of control fertility rates is education and improved lifestyles. Where are the lowest fertility rates in the world? Japan, the US and most of Europe where they have strong economies. The exception being religious groups that insist the members have as many kids as possible. Conditions weren't that different in this country a 100+ years ago except we had the resources to feed them. Send them drills and water pumps as well as condoms and tell the Pope to go fuck himself since they aren't willing to help feed the people his and the church's policies help create. If we've been exceeding the Earth's resources since the early 80s every one born since then will eventually have to find some place else to live. It's not opinion if the numbers are right it's a fact. The only real solution in the long run is that there are fewer people using the resources. If we don't fix the problem nature will do it herself. Fewer kids born or mass starvation, which is crueler?
Congradulations. I think you set an all time record for the number of links in a single post.
After reviewing the information a new approach was decided for future computer interfaces. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexigram
Odds are most of the asteroids are made of lighter less valuable elements and the rest are mostly iron. The majority seem to be made of loosely assembled gravel. The only way it becomes cost effective is if you have a permanent space colony mining the resources that is self sufficient. Most of the expense comes from the Earth based resources it takes to mine the elements and return them to Earth. The other issue is the most cost effective way to return them here is to let them fall like meteors do with a disposable outer crust that would burn away. Now get permission to do this? Good luck. Robotics sound attractive but you are still talking about vast resources from this planet used to mine questionable resources in asteroids. It would have to add greatly to what we have now to make any sense. It'd make more sense to mine magma or black smokers on the ocean floor. I'm all in favor of mining asteroids but sending out robots to make a quick buck will loose money and in the end kill off any hope of doing it for real. We need to take the baby steps. Build a space elevator then you can cheaply orbit what's needed and potentially have a way to return the resources. They also need to come up with better ways to determine asteroid composition or else you are playing the lottery. You're hoping for 20% gold and you end up with 95% rock. Rare earth elements really are the reason to do it. They are likely in higher concentrations in asteroids and they are worth more than gold.
What I found interesting is something similar happened to Chuck Yeager when he was trying to hit Mach 1. The aircraft developed a strong vibration as he approached Mach 1. At the time Mach 1 was pushing the limits of what materials and technology could handle. The forces involved at Mach 20 are insane so I would also consider it a major success and it proves the technology. Now it's a matter of refining the construction and materials to avoid the failure issue but it looks very possible. I do have to question the commercial potential though. I'm not convinced that material fatigue won't be an ongoing issue with that kind of constant stress. Even with the space shuttles which didn't face a fraction of the stresses they had two blow up. Both accidents were avoidable but what accident isn't with prior knowledge. The engines are capable but it could be a very long time until the materials are reliable enough for extended commercial use.
When I was growing up in the 60s the only ones in the school that didn't believe in evolution and the Earth being billions of years old were the couple of jehovah witness kids. Now we have members of Congress proudly proclaiming they are Creationists. Roughly a quarter to a third of the country is anti science which is a huge number of potential scientists and futurists. I'm sure many will pointy out that they aren't the mostly likely candidates for scientists but that's not entirely true because some scientists are calling themselves Creationists. Add to this the end of the world belief a lot of religious extremists have and it no wonder many see a bleak future. I'm not blaming it all on religion there's a lot of doom in gloom in most of the likely future predictions. I'm saying that I think religion is having a bigger impact than bleak scifi stories.
Glad some one else brought this up. Naming the states and calling them particles is a little like saying three dimensions are three particles. Shouldn't there be a particle for height, width, depth? At a certain stage it's pointless naming to rationalize publishing a paper. Is dividing an electron proving multiple particles or is it in fact like splitting a glass of water and claiming that it's two new atoms? And yes I know there are two atoms making up a glass of water so in this case it would mean four atoms since you can divide a glass of water in half. Unless unique properties can be established for the resulting two electrons then you haven't found two new particles you have simply split a single particle in to two pieces.
