A year is 365.251 days long. You'd need to increase the orbit so that the year was 366 days. The increase in the distance the Earth would need to travel is (366/365.251)x(distance currently travelled). The circumference is equal to twice the radius times pi. The first five planets have orbits at an almost constant ratio to one another, substantially more than required to move to 366 days. You'd not even notice Mars getting any larger. The question is whether that would be far enough to be safe from solar expansion. You might want to move to much closer to Mars. The moon and Earth form almost a double planet system and the moon is boring. Moving to an Earth/Mars double planet system might be more interesting.
Well, no. Among other reasons, as you increase the major axis of the orbit, the orbital speed decreases. Your statements above imply that orbital speed is constant with increasing mojor axis.
The answer to "the question" that you mention, by the way, is "NO". It won't even be noticable on a cosmic scale.
Note, by the way, that the condition you describe (Earth's orbital period being 366 days) WILL come to pass at some point in the next 7.6 billion years. Momentarily. Of course, the length of the day will have changed by then also....
Moving to an Earth/Mars double planet would be pointless - move us out to Jupiter, put us in orbit around Jupiter, drop one of the outer moons (of Jupiter) into Jupiter to heat it up a bit, and we'd be fine.
For a while....
P.S. Any oldtimers recognize the reference? I doubt the kids will.
2)To be large enough to be useful, it would influence tides (and the moon's orbit) ever so slightly- enough to present significant problems in the long haul. It would also influence the orbit of everything *else* orbiting the earth.
Large enough to be useful? Let's see. We've put how many millions of tons in Earth orbit since the dawn of the Space Age? 0.01? Less than that?
So, let's imagine the potential value of a 300m diameter ball of nickel-iron in Earth orbit. Hmm, calculator says that that's 100 million tons of steel. More than 10000 times as much as we've put in orbit to date.
Do you really believe that increasing the available material in Earth Orbit by a factor or 10000 or so would not be "large enough to be useful"? I can't imagine how it could fail to be useful, myself.
Or do you believe that 100,000,000 tons in Earth Orbit would have a meaningful effect on tides or the orbits of anything else in Earth Orbit? Hmmm, tides...that would alter the net tidal effect by ONE PERCENT if it were in an orbit 4500 meters high. Of course, it would hit a lot of mountains each orbit, so I doubt we'd worry much about tides in that case.
Note, by the way, that I am not suggesting that Apophis is nickel-iron. I have no (if you'll excuse the pun) Earthly idea what it's made of. I just used an asteroid of that size for illustrative purposes.
Weath does not mean "expensive things" - in fact, most expensive things are the opposite of wealth!
Alas, I made the mistake of picking a few expensive examples. I should have used things like "a fountain pen" or "a pair of hiking boots". Wealth is THINGS. It's not money. "Creating wealth" is MAKING THINGS. Whatever you make - software, music, steel, bricks. All of them are wealth. Selling something is NOT creating wealth, though.
Yes, not everything is of value to everyone. If I'm starving on a mountaintop in Canada, a Hybrid Prius will do me little good, if any. Unless its upholstery is edible. But a bag of wheat will mean quite a lot. But, all in all, wealth is about THINGS.
Income, on the other hand, is about IOU's. Which can be redeemed for things, but which aren't things in themselves. Note that high income doesn't imply high wealth, though the two are closely tied in a "normal" economy. In a place like Zimbabwe, the two are almost completely disjoint - all the income in the world can't buy non-existant maize, gasoline, anasthetics, etc.
And if all the factories that make things stop doing so, all the income in the world won't stop everyone from becoming neo-neolithic savages.
After instituting a smoking ban in all public buildings, every county in my area showed an immediate, noticeable drop in health issues.
But...the effects of tobacco smoke are a long-term problem, not a short-term one. And the effects of avoiding tobacco smoke are the same. So people who were becoming ill as a result of tobacco smoke weren't going to be finding that if smoking were banned, they were magically cured - it should have taken some time for the effects to show up.
The fact that the effects of the smoking ban on people's health were "immediate" shows mostly that the effects of smoking on people's health were mostly in their heads.
Yes, lung cancer and emphysema aren't just "in your head". But neither are they things that vanish immediately upon avoiding tobacco smoke....
Income is wealth (as much as anything else can be called wealth anyway).
No. An automobile is wealth. An airplane is wealth. A book is wealth. Income is just an IOU based on your contribution to creating wealth.
