I think the point is that the old pyramids were useless, but extremely expensive, artefacts. Similar to astronauts planting a flag on the Moon. Undersea tunnels and aqueducts actually serve a very useful purpose. The problem is that there's very little useful stuff we can do in space. The biggest exception would be commercial satellites, but we're already doing that. Unmanned exploration is nice for some (I like it), but not appealing enough for the majority of the people to allow for big budgets.
Deorbiting stuff safely isn't cheap either. Remember that the stuff is going Mach 25, and you only have a very short time to slow it down in a controlled manner. The more massive the chunk is, the bigger the problem. And you don't want a uncontrolled deorbit. First of all, it will make it hard to predict how it will interact with the atmosphere and where it will land. Also, it will land with such an impact that the explosion will blow your precious metals all over the place.
Mining is a prime candidate for broad commercialization.
No. It's too expensive. Even metal-rich asteroids are mostly made of base metals such as iron and nickel, of which we have plenty down here on Earth. The valuable metals in the platinum group are still relatively rare. This means you either have to install a refinery on an asteroid, or try to safely deorbit tons of worthless garbage for a handful of precious metals. Either proposition is hopeless.
America wouldn't and simply can't do something like that
It's not really a matter of technology that has been lost, rather than safety requirements that have been increased to the point that nothing passes them right now.
If they say nazis are bad because they gassed millions of people, then that's both factual and there is no further context to the statement
Actually, most Nazi party members and supporters were not personally involved in the genocide, so that would not be factual. By the way, holocaust denial is a pretty big thing in the Muslim community. And even after the Paris attacks, I've heard a surprisingly large number of Muslims claim that the Jews were behind it.
Simply choose not to be provoked. That's the only solution that works. Your suggestion, trying to not provoke somebody else, doesn't work, because I have no control over what provokes you. Muslims in my country have been provoked by gay couples walking down the street, or by a Jewish man sitting in the park.
It is not a competition. It is a search for truth. And if the perfect truth is impossible, it is better to get as close as possible. In the case of AGW, if you say that the current scientific model is wrong, and you have no model of your own, that implicitly means that your own model is basically a horizontal line, with some noise added to it. That null model is certainly more wrong than the state of the art AGW climate models.
If you were in a village 4000 years ago and offered a theory of gravity that was wrong... but you were the only one offering such a theory... would your theory hold weight? No.
That depends. What do the villagers think happens when they jump off a cliff ? I suppose they have a model too. And that means we have something to compare my model to.
The models are physical models, not statistical ones. For obvious reasons, we cannot test each model iteration with a century worth of fresh data, so testing the model with past data is the best we can do.
I am asking pro AGW people to show me a validated climate model or admit that they don't have one.
Wrong question. What you should ask for is 2 models. One based on the fact that CO2 does what pro AGW people claim, and another one based on what the other people claim. Then we'll try to validate them both, and see which one is closer.
The space shuttle fuel tank was not quite in orbit yet, so it would have taken extra fuel to get it there. And if you park it in a low orbit, it needs regular boosts to compensate for the atmospheric drag. But what good would it do to keep an empty fuel tank in orbit ?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the point is that the old pyramids were useless, but extremely expensive, artefacts. Similar to astronauts planting a flag on the Moon. Undersea tunnels and aqueducts actually serve a very useful purpose. The problem is that there's very little useful stuff we can do in space. The biggest exception would be commercial satellites, but we're already doing that. Unmanned exploration is nice for some (I like it), but not appealing enough for the majority of the people to allow for big budgets.
Deorbiting stuff safely isn't cheap either. Remember that the stuff is going Mach 25, and you only have a very short time to slow it down in a controlled manner. The more massive the chunk is, the bigger the problem. And you don't want a uncontrolled deorbit. First of all, it will make it hard to predict how it will interact with the atmosphere and where it will land. Also, it will land with such an impact that the explosion will blow your precious metals all over the place.
Mining is a prime candidate for broad commercialization.
No. It's too expensive. Even metal-rich asteroids are mostly made of base metals such as iron and nickel, of which we have plenty down here on Earth. The valuable metals in the platinum group are still relatively rare. This means you either have to install a refinery on an asteroid, or try to safely deorbit tons of worthless garbage for a handful of precious metals. Either proposition is hopeless.
It's because politicians have a lot to lose when they fight islam, and not much to gain.
America wouldn't and simply can't do something like that
It's not really a matter of technology that has been lost, rather than safety requirements that have been increased to the point that nothing passes them right now.
I don't know what's going to do more for NASA, but I would love that microbial life. Don't care for the two men with the flag.
Or, when the design was done, they had some room left over, and they couldn't find a 7-gram scientific instrument.
If they say nazis are bad because they gassed millions of people, then that's both factual and there is no further context to the statement
Actually, most Nazi party members and supporters were not personally involved in the genocide, so that would not be factual. By the way, holocaust denial is a pretty big thing in the Muslim community. And even after the Paris attacks, I've heard a surprisingly large number of Muslims claim that the Jews were behind it.
OED defines race as "A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.
So, if somebody says something bad about Nazis, they are racist ?
Simply choose not to be provoked. That's the only solution that works. Your suggestion, trying to not provoke somebody else, doesn't work, because I have no control over what provokes you. Muslims in my country have been provoked by gay couples walking down the street, or by a Jewish man sitting in the park.
You're insulting me. Please stop it.
How is this insightful ? The magazine isn't racist, and Google does not want to support it.
It is not a competition. It is a search for truth. And if the perfect truth is impossible, it is better to get as close as possible. In the case of AGW, if you say that the current scientific model is wrong, and you have no model of your own, that implicitly means that your own model is basically a horizontal line, with some noise added to it. That null model is certainly more wrong than the state of the art AGW climate models.
If you were in a village 4000 years ago and offered a theory of gravity that was wrong... but you were the only one offering such a theory... would your theory hold weight? No.
That depends. What do the villagers think happens when they jump off a cliff ? I suppose they have a model too. And that means we have something to compare my model to.
The models are physical models, not statistical ones. For obvious reasons, we cannot test each model iteration with a century worth of fresh data, so testing the model with past data is the best we can do.
Do you have a better suggestion ?
I am asking pro AGW people to show me a validated climate model or admit that they don't have one.
Wrong question. What you should ask for is 2 models. One based on the fact that CO2 does what pro AGW people claim, and another one based on what the other people claim. Then we'll try to validate them both, and see which one is closer.
It's not really surprising that nothing happens when you expose test subjects to air for a few hours.
The space shuttle fuel tank was not quite in orbit yet, so it would have taken extra fuel to get it there. And if you park it in a low orbit, it needs regular boosts to compensate for the atmospheric drag. But what good would it do to keep an empty fuel tank in orbit ?
And what are we going to do with all the gasoline that's produced, then ?
But rocket science isn't exactly brain surgery.
It wasn't the Dragon capsule, but the 1st stage of the rocket itself.
I am assuming that balancing a multi-ton pencil on a pillar of flame is hard.
No doubt that it is hard, but the control system does not add a lot of mass or drag, so there's a big reward for figuring it out.
Show us the code!
You must have missed the link.
Dell XYZ controls sound levels for my DJ show
What operating system ?
I never mentioned heating.
To declare a fatwa that such behavior is un-Islam and that it is against Islam teachings.
Killing those that insult Mohammed is actually very much according to Islam teachings.