You want numbers? Here's some. Surface area of Earth: 510 million km2. Surface area of Antarctica: 14 million km2. Average depth of Antarctic ice sheet: 2.16km. Now, 510/14 is under 40, and 2.16km of ice is roughly going to be 2km of water, so if all the ice melted it would spread out at about 1/40 the thickness, or about 50m. It would in fact be a little more, and it wouldn't cover the surface of the Earth evenly, since there's lots of land more than 50m or 60m above sea level. (My house is more like 200m above. It would be fine.)
You change from "Antarctic ice", which is what I was estimating, in your first sentence to "Antarctic sea ice" in your second. Melting sea ice doesn't change sea level in general (there may be some small adjustments of something I'm not thinking of right now). Melting land ice would.
As I read the BronsCon excerpts, it looks like the judge has decided.
In order to get a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff has to show why they're likely to win, and doesn't have to show evidence. This means that the plaintiff explains what they think the defendant did, and why it's illegal. The plaintiff also has to say why not getting a preliminary injunction would harm the plaintiff, but that doesn't appear to be why the injunction was not granted.
Therefore, the judge ruled that Disney has no case. This is not an issue of fact, and evidence won't change a thing. This is an issue of law. The judge said that what Disney claimed Redbox did was actually legal.
Not every refusal to grant a preliminary injunction means that the case is decided. If Disney had failed to show some sort of irreparable harm if there was no injunction, for example, the injunction would not be granted, and the trial would proceed. That's not what happened. The judge could have decided that Disney's claims as to what Redbox did were unlikely to be supported by the evidence, but again that's not what happened. The judge rejected Disney's legal arguments as being invalid. Without valid legal arguments, Disney loses.
Actually, I trust them to teach better when they aren't required to be prepared to shoot people, including students, at a moment's notice. (If they aren't, then their guns aren't going to do much good.)
In other words, you're saying that prison guards should keep their handguns when entering a prisoner area? Or is it that, if there are already criminals with guns somewhere, we should add more criminals with guns? Or am I misinterpreting it, and you mean that adding criminals to an environment is a good idea, since they're the only ones allowed to carry guns there (although I can't think of anywhere where criminals are allowed to carry guns and others aren't), and hence adding armed people is adding criminals?
It appears that some people are going to have blind faith in something. They apparently need it. Given that, blind faith in science is a lot more innocuous than blind faith in a politician or a religion.
I actually do tend to treat scientists the same as the clergy I know, but then I don't have blind faith in either of them. (My religion has no clergy, and certainly doesn't need any until there are at least two of us.) I find religion and science to be fascinating, so I ask questions. For purposes of actually doing things, I pay attention to scientists, not clergy.
I've taken a look at GMOs and global warming, and I fear the latter and not the former.
Also, Zayner was doing stuff with his own body, which I find perfectly reasonable. He probably started to realize there would be copycats, and that he might have inspired other people to hurt themselves.
As I understand it, the plan is not to man-rate the Falcon Heavy, but rather the Falcon 9 and the BFR. Musk is hoping the BFR is a real breakthrough, even with the Falcon 9 and Heavy operating. I'm not betting against him.
I don't see why a further-out space station would be a good idea. It would cost significantly more in fuel, the station would be exposed to significantly more radiation, and the only advantage you've proposed is that it would be easier to keep station.
If you have a post-scarcity economy (whatever that means) where people can just get what they need, without messing up other people, a libertarian society looks a lot better. The problems with it now are that people don't necessarily get what they need, and have to resort to other measures, and that economic activity often steps on other people's rights (pollution, for example).
One of the interesting things about the book is an objective and agreed-on morality. At one point in History and Moral Philosophy, Juan Rico is told to prove a moral issue using symbolic logic. A lot of conflict in the real world is about differences in ethical systems, with many people thinking they've got the only reasonable one.
The difference between Heinlein's government and Sparta's is that, in Heinlein's, a resident can sign up for service at any time, and leave the Helot class. That's pretty much how Heinlein describes things as working: if you live in that society and want to change things, you can spend the effort to become part of the ruling class (it's made clear that you have to be accepted for service if you apply, and that you can't be kicked out just because you're absolutely worthless). That, according to the story, keeps a stable government that works.
