If it had held up, someone would have already set about producing a computing system that was capable of constructing all proofs and all complex structures of everything, and formatting and submitting them as patents.
Many of these would be business models and means of winning elections regardless of public opinion.
Within a few years, our legislative and economic systems would be taken over by the people operating the machine, and they would change the law and, legally, make us their slaves.
Again, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and a fat helping of the weak anthropic principle.
It is entirely reasonable to hypothesis that planets like earth are also able to sustain life.
Wait. Did you just change "more suitable" to "capable"?
Here's the thing. We know that most of the planets and major moons in this solar system are geologically active.
How many of them harbor life?
And we get back to my statement that there are 9,499 other things involved.
Stop being wilfully dense, nobody finds it cute.
I'll take that as a childish non sequitur, because the premise is false, the conclusion is unfounded, and the purpose is to substitute pointless insult for rational argument.
Why bring them up if you're not making them a necessity for the existence or suitability or prevalence or preference or low, low mortgage rates for life?
Why not say it this way:
If we can observe the incidental evidence of a major volcanic eruption on another planet, that suggests a methodology for finding the incidental evidence of a major biomass on another planet.
Why put in a causal relationship that may or may not be relevant, just to invoke the "we're not just looking at volcanoes (though as astrogeological geeks that's really all we care about), we're looking for life on other planets (because as astrogeological geeks we know we need that sort of sensationalism to sell our grant applications to funding authorities and to get the attention of a brain-dead public who just don't grok the coolness of astrogeology)"?
As I said. Seriously.
P.S. Would anyone like to critique my punctuation?
I worry America has too many lawyers. I don't want to spend time having people sue me every day.
99% of what goes on in those lawsuits is righteous protection of workers and customers from the bad or evil decisions of managers.
The other 1% is still covered by your insurance, Terry.
Your problem isn't too many lawyers (you just get your own lawyers and then it doesn't take up your time), your problem is there are laws that will keep you from doing things in ways that you deserve to be sued for.
But I'm sure your deployment of nets to catch suicidal employees is a tacit expression of your understanding that your company is somehow culpable for its own behavior and the culture it engenders in the people it aggregates to perform work that makes you an impressively rich man, hyper-impressively considering China's supposed to be a communist country... So you know that you're either doing something very right, or many things very wrong.
So Facebook, which clearly isn't the new Google, may be the new AOL: the portal through which many people see the Internet.
I'd say the superfluous portal, but, unlike AOL, Facebook actually has a unique product in its Wall and the way that is keyed to a person's IRL past. AOL didn't put the social into it, while Classmates.Com didn't make it sociable, and frankly I think most people didn't want anyone in their past to know about their MySpace accounts...
Determine the number of planets you'd need to find life on before you know that it's the geologic activity that determines whether the planet is or isn't more suitable, given that there are 9,499* other ecological characteristics that could be involved.
They might as well be hypothesizing whether it's the wand, the scar, the half-blood inferiority complex, or the receipt of constant hero-worship that gives Harry Potter his extra magical strength.
Gaseous planets are pretty much 100% active so there's no inactivity to differentiate from the "geological activity". And I bet their geological activity makes it more likely they'll have life as well.
Which means there's no point to the "terrestrial" if all it means is "primarily rocky".
But if the word is only meant to differentiate rocky planets from gaseous ones, then my answer is "well no duh." When you otherwise have no features likely to support life, the environmental randomness emanating from geologic activity is going to be your best chance to induce life to form (vs, say, all the molecules forming inanimate crystals). But as the title of this thread implies, it's also got a good chance of stopping it from forming.
So maybe it's more to do with the type of geologic activity, and less with the existence of it.
Well, that's the thing. They're not really saying anything. Not that it is or isn't more suitable, but that it may be. That's not science, it's just making conversation.
People online don't generally think of doing things the old way when the new way seems so easy.
We also don't read EULAs. So we don't read account agreements in general. Bank account agreements included. So it's unlikely we'll read the Paypal account agreement and see where it isn't in agreement with any bank account agreement we've ever not read. So our surprise upon finding out they're not a bank and don't have the same regulations as a bank is genuine, if self-inflicted.
