From the author's research page: "His research has received support from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the U.S. Department of Defense, among other sources." Irritating, no?
... is virtually meaningless. You can cite all the statistical blah-blah you want but take a look at margins of error. Yes, it is interesting that in this sample they observed what they observed. Extrapolating from there however is a bit misguided or disengenuous.
Time and again, life is found in places where no biologist (or equivalent ilk) expected it. This has happened so frequently that you would think that you would stop using phrases similar to, " high enough to be hostile to known life". What you know about life has clearly been shown to be lacking. Given that, how about a phrase that acknowledges your knowledge gap in a positive and proactive way. A preferred phrase, in this case, should be, " high enough to produce interesting life forms." It shows you aren't complacent in your ignorance and are open to new experience.
Rather than publishing on proprietary data of uncertain characteristics, this will essentially force researchers to use common, known, and available data sets. A smattering of what's available and reputable:
At a worst case of about 80,000, the US ARMY is downsizing more people than are employed in the Royal Canadian Army, Navy, and,/i> Air Force put together.
You really don't see the difference in intentionally harming something vice consuming it for survival?
Snakes have to eat. Men do not have to torture... anything.
But if you subscribe to the contrary, then experiments on humans should be cool, right? It's just a matter of shifting your benchmark for 'acceptable' slightly AND the results are far more validly extended to our species than mouse experiments.
WTF, sounds like you want to give up a job you like because... there seem to be opportunities for people with other skills? People with the skills needed to work as a teller in fast food joints are also in demand.
Got a job you like? Upgrade on your own time, take some courses, and use your industry network to let people know you've got the extra skills. THAT will get you variety and maybe move you up/around in your current company.
Right... like China, Egypt, Russia,... oh, and the US. And yet, the increased connectivity in each is allowing the public in each a greater hand in their own governance by allowing freedom if speech.
Aristotle was talking about 'time alone' with one's thoughts. The privacy being discussed here is about the revelation of personal information to others. _Read_ Aristotle before you quote him.
Think like an ibis, goose, or... hey... a human pilot.
You want to fly with your buddies. Do you form:
- everyone in line a single long line one behind the other? No because then all you can do is see is the person ahead of you and you are constantly surprised by their sudden accelerations (+ or -'ve) and you'd find yourself flying way slow and then way fast to catch up... like cars in traffic. - everyone line abreast i.e. beside each other stretching out to either side? No because then you have to keep looking from one side to the other trying to keep your distance from the next person and the same speed as them who are trying to keep speed with you so everyone ends up kind of rushing ahead then slowing down especially 'cause you can't see the partner two individuals away. OR - a vee formation where everyone gets behind and a little to the left or right of someone else? Yes. A leader will emerge if not already defined by the flock/squadron as top alpha creature/plane end everyone can easily see the individual in front to adjust to their speed and position, everyone can see approaching obstacles (in which case they can anticipate the movement of the individual they're following), and everyone can relatively easily take a quick look at the individuals all around them... an excellent formation for creatures or aircraft flying together and trying to avoid collisions... AND _THEN_.... distances get adjusted to maximize flight efficiency.
See how that works? Formation shape for safety from collision and then distances adjusted for flight efficiency. It's why aircraft fly in such formations... and it's why birds do it. Oh, and wolves, small herds, orcas, etc. Kind of anything travelling close with purpose.. even schools of fish are composed of a fractal pattern of 'v' formations ie. if not in front of everyone, the individual fish will get behind of, and to the side of the fish ahead of them... if they didn't we would see fish CUBES instead of fish BALLS
Honestly, formations based on aerodynamics?! It's a flock of ibises, Jim, not rocket scientists!
a) "the people" insist the government to scale back on spending, so they do. b) departments cannot get $$ to build additional storage and so have to scale back holdings c) the task is passed to the librarians who themselves have been subject to staff cuts. Why? Because a scientific department will cut 'superfluous staff', like librarians, before they cut 'necessary' staff, like scientists. d) the librarians left have to scan what they must (can't scan it all because of $$/time limits) and dispose of what is deemed valueless e) the librarians SOLICIT GUIDANCE FROM THE SCIENTISTS as to what should stay and what should go f) the MAJORITY of scientists PAY NO ATTENTION UNTIL AFTER THE FACT because they are 'too busy for such things as managing archival documents'. The attitude is: they are scientists, not librarians. g) lacking guidance and under pressure to make room for new arrivals (govt scientists order books and papers like they were free), the librarians make best guesses; and h) bear the brunt of the abuse when some scientist decides to make an issue of the cull.