This was an obvious case of targeting children. It reminds me of an old case with Soupy Sales asking kids to send him green pieces of paper from their parent's wallets. It was meant as a joke but he got in a lot of trouble. Snopes has a great quote on this subject. I can't copy the paragraph but it starts out "It's easy for those .........."Captain Midnight". The paragraph does an excellent job of stating how corporations have always preyed on children.
http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/soupy1.asp
I've read much of this before and it still seems pointless. People keep trying to explain how dinosaurs were such poor survivors yet they are by far the most successful large terrestrial species the planet has seen. The egg thickness theories have nothing to do with dinosaurs suddenly disappearing. The only thing it really explains is why dinosaurs had to have such a rapid growth rate. They ranged in size from around the size of a chicken to nearly the size of a Blue Whale with the largest eggs being not much larger than an Ostrich egg and the smallest on pare with a chicken egg. Those conditions existed for tens of millions of years before their extinction so egg size and shell thickness couldn't have been a factor in their extinction. Mammals also didn't suddenly change towards the end of their reign so it's unlikely that they suddenly found dinosaurs and their eggs tasty. The mammals driving dinosaurs into trees is silly since birds had been around for tens of millions of years before their extinction and T-Rexs didn't suddenly decide they had to climb trees. Birds were better at exploiting the nitch than the flying reptiles. Like most extinction events it's complicated and other than the meteor impact there aren't any smoking guns. Odds are it was climate change than was the death blow to the ones that survived the impact. The more interesting fact is the only species that survived were either small so they needed less food or they were able to go for long periods without eating like Alligators. Odds are most starved to death since some were even cold adapted and survived in higher latitudes than even alligators so the freezing theory wouldn't explain all the deaths. Ultimately the best explanation is starvation brought on by climate change caused by a meteor strike. Odds are it was that simple.
They also had wings too - OMG so do birds!
Breaking News. Terrorists are training swallows to carry coconut shaped bombs.
New regulations are expected after it was revealed that the pilot in fact knew it was the planet Venus but the mushrooms he had taken had just kicked in and he was afraid of hitting the planet. New regulations will restrict the use of mushrooms to really long and boring daytime flights
It's interesting how often myth and legend end up being scientific fact. There has been talk since sailors took to the sea of rogue waves that reached a 100' or more. Science has been confirming these myths in recent years. Most myths have an element of truth in them. On the practical side it's a serious concern since surviving a 100' rogue wave is not something all sea worthy ships can do yet they can face them without warning. I read years ago the theoretical limit was twice what has been recorded so the potential is far beyond the proven fact.
B-52s, A-10s, F15, F16s all saw heavy use and cost a tenth or less than the modern high tech planes. Now look at the track record for next generation aircraft. B-1 never saw a day of service, after years of testing the B-2 finally saw light use in the first gulf war and more in the latest, F-22 not a day of service. These aircraft cost 400 million to 3 billion. The military keeps insisting they need the latest and best but once they get them they rarely use them. Another plane that cost a fortune and took forever to see service was the Osprey. They finally saw service in the latest wars but development started before a lot of people on this site were born. Better to focus effort and limited funds on aircraft that actually get used. Most of these next generation aircraft were pork barrel projects. That's why they were never able to kill the Osprey. The Senator whose home state had the contract fought every attempt to shut down the program so billions were wasted.
And there in lays the problem. The elderly vote in large numbers and they care about retirement, health care and defense. Until young voters vote in numbers greater than the elderly don't expect change.
They need to look for direct evidence of life and not gases and such that they can later claim are caused by geological processes. Strap a microscope onto a lander and take soil samples at the surface, 1", 1' and 3' depths and subject them to several conditions that should stimulate growth. Do a pass over each sample with a microscope before and after and look for biological action. Until they see actual cell division happening the debate will go on. Apparently there's no higher lifeforms so you have to look for bacteria or other simple lifeforms. We're talk about what amounts to petri dishes and a basic microscope and we may have an answer. They are spending billions to go to Mars and seem to be making an effort to no look for life. Want more funding? Find life!
I faced something similar except with no ticket. I was driving on a washboard street near my home. If you did more than 20 mph it would tear the undercarriage from your car yet they claimed I was speeding, which was impossible. Turns out there was a drug bust in a nearby apartment and they wanted an excuse to search my vehicle. I was sit on a curb with my hands on my head while they searched my car. They couldn't find anything so I was let go without even a ticket. Sometimes these traffic stops are an excuse to search your car in hopes of finding something more interesting. If they don't ticket you there's nothing to fight so they get away with a blatant breech of the law. It's sad that they feel they need to stop as many cars as possible in hopes of finding something more serious to charge you with.
I was always into photography and this was the 70s. My father got ticketed for parking on a cross walk in our small town around midnight. It was the dead of winter and snow covered all the streets. He wanted to fight it so I photographed the place in the middle of the day showing how thoroughly the snow covered the streets making it impossible to see the cross walks. The judge took one look at the photos and motioned for the cop to approach the bench where he chewed him out for wasting his time on such a ridiculous case. It is possible to fight tickets with evidence but so rarely do people have evidence to fight them with.
