My desk is connected to the wall, and started shaking. Being as I'm technically in the basement though, there wasn't any actual swaying (no red stapler jokes now!)
At first I thought maybe two coworkers were going at it like Rhodesian mud bunnies in the adjacent office or something. Umm.. not that that happens here a lot.
The standard/. anti-establishment rhetoric applies in the case of Syria, but it's not *always* a case of institution=bad; Individual=good.
Mal intent can exist and manifest anywhere, be it Government, Corporations, or Individuals. A tool can be used for good and evil, it's up to the wielder. A Corporation or Government is easy to identify, but difficult to prosecute. An individual is easy to prosecute, but can be difficult to identify (if they're any good at covering their tracks).
Einstein was not an atheist either however - it's the concept of a "personal" God he disagreed with, not the possibility of divine creation in general. I think this agnostic view is the most intellectually honest...at least until science proves everything there is to ever know about the universe, which is unlikely, much as I respect it.
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." According to Hubertus, Prince of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Freudenberg, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
It's only comparatively recently that science and religion have diverged; historically, they developed together. The ancient Greeks believed in their pantheon of Gods yet gave birth to modern science. In the middle ages, Alchemy, forerunner of Chemistry, was part science, part mysticism. Issac Newton himself was said to practice alchemy, and he was highly religious, as were most pioneers in science, right up to Albert Einstein.
Only that's not a fact: modern science and mathematics arguably originated with the ancient Greeks, as did Philosophy and Democracy. The Arabs of the Dark Ages happened to occupy that land after the Hellenistic heyday and so had access to Greek knowledge, and indeed built on it, to their credit, but the basic concepts of observation, experimentation, and deduction did not begin with them. On the other hand, Greeks had their own mythology- a whole pantheon of Gods. Among the great Greek thinkers, Eratosthenes, Democratis (who many consider to be the father of modern science), Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato.. though I'm loathe to put Aristotle in that list, the guy was off the mark as much or more than he was on it.
Well this is interesting. The fact that it is easier for our ejecta to get to a moon of Jupiter than Mars when Mars is much further away is counterintuitive and cool.
I can't say though I find this really surprising. I suspect the average Joe (layman, astronomically-speaking) tends to think of the planets in a linear precession, each further from the Sun than the previous one; we grew up in classrooms with posters depicting them like that ; the truth being, of course, the planets all orbit at individual rates, (sometimes I forget too) so at times, the Earth could be in an inferior conjunction with Jupiter, but Mars is all the way over on the opposite side of the Solar System - as you alluded to.
As to how far the ejecta travels outward,it doesn't seem that unlikely that solar gravity has such a limited effect, because the objects have so little mass to act on, comparatively, and if they were ejected with enough force to exceed escape velocity, then it seems intuitive that they would continue outward, and possibly, if they get close enough, eventually get captured by Jupiter's large gravitational field, especially should Jupiter happen to be in the "right place" after an asteroid impact on Earth. The Sun's gravitational pull gets weaker the farther out they go, but Jupiter's grows stronger.
But then, hindsight and all that..
Let's face it, with ecosystem destruction on a global scale and greenhouse gases being belched out into the atmosphere at record rates, to a distant alien observer we may look like a destructive civilization spiraling out of control -- and they wouldn't be far wrong.
Does that really sound like it was backed by a pro-conservative, pro-industry, and to a large degree, pro-creationism (c'mon, aliens?) group? I would say exactly the opposite, it sounds like it's from the typical hand-wringing self-loathing humanity-is-horrible-save-the-earth crowd.
I've seen both of them too, and the first and original version was vastly superior. In the first, the aliens didn't come to save the earth, but to prevent mankind from taking it's warring ways out into space, a perceived potential threat to the aliens; we'd just entered space and just developed nuclear weapons.