But while they aren't a bank, they may be a fiduciary, so if they're serving their interests instead of ours where our money is concerned, they're asking for a beat-down in court.
"A geologically active terrestrial planet may be more suitable for life."
There's just something mealy-mouthed and vaguely self-serving about that statement.
And I think it's in the "terrestrial" part. Because if you have the other 9,499 other ecological characteristics of a "terrestrial" planet, then ceteris parabis may apply to geological activity. But maybe there are other ways to get the things that volcanoes give you, and maybe you don't really need the things that volcanoes give you. Thinking they're necessary is overstating the butterfly effect of volcanoes on the suitability of planets to develop biospheres.
Although I have to admit, it's only the geological instability of the Earth that prevented it from being Snowball Earth for all eternity. The sun's light could have been reflected into space forever, but the magma didn't know or care that the entire planet was a glacier, it wanted out, and created enough ash to lower the Earth's albedo and raise the solar absorption and cause the global warming that gave us back our tropics and dog days. So, post hoc ergo propter hoc applies to our terrestrial planet, for one.
It's more like the roughly spherical splaying of threads of molten matter you get when someone detonates a thermal grenade in the middle of your information burrito.
Slashdot Mirror
And if she was bored with the Norwegian cricket scores, just wait until she's told her job is to auto-click the tallest stick on the firehose...
Yes. It looks dorky and self-obsolescing.
The solution: throw it behind the media center and run an IR-extender cable to it.
The root problem is that you think you need more than 140 characters to do what Tweets are designed to do.
Hint: Twitter is not /.
If it had held up, someone would have already set about producing a computing system that was capable of constructing all proofs and all complex structures of everything, and formatting and submitting them as patents.
Many of these would be business models and means of winning elections regardless of public opinion.
Within a few years, our legislative and economic systems would be taken over by the people operating the machine, and they would change the law and, legally, make us their slaves.
You might say I'm rather relieved that P != NP.
He proved there are statements you can't prove (or even express). He didn't prove that this was one of them.
But if you found it, this experience shows it would take thousands of people to figure out if it was correct, so P != NP.
There's an extraneous word in your post.
“It was like the Nerd Superbowl."
Yeah, nobody scored.
QED
Again, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and a fat helping of the weak anthropic principle.
It is entirely reasonable to hypothesis that planets like earth are also able to sustain life.
Wait. Did you just change "more suitable" to "capable"?
Here's the thing. We know that most of the planets and major moons in this solar system are geologically active.
How many of them harbor life?
And we get back to my statement that there are 9,499 other things involved.
Stop being wilfully dense, nobody finds it cute.
I'll take that as a childish non sequitur, because the premise is false, the conclusion is unfounded, and the purpose is to substitute pointless insult for rational argument.
Why bring them up if you're not making them a necessity for the existence or suitability or prevalence or preference or low, low mortgage rates for life?
Why not say it this way:
If we can observe the incidental evidence of a major volcanic eruption on another planet, that suggests a methodology for finding the incidental evidence of a major biomass on another planet.
Why put in a causal relationship that may or may not be relevant, just to invoke the "we're not just looking at volcanoes (though as astrogeological geeks that's really all we care about), we're looking for life on other planets (because as astrogeological geeks we know we need that sort of sensationalism to sell our grant applications to funding authorities and to get the attention of a brain-dead public who just don't grok the coolness of astrogeology)"?
As I said. Seriously.
P.S. Would anyone like to critique my punctuation?
In America, in 2010, there's a waiting list to work at McDonald's.
Is that what makes McDonald's a great employer?
I worry America has too many lawyers. I don't want to spend time having people sue me every day.
99% of what goes on in those lawsuits is righteous protection of workers and customers from the bad or evil decisions of managers.
The other 1% is still covered by your insurance, Terry.
Your problem isn't too many lawyers (you just get your own lawyers and then it doesn't take up your time), your problem is there are laws that will keep you from doing things in ways that you deserve to be sued for.