Nothing prevented the scientists from particpating in the entire process. Nothing prevented the scientists from scanning the documents themselves and holding them locally. NOTHING except their own APATHY.
The government scientists in Canada are well paid making, within a few years, over $100K/year (see DS 3-4/SE-RES-2 levels which are attained in 5 yrs or on hire and look for ) and who are not held to the publishing demands of even a small university. As public servants, they enjoy the equivalent of tenure upon hiring (very difficult to fire a public servant even during govt cuts). These facts frequently lead to apathy and a sense of privilege. There are some exceptional scientists, and then there are some who play at politics and do little else. That's what this issue is about; it's not about facts, it's about partisanship.
In this day and age of breathtakingly realistic CG and China's intense desire to be viewed as a dominant first world nation, why would anyone believe this is real? A feasible achievement? Yes, but only at a cost too extravagant for even China.
Final argument: Do you think China would have reported a failed mission? Answer: No. Even if real, they would have had a fake backup plan because this mission cannot fail.
Really? The US moon landing has been doubted for year despite: relatively open process, poor CG at the time, less knowledge of the moon's environment. China has: very closed access to any of its government activities, access to the best in CG and amongst the most powerful computers, modern knowledge of the moon's environment. In short: this self-aggrandizing goal is just TOO EASY TO FAKE. So they will.
Slashdot Mirror
From the author's research page: "His research has received support from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the U.S. Department of Defense, among other sources." Irritating, no?
... is virtually meaningless. You can cite all the statistical blah-blah you want but take a look at margins of error. Yes, it is interesting that in this sample they observed what they observed. Extrapolating from there however is a bit misguided or disengenuous.
Dear Biologists and Similar Ilk,
Time and again, life is found in places where no biologist (or equivalent ilk) expected it. This has happened so frequently that you would think that you would stop using phrases similar to, " high enough to be hostile to known life". What you know about life has clearly been shown to be lacking. Given that, how about a phrase that acknowledges your knowledge gap in a positive and proactive way. A preferred phrase, in this case, should be, " high enough to produce interesting life forms." It shows you aren't complacent in your ignorance and are open to new experience.
Regards,
fygment
We won't know the result BUT yeah, finally researchers will have to really provide transparency on their work.
That works both ways though. Now Exxon et al will also have to show their justifications with hard numbers whose origins are clearly replicable.
Rather than publishing on proprietary data of uncertain characteristics, this will essentially force researchers to use common, known, and available data sets. A smattering of what's available and reputable:
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898...
http://www.keypress.com/x2814....
http://lib.stat.cmu.edu/DASL/
http://www.statsci.org/dataset...
http://data.gc.ca/eng/facts-an...
http://library.med.cornell.edu...
That's the point right? Gays/lesbians are sinners, so reserve the right to deny service because of that.
Of course, good luck finding any non-sinners. Even if there was one, would you believe her or him? Doubtful, I mean that person would have to be ....
Well, there you go. The legislation is really about identifying the 'Second Coming'. Well played boys.
The jury may still be out on this due to it's claims of 'unlimited', etc. But have a look:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/new-...
As a colleague once opined, "There is no more spectrum. It's physics. That's it, that's all."
At a worst case of about 80,000, the US ARMY is downsizing more people than are employed in the Royal Canadian Army, Navy, and,/i> Air Force put together.
You really don't see the difference in intentionally harming something vice consuming it for survival?
Snakes have to eat. Men do not have to torture ... anything.
But if you subscribe to the contrary, then experiments on humans should be cool, right? It's just a matter of shifting your benchmark for 'acceptable' slightly AND the results are far more validly extended to our species than mouse experiments.
WTF, sounds like you want to give up a job you like because ... there seem to be opportunities for people with other skills?
People with the skills needed to work as a teller in fast food joints are also in demand.
Got a job you like? Upgrade on your own time, take some courses, and use your industry network to let people know you've got the extra skills. THAT will get you variety and maybe move you up/around in your current company.
Right ... like China, Egypt, Russia, ... oh, and the US. And yet, the increased connectivity in each is allowing the public in each a greater hand in their own governance by allowing freedom if speech.
Nicely made point.
Aristotle was talking about 'time alone' with one's thoughts. The privacy being discussed here is about the revelation of personal information to others. _Read_ Aristotle before you quote him.
https://plus.google.com/116317...
http://www.redbubble.com/peopl...