That can't be enforced without a law. There are lots of car manufacturers. If most of them don't sell cars for private use, the ones who do will get a lot of business.
If you don't want to use Apple products, that's fine. They're designed to be very useful for some sorts of people, less so for others. However, why do you say false things about them? I would never want to program in Tcl, so I don't and never have. That doesn't mean I say bad things about it, particularly inaccurate bad things.
Facetime is dead simple. Apple can make it that way because they control the environment. There are other, cross-platform, applications that will do that, but I really haven't seen the same ease of use. Obviously, if you don't have an iPhone, you won't want the watch. There are other smart watches, so that's not a bad thing. Why do you think Apple would make the world better if they designed their watch to work well with other phones? Air Play works with third-party products.
Not wanting to buy Apple products is fine, but why do so many people insist on being critical? There's a whole lot of things I'm simply not interested in, and I don't go around talking about them. I find that I'm a lot less likely to say stupid things when I'm talking about something I'm familiar with.
There is such a thing as experimental psychology, and that is scientific. It deals with specific things. Psychology has been working with correlations for a long, long time. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory is an early example of an empirical approach to find various disorders with statistical techniques. For example, it has a question on the lines of "Is someone out to get you?", since the answer is "yes" significantly more often for paranoids than the general population. Lots of psychologists are doing their best to be scientists. (Most of the rest are clinical psychologists, who need to know about what affects memory less and try to understand the whole mind more.)
However, it's going to take a long, long time to come up with a good scientific study of how the mind goes wrong. The human mind is appallingly complex, and we have very limited observation techniques. We don't have detailed information on the psychological state of everyone out there, and we have limited abilities to study shooters, which are very rare in the general population.
You also haven't addressed the problem of what we'd do with a 99.9% accurate test.
I'm talking about mass shootings, where the shooter isn't going to want to kill me in particular, just up the body count. I'm in danger not because I'm me, but because I'm there. I didn't make that clear, sorry. Even if I'm the target, though, the weapon of choice is the handgun.
It's harder to do a mass stabbing. It can be done, but it means getting close to the victims. In a crowded area, someone's likely to grab the knife arm and if there's any crowd reaction after that the incident is over.
Actually, we don't know the meds for most shooters. However, it fits some people's narrative to think that SSRIs cause shootings. When I tried checking this on Google, the first hit was Infowars. Lots of sites saying there is a connection, Huffington Post saying there isn't, Psychology Today saying there's no evidence of that.
During prohibition, you had to have money and know someone willing to sell you illegal liquor for money. Adding a legal option makes it easier, not harder. Underage drinkers are fairly common, and most people of drinking age do have some sort of ID.
I used to go through Wisconsin, near enough to an establishment named "Jed's" to see some of the signs. It advertised guns and "cheap likker". What could possibly go wrong?
I think we can agree that emotionally healthy people don't go into schools to shoot as many children as they can. Does that really help? By "mental illness", try reading "diagnosable mental illness", because saying "he must be mentally ill in a way we can't figure out" is not much better than "he is possessed by demons" for any practical use.
Moreover, suppose we had a 99.9% accurate test for shooters. That picks out something over three hundred thousand of the general population, and there's unlikely to be more than a thousand or two shooters among them. Unless we can tell who's an imminent threat with far greater accuracy, there's serious limits on what we can do. If we could not only diagnose but treat this uncategorized mental illness or illnesses, we'd be getting somewhere.
Guns allow gun violence. Seriously, if someone's out to kill me, I'd really rather he didn't have something like an AR-15 that makes it relatively easy to kill at range. If the assailant has to get close to me, I've at least got some sort of chance.
I've said things about individual marriages, but I will point to my first marriage as conclusive evidence that not all marriages between men and women are good. Personally, I'm in favor of getting married when appropriate, and I don't care about the sexes or genders of the people involved.
Actually, if you look at the number of people whose genitalia is any of my business, it's a very short list. Outside that list, I treat people according to how they act and want to be treated, which is not necessarily connected to genetic makeup and/or genitalia. I'm positive that some of my friends have vaginas, but it would seem rude to ask.
