As a point of information, we actually did something very close to that in Galveston after the 1900 storm. Neat, huh?
Yeah, after pretty much every building not build of stone got wiped off the island making a nice clean slate for the project.
And the place never recovered, either. That's how we ended up with Houston as the big Texas coast port city.
Yes, I know it won't happen, but we have done it in the past. Imagine if we did do that to Manhattan, right now. Good bye unemployment!
Well yes there would be a lot of jobs in demolishing the entirety of the city, raising the ground, and then rebuilding everything, and then wondering why in the intervening decades all non-construction jobs left and NYC was no longer important. I'm not sure that'd be worth it.
I'd suggest building some kind of levy or wall, though I'm not sure how feasible that is in NYC. It was the inadequacy of the sea wall that doomed Galveston, and the lack of desire to improve it when a storm big enough for it to be a problem was still hypothetical, which really makes it more of an example for New Orleans. Or rather would have if Katrina wasn't in the past...
Temperature is the intrinsic random motion of the substance under consideration. If they are moving quickly, it's hot. If they are moving slowly, it's cold. If there's no substance there at all, which is (almost) the case in outer space, it is meaningless to talk about it being hot *or* cold.
Well it's a measure of kinetic energy, so it depends not just on velocity but also mass. Also, photons (and other mass-less bosons) have energy which contributes to temperature. Because of this even the deepest, emptiest reaches of space have a temperature of 3K due to the CMBR. Similarly, the vacuum in your thermos has a temperature that is between the inside and outside, and will eventually reach equilibrium with both. For any "real" (as in exists) vacuum, temperature is a meaningful characteristic.
An "ideal" vacuum with literally nothing in it, including photons, could only be created by cooling the vacuum and its container down to absolute zero. At which point you could meaningfully say its temperature is absolute zero -- the complete absence of kinetic energy, a trivial consequence of the lack of any kinetic energy carrier. If of course this was possible in the first place.:)
I thought we could already detect underground tests with seismographs. That was how we identified the semi-successful.5 kT NK test, and identified a previous explosion in NK of similar magnitude as being non-nuclear in origin.
But this should be a good object for people to see through telescopes or (possibly) binoculars!
Oh hell yeah! I was worried I wouldn't be able to see it, but M101 is up at night now. I'm so pointing my C11 at it. Too bad that's right in the direction of the worst light pollution.
Is the light from this type of supernova amenable to the use of any amateur visible-light filters? I'd buy one just for this event if so. =D
So, what they're saying is that if discarding any supernova not of this specific type (type Ia), then there hasn't been any closer for a staggering 20 years?
Yes. Why do you think that's no big deal?
If the answer is because you aren't interested in the subject in general, then that's fine (though I would wonder why you posted). If you are, then it should be clear that 1) The type of supernova matters 2) It being closer than other recent events of this type matters and 3) studying it with the 20 years of new technology and methodology that have been developed since the last event of this type and magnitude matters. That all spells "big deal".
Yes the rapidity with which they were able to discover and then begin studying it is also a big deal. That is of course largely due to (3) above. So we're studying it earlier and with better instruments than ever before. Both parts of that matter.
Helps keep the kookie insane theory folks from getting any traction.
Ha ha ha! Yeah right! Okay, maybe a little bit, but it's kinda like dropping a single sandbag of rationality on your front porch as the tsunami of crazy comes barreling towards shore.
At least that's how I felt once I saw that there were some theories going around that the SDO had proven that there were alien spaceships shootin' lazors at the sun, and Jupiter-sized comets in the inner solar system, based on the noise in single images.
It never feels like a gain in reality, because you only get more of your last years, which are crappy anyway. Having more of your middle years would be great, but alas, instead of having fun, you're now exercising during those times.
But you will get more of them! If exercise results in you living longer due to being healthier, then it stands to reason that your "middle years" -- the ones where you're in good enough shape to enjoy them -- will last longer. It's not like you're in exactly the same condition as a non-exerciser right up to the age of 95, and then squeek out another 3 years because you exercised when you were 20. It means that the time when life starts to get crappy will be pushed out. That's a win.
Plus, you could always find a form of exercise that is fun for you, having fun and increasing the amount of time you can have it. You're mainlining win at that point.
As I said I really have no problem taking him out with military action. He was a dangerous nut case. The problem I have is with not following the law. And I question the integrity of the "anti-war" movement as anything but partisan at this point.
Well I can only speak for myself, and I don't consider myself part of the "anti-war movement", but I was (and still am) a vocal critic of the Iraq War.
If the second Iraq War had been initiated in response to a popular uprising against Saddam and had consisted of advisers and air support instead of 150,000 U.S. troops occupying the country, then I would have been cautiously supportive. Then I would have believed that Iraq was a threat, not to the U.S. which was always ridiculous, but to its own people (and not just in the generic way that living under a dictator is dangerous).
