So... is that your way of avoiding clicking on the link and realizing that you're wrong, by definition? Or is it that you've already had to admit it to yourself, so now you're mad at me?
No. What you learned is nothing, because you haven't figured out basic math yet, or the definition of Outer Space.
Lol, I think you need to brush up on the definition of outer space yourself, and the definition of the terms used in that definition. You have to know the meaning of multiple words to actually understand what's going on here.
You also haven't figured out that if you subtract a geometric region from a larger geometric region, you don't get more area as a result.
How foolish. The area of the doughnut is increased when you subtract the doughnut hole. This is quite a common result in fact.
Not that the "in" relationship requires it to go one way or the other.
You got it wrong at every turn. By definition, the term Outer Space, a term in the English language, refers to all the space in the universe that is not the Earth and it's atmosphere. Outer Space = The Universe - The Earth and it's atmosphere.
Wow. Once again you state the uncontested claim that the Earth isn't Outer Space, and then without even acknowledging it you equate "is" with "in", so "isn't" means "not in", expecting the completely unsupported conclusion to be obvious.
Yet by definition the earth is an astronomical body, which by definition is a physical entity in outer space.
No. What I am saying is that by definition the Earth and it's atmosphere are in the Universe, which is made up of space in Outer Space plus space occupied by Inner Space, to wit the Earth and It's Atmosphere.
Wait, are you seriously defining the Earth to not include its atmosphere? Is that the unspecified and completely wrong leap of illogic you're taking? While there are contexts where you would use "earth" as distinct from the "air", that is certainly not the context when discussing Earth the planet!
Atmospheres are parts of their planets. Seriously, what dictionary are you reading where you thought otherwise? I'm guessing none. Do you really think it's wrong to say that you have seen Jupiter and Venus in the night sky?
Now off you go to explain to the residents of Hawaii that they sleep in the Ocean.
Go to explain to anyone who understands English that Hawaii isn't in the Pacific Ocean.
I did, and all I learned is that multiple slashdotters don't understand that "is" and "in" aren't the same.
And that the same source that they rely on to verify that the earth isn't space also confirms that the earth is in space, but are happier leaping to their illogical conclusions based on ill-informed pedantry.
You are confusing the word "in" with the phrase "surrounded by". Outer Space is all of the space which the Earth and it's atmosphere are not in, by definition. This isn't open for debate. It has to do with understanding the English language, and the definition of "Outer Space".
You're right, there is no debate which is why you'll find many places discussing earth in space.
It's why WP says on the Outer Space page that "Outer space (often simply called space) is the void that exists beyond any celestial body", and on the Celestial Body page says "Astronomical objects are naturally occurring physical entities, associations or structures that current science has demonstrated to exist in outer space."
So the problem is in fact with understanding the English language, as in you not understanding the difference between "is" and "in".
Look at your post -- your only argument that earth is not in space is that earth isn't space. Which is as ridiculous as saying that the USS George Washington isn't in the ocean because it isn't the ocean.
But it is in the ocean, and the earth is in space. Despite not being space. Really, read the definitions yourself and then get over it.
By definition, outer space is the area between planets and other celestial objects.
By your analogy, Maui could be considered "in the ocean". By definition, the ocean excludes land,
You're still confusing "in" with "is".
Maui is in the Pacific Ocean. That is 100% correct.
The reason people don't say you're in the ocean when you are standing on the island is because, while in some sense it is true, it's not the most relevant context. You are not directly surrounded by the ocean, you're surrounded by something else that is surrounded by the ocean. The island is directly surrounded by ocean, and thus is in the ocean. When you're on a boat in the ocean, most people say you're on a boat in the ocean, not that you're in the ocean.
By definition, the ocean excludes everything that isn't water or dissolved in water. Fish aren't the ocean, by definition. You aren't the ocean. A boat isn't the ocean. Yet they can all be in the ocean.
Same goes for the atoms that comprise my Xbox360. If I asked 100 scientists whether those atoms are in cardboard, most would probably say no. They're in the Xbox.
