In order to maintain a consistent position, you've switch from libertarianism/minarchism (a little nutty) to anarcho-capitalism (abso-fucking-lutely insane).
If government does not back up property claims with the threat of force, individuals must do so themselves. Congratulations, you've just handed all land over to whoever has the physical power to conquer it. Exclusive rights are only possible in this world by having a massive superiority of arms over all your neighbors - which of course means that they don't have exclusive rights over 'their' land because you can just take it at your will.
You posit a world where disputes over the positions of garden fences would be resolved at gunpoint. Thankfully, most of the rest of humanity is smart and mature enough to see that this is ridiculous, and disregard you.
1. Most people in England are, at best, ambivalent to the monarchy. The fans are generally old, conservative, and stupid. Public support is slightly in the majority, although as I said not very enthusiastic, largely because people see the Queen as better than the past few Prime Ministers. Both Thatcher and Blair were slammed for being 'presidential' - they are heads of government, not heads of state, and are only elected by their parliamentary constituents. Imagine if ~20,000 people elected your president (I'm assuming you are American). Likely the Monarchy dies shortly after Elizabeth II does.
2. Most people in England who know a bit about Richard III don't buy into the 'dick the shit' stuff pushed by Shakespeare. As brilliant a writer he was, anyone reading him is aware he is a shameless Tudor propagandist.
No, for that very reason, we have everything to fear. The Iranians are building reactors on the cheap, without access to western technology, using Russian nuclear engineers who can't get jobs elsewhere. Wikipedia has the nice little factoid that their main weapons reactor is closer to 6 other capital cities other than Tehran.
The largest threat from Iran is likely to be their dangerous incompetence, and this might well apply to their space program also.
I take this as an argument in favour of a citizen's income. There is a need to disconnect a persons ability to pay at least their living costs, and them doing waged word - because this makes it difficult to pursue something worthwhile that doesn't make a profit.
Admittedly, that doesn't solve the problem of a musicians costs (I once knew someone who paid £3000 for a small wooden recorder!) but it does mean that the balance of their life away from "work you need to do to meet your expenses" and towards "work you do to improve yourself and your art". For the people you describe, that is often teaching - which is not always good or regular work anyway.
A satellite can change the orbit of an asteroid; one play to deflect them is a 'gravity tractor' that uses ion engines to station keep some distance from the asteroid, and its gravitational pull alters its orbit.
However, that technique (which is what I presume you were thinking of) depends on the probe spending months near the asteroid. This flyby was on a timescale of ~1s. Chang'e 2 has a mass of ~2500kg, so we are talking an effect that is likely to be tiny compared to other influences such as solar light pressure, and gravitational interaction with planets.
Please note that them hanging on to their data is hardly out of order. It routine for principal investigators to be able to hang on to data from expensive space missions for a set amount of time - its a funding thing, basically.
It was a calculated risk; the primary mission of Chang'e 2 was completed, so it made complete sense to go for as close a flyby as possible rather than take that risk with a dedicated asteroid fly-by mission - which would be more expensive. Portraying this as carelessness on the part of the Chinese is just nationalistic BS on the part of Americans nervous about the new kid on the block.
So you think you are smarter than everyone else? Shame you haven't demonstrated it.
Mindless extrapolation of previous trends, or even using what you laughable consider to be common sense, does not answer the specific question posed here. You ignore the actual content of the article, and much of what has been posted in response, by dismissing it with a trite 'econ 101' answer. Sorry, but the problem isn't that we aren't bright enough to see what you see, it is that we are too bright to settle for a simplistic answer.
As for this simplistic answer, which you assume to be correct without evidence, leading to your preferred ideological conclusions... well, lets just say nobody is fooled.
France has a 35 hour workweek already. Its seen, by conservative UK politicians, as a sign of a failed socialist state on the verge of economic implosion - but then again, they've been saying that for decades and it hasn't happened yet.
I'm currently reading Critique of Economic Reason by André Gorz. Despite being almost 30 years old, it describes this situation well. Rises in productivity due to automation are incompatible with a culture that values 'work' on a moral basis, and associates it with a persons identity.
the average person is poorer than in germany with less purchasing power.