I got this picture of a Google Earth car driving through a group of penguins.
Now people have divided into entrenched camps with little hope of changing minds no matter the evidence. Go back in time and say nothing. Now look at today. 12 years of record temperatures and ice melt. Record droughts, tornadoes and four feet of hail. Some areas that normally have white winters are getting very little snow. If no one had said anything people would be demanding answers. By telling people it's their lifestyles causing it they have decided the climate scientists are trying to take away the things that are causing the warming so are the enemy with some hidden agenda. Just look at American's reaction to food and healthy lifestyles. People are attacked for being too thin but being overweight is sacred. If you wonder why Americans are opposed to climate science try to take away junk food and make them exercise. There would be a revolt. People aren't hearing the climate is warm as in changing, they are hearing you want to take away my SUV and live on less heating and cooling and electrical conveniences. Some people are throwing a fit over incandescent light blubs claiming there's a ban when in truth they simply set efficiency standards and the companies are working of efficient incandescents, which saves them money but they are still mad. The real problem with climate change is they found it was caused by things like CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. Translated, fossil fuels, meat production and fertilizers in modern farming. Or in plain language cars and electricity, burgers and McNuggets, and cheap bread and corn. People hear you want to take those things away or make them more expensive so the simplest solution is find another cause. Suddenly natural variations in climate looks really attractive.
Corporate profits always come first. Coal fires are a problem in some areas and at least one town had to be abandoned since the fires can last for decades and possibly centuries. Many towns had to be abandoned over industrial pollution and yet I constantly hear it's government regulations that cause the problems. How much of the planet do we sacrifice to greed? I'm not talking about halting progress this is about people cutting corners to make higher profits. Coal companies were supposed to have phased in safe guards to limit mercury and other heavy metals from being released but they ignored the regulations and now want them thrown out. A lot of cheap power depends on ignoring the problems it causes. In coal country areas near power plants have cancer rates through the roof. There's a price of pain and suffering. Often in the end the government ends up picking up the bill for health care and clean up. So long as corporations are protected and the people that run them are safe from being held accountable this will continue to happen. Change the rules and bankrupt the owners and corporate heads of the companies and see how fast it all changes.
Since it formed very early on, it's most likely a proto-planet rather than a mature planet. Planetary theory is only designed for mature planets, because statistics doesn't apply to extremely small numbers and extremely small numbers is exactly what you have when dealing with proto-planets. Ergo, the theory cannot be applied sensibly, ergo there is no theory that can be described as being defied.
There's also the possibility of captured planets since there are believed to be a large number that form in the outer fringes of systems and in interstellar space. They are believed to be a large part of the missing matter. It's a tricky balance capturing a planet that far out due to the extremely low gravity. Odds are they'd have a very elliptical orbit much like Pluto.
It's obvious that the lawsuits are ridiculous but what's most ridiculous is they are allowed to file after this many years. Usually there's a three year cut off. These companies, and some of them are the majors, sit back and let the totals add up until there are businesses valued in the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to sue. It's a blatant way of preventing the offender from modifying their product to avoid being sued and to rack up as much damages as possible before filing. Some minor tweaks in WoW might have avoided the lawsuit so they sit quietly until the damages are massive then sue. Without reading the patents it's hard to say but some of their claims involve things that have been standard in gaming for more than 20 years. The biggest advance in WoW was faster computers and connections allowing multiple players to interact. Also how could it have "helped the businesses of virtual worlds gaming and the sale of virtual goods to grow into a multibillion-dollar industry" when the ones being sued were never aware of the patents in the first place. It's like patenting the wheel then keeping it to yourself then claiming the car companies stole your design.
It'd be easy - only one of them would have political convictions that are set in stone.
Romney has lots of different political convictions that are set in stone, most of them on health care.
Most of the problems have been related to people installing software from the internet manually and things like Java. I'm not saying anything pro or con about Apple I own both Mac and Windows machines so I have no horse in this race. Like Linux the core OS is pretty sound I just wish Microsoft had bitten the bullet and made the leap when they did the Vista overhaul. It was a pretty brave move for Apple at the time to switch the OS and it paid off in the long run. Add ons like Java are always going to be a source of headaches. All I know is I rarely have trouble with my Macs but the PCs are another story. One of mine I had to surrender for internet use because it got nailed by a redirect and I tried everything and short of redoing the OS there was no way to scrub it out. I find it safer to use Mac for web surfing and downloading things like software and I use a lot of licensed photos in my work. It's just my personal experience that I run into far fewer issues with the Macs.