"Creating wealth" is all about producing things of value. "Free" software is wealth if it has value. The fact that people use it demonstrates nicely that it has value. The fact that it costs nothing to use is irrelevant to its "value".
Its like social security - a REAL patriot will die on their 65th birthday!
It might (or not) be helpful to remember that when Social Security began, average life expectancy was slightly under 65. so fewer than half those who paid into it collected, and most of those who did collect died shortly after they began collecting.
Social Security's financial woes are entirely a result of the increasing life expectancy of Americans....
Actually, if you think about it, saying that she hates Hans enough to let him get executed is exactly equally reasonable as saying that Hans hated her enough to murder her.
Well, aside from differences due to the level of "hands on" interaction required, anyway... I would think that allowing the state to do the dirty work would allow her to rationalize away the feelings of guilt, and thus require less hatred than for Hans to perform the act of killing personally
No. It's the difference between a momentary killing rage and 20 years of premeditation. The former you see a lot, the latter, never. Yah, she may hate him that much. Unlikely, but possible. Do you really believe she'll continue hating him that much for the next 20 years?
From what I can tell, the prosecution has absolutely not proven Hans' guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt. They have not met the standard of proof required for a criminal conviction. All they have is some fairly flimsy circumstantial evidence.
If this were true, then the Defense doesn't have to do anything when the Prosecution rests other than "move to dismiss on grounds that the People have failed to make a case beyond reasonable doubt". He wouldn't have to resort to something like "yeah, it looks bad, but it's because my client is so much smarter than everyone else that he didn't realize he was making himself look guilty".
Which defense would incline me to believe he was guilty, if nothing else did.
Though maybe the Defense is setting up an appeal - "your Honors, you should overturn this conviction because my client has a fool for a lawyer"....
Say Reiser is found guilty, and the public get a vent for their derision, and he goes to the chair, noose or gas chamber. Then say Nina Reiser walks back into town.
What then? Is she guilty of his murder?
Please explain how the American legal system works. Thanks.
First thing to realize is that if Hans were convicted, and were given a death sentence (basically, that last won't happen without a body), then he'd not be executed for about 20 years. On average.
20 years on Death Row is unlikely to be pleasant, but it'll give him a lot of time to work on his Filesystem. It'll also give a lot of time for Nina to show up.
Frankly, I can't see her staying away for that long, if she has a choice. Unless she really hates Hans (dislike won't do - I dislike a lot of people, none enough to let them go the Chair undeservedly), and isn't too interested in her kids either, then she'll come back long before that.
Now, given that she is alive (unlikely, I think. she'd have come back for the kids, if naught else), and that Hans is eventually executed, and then she returns...well, the DA can charge her for obstruction of justice, I think. But not for murder.
And Hans parents can sue the socks off the City, County, State....
But basically, there's no chance of the scenario coming to pass - if she's alive, she'll either come back MUCH sooner than he gets executed, or not at all.
If the current rate of convict DNA testing remains consistent then over 60% of those incarcerated are not guilty of the crime they were convicted of.
Fascinating insight. I had never realized that Fraud was usually accompanied by DNA evidence.
Last I'd heard, convict DNA testing isn't done on a random sample, but rather on a self-selecting sample of (mostly) those on Death Row. So it's unlikely it'll extend to the general prison population.
....lose touch with the way of living without all the advances such that should a disaster happen that destroys our advances, would we know enough about how to live without that we could survive it with minimal loses due to just plain ignorance of living without the advances?
Never happen. We'd just look up how to live without all the advances on the internet, and we'd be good to go....
That said, if you know how to make black powder and alcohol, you're probably well ahead of the post-apocalyptic game. And if your home-brewed alcohol is potable, so much the better.
It's not compressed air, it's s separate gas entirely. It's not even carried onboard the vehicle as a compressed gas, but as a liquid.
Note that even if we were to take the components (nitrogen, oxygen) in isolation, it isn't compressed air with nitrogen added, since it is 1/3 nitrogen, 2/3 oxygen, rather than the 4/5 nitrogen, 1/5 oxygen that we normally breathe.
Yah, if we loosely take "compressed air" to mean "liquid oxygen", then what you wrote matched the wiki article. Alas, normal people don't think "compressed air" and "liquid oxygen" are synonyms. Or even vaguely similar, for that matter.
No doubt you meant well, but your choice of words made what you wrote meaningless babble. Try picking the correct words next time, and people won't say rude things so much.