True, but that is also the the case for the UK - which has a neoliberal, fuck-the-poor kind of government.
Seems to me France is in no worse a position than the UK - arguably a better one since 2008 - and certainly here much bashing of the French economy is ideologically motivated, in order to shore up our own failed system by discrediting even mild deviations in economic policy. I suspect the same is true in the US. Certainly France has its economic problems, but I am highly skeptical of the view that its an economic basket case on the verge of collapse, because I've heard that view for 20 years and in all that time, France has basically kept up with the UK in economic terms, but without far less vicious attacks on the public sector.
Why should I explain why "an entire generation of scientists have to die off before fundamental (game changing) discoveries are accepted as fact." when you have offered precisely zero evidence for this extraordinary, sweeping generalization.
Most scientists I meet are quite aware of their own human weaknesses. There is a tendency to mistrust your own intuition, and to rely on mathematics instead to check your working. Undoubtedly, there are a few bad apples - but overall the science community is more conscious of the failings of individual humans, not less, compared to other industries.
Hey, maybe thats something else astronomers "haven't bothered to check", whether or not the entire galactic disk is accreting or not. Well, gee, I'm glad we've got snarky code monkeys on Slashdot to set us straight! See, according to our silly, ivory tower models, accretion only occurs very close to the central black hole of a galaxy. The main disk part of the galaxy is simply referred to as 'the disk'. I'm guessing you put the word 'accretion' on the front to sound smart? Kind of backfired a little for you I'm afraid.
The reason it is a surprise to find satellites coplanar with the disk is that their formation is expected to be linked to the dark matter halo, which is essentially spherical (it can't radiate away its own kinetic energy and collapse into a disk, like baryonic gas can.) According to our best current models, most of the matter in a galaxy is dark, and thus most of the mass of a disk galaxy does not reside in the plane of the disk.
This is not a trivial result, and you should learn some respect for a field you clearly don't have much knowledge of.
The summary shows the typical engineers contempt for scientists. Its only "Really obvious" in hindsight. The notion that scientists have "Not bothered to check" is insulting and ignorant. We are dealing with a vast parameter space, and especially in astronomy very little data. Likely that someone has thought of this before, but couldn't produce a publishable result.
People scoffing at science in this manner, regardless of what they believe, sound very much like young Earth Creationists.
Most of the big increments were complete by 1970s. Then it was just tweaking - and most of that tweaking was done under the USSR. Bear in mind that we are still less than 1 working lifetime from the USSR collapsed. The Russian space program is still very much running on communist momentum.
Right, anybody who disagrees with Israeli expansionist aggression is anti-semitic. What a load of bullshit. If you found a state on the basis of stealing other people's land (you did), and then justify this based on some bronze aged book of fables telling you that this land was promised to you by an invisible sky daddy... well, you deserve everything you get in that case. Some people push back.
Your question is equivalent to "Is there a singularity at the beginning of the universe".
Going back through time in conventional cosmology leads you through increasing temperature and density, until conventionally you reach a point where both are infinite - the singularity. This, however, is merely a mathematical result that fits with observations later in the universe, and our theories about gravity. We have no way of directly knowing if the universe ever was a singularity.
Others have explained the physics, but yes, talking about the temperature of an EM emission is perfectly acceptable, even common, in physics. You could nitpick and say that any particular X-ray photon does not tell you the temperature of what emitted it, but in order to discuss complex matters you need a shorthand, and one of those is to say that a collection of photons has a temperature (whilst really meaning "this collection of photons is consistent with black body emission at temperature T")
I don't mean as in crap, I mean as in literally a joke aimed at those who construct numerical simulations. Note that is hasn't been accepted by a journal yet. The consequences of the universe being a simulation are a source of humour for those who know what shortcuts you must take in order to get a simulation to work in acceptable time.
Slashdot Mirror
In order to maintain a consistent position, you've switch from libertarianism/minarchism (a little nutty) to anarcho-capitalism (abso-fucking-lutely insane).
If government does not back up property claims with the threat of force, individuals must do so themselves. Congratulations, you've just handed all land over to whoever has the physical power to conquer it. Exclusive rights are only possible in this world by having a massive superiority of arms over all your neighbors - which of course means that they don't have exclusive rights over 'their' land because you can just take it at your will.
