There is no place on Earth that we know of: not the fiercest desert, not the deepest depths of the Mariana Trench, not in the deepest borehole ever made, nor even in the insanely radioactive core of active boiling water reactors - where life does not thrive.
There are some people that like science. Whatever it is that you believe in, science isn't one of them.
Science demands proof, evidence and not just an open mind but skeptism too. The chief human flaw is to "screen evidence for whatever one wants to believe", science is done by overcoming this.
So if you are just going to blindly state "life flourishes" but crumble under the Mars question, don't look to me as the problem. I'm just asking the questions.
You can't use Mars as an example of how rare life is until we have explored it further.
Mars doesn't have slugs or centipedes or apes running around.
You can't use Mars as an example of how rare life is until we have explored it further.
I already did. And if there life on Mars today, it isn't thriving life making itself known. If that is your definition of "life adapting", you have very low standards for what the idea of "adapting" means.
Life adapts. That's what it does. Life is a plague that cannot be stopped short of a supernova...
In the past, a rather large body of evidence supports the idea that Mars had liquid water and an atmosphere. Due to lack of gravity, over millions or billions of years it lost both its atmosphere and the atmospheric pressure to maintain liquid water.
The odds are Mars had life at one point, although the complexity is unknown.
And today it doesn't. At least not substantial enough to easily detect.
You are interfering with someone promoting science through scientifically wrong information. And pointing out the problem with popular culture at the same time.
Trees don't hold a candle in oxygen production compared to sea plants. It is not even close...
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is "really" going on.
The harder Germany harasses existing players, the more they cement the well-funded ones like Apple/Google/Microsoft into a position of having an insurmountable barrier to entry.
This doesn't hurt big companies, it makes sure the smaller ones cannot enter the market.
It is a short-term inconvenience for Apple, sure, but a long-term benefit for the top players to have this market locked down in a parade of red tape.
Bill Gates wanted to displace IBM. Ultimately, he did more than he planned. Windows is the operating system of international business machines and do your word docs/timesheet/proposals, but many consumers are not necessarily looking for doing work at home.
The tablet market's strength is low maintanence. No need for anti-virus. The updates are infrequent. Plug it in and it works.
Most of the tablet seems to be to entertain children between the ages of 7-14, when I go to any restaurant a fair number of kids are playing games on a tablet, while very few adults are using a tablet.
Most hardcore Christians are content to "let XXXX type of people burn in hell". They don't do it in real life.
Some of these Muslims weirdos very much want to kill, maim or hurt people in this world. If you don't see the difference, I have a dung-ball sandwich with your name written on it.
I was actually arguing human nature, not conspiracy. It is human nature for a government -- which is expected to be involved as the middleman in human affairs --- to want to monitor its citizens. One reason is the perception that this make the job of government easier. It is also easier to act as a middleman in human affairs by taking away freedom.
It ends up with a muddled mission statement that government prioritizes its own interests above the what the government is in place to do. i.e. The objective of the government is to further the welfare of the people and this gets lost if a government operates without supervision.
I saw Mad Max, Mad Max II and I've played the entire Carmageddon series. So this is easily validated and the traffic citational records confirm thke social trends, based on automobile, highway statics.
Imposing the full burden of "further evidence" is a bit much for me, myself and I to have to bear as a burden to your world view, but despite that unfair burden I'll try to give it the old "college try" and see if a can successful communicate my thoughts so here goes...
Statistically a fair bulk of violent crime occurs on Friday and Saturday after the hours of 11 PM due to the work week, off days and when alcohol consumptions occurs. For a moment, let's say that alcohol consumption and crime have a very positive correlation (and all of this is statistically known, let's say you trust me).
So why extra cameras and not extra police efforts during the known hours of incident based on probabilities due to statistical occurrence?
Or perhaps politicians realize that results and public acclimation don't have a positive correlation (i.e. doing a good job does not mean anyone notices so why do that?) but that furthering the cause of government supervision is always rewarded via the elite (the class with money, the class with the ability to provide funding).
In such a system (and let us for a moment say that this is our system), what is the political motivation for a politician to take the high road?
But that doesn't involve you --- you do get to help pick the road, because politicians need your approval and you are empowered to weigh that yourself and make your own decision. And -- at least today --- you can even make your decision based on illogical or irrational reasons, because that is your right. But what if it weren't your right?
It's not that I trust our government, but I do know that they're not a totalitarian regime.
Of course they aren't a totalitarian regime because if they were, they would not need your approval. Ask your yourself this: Lets say that all governments wish to be a totalitarian regime, but they have a problem in that they are operating under a democracy and need gain your approval.
Why do their ideas always result in increase surveillance when there are always 763 options at their disposal to reduce crime?
If you go along with ever idea they want to do, you won't long be claiming they aren't a totalitarian regime --- but if they get everything they want, your opinion also will no longer matter either.
Government surveillance isn't about the relationship to surveillance to an increase or decrease in crime, it is about control. It can have a positive or negative correlation. The end goal isn't solving a problem, the end goal is surveillance.
If this hype about "Redditors (and Popehat) Versus a Bus Company" does not include a YouTube video hopefully involving a cagematch, consider me uninterested.
Maybe there are issues of future concern here. New technologies always involve thoughtful consideration of how they change the world, they do need to be considered and not ignored out of hand.