What your describing is called "Nitrous Oxide". It is compressed air with nitrogen added for its cooling effects on a motor. Adding compressed air to an engine increases the amount of air in the cylinder, and allows you to increase the amount of fuel in a cylinder without making the mixture too "rich" (rich means too much gas, lean means too much air).
Adding compressed gases would allow high performance to be gained out of a small motor, but would not increase the overall fuel economy of said motor.
you can read about Nitrous Oxide Here [wikipedia.org].
Oddly enough, nitrous oxide, as described in the wiki article you mentioned is nothing like the description you provided. Perhaps you should reread the article.
Net velocity for the two masses (satellite and the missile) probability somewhere around 1 kilometer per second, assuming the missile had a mass that was about half the satellites upon impact and they where traveling at roughly the same velocity, only in opposite vectors. 1kps is really slow for orbital velocities. For example the space shuttle has an orbital velocity around 7kps to obtain a stable low earth orbit. Not quite the.09kps for a space shuttle de-orbit velocity, but by no means a stable low earth orbit velocity
1) The satellite and missile probably wouldn't have opposite direction vectors.
2) The missile would have been considerably lighter than 1/2 the weight of the satellite. The satellite was described as being about the size of a bus (volume, of course), and the missile is considerably smaller than that. Also, the missile would have burned up all, or nearly all, of its fuel before it hit the satellite.
3) 1 kps is too slow to orbit unless orbital altitude is out past the moon.
4) Based on the statement that most of the satellite should deorbit within the next 48 hours or so, the speed of the satellite post-collision was probably only 50-100 meters per second below what it had been pre-collision.
5) Space shuttle orbital speed is closer to 8 kps than to 7.
6) Space shuttle deorbit speed isn't 0.09 kps - that's landing speed, after it's slowed down in the atmosphere for a while. deorbit is >7 kps.
6) Please, please, please stop using speed and velocity interchangably. Orbital speed makes sense, orbital velocity doesn't.
That said, you captured the essence - it's mostly moving a bit slower than before, and will deorbit nicely.
350 generations isn't long enough? I think you need to re-evaluate what you know about evolution, if you think that. There have been instances observed in nature where evolutionary adaptations occurred in far fewer than 350 generations.
But isn't that kind of the point? If you have to be drunk to do it, is it really normal behavior? Humans didn't evolve in the presence of substantial ethyl alcohol, after all.
Humans didn't evolve in the presence of substantial amounts of electricity either, but we hardly consider electric lights abnormal today, do we?
We've been making beer for at least 7000 years, and probably rather longer than that. Which means that guys have been waking up and wondering who the girl next to them was for at least that long.
While it's true that guys are discriminating, in at least a broad sense of the term, it's not especially true that that discrimination applies to one night stands. Yah, you want your wife to be like your mother, in general. The girl you pick up Saturday night after a great deal of partying just has to be willing (and not always terribly willing - I'm betting guys have been screwing drunk girls for as long as guys have been screwing drunk).
And finally, note that my previous post was a joke. You need to have a sense of humor implanted one of these days.
Even our milky way has only so much space for planets, if you want trillions of worlds you need to look at the universe as a whole, then it is certainly possible.
About ten planets in our solar system. About 100 billion stars in the Milky Way. Which is about 1 trillion planets, assuming they all have solar systems comparable in size to our's.
If you take their "hundreds of planets in our solar system" as gospel, then "trillions of worlds" will fit in our galaxy nicely.
Much less in the "universe as a whole", which ought to have on the order of billions of trillions of planets.
The only way around this would be to create a bunch of decoy satellites.
The only way around it is to give the secret spy satellite a false ID in the internet listing of satellites - something nice and innocuous. Then people will see it, look it up on the internet, find out it's some boring scientific satellite, say "neat" (or "bored now", whichever), and go about their business.
Personally, I'd bet that way more spy satellites are already on the list as "earth resources satellites" or some such nonsense than are out there unlisted (and therefore, obviously, a secret spy satellite).
I think you'll find that even men exhibit mate choice. "Gentlemen prefer blondes", etc. Men aren't in general any less discriminate than women, even though the opportunity cost per mating is so much lower.
Never gotten drunk enough to wonder who the woman you woke up with was, have you?;)
There's a much, much better example of natural selection operating on human beings - people tend to have sex with people they're attracted to, not at random. And they certainly don't have children with random people; there's always a selection involved, whether that's selection for resources, good genetics/immunotype (assessed instinctively by appearance, smell, or cognitively by genetic examination), or some other criteria.