Of course that ship had already sailed (and then sunk), which is why the Iraqi people weren't as happy to see us as one might have hoped.
So that, for me, is why the difference in reaction. It's not about partisanship... I also became cautiously pro-Afghan war when it became clear they were taking it seriously. Then Iraq came along and fucked that up besides being a clusterfuck of its own.
The American Revolution could never have succeeded without the support of France's navy. This is historical fact, and yet I don't believe it actually diminishes the success of the Revolutionary Army one bit. Even with France's support, we were the underdogs in that fight.
Similarly, the fact that the Libyan rebels would have been summarily crushed if Qaddafi had been able to deploy his armor and air force with impunity doesn't diminish their accomplishments against a better equipped and better trained opponent. As we all know, bombing can only take one so far and once Qaddafi pulled his artillery back into the cities, NATO's power could no longer be decisive.
Where is this downplaying genocide? Or are you of the big illusion that governments are inherently good?
Thinking in binary much?
Since "evil" is 100% about intention, your sentence does not make sense.
No, no it isn't. Great evils have been done by people who sincerely intended to do good. It begins when you believe that because your intent is good, you cannot do evil.
So, are you ready to do your part? If you are, we will dispatch you a set of glasses. Please throw away the gum and procure a shotgun yourself, thank you.
Why throw away the gum?
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum, and I enjoy multi-tasking!" *boom*
I'll probably get down-modded for pointing out your ignorance, and I know that faith is the atheist's F word around here, but you are sadly confused that there is only one type of faith. There is a world of difference between blind faith and real faith.
First, I am not an atheist. Second I know there are many definitions of "faith", including very trivial ones where other words serve better to express the intended meaning. I was presuming we were talking about "faith" of types where the OP's original and subsequent statements were meaningful, not banal and pointless.
Assuming you mean something not banal and pointless, then I'm at a loss for what you're characterizing as "blind" vs "real" faith. What is faith in God? What is faith in the potential of humanity? What is the faith that I won't fall through my chair due to a chance alignment of 10^40 electrons in my ass? "Blind" or "Real"?
You have _faith_ that the Scientific process leads us to a better understanding of [how] the universe [works.
Indeed, as I said in another post, I have faith that the universe operates under a set of consistent rules, and that the human brain could eventually through many generations of effort understand their mysteries. This is indeed a very real kind of faith.
You have _faith_ that the Sun will come up tomorrow. Probability & Statistically speaking the odds are dam near 100%. However, this is faith, not a fact.
Er, well, while normally a perfectly serviceable simplification, in this case thinking of the "sun coming up" is the wrong way to think of it. The sun never "comes up". The earth rotates bringing different portions of the planet into view of the sun. So what I really believe is that so long as the earth is still rotating, and nobody from the day time side of the earth reports that the sun mysteriously winked out in the middle of the day, that the part of earth I occupy will be illuminated in turn.
Is there some probability -- conditional probability based on an incomplete understanding of the universe -- that Conservation of Momentum and Energy are wrong and the earth can just spontaneously stop rotating or the sun just stop radiating, and that it will do so tonight? I guess so. If that's your definition of "faith" then it's technically true but also the most trivial and meaningless definition of faith that has been used in this whole thread.
Is that what you mean by "real faith"? Anything you take to be true (so long as it still appears to remain true), no matter how unlikely it is that it be false?
What about things that are more likely to be untrue, but for which there is little investment? Is it "blind" or "real" faith I have in the pizza delivery person bringing me my pizza instead of a pizza I disliked. I even went so far as to not go to the grocery store and acquire alternative sources of food, because I believed I would receive a tasty pizza. Is that "faith"? "blind" or "real"?
And more importantly, why are we sullying something as powerful as faith by using it to describe something so banal and trivial?
Slashdot Mirror
So basically the GPL was created specifically to tell people what they cannot do.
Yes. It is there to tell you that you cannot withhold from others the very freedoms you were granted.
"Free to do anything but restrict the freedom of others" is only "non-free" to sociopaths.
A cynic might surmise that they're just putting more effort into concealing their embedded evil.
What does this have to do with Windows Mobile?
Nice try, robot scum!
As a point of information, we actually did something very close to that in Galveston after the 1900 storm. Neat, huh?
Yeah, after pretty much every building not build of stone got wiped off the island making a nice clean slate for the project.
And the place never recovered, either. That's how we ended up with Houston as the big Texas coast port city.
Yes, I know it won't happen, but we have done it in the past. Imagine if we did do that to Manhattan, right now. Good bye unemployment!