They would say the atoms are in the xbox, and the xbox is in the cardboard box. Despite, by definition, not being a cardboard box.
The earth is in space just as surely as you're in the earth's atmosphere. More so. More than an island is in the ocean, or a boat is in the ocean. Earth is literally surrounded by the void and is in it as surely as a fish is in the ocean.
Not expecting a response, or a "ok you're right' or a "na you're wrong". I just figured it'd be fun to practice pretzel logic.
I don't think you need any practice at misusing pedantry, but do as you will. I more interested in clearing up legitimate misunderstandings of language, which is why I responded in case you're really thinking it's proper to equate "in" with "is".
What university can I attend and study futurism? None?
Singularity University of course! A particular brand of futurism, sure, but in the course of learning how to prepare for the upcoming singularity you'll certainly learn what series of vague buzzwords to string together to be a Genuine 100% Accurate Futurist.
I think it's funny that he's founded a university to learn about adapting to the upcoming singularity, rather than, say, how to actually bring it about. That, of course, is work for other people, though they will inevitably do it as Kurzweil predicted!
My question (okay, one of many snarky questions) is what happens if the Singularity he prepares people for turns out to be different than the one all the scientists and engineers actually implement? Like, instead of having cybernetic brains that can traverse the 'net and be backed up and restored to achieve immortality, instead we learn how to increase the brain size of other mammals and transfer our consciousness into them, so we achieve immortality by occupying a continuous series of animal bodies?
You'll have wasted all that time and money learning how to ensure your brain is properly backed up to prevent catastrophic sentience loss, and how to cope with not having a corporeal body and deciding whether or not to fuse with the Hive Mind (hint: of course you should, it's nice in here). When instead, you should have been figuring out which awesome animal you wanted to be first, and how to cope with the fact that pretty much everyone is by definition a Furry.
So no, the Earth isn't in outer space. But neither is water. It's a void.
Of course the earth is in outer space. It doesn't have to be outer space to be in outer space. Oceans are large bodies of salt water, but you can be in the ocean without being salt water. Your Xbox360 came in a cardboard box, even though the definition of 'cardboard box' would explicitly exclude the Xbox360 from being part of it.
If you're surrounded by the void, then you're in the void. The earth is in outer space.
Then again maybe I should get a resounding "whoosh!"
The only question is when did the water arrive relative to the majority of the other star debris.
Right. The main question is: Did it arrive after there was an Earth, or was it already part of the accretion disk material that eventually coalesced into the planet. If it was already here, then Earth's water didn't come from anywhere, it was already present at the moment in time at which one could meaningfully say "Earth's" anything.
So what you're saying is technically correct in one sense. However the statement that "Earth's water didn't come from outer space" is also be technically correct in another sense, assuming it pans out, and as it happens a more meaningful sense. In this context, of course; there are contexts where the fact that we are all made of star-stuff is the more useful observation. But in this case, it's more like asking whether Clark Kent came from outer space, or from Mrs. Kent's womb. If you say the answer must be outer space because everything came from outer space, then you're missing why the question is interesting.
I mean, in an even less relevant context, you could say that since everything originated from the Big Bang when space-time itself was compressed to an infinitesimal point and the region which would eventually contain the earth was closer to everything else in the universe than two atoms in your body are today, nothing came from outer space. Interesting in some contexts, but not the most important thing to note when discussing planetary formation.:)
As a liberal, I have to say mcrbids was being a bit of an arrogant ass, and I don't see why that's not reason enough to be pissed at him. Let's stick to reality and not play the pundit game.
Reality is that the OP was being a fool who hadn't even read the summary in his haste to assume this meant oil was a renewable resource in a practical sense, that what he had already believed had been inevitably proven correct.
How exactly is that not incredibly arrogant, and undeserving of a smack-down?
And fuck "the pundit game", I'm serious, arrogance is not abhorred as long as it's the right thing being said arrogantly. So I don't care if that's reason enough to be pissed, that's not why the AC was pissed.
I realize all that, which is exactly why I mentioned the Oscars, and winning a prize for something other than what the prize is technically being awarded for. So I think you are missing my point, which is:
In this instance, the thing that the Nobel Prize was technically awarded for was in fact deserving of a Nobel Prize.