But I'm sure your deployment of nets to catch suicidal employees is a tacit expression of your understanding that your company is somehow culpable for its own behavior and the culture it engenders in the people it aggregates to perform work that makes you an impressively rich man, hyper-impressively considering China's supposed to be a communist country... So you know that you're either doing something very right, or many things very wrong.
So Facebook, which clearly isn't the new Google, may be the new AOL: the portal through which many people see the Internet.
I'd say the superfluous portal, but, unlike AOL, Facebook actually has a unique product in its Wall and the way that is keyed to a person's IRL past. AOL didn't put the social into it, while Classmates.Com didn't make it sociable, and frankly I think most people didn't want anyone in their past to know about their MySpace accounts...
Well, then, here's how you test it:
Determine the number of planets you'd need to find life on before you know that it's the geologic activity that determines whether the planet is or isn't more suitable, given that there are 9,499* other ecological characteristics that could be involved.
They might as well be hypothesizing whether it's the wand, the scar, the half-blood inferiority complex, or the receipt of constant hero-worship that gives Harry Potter his extra magical strength.
* - go ahead. Make fun of hyperbole.
E pluribus unum: there can be only one anonymous coward.
And that's the thing.
Are those users "on Facebook" or "on Zynga" when they're doing that?
Gaseous planets are pretty much 100% active so there's no inactivity to differentiate from the "geological activity". And I bet their geological activity makes it more likely they'll have life as well.
Which means there's no point to the "terrestrial" if all it means is "primarily rocky".
But if the word is only meant to differentiate rocky planets from gaseous ones, then my answer is "well no duh." When you otherwise have no features likely to support life, the environmental randomness emanating from geologic activity is going to be your best chance to induce life to form (vs, say, all the molecules forming inanimate crystals). But as the title of this thread implies, it's also got a good chance of stopping it from forming.
So maybe it's more to do with the type of geologic activity, and less with the existence of it.
Well, that's the thing. They're not really saying anything. Not that it is or isn't more suitable, but that it may be. That's not science, it's just making conversation.
It was a critical deconstruction. I'm just not feeling pithy today.
Or maybe I am...
Close. "Magma" is the oil industry. "Cocoa Puffs" is G. W. Bush.
Thanks for that advice, Biggus Dickus.
The meatspace way to do a merchant account,
There. I fixed that for you.
People online don't generally think of doing things the old way when the new way seems so easy.
We also don't read EULAs. So we don't read account agreements in general. Bank account agreements included. So it's unlikely we'll read the Paypal account agreement and see where it isn't in agreement with any bank account agreement we've ever not read. So our surprise upon finding out they're not a bank and don't have the same regulations as a bank is genuine, if self-inflicted.
But while they aren't a bank, they may be a fiduciary, so if they're serving their interests instead of ours where our money is concerned, they're asking for a beat-down in court.
what's google?
Seriously.
"A geologically active terrestrial planet may be more suitable for life."
There's just something mealy-mouthed and vaguely self-serving about that statement.
And I think it's in the "terrestrial" part. Because if you have the other 9,499 other ecological characteristics of a "terrestrial" planet, then ceteris parabis may apply to geological activity. But maybe there are other ways to get the things that volcanoes give you, and maybe you don't really need the things that volcanoes give you. Thinking they're necessary is overstating the butterfly effect of volcanoes on the suitability of planets to develop biospheres.
Although I have to admit, it's only the geological instability of the Earth that prevented it from being Snowball Earth for all eternity. The sun's light could have been reflected into space forever, but the magma didn't know or care that the entire planet was a glacier, it wanted out, and created enough ash to lower the Earth's albedo and raise the solar absorption and cause the global warming that gave us back our tropics and dog days. So, post hoc ergo propter hoc applies to our terrestrial planet, for one.
So you're saying a picture may be worth 1,000 words, but not 100,000?
It's more like the roughly spherical splaying of threads of molten matter you get when someone detonates a thermal grenade in the middle of your information burrito.