While this is reasonably true for women, it's much less so for men. Men, in general, will screw anything that gives them half a chance. Which is, of course, a survival characteristic for men - spread your seed widely, hope some survives. It's a perfectly viable technique, after all - most animals and plants use it.
Being selective in choice of mates is important when your maximum number of offspring is severely limited. Which is mostly true of women - they invest a lot of time and energy into having a kid, much less raising the little monster. Not true at all for men, who can produce a new kid every day, and twice on Sunday, if they can find enough willing partners. Or unwilling ones, for that matter....
All that aside, do you actually know someone who picked a wife/husband by "genetic examination"? Inquiring minds want to know.
Possible, but he did refer to a "former" salt lake, so I think not.
You're right, of course, that the Great Salt Lake supports an assortment of life not found in the Dead Sea, but I'm not so sure that it's a matter of "more" so much as a matter of "different" life in the Great Salt Lake.
Either way, I expect that, by and by, we're going to be astounded at the variety of life that lived on Mars back in the day. And we may yet be astounded by the variety that still lives there.
This is basically Offtopic, but harvesting anything from the moon (He3) seems inherintly dangerous given the whole mass/gravity thing, you'd be playing around with the whole tidal system, messing with countless amounts of animals brains(including our own) and navigation "systems"... plus factoring in things like the impact of landing, and taking off.
Basically stupid, you mean? If we were to harvest 100,000,000,000 tons of lunar material, we'd affect the lunar mass (and this the whole mass/gravity/tide thing by about 0.0000001%.
And we don't contemplate harvesting that much material from the moon in the next thousand years or so. So come back with something real, not delusional.
Slashdot Mirror
It would seem to me that if you're going to sue someone for causing you harm, you'd stop using their harmful product.
Wonder what this lot is going to use to keep warm in Alaskan winters when they can't burn oil or coal.
Wonder how they're going to keep their snowmobiles running.
Wonder if they're really willing to give up those flights into their little community to provide medical services and whatnot.
Somehow, I doubt it.
Well, no. Among other reasons, as you increase the major axis of the orbit, the orbital speed decreases. Your statements above imply that orbital speed is constant with increasing mojor axis.
The answer to "the question" that you mention, by the way, is "NO". It won't even be noticable on a cosmic scale.
Note, by the way, that the condition you describe (Earth's orbital period being 366 days) WILL come to pass at some point in the next 7.6 billion years. Momentarily. Of course, the length of the day will have changed by then also....
Moving to an Earth/Mars double planet would be pointless - move us out to Jupiter, put us in orbit around Jupiter, drop one of the outer moons (of Jupiter) into Jupiter to heat it up a bit, and we'd be fine.
For a while....
P.S. Any oldtimers recognize the reference? I doubt the kids will.
Large enough to be useful? Let's see. We've put how many millions of tons in Earth orbit since the dawn of the Space Age? 0.01? Less than that?
So, let's imagine the potential value of a 300m diameter ball of nickel-iron in Earth orbit. Hmm, calculator says that that's 100 million tons of steel. More than 10000 times as much as we've put in orbit to date.
Do you really believe that increasing the available material in Earth Orbit by a factor or 10000 or so would not be "large enough to be useful"? I can't imagine how it could fail to be useful, myself.
Or do you believe that 100,000,000 tons in Earth Orbit would have a meaningful effect on tides or the orbits of anything else in Earth Orbit? Hmmm, tides...that would alter the net tidal effect by ONE PERCENT if it were in an orbit 4500 meters high. Of course, it would hit a lot of mountains each orbit, so I doubt we'd worry much about tides in that case.
Note, by the way, that I am not suggesting that Apophis is nickel-iron. I have no (if you'll excuse the pun) Earthly idea what it's made of. I just used an asteroid of that size for illustrative purposes.
Alas, I made the mistake of picking a few expensive examples. I should have used things like "a fountain pen" or "a pair of hiking boots". Wealth is THINGS. It's not money. "Creating wealth" is MAKING THINGS. Whatever you make - software, music, steel, bricks. All of them are wealth. Selling something is NOT creating wealth, though.
Yes, not everything is of value to everyone. If I'm starving on a mountaintop in Canada, a Hybrid Prius will do me little good, if any. Unless its upholstery is edible. But a bag of wheat will mean quite a lot. But, all in all, wealth is about THINGS.