When that happens in, say, the Oscars, people aren't complaining, they are nodding in agreement with the Committee's decision. An award that is both fully deserved for the specific accomplishment mentioned, and that is also a nod to further contributions, is doubly deserved and in that case does the opposite of degrade the award.
Your point, that this and other less defensible decisions by the Nobel Committee are all the result of fallible human standards is so uninteresting as to not even be worth mentioning. As if there could be an award for "the most important discovery or invention within the field of physic" that doesn't involve fallible human standards. What, you think there's an objective universal method of measuring "importance"? I doubt you do, so what's the beef? You think they could do better? Of course. What fallible human organization couldn't?
I think it's still the case that they have done better at awarding deserved prizes in science than the non-science prizes, and the Einstein example only demonstrates this (while this case may be a counter-example). If you're equating the two simply because they involve fallible human standards, then your problem is with the concept of a prize for "best" science.
50 km under Kansas would be Kansas, were it not actually Khan'saxz, empire of The Dusty Ancient One, who thankfully is content to rule the followers he crafted from nightmares given substance. Were you to dig down to those depths your life would surely be forfeit, if you were truly fortunate and did not instead lose your sanity and your soul.
I may think it's somewhat of a shame that he wasn't acknowledged for Relativity, or somewhat of a misuse of the prize to give a nod to Relativity by awarding the prize for the Photoelectric Effect like giving an Oscar to an actor that deserves one for a movie performance that doesn't.
But I also don't think it's any any way inappropriate to have awarded the prize for the Photoelectric Effect just on the merits of that work.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
I've always loved that quote, and I must admit it was all the more poignant because it applied directly to me, negotiating with other factions and refusing to give them access to my technology, because I was going to use it to crush them, because I most definitely dreamed myself their master.
Be honest. Your desire to take Mcbrids for a lynchin' has to little do with arrogance and everything to do with telling you something that you don't want to hear. You love it when some conservative pundit arrogantly derides the liberal nonsense of Peak Oil. But when it's something you don't want to hear, and you can't help but realize that they're right, then suddenly you're mad because they're so arrogant about it. It is to laugh.
Oh and stop appropriating "the masses"; there are plenty of folk who don't think ignorance is a virtue and who aren't going to destroy the environment out of spite because they're mad at being made to look foolish.
You anticipated that Nintendo would eventually release another console? Wow, Nostradamus, do you have any lotto numbers for me?
So I anticipated that Nintendo would follow a shorter lifespan for the Wii, replacing it with a more powerful version.
Oh, in that case you're just wrong. In the earliest case that the "Wii 2" is released in 2011, which was denied but still certainly possible, that would be 5 years between it and the previous console. The same length of time between new Nintendo home consoles since the SNES, and a pretty standard lifespan across the industry.
So what you anticipated did not happen. The thing you thought would necessitate this happening ended up not mattering.
Of course, at this point what can they really offer beyond better graphics and maybe more precise motion control?
Of course. Forgive me if I don't put much stock in your prognostications.
I find it kind of hard to think of a star that's "in the Milky Way galaxy" as being extragalactic.
Which is exactly the clue that, combined with another half second of thought, makes the meaning of the headline clear. "How can it be extragalactic if it's in the Milky Way? Oh, it's in the Milky Way now, and must have come from another galaxy. Got it." Rushing off to post a Slashdot-headlines-suck post is fine too, though.:)
I mean it's perfectly fair to discuss whether "extragalactic" is a good term to describe this planet's state of being as of now. Point is though the Slashdot headline conveyed all the necessary information to comprehend the gist of the story.
(Apparently) unlike you, the submitter acknowledges the possibility of being wrong
Sounded like lip service to me. "I could be wrong, but despite someone in the know telling me I probably am, I'm continuing to act as if this is a crater and someone needs to prove me wrong, otherwise I'm defaulting to being right."