In the new version, which is little more than a green propaganda film, the aliens just want to save the Earth, citing humanity as poor stewards and that the Earth is in danger of "being destroyed" by us somehow. The absolutely ridiculous thing is, we can't "destroy" the earth; oh, we might blow shit up on the surface and make ourselves extinct, and take a number of other species with us, but in it's remaining 5 billion years the Earth itself will get over it just fine without us. It's been through far worse in it's history, from super massive volcanic eruptions to asteroid impacts, and it's still here and full of life.
IANAL, but if I understand patent law, there doesn't need to be a patent for prior art; if it's been in the public domain for over a year before a patent was applied for, it must remain public domain.
I guess I'm 2 steps from Kevin Bacon; I fixed his dad's VCR while working at a shop in Ardmore, PA, back in '91. (it was more interesting however that on the same job, I met Patti LaBelle, and talked to her in her own house - very nice woman)
Maybe it's surface is made of polished platinum.. I jest, but I swear that stuff messes with my eyes; on one hand, it's shiny, but on the other, it's dark, almost black, and seems to just suck up light.
Re:It'll never make it through FDA trials
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 2
/\ This.
Any big pharma company would leap at the chance if it was a good bet. Same thing goes for a cure for baldness.
This strain of HIV was detoothed, but maybe someone high up in the companies was worried the strain would mutate and become dangerous again (whether scientifically feasible or not). In any case, it's likely that mere mention of "HIV injection" made their lawyers not want to touch this with a 10 foot pole.
I'm all for Jungian synchronicity and all, but not really seeing the overt connection to cyber warfare.
Me too, and from the quote and snippets I'm reading here, (admittedly after reading them I don't even want to bother reading TFA) I don't quite see how synchronicity plays into this. Jung defined it as essentially "meaningful coincidence", not precognition or clairvoyance.
Supernovae aren't the only things though.. our sun will not go supernova, but it will still expand into a red giant at the end of it's life, engulfing most or all of the inner rocky planets, and then finally eject most of it's remaining elements (envelope) into surrounding space, turning into a little white dwarf, and leaving behind a planetary nebula.. those elements just won't go quite as far out in space as fast as a supernova would've ejected them, but eventually they'll make their way around out there. Depending on where the star system was, it could possibly mingle with other local gas "clouds" if present (mostly hydrogen), (re)coalescence, and the whole process repeat, forming a new star and system- but there wouldn't be any heavier elements such as iron or heavier unless they existed prior- for that, you do need a supernova.
You mean as in public key encryption? I wasn't thinking of anything that sophisticated. As is, it would have serious vulnerabilities, definitely: example- Bond sleeps with an enemy agent (who is maybe KGB, a double agent posing as a CIA agent), afterwards she excuses herself to the bathroom and scoops out his jizz (sorry, not the classiest description) seals it in an airtight vial and later forges a letter with it.
Hmm.. if he had a threesome, it could bring a whole new meaning to "man in the middle attack":)
If they had the DNA technology they have today, it could also have functioned as a chemical signature for authentication: "Yep, we tested it, the message is from Agent XYZ alright".
But then,I don't think I'd want my DNA in the hands of the enemy, should security be compromised.
I don't think efficiency is their primary goal here. It's chief purpose is to temporarily power a house during an outage. I suppose you could use it regularly but that seems kinda odd.
I'm curious about this though: from TFA: "..is sufficient to power an average Japanese home for about two days" - I wonder how that translates to the "average" US home (assuming there is such a thing).
I don't know what is worse, calling LEDs 'LED diodes' or 'LED light bulbs'
Yah, it's like saying, "I gotta go get some money from the ATM machine". Except probably more people say this than the summary's example. It reads like it was written for the average Walmart consumer.
Slashdot Mirror
This would have made sense if you'd typed, "prefer ale myself..."
My desk is connected to the wall, and started shaking. Being as I'm technically in the basement though, there wasn't any actual swaying (no red stapler jokes now!)
At first I thought maybe two coworkers were going at it like Rhodesian mud bunnies in the adjacent office or something. Umm.. not that that happens here a lot.