Well yes there would be a lot of jobs in demolishing the entirety of the city, raising the ground, and then rebuilding everything, and then wondering why in the intervening decades all non-construction jobs left and NYC was no longer important. I'm not sure that'd be worth it.
I'd suggest building some kind of levy or wall, though I'm not sure how feasible that is in NYC. It was the inadequacy of the sea wall that doomed Galveston, and the lack of desire to improve it when a storm big enough for it to be a problem was still hypothetical, which really makes it more of an example for New Orleans. Or rather would have if Katrina wasn't in the past...
Temperature is the intrinsic random motion of the substance under consideration. If they are moving quickly, it's hot. If they are moving slowly, it's cold. If there's no substance there at all, which is (almost) the case in outer space, it is meaningless to talk about it being hot *or* cold.
Well it's a measure of kinetic energy, so it depends not just on velocity but also mass. Also, photons (and other mass-less bosons) have energy which contributes to temperature. Because of this even the deepest, emptiest reaches of space have a temperature of 3K due to the CMBR. Similarly, the vacuum in your thermos has a temperature that is between the inside and outside, and will eventually reach equilibrium with both. For any "real" (as in exists) vacuum, temperature is a meaningful characteristic.
An "ideal" vacuum with literally nothing in it, including photons, could only be created by cooling the vacuum and its container down to absolute zero. At which point you could meaningfully say its temperature is absolute zero -- the complete absence of kinetic energy, a trivial consequence of the lack of any kinetic energy carrier. If of course this was possible in the first place. :)
Was there an option to search for games that allowed either control scheme, but consisted solely of controller users? ;D
I thought we could already detect underground tests with seismographs. That was how we identified the semi-successful .5 kT NK test, and identified a previous explosion in NK of similar magnitude as being non-nuclear in origin.
This event, in M101
But this should be a good object for people to see through telescopes or (possibly) binoculars!
Oh hell yeah! I was worried I wouldn't be able to see it, but M101 is up at night now. I'm so pointing my C11 at it. Too bad that's right in the direction of the worst light pollution.
Is the light from this type of supernova amenable to the use of any amateur visible-light filters? I'd buy one just for this event if so. =D
And the Spanish tile just reflected them, doubling their exposure! The fools!
So, what they're saying is that if discarding any supernova not of this specific type (type Ia), then there hasn't been any closer for a staggering 20 years?
Yes. Why do you think that's no big deal?
If the answer is because you aren't interested in the subject in general, then that's fine (though I would wonder why you posted). If you are, then it should be clear that 1) The type of supernova matters 2) It being closer than other recent events of this type matters and 3) studying it with the 20 years of new technology and methodology that have been developed since the last event of this type and magnitude matters. That all spells "big deal".
Yes the rapidity with which they were able to discover and then begin studying it is also a big deal. That is of course largely due to (3) above. So we're studying it earlier and with better instruments than ever before. Both parts of that matter.
So there you go.
Careful now; the universal speed limit of c in a vacuum.
c is defined as the speed of light in a vacuum.
The speed of light in other mediums can be different, but c is always c.
Helps keep the kookie insane theory folks from getting any traction.
Ha ha ha! Yeah right! Okay, maybe a little bit, but it's kinda like dropping a single sandbag of rationality on your front porch as the tsunami of crazy comes barreling towards shore.
At least that's how I felt once I saw that there were some theories going around that the SDO had proven that there were alien spaceships shootin' lazors at the sun, and Jupiter-sized comets in the inner solar system, based on the noise in single images.
Hey, you need a solar filter to look at the sun, now you'll just have to buy a Mars-laser filter to safely look at Mars! It's a business opportunity!
You're doing "getting the joke" wrong.
Just remember:
You don't extend the life of a car by driving it.
Hm. I think we need to invent a bio-mechanical car that responds to casual wear and tear by rebuilding itself more robustly, and then revisit this.
It never feels like a gain in reality, because you only get more of your last years, which are crappy anyway. Having more of your middle years would be great, but alas, instead of having fun, you're now exercising during those times.
But you will get more of them! If exercise results in you living longer due to being healthier, then it stands to reason that your "middle years" -- the ones where you're in good enough shape to enjoy them -- will last longer. It's not like you're in exactly the same condition as a non-exerciser right up to the age of 95, and then squeek out another 3 years because you exercised when you were 20. It means that the time when life starts to get crappy will be pushed out. That's a win.
Plus, you could always find a form of exercise that is fun for you, having fun and increasing the amount of time you can have it. You're mainlining win at that point.
You have never watched Australian rules football.
Honestly it's only weapons away from watching a Quake III arena tournament.
So, it's Q3A without weapons?