I mean hell, even the guy who thinks still images from SOHO prove that aliens are shooting the sun with giant space lasers and Jupiter-size comets are flying through the solar system and being covered up by NASA gave a "it's always possible I could be mistaken."
and still has a childlike fascination for the things we all know too much about to be inspired by.
And a childlike lack of patience for doing the groundwork to actually confirm or deny a hypothesis.
Of course I've seen the behavior you speak of. Your conclusion remains a completely unsupported and completely retarded leap of faith. If you have seen this behavior and come to the conclusion that they -- because of genetics and society -- "fear trust and love" it's because you see only what you want to see and while you may have 'spent a lot of time' with these people, you haven't actually met them as people.
So, your performance is only increasing. I can't wait to hear your insistence that your viewpoint is undeniably correct. It should have them rolling in the isles.
It's not that big a surprise, but it's even less of a surprise that an adolescent would have convinced themselves that they have a superior understanding.
Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman both pointed out the difficulty of acting vs a green screen for the Star Wars prequels, and they certainly aren't the only ones.
So maybe they're just not very talented, or it actually is difficult.
Actually, there exists a well defined frame of reference with respect to velocity. In rotation this is pretty obvious, since rotation with respect to the absolute frame causes centrifugal forces to appear.
You don't need an absolute reference frame for that.
Constant linear movement is not so easy to measure, but there's the background radiation dipole that can be measured and defines an absolute velocity with respect to the universe.
The CMBR dipole makes a convenient measuring stick for comparing the velocities of objects, but that is still not an 'absolute' reference frame or an absolute velocity. The ordering of events according to a reference frame that is not moving against the CMBR is no more "absolute" than the ordering of events according to any other reference frame.
Um... yes, that was his point. "Nuke it from orbit" is a line catering to audiences who might not react the same way to "drop a rock on it from orbit", because they might not see how that's equally explode-y as a nuke.:)
Slashdot Mirror
So... is that your way of avoiding clicking on the link and realizing that you're wrong, by definition? Or is it that you've already had to admit it to yourself, so now you're mad at me?
No. What you learned is nothing, because you haven't figured out basic math yet, or the definition of Outer Space.
Lol, I think you need to brush up on the definition of outer space yourself, and the definition of the terms used in that definition. You have to know the meaning of multiple words to actually understand what's going on here.
You also haven't figured out that if you subtract a geometric region from a larger geometric region, you don't get more area as a result.
How foolish. The area of the doughnut is increased when you subtract the doughnut hole. This is quite a common result in fact.
Not that the "in" relationship requires it to go one way or the other.
You got it wrong at every turn. By definition, the term Outer Space, a term in the English language, refers to all the space in the universe that is not the Earth and it's atmosphere. Outer Space = The Universe - The Earth and it's atmosphere.
Wow. Once again you state the uncontested claim that the Earth isn't Outer Space, and then without even acknowledging it you equate "is" with "in", so "isn't" means "not in", expecting the completely unsupported conclusion to be obvious.
Yet by definition the earth is an astronomical body, which by definition is a physical entity in outer space.
No. What I am saying is that by definition the Earth and it's atmosphere are in the Universe, which is made up of space in Outer Space plus space occupied by Inner Space, to wit the Earth and It's Atmosphere.
Wait, are you seriously defining the Earth to not include its atmosphere? Is that the unspecified and completely wrong leap of illogic you're taking? While there are contexts where you would use "earth" as distinct from the "air", that is certainly not the context when discussing Earth the planet!
Atmospheres are parts of their planets. Seriously, what dictionary are you reading where you thought otherwise? I'm guessing none. Do you really think it's wrong to say that you have seen Jupiter and Venus in the night sky?
Now off you go to explain to the residents of Hawaii that they sleep in the Ocean.
Go to explain to anyone who understands English that Hawaii isn't in the Pacific Ocean.
I did, and all I learned is that multiple slashdotters don't understand that "is" and "in" aren't the same.
And that the same source that they rely on to verify that the earth isn't space also confirms that the earth is in space, but are happier leaping to their illogical conclusions based on ill-informed pedantry.