Yeah, we were feeling kinda left out. Thanks. You can keep your wildfires though.
/\ This
/. anti-establishment rhetoric applies in the case of Syria, but it's not *always* a case of institution=bad; Individual=good.
The standard
Mal intent can exist and manifest anywhere, be it Government, Corporations, or Individuals. A tool can be used for good and evil, it's up to the wielder. A Corporation or Government is easy to identify, but difficult to prosecute. An individual is easy to prosecute, but can be difficult to identify (if they're any good at covering their tracks).
Einstein was not an atheist either however - it's the concept of a "personal" God he disagreed with, not the possibility of divine creation in general. I think this agnostic view is the most intellectually honest. ..at least until science proves everything there is to ever know about the universe, which is unlikely, much as I respect it.
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." According to Hubertus, Prince of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Freudenberg, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
It's only comparatively recently that science and religion have diverged; historically, they developed together. The ancient Greeks believed in their pantheon of Gods yet gave birth to modern science. In the middle ages, Alchemy, forerunner of Chemistry, was part science, part mysticism. Issac Newton himself was said to practice alchemy, and he was highly religious, as were most pioneers in science, right up to Albert Einstein.
Only that's not a fact: modern science and mathematics arguably originated with the ancient Greeks, as did Philosophy and Democracy. The Arabs of the Dark Ages happened to occupy that land after the Hellenistic heyday and so had access to Greek knowledge, and indeed built on it, to their credit, but the basic concepts of observation, experimentation, and deduction did not begin with them. On the other hand, Greeks had their own mythology- a whole pantheon of Gods. Among the great Greek thinkers, Eratosthenes, Democratis (who many consider to be the father of modern science), Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato.. though I'm loathe to put Aristotle in that list, the guy was off the mark as much or more than he was on it.
Regards "piece of brain".. huh??
Well this is interesting. The fact that it is easier for our ejecta to get to a moon of Jupiter than Mars when Mars is much further away is counterintuitive and cool.
I can't say though I find this really surprising. I suspect the average Joe (layman, astronomically-speaking) tends to think of the planets in a linear precession, each further from the Sun than the previous one; we grew up in classrooms with posters depicting them like that ; the truth being, of course, the planets all orbit at individual rates, (sometimes I forget too) so at times, the Earth could be in an inferior conjunction with Jupiter, but Mars is all the way over on the opposite side of the Solar System - as you alluded to.
As to how far the ejecta travels outward,it doesn't seem that unlikely that solar gravity has such a limited effect, because the objects have so little mass to act on, comparatively, and if they were ejected with enough force to exceed escape velocity, then it seems intuitive that they would continue outward, and possibly, if they get close enough, eventually get captured by Jupiter's large gravitational field, especially should Jupiter happen to be in the "right place" after an asteroid impact on Earth. The Sun's gravitational pull gets weaker the farther out they go, but Jupiter's grows stronger.
But then, hindsight and all that..
From TFA: (emphasis mine)
Let's face it, with ecosystem destruction on a global scale and greenhouse gases being belched out into the atmosphere at record rates, to a distant alien observer we may look like a destructive civilization spiraling out of control -- and they wouldn't be far wrong.
Does that really sound like it was backed by a pro-conservative, pro-industry, and to a large degree, pro-creationism (c'mon, aliens?) group? I would say exactly the opposite, it sounds like it's from the typical hand-wringing self-loathing humanity-is-horrible-save-the-earth crowd.
I've seen both of them too, and the first and original version was vastly superior. In the first, the aliens didn't come to save the earth, but to prevent mankind from taking it's warring ways out into space, a perceived potential threat to the aliens; we'd just entered space and just developed nuclear weapons.