Slashdot Mirror
You want numbers? Here's some. Surface area of Earth: 510 million km2. Surface area of Antarctica: 14 million km2. Average depth of Antarctic ice sheet: 2.16km. Now, 510/14 is under 40, and 2.16km of ice is roughly going to be 2km of water, so if all the ice melted it would spread out at about 1/40 the thickness, or about 50m. It would in fact be a little more, and it wouldn't cover the surface of the Earth evenly, since there's lots of land more than 50m or 60m above sea level. (My house is more like 200m above. It would be fine.)
You change from "Antarctic ice", which is what I was estimating, in your first sentence to "Antarctic sea ice" in your second. Melting sea ice doesn't change sea level in general (there may be some small adjustments of something I'm not thinking of right now). Melting land ice would.
As I read the BronsCon excerpts, it looks like the judge has decided.
In order to get a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff has to show why they're likely to win, and doesn't have to show evidence. This means that the plaintiff explains what they think the defendant did, and why it's illegal. The plaintiff also has to say why not getting a preliminary injunction would harm the plaintiff, but that doesn't appear to be why the injunction was not granted.
Therefore, the judge ruled that Disney has no case. This is not an issue of fact, and evidence won't change a thing. This is an issue of law. The judge said that what Disney claimed Redbox did was actually legal.
Not every refusal to grant a preliminary injunction means that the case is decided. If Disney had failed to show some sort of irreparable harm if there was no injunction, for example, the injunction would not be granted, and the trial would proceed. That's not what happened. The judge could have decided that Disney's claims as to what Redbox did were unlikely to be supported by the evidence, but again that's not what happened. The judge rejected Disney's legal arguments as being invalid. Without valid legal arguments, Disney loses.
No, you use gamma rays to get Hulks. You use mutations to get X-Men. Sheesh.
Actually, I trust them to teach better when they aren't required to be prepared to shoot people, including students, at a moment's notice. (If they aren't, then their guns aren't going to do much good.)
In other words, you're saying that prison guards should keep their handguns when entering a prisoner area? Or is it that, if there are already criminals with guns somewhere, we should add more criminals with guns? Or am I misinterpreting it, and you mean that adding criminals to an environment is a good idea, since they're the only ones allowed to carry guns there (although I can't think of anywhere where criminals are allowed to carry guns and others aren't), and hence adding armed people is adding criminals?
It appears that some people are going to have blind faith in something. They apparently need it. Given that, blind faith in science is a lot more innocuous than blind faith in a politician or a religion.
I actually do tend to treat scientists the same as the clergy I know, but then I don't have blind faith in either of them. (My religion has no clergy, and certainly doesn't need any until there are at least two of us.) I find religion and science to be fascinating, so I ask questions. For purposes of actually doing things, I pay attention to scientists, not clergy.
I've taken a look at GMOs and global warming, and I fear the latter and not the former.
Also, Zayner was doing stuff with his own body, which I find perfectly reasonable. He probably started to realize there would be copycats, and that he might have inspired other people to hurt themselves.
As I understand it, the plan is not to man-rate the Falcon Heavy, but rather the Falcon 9 and the BFR. Musk is hoping the BFR is a real breakthrough, even with the Falcon 9 and Heavy operating. I'm not betting against him.
I don't see why a further-out space station would be a good idea. It would cost significantly more in fuel, the station would be exposed to significantly more radiation, and the only advantage you've proposed is that it would be easier to keep station.
The Idrians look a lot like Islamists to me. Considering when the book was written, this is almost certainly a coincidence.
If you have a post-scarcity economy (whatever that means) where people can just get what they need, without messing up other people, a libertarian society looks a lot better. The problems with it now are that people don't necessarily get what they need, and have to resort to other measures, and that economic activity often steps on other people's rights (pollution, for example).
In the original series, they weren't all that honorable. That was more Next Generation on. The Romulans were honor-bound.
One of the interesting things about the book is an objective and agreed-on morality. At one point in History and Moral Philosophy, Juan Rico is told to prove a moral issue using symbolic logic. A lot of conflict in the real world is about differences in ethical systems, with many people thinking they've got the only reasonable one.
The difference between Heinlein's government and Sparta's is that, in Heinlein's, a resident can sign up for service at any time, and leave the Helot class. That's pretty much how Heinlein describes things as working: if you live in that society and want to change things, you can spend the effort to become part of the ruling class (it's made clear that you have to be accepted for service if you apply, and that you can't be kicked out just because you're absolutely worthless). That, according to the story, keeps a stable government that works.