You are confusing the word "in" with the phrase "surrounded by". Outer Space is all of the space which the Earth and it's atmosphere are not in, by definition. This isn't open for debate. It has to do with understanding the English language, and the definition of "Outer Space".
You're right, there is no debate which is why you'll find many places discussing earth in space.
It's why WP says on the Outer Space page that "Outer space (often simply called space) is the void that exists beyond any celestial body", and on the Celestial Body page says "Astronomical objects are naturally occurring physical entities, associations or structures that current science has demonstrated to exist in outer space."
So the problem is in fact with understanding the English language, as in you not understanding the difference between "is" and "in".
Look at your post -- your only argument that earth is not in space is that earth isn't space. Which is as ridiculous as saying that the USS George Washington isn't in the ocean because it isn't the ocean.
But it is in the ocean, and the earth is in space. Despite not being space. Really, read the definitions yourself and then get over it.
By definition, outer space is the area between planets and other celestial objects.
By your analogy, Maui could be considered "in the ocean". By definition, the ocean excludes land,
You're still confusing "in" with "is".
Maui is in the Pacific Ocean. That is 100% correct.
The reason people don't say you're in the ocean when you are standing on the island is because, while in some sense it is true, it's not the most relevant context. You are not directly surrounded by the ocean, you're surrounded by something else that is surrounded by the ocean. The island is directly surrounded by ocean, and thus is in the ocean. When you're on a boat in the ocean, most people say you're on a boat in the ocean, not that you're in the ocean.
By definition, the ocean excludes everything that isn't water or dissolved in water. Fish aren't the ocean, by definition. You aren't the ocean. A boat isn't the ocean. Yet they can all be in the ocean.
Same goes for the atoms that comprise my Xbox360. If I asked 100 scientists whether those atoms are in cardboard, most would probably say no. They're in the Xbox.
They would say the atoms are in the xbox, and the xbox is in the cardboard box. Despite, by definition, not being a cardboard box.
The earth is in space just as surely as you're in the earth's atmosphere. More so. More than an island is in the ocean, or a boat is in the ocean. Earth is literally surrounded by the void and is in it as surely as a fish is in the ocean.
Not expecting a response, or a "ok you're right' or a "na you're wrong". I just figured it'd be fun to practice pretzel logic.
I don't think you need any practice at misusing pedantry, but do as you will. I more interested in clearing up legitimate misunderstandings of language, which is why I responded in case you're really thinking it's proper to equate "in" with "is".
What university can I attend and study futurism? None?
Singularity University of course! A particular brand of futurism, sure, but in the course of learning how to prepare for the upcoming singularity you'll certainly learn what series of vague buzzwords to string together to be a Genuine 100% Accurate Futurist.
I think it's funny that he's founded a university to learn about adapting to the upcoming singularity, rather than, say, how to actually bring it about. That, of course, is work for other people, though they will inevitably do it as Kurzweil predicted!
My question (okay, one of many snarky questions) is what happens if the Singularity he prepares people for turns out to be different than the one all the scientists and engineers actually implement? Like, instead of having cybernetic brains that can traverse the 'net and be backed up and restored to achieve immortality, instead we learn how to increase the brain size of other mammals and transfer our consciousness into them, so we achieve immortality by occupying a continuous series of animal bodies?
You'll have wasted all that time and money learning how to ensure your brain is properly backed up to prevent catastrophic sentience loss, and how to cope with not having a corporeal body and deciding whether or not to fuse with the Hive Mind (hint: of course you should, it's nice in here). When instead, you should have been figuring out which awesome animal you wanted to be first, and how to cope with the fact that pretty much everyone is by definition a Furry.
So no, the Earth isn't in outer space. But neither is water. It's a void.
Of course the earth is in outer space. It doesn't have to be outer space to be in outer space. Oceans are large bodies of salt water, but you can be in the ocean without being salt water. Your Xbox360 came in a cardboard box, even though the definition of 'cardboard box' would explicitly exclude the Xbox360 from being part of it.
If you're surrounded by the void, then you're in the void. The earth is in outer space.
Then again maybe I should get a resounding "whoosh!"