You posit a world where disputes over the positions of garden fences would be resolved at gunpoint. Thankfully, most of the rest of humanity is smart and mature enough to see that this is ridiculous, and disregard you.
1. Most people in England are, at best, ambivalent to the monarchy. The fans are generally old, conservative, and stupid. Public support is slightly in the majority, although as I said not very enthusiastic, largely because people see the Queen as better than the past few Prime Ministers. Both Thatcher and Blair were slammed for being 'presidential' - they are heads of government, not heads of state, and are only elected by their parliamentary constituents. Imagine if ~20,000 people elected your president (I'm assuming you are American). Likely the Monarchy dies shortly after Elizabeth II does.
2. Most people in England who know a bit about Richard III don't buy into the 'dick the shit' stuff pushed by Shakespeare. As brilliant a writer he was, anyone reading him is aware he is a shameless Tudor propagandist.
No, for that very reason, we have everything to fear. The Iranians are building reactors on the cheap, without access to western technology, using Russian nuclear engineers who can't get jobs elsewhere. Wikipedia has the nice little factoid that their main weapons reactor is closer to 6 other capital cities other than Tehran.
The largest threat from Iran is likely to be their dangerous incompetence, and this might well apply to their space program also.
Aquamacs is more than capable of crashing itself without any dodgy library code.
I take this as an argument in favour of a citizen's income. There is a need to disconnect a persons ability to pay at least their living costs, and them doing waged word - because this makes it difficult to pursue something worthwhile that doesn't make a profit.
Admittedly, that doesn't solve the problem of a musicians costs (I once knew someone who paid £3000 for a small wooden recorder!) but it does mean that the balance of their life away from "work you need to do to meet your expenses" and towards "work you do to improve yourself and your art". For the people you describe, that is often teaching - which is not always good or regular work anyway.
All that is technically true of the BBC too, and many Americans take that to be a source of news better than their own domestic, private outlets...
A satellite can change the orbit of an asteroid; one play to deflect them is a 'gravity tractor' that uses ion engines to station keep some distance from the asteroid, and its gravitational pull alters its orbit.
However, that technique (which is what I presume you were thinking of) depends on the probe spending months near the asteroid. This flyby was on a timescale of ~1s. Chang'e 2 has a mass of ~2500kg, so we are talking an effect that is likely to be tiny compared to other influences such as solar light pressure, and gravitational interaction with planets.
Please note that them hanging on to their data is hardly out of order. It routine for principal investigators to be able to hang on to data from expensive space missions for a set amount of time - its a funding thing, basically.
Recall that at the time 'son of star wars' was kicking off - it isn't like the Chinese conducted this test in a vacuum (you know what I mean...)
It was a calculated risk; the primary mission of Chang'e 2 was completed, so it made complete sense to go for as close a flyby as possible rather than take that risk with a dedicated asteroid fly-by mission - which would be more expensive. Portraying this as carelessness on the part of the Chinese is just nationalistic BS on the part of Americans nervous about the new kid on the block.
Static analysis aka naive extrapolation from existing trends. They had data, you had trite dismissal. They win.
So you think you are smarter than everyone else? Shame you haven't demonstrated it.
Mindless extrapolation of previous trends, or even using what you laughable consider to be common sense, does not answer the specific question posed here. You ignore the actual content of the article, and much of what has been posted in response, by dismissing it with a trite 'econ 101' answer. Sorry, but the problem isn't that we aren't bright enough to see what you see, it is that we are too bright to settle for a simplistic answer.
As for this simplistic answer, which you assume to be correct without evidence, leading to your preferred ideological conclusions... well, lets just say nobody is fooled.
France has a 35 hour workweek already. Its seen, by conservative UK politicians, as a sign of a failed socialist state on the verge of economic implosion - but then again, they've been saying that for decades and it hasn't happened yet.
I'm currently reading Critique of Economic Reason by André Gorz. Despite being almost 30 years old, it describes this situation well. Rises in productivity due to automation are incompatible with a culture that values 'work' on a moral basis, and associates it with a persons identity.
Citation?