Don't get your hopes up. This isn't a trend, this is a statistical outlier. Government monitoring is an easy-to-sell way of politicians "being serious" about solving your problems without actually getting knee-deep in the sludge. Plus this what government wants to do. They do want to monitor you and will use any excuse to increase it.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no place on Earth that we know of: not the fiercest desert, not the deepest depths of the Mariana Trench, not in the deepest borehole ever made, nor even in the insanely radioactive core of active boiling water reactors - where life does not thrive.
Bullshit. The Dead Sea.
Science demands proof, evidence and not just an open mind but skeptism too. The chief human flaw is to "screen evidence for whatever one wants to believe", science is done by overcoming this.
So if you are just going to blindly state "life flourishes" but crumble under the Mars question, don't look to me as the problem. I'm just asking the questions.
You can't use Mars as an example of how rare life is until we have explored it further.
Mars doesn't have slugs or centipedes or apes running around.
You can't use Mars as an example of how rare life is until we have explored it further.
I already did. And if there life on Mars today, it isn't thriving life making itself known. If that is your definition of "life adapting", you have very low standards for what the idea of "adapting" means.
Life adapts. That's what it does. Life is a plague that cannot be stopped short of a supernova ...
In the past, a rather large body of evidence supports the idea that Mars had liquid water and an atmosphere. Due to lack of gravity, over millions or billions of years it lost both its atmosphere and the atmospheric pressure to maintain liquid water.
The odds are Mars had life at one point, although the complexity is unknown.
And today it doesn't. At least not substantial enough to easily detect.
Life adapts. That's what it does.
Until it doesn't.
Trees don't hold a candle in oxygen production compared to sea plants. It is not even close ...
The harder Germany harasses existing players, the more they cement the well-funded ones like Apple/Google/Microsoft into a position of having an insurmountable barrier to entry.
This doesn't hurt big companies, it makes sure the smaller ones cannot enter the market.
It is a short-term inconvenience for Apple, sure, but a long-term benefit for the top players to have this market locked down in a parade of red tape.
Didn't know about that, looked up the history there. I now see your point.
More likely: The understated victim of the tablet market is Nintendo DS and Sony PSP. I don't even see them these days ....
Bill Gates wanted to displace IBM. Ultimately, he did more than he planned. Windows is the operating system of international business machines and do your word docs/timesheet/proposals, but many consumers are not necessarily looking for doing work at home.
Most of the tablet seems to be to entertain children between the ages of 7-14, when I go to any restaurant a fair number of kids are playing games on a tablet, while very few adults are using a tablet.
Some of these Muslims weirdos very much want to kill, maim or hurt people in this world. If you don't see the difference, I have a dung-ball sandwich with your name written on it.
++ for your sound business advice. And the same the OP. I've learned much from this.
That's what I call service!
Thanks for that information. I have always wondered why PostgreSQL adoption isn't as high as MySQL.
I do not believe you are reading between the lines.
It ends up with a muddled mission statement that government prioritizes its own interests above the what the government is in place to do. i.e. The objective of the government is to further the welfare of the people and this gets lost if a government operates without supervision.
I saw Mad Max, Mad Max II and I've played the entire Carmageddon series. So this is easily validated and the traffic citational records confirm thke social trends, based on automobile, highway statics.
Statistically a fair bulk of violent crime occurs on Friday and Saturday after the hours of 11 PM due to the work week, off days and when alcohol consumptions occurs. For a moment, let's say that alcohol consumption and crime have a very positive correlation (and all of this is statistically known, let's say you trust me).
So why extra cameras and not extra police efforts during the known hours of incident based on probabilities due to statistical occurrence?
Or perhaps politicians realize that results and public acclimation don't have a positive correlation (i.e. doing a good job does not mean anyone notices so why do that?) but that furthering the cause of government supervision is always rewarded via the elite (the class with money, the class with the ability to provide funding).
In such a system (and let us for a moment say that this is our system), what is the political motivation for a politician to take the high road?
But that doesn't involve you --- you do get to help pick the road, because politicians need your approval and you are empowered to weigh that yourself and make your own decision. And -- at least today --- you can even make your decision based on illogical or irrational reasons, because that is your right. But what if it weren't your right?
It's not that I trust our government, but I do know that they're not a totalitarian regime.
Of course they aren't a totalitarian regime because if they were, they would not need your approval. Ask your yourself this: Lets say that all governments wish to be a totalitarian regime, but they have a problem in that they are operating under a democracy and need gain your approval.
Why do their ideas always result in increase surveillance when there are always 763 options at their disposal to reduce crime?
If you go along with ever idea they want to do, you won't long be claiming they aren't a totalitarian regime --- but if they get everything they want, your opinion also will no longer matter either.
Government surveillance isn't about the relationship to surveillance to an increase or decrease in crime, it is about control. It can have a positive or negative correlation. The end goal isn't solving a problem, the end goal is surveillance.
If this hype about "Redditors (and Popehat) Versus a Bus Company" does not include a YouTube video hopefully involving a cagematch, consider me uninterested.
Maybe there are issues of future concern here. New technologies always involve thoughtful consideration of how they change the world, they do need to be considered and not ignored out of hand.
In what universe is 3.6 lightyears distance --- i.e. 1/4 the age of universe AND 1/4 the size of the visible universe --- close to us?
Don't be fooled or led to believe otherwise.