And that's your example of something fun to watch? /boggle
As I said I really have no problem taking him out with military action. He was a dangerous nut case. The problem I have is with not following the law. And I question the integrity of the "anti-war" movement as anything but partisan at this point.
Well I can only speak for myself, and I don't consider myself part of the "anti-war movement", but I was (and still am) a vocal critic of the Iraq War.
If the second Iraq War had been initiated in response to a popular uprising against Saddam and had consisted of advisers and air support instead of 150,000 U.S. troops occupying the country, then I would have been cautiously supportive. Then I would have believed that Iraq was a threat, not to the U.S. which was always ridiculous, but to its own people (and not just in the generic way that living under a dictator is dangerous).
Of course that ship had already sailed (and then sunk), which is why the Iraqi people weren't as happy to see us as one might have hoped.
So that, for me, is why the difference in reaction. It's not about partisanship... I also became cautiously pro-Afghan war when it became clear they were taking it seriously. Then Iraq came along and fucked that up besides being a clusterfuck of its own.
I'm not anti-war, I'm anti-stupid. :)
I felt it all the way in Austin, TX!
No, wait, I'm just drunk. Nevermind!
It's not a liberator, it's not an educator, it's not an oppressor, it's just a tool.
Okay so the Internet isn't magic or anything, that's no reason to call it names.
The American Revolution could never have succeeded without the support of France's navy. This is historical fact, and yet I don't believe it actually diminishes the success of the Revolutionary Army one bit. Even with France's support, we were the underdogs in that fight.
Similarly, the fact that the Libyan rebels would have been summarily crushed if Qaddafi had been able to deploy his armor and air force with impunity doesn't diminish their accomplishments against a better equipped and better trained opponent. As we all know, bombing can only take one so far and once Qaddafi pulled his artillery back into the cities, NATO's power could no longer be decisive.
Where is this downplaying genocide? Or are you of the big illusion that governments are inherently good?
Thinking in binary much?
Since "evil" is 100% about intention, your sentence does not make sense.
No, no it isn't. Great evils have been done by people who sincerely intended to do good. It begins when you believe that because your intent is good, you cannot do evil.
So, are you ready to do your part? If you are, we will dispatch you a set of glasses. Please throw away the gum and procure a shotgun yourself, thank you.
Why throw away the gum?
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum, and I enjoy multi-tasking!" *boom*
Tell that to the investors of the LHC.
Uh okay but I'm pretty sure they already know.
I'll probably get down-modded for pointing out your ignorance, and I know that faith is the atheist's F word around here, but you are sadly confused that there is only one type of faith. There is a world of difference between blind faith and real faith.
First, I am not an atheist. Second I know there are many definitions of "faith", including very trivial ones where other words serve better to express the intended meaning. I was presuming we were talking about "faith" of types where the OP's original and subsequent statements were meaningful, not banal and pointless.
Assuming you mean something not banal and pointless, then I'm at a loss for what you're characterizing as "blind" vs "real" faith. What is faith in God? What is faith in the potential of humanity? What is the faith that I won't fall through my chair due to a chance alignment of 10^40 electrons in my ass? "Blind" or "Real"?
You have _faith_ that the Scientific process leads us to a better understanding of [how] the universe [works.
Indeed, as I said in another post, I have faith that the universe operates under a set of consistent rules, and that the human brain could eventually through many generations of effort understand their mysteries. This is indeed a very real kind of faith.
You have _faith_ that the Sun will come up tomorrow. Probability & Statistically speaking the odds are dam near 100%. However, this is faith, not a fact.
Er, well, while normally a perfectly serviceable simplification, in this case thinking of the "sun coming up" is the wrong way to think of it. The sun never "comes up". The earth rotates bringing different portions of the planet into view of the sun. So what I really believe is that so long as the earth is still rotating, and nobody from the day time side of the earth reports that the sun mysteriously winked out in the middle of the day, that the part of earth I occupy will be illuminated in turn.
Is there some probability -- conditional probability based on an incomplete understanding of the universe -- that Conservation of Momentum and Energy are wrong and the earth can just spontaneously stop rotating or the sun just stop radiating, and that it will do so tonight? I guess so. If that's your definition of "faith" then it's technically true but also the most trivial and meaningless definition of faith that has been used in this whole thread.
Is that what you mean by "real faith"? Anything you take to be true (so long as it still appears to remain true), no matter how unlikely it is that it be false?
What about things that are more likely to be untrue, but for which there is little investment? Is it "blind" or "real" faith I have in the pizza delivery person bringing me my pizza instead of a pizza I disliked. I even went so far as to not go to the grocery store and acquire alternative sources of food, because I believed I would receive a tasty pizza. Is that "faith"? "blind" or "real"?
And more importantly, why are we sullying something as powerful as faith by using it to describe something so banal and trivial?