Income, on the other hand, is about IOU's. Which can be redeemed for things, but which aren't things in themselves. Note that high income doesn't imply high wealth, though the two are closely tied in a "normal" economy. In a place like Zimbabwe, the two are almost completely disjoint - all the income in the world can't buy non-existant maize, gasoline, anasthetics, etc.
And if all the factories that make things stop doing so, all the income in the world won't stop everyone from becoming neo-neolithic savages.
But...the effects of tobacco smoke are a long-term problem, not a short-term one. And the effects of avoiding tobacco smoke are the same. So people who were becoming ill as a result of tobacco smoke weren't going to be finding that if smoking were banned, they were magically cured - it should have taken some time for the effects to show up.
The fact that the effects of the smoking ban on people's health were "immediate" shows mostly that the effects of smoking on people's health were mostly in their heads.
Yes, lung cancer and emphysema aren't just "in your head". But neither are they things that vanish immediately upon avoiding tobacco smoke....
No. An automobile is wealth. An airplane is wealth. A book is wealth. Income is just an IOU based on your contribution to creating wealth.
"Creating wealth" is all about producing things of value. "Free" software is wealth if it has value. The fact that people use it demonstrates nicely that it has value. The fact that it costs nothing to use is irrelevant to its "value".
It might (or not) be helpful to remember that when Social Security began, average life expectancy was slightly under 65. so fewer than half those who paid into it collected, and most of those who did collect died shortly after they began collecting.
Social Security's financial woes are entirely a result of the increasing life expectancy of Americans....
No. It's the difference between a momentary killing rage and 20 years of premeditation. The former you see a lot, the latter, never. Yah, she may hate him that much. Unlikely, but possible. Do you really believe she'll continue hating him that much for the next 20 years?
If this were true, then the Defense doesn't have to do anything when the Prosecution rests other than "move to dismiss on grounds that the People have failed to make a case beyond reasonable doubt". He wouldn't have to resort to something like "yeah, it looks bad, but it's because my client is so much smarter than everyone else that he didn't realize he was making himself look guilty".
Which defense would incline me to believe he was guilty, if nothing else did.
Though maybe the Defense is setting up an appeal - "your Honors, you should overturn this conviction because my client has a fool for a lawyer"....
First thing to realize is that if Hans were convicted, and were given a death sentence (basically, that last won't happen without a body), then he'd not be executed for about 20 years. On average.
20 years on Death Row is unlikely to be pleasant, but it'll give him a lot of time to work on his Filesystem. It'll also give a lot of time for Nina to show up.
Frankly, I can't see her staying away for that long, if she has a choice. Unless she really hates Hans (dislike won't do - I dislike a lot of people, none enough to let them go the Chair undeservedly), and isn't too interested in her kids either, then she'll come back long before that.
Now, given that she is alive (unlikely, I think. she'd have come back for the kids, if naught else), and that Hans is eventually executed, and then she returns...well, the DA can charge her for obstruction of justice, I think. But not for murder.
And Hans parents can sue the socks off the City, County, State....
But basically, there's no chance of the scenario coming to pass - if she's alive, she'll either come back MUCH sooner than he gets executed, or not at all.
Fascinating insight. I had never realized that Fraud was usually accompanied by DNA evidence.
Last I'd heard, convict DNA testing isn't done on a random sample, but rather on a self-selecting sample of (mostly) those on Death Row. So it's unlikely it'll extend to the general prison population.
Never happen. We'd just look up how to live without all the advances on the internet, and we'd be good to go....
That said, if you know how to make black powder and alcohol, you're probably well ahead of the post-apocalyptic game. And if your home-brewed alcohol is potable, so much the better.
It's not compressed air, it's s separate gas entirely. It's not even carried onboard the vehicle as a compressed gas, but as a liquid.
Note that even if we were to take the components (nitrogen, oxygen) in isolation, it isn't compressed air with nitrogen added, since it is 1/3 nitrogen, 2/3 oxygen, rather than the 4/5 nitrogen, 1/5 oxygen that we normally breathe.
Yah, if we loosely take "compressed air" to mean "liquid oxygen", then what you wrote matched the wiki article. Alas, normal people don't think "compressed air" and "liquid oxygen" are synonyms. Or even vaguely similar, for that matter.
No doubt you meant well, but your choice of words made what you wrote meaningless babble. Try picking the correct words next time, and people won't say rude things so much.
Oddly enough, nitrous oxide, as described in the wiki article you mentioned is nothing like the description you provided. Perhaps you should reread the article.