In the new version, which is little more than a green propaganda film, the aliens just want to save the Earth, citing humanity as poor stewards and that the Earth is in danger of "being destroyed" by us somehow. The absolutely ridiculous thing is, we can't "destroy" the earth; oh, we might blow shit up on the surface and make ourselves extinct, and take a number of other species with us, but in it's remaining 5 billion years the Earth itself will get over it just fine without us. It's been through far worse in it's history, from super massive volcanic eruptions to asteroid impacts, and it's still here and full of life.
IANAL, but if I understand patent law, there doesn't need to be a patent for prior art; if it's been in the public domain for over a year before a patent was applied for, it must remain public domain.
or, after you've put in your PIN and gotten your money or whatever, press a few more random keys.
..and this car I stole is not registered to me either.
lol! That's not a whole lot less than what I made each week, too..
I guess I'm 2 steps from Kevin Bacon; I fixed his dad's VCR while working at a shop in Ardmore, PA, back in '91. (it was more interesting however that on the same job, I met Patti LaBelle, and talked to her in her own house - very nice woman)
Maybe it's surface is made of polished platinum.. I jest, but I swear that stuff messes with my eyes; on one hand, it's shiny, but on the other, it's dark, almost black, and seems to just suck up light.
/\ This.
Any big pharma company would leap at the chance if it was a good bet. Same thing goes for a cure for baldness.
This strain of HIV was detoothed, but maybe someone high up in the companies was worried the strain would mutate and become dangerous again (whether scientifically feasible or not). In any case, it's likely that mere mention of "HIV injection" made their lawyers not want to touch this with a 10 foot pole.
I'm all for Jungian synchronicity and all, but not really seeing the overt connection to cyber warfare.
Me too, and from the quote and snippets I'm reading here, (admittedly after reading them I don't even want to bother reading TFA) I don't quite see how synchronicity plays into this. Jung defined it as essentially "meaningful coincidence", not precognition or clairvoyance.
Supernovae aren't the only things though.. our sun will not go supernova, but it will still expand into a red giant at the end of it's life, engulfing most or all of the inner rocky planets, and then finally eject most of it's remaining elements (envelope) into surrounding space, turning into a little white dwarf, and leaving behind a planetary nebula.. those elements just won't go quite as far out in space as fast as a supernova would've ejected them, but eventually they'll make their way around out there. Depending on where the star system was, it could possibly mingle with other local gas "clouds" if present (mostly hydrogen), (re)coalescence, and the whole process repeat, forming a new star and system- but there wouldn't be any heavier elements such as iron or heavier unless they existed prior- for that, you do need a supernova.
You mean as in public key encryption? I wasn't thinking of anything that sophisticated. As is, it would have serious vulnerabilities, definitely: example- Bond sleeps with an enemy agent (who is maybe KGB, a double agent posing as a CIA agent), afterwards she excuses herself to the bathroom and scoops out his jizz (sorry, not the classiest description) seals it in an airtight vial and later forges a letter with it. :)
Hmm.. if he had a threesome, it could bring a whole new meaning to "man in the middle attack"
If they had the DNA technology they have today, it could also have functioned as a chemical signature for authentication: "Yep, we tested it, the message is from Agent XYZ alright".
But then,I don't think I'd want my DNA in the hands of the enemy, should security be compromised.
I'm sure the ancient Roman goddess of the heavens just loves being called a flying armored tank.
-and probably the first time Juno has probed the depths of Jupiter, not the other way around..
I always wanted to know what was in Dr. Pepper. :-)
I don't think efficiency is their primary goal here. It's chief purpose is to temporarily power a house during an outage. I suppose you could use it regularly but that seems kinda odd.
I'm curious about this though: from TFA: "..is sufficient to power an average Japanese home for about two days" - I wonder how that translates to the "average" US home (assuming there is such a thing).
I don't know what is worse, calling LEDs 'LED diodes' or 'LED light bulbs'
Yah, it's like saying, "I gotta go get some money from the ATM machine". Except probably more people say this than the summary's example. It reads like it was written for the average Walmart consumer.