Not really: http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/774/economics/list-of-national-debt-by-country/ French government debt is comparable to that of the UK and Germany as a % of GDP, and is lower than that of the US and Japan
True, but that is also the the case for the UK - which has a neoliberal, fuck-the-poor kind of government. Seems to me France is in no worse a position than the UK - arguably a better one since 2008 - and certainly here much bashing of the French economy is ideologically motivated, in order to shore up our own failed system by discrediting even mild deviations in economic policy. I suspect the same is true in the US. Certainly France has its economic problems, but I am highly skeptical of the view that its an economic basket case on the verge of collapse, because I've heard that view for 20 years and in all that time, France has basically kept up with the UK in economic terms, but without far less vicious attacks on the public sector.
Thats quite a few cherries you have picked there. The plural of anecdote is not 'data'
To clarify, this does not mean the most massive spiral galaxy found, it means the longest.
Why should I explain why "an entire generation of scientists have to die off before fundamental (game changing) discoveries are accepted as fact." when you have offered precisely zero evidence for this extraordinary, sweeping generalization.
Most scientists I meet are quite aware of their own human weaknesses. There is a tendency to mistrust your own intuition, and to rely on mathematics instead to check your working. Undoubtedly, there are a few bad apples - but overall the science community is more conscious of the failings of individual humans, not less, compared to other industries.
Hey, maybe thats something else astronomers "haven't bothered to check", whether or not the entire galactic disk is accreting or not. Well, gee, I'm glad we've got snarky code monkeys on Slashdot to set us straight! See, according to our silly, ivory tower models, accretion only occurs very close to the central black hole of a galaxy. The main disk part of the galaxy is simply referred to as 'the disk'. I'm guessing you put the word 'accretion' on the front to sound smart? Kind of backfired a little for you I'm afraid.
The reason it is a surprise to find satellites coplanar with the disk is that their formation is expected to be linked to the dark matter halo, which is essentially spherical (it can't radiate away its own kinetic energy and collapse into a disk, like baryonic gas can.) According to our best current models, most of the matter in a galaxy is dark, and thus most of the mass of a disk galaxy does not reside in the plane of the disk.
This is not a trivial result, and you should learn some respect for a field you clearly don't have much knowledge of.
The summary shows the typical engineers contempt for scientists. Its only "Really obvious" in hindsight. The notion that scientists have "Not bothered to check" is insulting and ignorant. We are dealing with a vast parameter space, and especially in astronomy very little data. Likely that someone has thought of this before, but couldn't produce a publishable result.
People scoffing at science in this manner, regardless of what they believe, sound very much like young Earth Creationists.
Most of the big increments were complete by 1970s. Then it was just tweaking - and most of that tweaking was done under the USSR. Bear in mind that we are still less than 1 working lifetime from the USSR collapsed. The Russian space program is still very much running on communist momentum.
Right, anybody who disagrees with Israeli expansionist aggression is anti-semitic. What a load of bullshit. If you found a state on the basis of stealing other people's land (you did), and then justify this based on some bronze aged book of fables telling you that this land was promised to you by an invisible sky daddy... well, you deserve everything you get in that case. Some people push back.
Your question is equivalent to "Is there a singularity at the beginning of the universe".
Going back through time in conventional cosmology leads you through increasing temperature and density, until conventionally you reach a point where both are infinite - the singularity. This, however, is merely a mathematical result that fits with observations later in the universe, and our theories about gravity. We have no way of directly knowing if the universe ever was a singularity.
Hows the view from mount stupid?
Others have explained the physics, but yes, talking about the temperature of an EM emission is perfectly acceptable, even common, in physics. You could nitpick and say that any particular X-ray photon does not tell you the temperature of what emitted it, but in order to discuss complex matters you need a shorthand, and one of those is to say that a collection of photons has a temperature (whilst really meaning "this collection of photons is consistent with black body emission at temperature T")
Here is some educational material for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law
I don't mean as in crap, I mean as in literally a joke aimed at those who construct numerical simulations. Note that is hasn't been accepted by a journal yet. The consequences of the universe being a simulation are a source of humour for those who know what shortcuts you must take in order to get a simulation to work in acceptable time.