1) The satellite and missile probably wouldn't have opposite direction vectors.
2) The missile would have been considerably lighter than 1/2 the weight of the satellite. The satellite was described as being about the size of a bus (volume, of course), and the missile is considerably smaller than that. Also, the missile would have burned up all, or nearly all, of its fuel before it hit the satellite.
3) 1 kps is too slow to orbit unless orbital altitude is out past the moon.
4) Based on the statement that most of the satellite should deorbit within the next 48 hours or so, the speed of the satellite post-collision was probably only 50-100 meters per second below what it had been pre-collision.
5) Space shuttle orbital speed is closer to 8 kps than to 7.
6) Space shuttle deorbit speed isn't 0.09 kps - that's landing speed, after it's slowed down in the atmosphere for a while. deorbit is >7 kps.
6) Please, please, please stop using speed and velocity interchangably. Orbital speed makes sense, orbital velocity doesn't.
That said, you captured the essence - it's mostly moving a bit slower than before, and will deorbit nicely.
350 generations isn't long enough? I think you need to re-evaluate what you know about evolution, if you think that. There have been instances observed in nature where evolutionary adaptations occurred in far fewer than 350 generations.
Humans didn't evolve in the presence of substantial amounts of electricity either, but we hardly consider electric lights abnormal today, do we?
We've been making beer for at least 7000 years, and probably rather longer than that. Which means that guys have been waking up and wondering who the girl next to them was for at least that long.
While it's true that guys are discriminating, in at least a broad sense of the term, it's not especially true that that discrimination applies to one night stands. Yah, you want your wife to be like your mother, in general. The girl you pick up Saturday night after a great deal of partying just has to be willing (and not always terribly willing - I'm betting guys have been screwing drunk girls for as long as guys have been screwing drunk).
And finally, note that my previous post was a joke. You need to have a sense of humor implanted one of these days.
About ten planets in our solar system. About 100 billion stars in the Milky Way. Which is about 1 trillion planets, assuming they all have solar systems comparable in size to our's.
If you take their "hundreds of planets in our solar system" as gospel, then "trillions of worlds" will fit in our galaxy nicely.
Much less in the "universe as a whole", which ought to have on the order of billions of trillions of planets.
The only way around it is to give the secret spy satellite a false ID in the internet listing of satellites - something nice and innocuous. Then people will see it, look it up on the internet, find out it's some boring scientific satellite, say "neat" (or "bored now", whichever), and go about their business.
Personally, I'd bet that way more spy satellites are already on the list as "earth resources satellites" or some such nonsense than are out there unlisted (and therefore, obviously, a secret spy satellite).
Never gotten drunk enough to wonder who the woman you woke up with was, have you? ;)
While this is reasonably true for women, it's much less so for men. Men, in general, will screw anything that gives them half a chance. Which is, of course, a survival characteristic for men - spread your seed widely, hope some survives. It's a perfectly viable technique, after all - most animals and plants use it.
Being selective in choice of mates is important when your maximum number of offspring is severely limited. Which is mostly true of women - they invest a lot of time and energy into having a kid, much less raising the little monster. Not true at all for men, who can produce a new kid every day, and twice on Sunday, if they can find enough willing partners. Or unwilling ones, for that matter....
All that aside, do you actually know someone who picked a wife/husband by "genetic examination"? Inquiring minds want to know.
We do, do we? Okay, how much fossil fuel was consumed in 1851, worldwide?
For that matter, how much was consumed in 1899 in Asia?
Possible, but he did refer to a "former" salt lake, so I think not.
You're right, of course, that the Great Salt Lake supports an assortment of life not found in the Dead Sea, but I'm not so sure that it's a matter of "more" so much as a matter of "different" life in the Great Salt Lake.
Either way, I expect that, by and by, we're going to be astounded at the variety of life that lived on Mars back in the day. And we may yet be astounded by the variety that still lives there.
Traditionally, we've considered the Dead Sea to be outside the US. In Israel, in fact, though I may have missed some recent border movements.
Perhaps you meant to refer to Death Valley? Which, by the way, is full of life, for all that it's a dried up seabed and the hottest place in the USA.
Basically stupid, you mean? If we were to harvest 100,000,000,000 tons of lunar material, we'd affect the lunar mass (and this the whole mass/gravity/tide thing by about 0.0000001%.
And we don't contemplate harvesting that much material from the moon in the next thousand years or so. So come back with something real, not delusional.