Unless you like the smell of burning polyurethane ...
7 out of 100 ... would tell me that the those 7 _did_ do something odd
7 out of 7 ... okay let's get paranoid.
7 out of 5 ... NSA at work?
This will be the technology that the dominant AI of the future will use ... to infiltrate our brains and make us mindless slaves to its will.
Think like an ibis, goose, or ... hey ... a human pilot.
You want to fly with your buddies. Do you form: ... like cars in traffic. ... an excellent formation for creatures or aircraft flying together and trying to avoid collisions ... .... distances get adjusted to maximize flight efficiency.
- everyone in line a single long line one behind the other? No because then all you can do is see is the person ahead of you and you are constantly surprised by their sudden accelerations (+ or -'ve) and you'd find yourself flying way slow and then way fast to catch up
- everyone line abreast i.e. beside each other stretching out to either side? No because then you have to keep looking from one side to the other trying to keep your distance from the next person and the same speed as them who are trying to keep speed with you so everyone ends up kind of rushing ahead then slowing down especially 'cause you can't see the partner two individuals away.
OR
- a vee formation where everyone gets behind and a little to the left or right of someone else? Yes. A leader will emerge if not already defined by the flock/squadron as top alpha creature/plane end everyone can easily see the individual in front to adjust to their speed and position, everyone can see approaching obstacles (in which case they can anticipate the movement of the individual they're following), and everyone can relatively easily take a quick look at the individuals all around them
AND _THEN_
See how that works? Formation shape for safety from collision and then distances adjusted for flight efficiency. ... and it's why birds do it. Oh, and wolves, small herds, orcas, etc. Kind of anything travelling close with purpose .. even schools of fish are composed of a fractal pattern of 'v' formations ie. if not in front of everyone, the individual fish will get behind of, and to the side of the fish ahead of them ... if they didn't we would see fish CUBES instead of fish BALLS
It's why aircraft fly in such formations
Honestly, formations based on aerodynamics?! It's a flock of ibises, Jim, not rocket scientists!
Here's the story:
a) "the people" insist the government to scale back on spending, so they do.
b) departments cannot get $$ to build additional storage and so have to scale back holdings
c) the task is passed to the librarians who themselves have been subject to staff cuts. Why? Because a scientific department will cut 'superfluous staff', like librarians, before they cut 'necessary' staff, like scientists.
d) the librarians left have to scan what they must (can't scan it all because of $$/time limits) and dispose of what is deemed valueless
e) the librarians SOLICIT GUIDANCE FROM THE SCIENTISTS as to what should stay and what should go
f) the MAJORITY of scientists PAY NO ATTENTION UNTIL AFTER THE FACT because they are 'too busy for such things as managing archival documents'. The attitude is: they are scientists, not librarians.
g) lacking guidance and under pressure to make room for new arrivals (govt scientists order books and papers like they were free), the librarians make best guesses; and
h) bear the brunt of the abuse when some scientist decides to make an issue of the cull.
Nothing prevented the scientists from particpating in the entire process. Nothing prevented the scientists from scanning the documents themselves and holding them locally. NOTHING except their own APATHY.
The government scientists in Canada are well paid making, within a few years, over $100K/year (see DS 3-4/SE-RES-2 levels which are attained in 5 yrs or on hire and look for ) and who are not held to the publishing demands of even a small university. As public servants, they enjoy the equivalent of tenure upon hiring (very difficult to fire a public servant even during govt cuts). These facts frequently lead to apathy and a sense of privilege. There are some exceptional scientists, and then there are some who play at politics and do little else. That's what this issue is about; it's not about facts, it's about partisanship.
Seriously.
_you_ can't monitor the hunters and fishers but the NSA can. They don't have to listen to laws.
In this day and age of breathtakingly realistic CG and China's intense desire to be viewed as a dominant first world nation, why would anyone believe this is real? A feasible achievement? Yes, but only at a cost too extravagant for even China.
Final argument: Do you think China would have reported a failed mission?
Answer: No. Even if real, they would have had a fake backup plan because this mission cannot fail.
Then maybe in future, more of them will do the right thing and say 'no, we should not do this!'
Really?
The US moon landing has been doubted for year despite: relatively open process, poor CG at the time, less knowledge of the moon's environment.
China has: very closed access to any of its government activities, access to the best in CG and amongst the most powerful computers, modern knowledge of the moon's environment.
In short: this self-aggrandizing goal is just TOO EASY TO FAKE. So they will.