Rules of thumb usually come close to reality, that's why they're used. The Drake equation is so loose it yields a **huge** range, not narrow. As a list of variables to consider, fine, but it is worthless as a rule of thumb, otherwise it would yield close results to the earlier numbers with our current knowledge and it doesn't.
If for no other reason, the green movement should be behind belt mining because it would eventually remove the entire industry from the face of the planet.
That, however, might be expecting too much. I have actually had an environmentally concerned person ask me "What about that environment?" This will probably be the bigger inertia.
Use gravity. We've been slingshotting satellites for decades. Just sling an asteroid towards Mercury where you built that big solar powered smelter and then slingshot the results back to Earth.
If you're going to build an industry, think in terms of an entire industry, not just the pieces.
Just for clarity, from Juipiter -> Neptune are gas giants and most likely wouldn't have life even if they were warm.
Check out Australia's iron mining for a reasonable example of what he meant. Launching "stuff" will get progressively easier (as it is doing right now). Building the infrastructure is the expensive part. Returning materials can be done with cheap drogue shoots. Environmental wash could easily be one generation away.
If and and only if we do none of the radical proposals such as seeding oceans, economic restructure, extreme population control, etc. Those are not harmless at all.
A really, really, really friggin' long time. Bad example of a scare tactic. Anyone looking up the depths of limestone deposits and areas covered in the US and doing a modicum of math would know this.
I have known a number of druggies, some on various hard stuffs. No. They would still OD. People still huff, knowing full well it coats your lungs. People still sniff gasoline, knowing full well it destroys your brain. These are two completely legal substances. No. People would still be stupid. You can't bypass stupid with a label.
"Do we have the intelligence to do this? Apparently not."
That description applies to you, sir or ma'am, for not understanding that there is no one on this planet that is required to - or should - provide you with things for free simply because you want them.
Please, pray tell, what do you do for "the collective" that makes it so worth supporting your "needs"?
BTW, forcing me to pay for your cancer meds when I do not have cancer and never will get cancer is not ethical.
Very good. That's what personalized insurance, not blanket insurance mandated by the gov, is about.
"Christ-fags are everything which is wrong with America."
I'm a very solid atheist, which you can verify for yourself by checking my posting history. You're an ass and more of a bigot than the Christians I know.
U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Anyone suggesting it was debated, much less thoroughly, is being disingenuous - at best.
That has nothing to do with personal interaction. It engenders that feeling in the opposite person and that begets a negative view. Rationale on the wearer's part will do nothing to alleviate that.
Wearing Glass separates you. It sets you apart from everyone else. It says you not only had $1,500 to plunk down to be part of the âoeexplorerâ program, but that Google deemed you special enough to warrant inclusion (not everyone who wanted Glass got it; you had to be selected). Glass is a class divide on your face.
More likely: Wearing Glass separates you by telling everyone immediately that you are likely recording them without asking.
Slashdot Mirror
Rules of thumb usually come close to reality, that's why they're used. The Drake equation is so loose it yields a **huge** range, not narrow. As a list of variables to consider, fine, but it is worthless as a rule of thumb, otherwise it would yield close results to the earlier numbers with our current knowledge and it doesn't.
Son of a bitch, an actual step three.
If for no other reason, the green movement should be behind belt mining because it would eventually remove the entire industry from the face of the planet.
That, however, might be expecting too much. I have actually had an environmentally concerned person ask me "What about that environment?" This will probably be the bigger inertia.
Use gravity. We've been slingshotting satellites for decades. Just sling an asteroid towards Mercury where you built that big solar powered smelter and then slingshot the results back to Earth.
If you're going to build an industry, think in terms of an entire industry, not just the pieces.
Just for clarity, from Juipiter -> Neptune are gas giants and most likely wouldn't have life even if they were warm.
Check out Australia's iron mining for a reasonable example of what he meant. Launching "stuff" will get progressively easier (as it is doing right now). Building the infrastructure is the expensive part. Returning materials can be done with cheap drogue shoots. Environmental wash could easily be one generation away.
Then complain when your version doesn't work with new content or upgraded server software.
I'd have to suspect you're cherry-picking the stocks. Got any hard information on that?
... f we're wrong, meh, no harm done."
If and and only if we do none of the radical proposals such as seeding oceans, economic restructure, extreme population control, etc. Those are not harmless at all.
A really, really, really friggin' long time. Bad example of a scare tactic. Anyone looking up the depths of limestone deposits and areas covered in the US and doing a modicum of math would know this.
Unless they have peer reviewed papers - however can you trust them?
**Air** Is ammo for a friggin' conspiracy not.
I have known a number of druggies, some on various hard stuffs. No. They would still OD. People still huff, knowing full well it coats your lungs. People still sniff gasoline, knowing full well it destroys your brain. These are two completely legal substances. No. People would still be stupid. You can't bypass stupid with a label.
Quiet - does not fit political narrative.
You're projecting aspersions onto them to make yourself feel better because you don't give, nothing more.
"Do we have the intelligence to do this? Apparently not."
That description applies to you, sir or ma'am, for not understanding that there is no one on this planet that is required to - or should - provide you with things for free simply because you want them.
Please, pray tell, what do you do for "the collective" that makes it so worth supporting your "needs"?
Let them run a ballistics test on the pellets and prove it was you, not another hunter.
I shall treat them accordingly.
You sir, do not understand what the term "due process" means.
Ah, the moron "Pseudonyms aren't any better" brigade. Ignoring the fact the comment was pointing out idiocy, not anonymity as a subject of derision.
BTW, forcing me to pay for your cancer meds when I do not have cancer and never will get cancer is not ethical.
Very good. That's what personalized insurance, not blanket insurance mandated by the gov, is about.
"Christ-fags are everything which is wrong with America."
I'm a very solid atheist, which you can verify for yourself by checking my posting history. You're an ass and more of a bigot than the Christians I know.
Did you shatter any teeth when you knee jerked that high?
U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Anyone suggesting it was debated, much less thoroughly, is being disingenuous - at best.
"Maybe its Microsoft and Apple shills" said the AC writing a shout out for Glass.
That has nothing to do with personal interaction. It engenders that feeling in the opposite person and that begets a negative view. Rationale on the wearer's part will do nothing to alleviate that.
Wearing Glass separates you. It sets you apart from everyone else. It says you not only had $1,500 to plunk down to be part of the âoeexplorerâ program, but that Google deemed you special enough to warrant inclusion (not everyone who wanted Glass got it; you had to be selected). Glass is a class divide on your face.
More likely: Wearing Glass separates you by telling everyone immediately that you are likely recording them without asking.