The only question is when did the water arrive relative to the majority of the other star debris.
Right. The main question is: Did it arrive after there was an Earth, or was it already part of the accretion disk material that eventually coalesced into the planet. If it was already here, then Earth's water didn't come from anywhere, it was already present at the moment in time at which one could meaningfully say "Earth's" anything.
So what you're saying is technically correct in one sense. However the statement that "Earth's water didn't come from outer space" is also be technically correct in another sense, assuming it pans out, and as it happens a more meaningful sense. In this context, of course; there are contexts where the fact that we are all made of star-stuff is the more useful observation. But in this case, it's more like asking whether Clark Kent came from outer space, or from Mrs. Kent's womb. If you say the answer must be outer space because everything came from outer space, then you're missing why the question is interesting.
I mean, in an even less relevant context, you could say that since everything originated from the Big Bang when space-time itself was compressed to an infinitesimal point and the region which would eventually contain the earth was closer to everything else in the universe than two atoms in your body are today, nothing came from outer space. Interesting in some contexts, but not the most important thing to note when discussing planetary formation. :)
As a liberal, I have to say mcrbids was being a bit of an arrogant ass, and I don't see why that's not reason enough to be pissed at him. Let's stick to reality and not play the pundit game.
Reality is that the OP was being a fool who hadn't even read the summary in his haste to assume this meant oil was a renewable resource in a practical sense, that what he had already believed had been inevitably proven correct.
How exactly is that not incredibly arrogant, and undeserving of a smack-down?
And fuck "the pundit game", I'm serious, arrogance is not abhorred as long as it's the right thing being said arrogantly. So I don't care if that's reason enough to be pissed, that's not why the AC was pissed.
I realize all that, which is exactly why I mentioned the Oscars, and winning a prize for something other than what the prize is technically being awarded for. So I think you are missing my point, which is:
In this instance, the thing that the Nobel Prize was technically awarded for was in fact deserving of a Nobel Prize.
When that happens in, say, the Oscars, people aren't complaining, they are nodding in agreement with the Committee's decision. An award that is both fully deserved for the specific accomplishment mentioned, and that is also a nod to further contributions, is doubly deserved and in that case does the opposite of degrade the award.
Your point, that this and other less defensible decisions by the Nobel Committee are all the result of fallible human standards is so uninteresting as to not even be worth mentioning. As if there could be an award for "the most important discovery or invention within the field of physic" that doesn't involve fallible human standards. What, you think there's an objective universal method of measuring "importance"? I doubt you do, so what's the beef? You think they could do better? Of course. What fallible human organization couldn't?
I think it's still the case that they have done better at awarding deserved prizes in science than the non-science prizes, and the Einstein example only demonstrates this (while this case may be a counter-example). If you're equating the two simply because they involve fallible human standards, then your problem is with the concept of a prize for "best" science.
50 km under Kansas would still be Kansas.
Ah, such charming naiveté, such amusing nonsense.
50 km under Kansas would be Kansas, were it not actually Khan'saxz, empire of The Dusty Ancient One, who thankfully is content to rule the followers he crafted from nightmares given substance. Were you to dig down to those depths your life would surely be forfeit, if you were truly fortunate and did not instead lose your sanity and your soul.
Just sayin'. Don't dig under Kansas. Bad idea.
I may think it's somewhat of a shame that he wasn't acknowledged for Relativity, or somewhat of a misuse of the prize to give a nod to Relativity by awarding the prize for the Photoelectric Effect like giving an Oscar to an actor that deserves one for a movie performance that doesn't.
But I also don't think it's any any way inappropriate to have awarded the prize for the Photoelectric Effect just on the merits of that work.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
I've always loved that quote, and I must admit it was all the more poignant because it applied directly to me, negotiating with other factions and refusing to give them access to my technology, because I was going to use it to crush them, because I most definitely dreamed myself their master.
Be honest. Your desire to take Mcbrids for a lynchin' has to little do with arrogance and everything to do with telling you something that you don't want to hear. You love it when some conservative pundit arrogantly derides the liberal nonsense of Peak Oil. But when it's something you don't want to hear, and you can't help but realize that they're right, then suddenly you're mad because they're so arrogant about it. It is to laugh.