That can't be enforced without a law. There are lots of car manufacturers. If most of them don't sell cars for private use, the ones who do will get a lot of business.
If you don't want to use Apple products, that's fine. They're designed to be very useful for some sorts of people, less so for others. However, why do you say false things about them? I would never want to program in Tcl, so I don't and never have. That doesn't mean I say bad things about it, particularly inaccurate bad things.
Facetime is dead simple. Apple can make it that way because they control the environment. There are other, cross-platform, applications that will do that, but I really haven't seen the same ease of use. Obviously, if you don't have an iPhone, you won't want the watch. There are other smart watches, so that's not a bad thing. Why do you think Apple would make the world better if they designed their watch to work well with other phones? Air Play works with third-party products.
Not wanting to buy Apple products is fine, but why do so many people insist on being critical? There's a whole lot of things I'm simply not interested in, and I don't go around talking about them. I find that I'm a lot less likely to say stupid things when I'm talking about something I'm familiar with.
There is such a thing as experimental psychology, and that is scientific. It deals with specific things. Psychology has been working with correlations for a long, long time. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory is an early example of an empirical approach to find various disorders with statistical techniques. For example, it has a question on the lines of "Is someone out to get you?", since the answer is "yes" significantly more often for paranoids than the general population. Lots of psychologists are doing their best to be scientists. (Most of the rest are clinical psychologists, who need to know about what affects memory less and try to understand the whole mind more.)
However, it's going to take a long, long time to come up with a good scientific study of how the mind goes wrong. The human mind is appallingly complex, and we have very limited observation techniques. We don't have detailed information on the psychological state of everyone out there, and we have limited abilities to study shooters, which are very rare in the general population.
You also haven't addressed the problem of what we'd do with a 99.9% accurate test.
I'm talking about mass shootings, where the shooter isn't going to want to kill me in particular, just up the body count. I'm in danger not because I'm me, but because I'm there. I didn't make that clear, sorry. Even if I'm the target, though, the weapon of choice is the handgun.
It's harder to do a mass stabbing. It can be done, but it means getting close to the victims. In a crowded area, someone's likely to grab the knife arm and if there's any crowd reaction after that the incident is over.
Actually, we don't know the meds for most shooters. However, it fits some people's narrative to think that SSRIs cause shootings. When I tried checking this on Google, the first hit was Infowars. Lots of sites saying there is a connection, Huffington Post saying there isn't, Psychology Today saying there's no evidence of that.
During prohibition, you had to have money and know someone willing to sell you illegal liquor for money. Adding a legal option makes it easier, not harder. Underage drinkers are fairly common, and most people of drinking age do have some sort of ID.
I used to go through Wisconsin, near enough to an establishment named "Jed's" to see some of the signs. It advertised guns and "cheap likker". What could possibly go wrong?
I think we can agree that emotionally healthy people don't go into schools to shoot as many children as they can. Does that really help? By "mental illness", try reading "diagnosable mental illness", because saying "he must be mentally ill in a way we can't figure out" is not much better than "he is possessed by demons" for any practical use.
Moreover, suppose we had a 99.9% accurate test for shooters. That picks out something over three hundred thousand of the general population, and there's unlikely to be more than a thousand or two shooters among them. Unless we can tell who's an imminent threat with far greater accuracy, there's serious limits on what we can do. If we could not only diagnose but treat this uncategorized mental illness or illnesses, we'd be getting somewhere.
Guns allow gun violence. Seriously, if someone's out to kill me, I'd really rather he didn't have something like an AR-15 that makes it relatively easy to kill at range. If the assailant has to get close to me, I've at least got some sort of chance.
In well-run companies, HR tries to reduce the number of lawsuits the company will face.
I've said things about individual marriages, but I will point to my first marriage as conclusive evidence that not all marriages between men and women are good. Personally, I'm in favor of getting married when appropriate, and I don't care about the sexes or genders of the people involved.
Actually, if you look at the number of people whose genitalia is any of my business, it's a very short list. Outside that list, I treat people according to how they act and want to be treated, which is not necessarily connected to genetic makeup and/or genitalia. I'm positive that some of my friends have vaginas, but it would seem rude to ask.