Oh and stop appropriating "the masses"; there are plenty of folk who don't think ignorance is a virtue and who aren't going to destroy the environment out of spite because they're mad at being made to look foolish.
Ya, at this rate it won't be released until Dec 20. 2012, and we'll only get one day to play it.
But that, my brother, will be one glorious day.
I fear it may be the release of the console itself that causes the end of the world.
I really started to get worried when I heard the internal code name for the project was the Revelation.
I anticipated this would happen from the start.
You anticipated that Nintendo would eventually release another console? Wow, Nostradamus, do you have any lotto numbers for me?
So I anticipated that Nintendo would follow a shorter lifespan for the Wii, replacing it with a more powerful version.
Oh, in that case you're just wrong. In the earliest case that the "Wii 2" is released in 2011, which was denied but still certainly possible, that would be 5 years between it and the previous console. The same length of time between new Nintendo home consoles since the SNES, and a pretty standard lifespan across the industry.
So what you anticipated did not happen. The thing you thought would necessitate this happening ended up not mattering.
Of course, at this point what can they really offer beyond better graphics and maybe more precise motion control?
Of course. Forgive me if I don't put much stock in your prognostications.
Do you know how long galactic Visas last for?
I find it kind of hard to think of a star that's "in the Milky Way galaxy" as being extragalactic.
Which is exactly the clue that, combined with another half second of thought, makes the meaning of the headline clear. "How can it be extragalactic if it's in the Milky Way? Oh, it's in the Milky Way now, and must have come from another galaxy. Got it." Rushing off to post a Slashdot-headlines-suck post is fine too, though. :)
I mean it's perfectly fair to discuss whether "extragalactic" is a good term to describe this planet's state of being as of now. Point is though the Slashdot headline conveyed all the necessary information to comprehend the gist of the story.
(Apparently) unlike you, the submitter acknowledges the possibility of being wrong
Sounded like lip service to me. "I could be wrong, but despite someone in the know telling me I probably am, I'm continuing to act as if this is a crater and someone needs to prove me wrong, otherwise I'm defaulting to being right."
I mean hell, even the guy who thinks still images from SOHO prove that aliens are shooting the sun with giant space lasers and Jupiter-size comets are flying through the solar system and being covered up by NASA gave a "it's always possible I could be mistaken."
and still has a childlike fascination for the things we all know too much about to be inspired by.
And a childlike lack of patience for doing the groundwork to actually confirm or deny a hypothesis.
Of course I've seen the behavior you speak of. Your conclusion remains a completely unsupported and completely retarded leap of faith. If you have seen this behavior and come to the conclusion that they -- because of genetics and society -- "fear trust and love" it's because you see only what you want to see and while you may have 'spent a lot of time' with these people, you haven't actually met them as people.
So, your performance is only increasing. I can't wait to hear your insistence that your viewpoint is undeniably correct. It should have them rolling in the isles.
It's not that big a surprise, but it's even less of a surprise that an adolescent would have convinced themselves that they have a superior understanding.
Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman both pointed out the difficulty of acting vs a green screen for the Star Wars prequels, and they certainly aren't the only ones.
So maybe they're just not very talented, or it actually is difficult.
Actually, there exists a well defined frame of reference with respect to velocity. In rotation this is pretty obvious, since rotation with respect to the absolute frame causes centrifugal forces to appear.
You don't need an absolute reference frame for that.
Constant linear movement is not so easy to measure, but there's the background radiation dipole that can be measured and defines an absolute velocity with respect to the universe.
The CMBR dipole makes a convenient measuring stick for comparing the velocities of objects, but that is still not an 'absolute' reference frame or an absolute velocity. The ordering of events according to a reference frame that is not moving against the CMBR is no more "absolute" than the ordering of events according to any other reference frame.
Um... yes, that was his point. "Nuke it from orbit" is a line catering to audiences who might not react the same way to "drop a rock on it from orbit", because they might not see how that's equally explode-y as a nuke. :)