The civil war was actually started by the north. It wasn't a revolution per se as the states retain a certain amount of sovereignty and they voluntarily joined the union. The south did not want to overthrow the US government, they just did not want to be part of it any more.
So, no.. The civil war was not a revolution, it was a secession.
Which the South couldn't do unilaterally by state. One could just as easily say that the war was started by the South as they took economic advantage and material mostly paid for by the North and left without offering restitution. Take the entire state of Texas for example which was finally won uncontested independence due to the Mexican-American war, which was mostly paid for in terms of money, material, and lives by the North. It was done with the expectation that they would be part of the Union. Taking everything and trying to secede could certainly be construed as an act of war. Even then, the war actually started when the South attacked Fort Sumner, a US fort that would not give up to the South. In his memoirs, U S Grant said that he does not doubt that if one of the original 13 states had wanted to secede, it would have been allowed to, but after so much time and shared resources (again, mostly paid by the North), that simply wasn't an option any longer due to economic entanglement. If the South had pooled their political clout, been otherwise obstructionist, and passed an agreement in congress allowing them to secede under terms, then they might have pulled it off.
I once had a gun stuck in my face for refusing a shot of whiskey; it turned out that refusing a gift is a grave insult. Funnier was the guy was cool after I drank the shot.
Work two days a week and... raise 2.5 children, own a home in the suburbs and a sensible late-model auto, enjoy an annual family vacation to a popular American tourist destination, and have not one single case of throat irritation (from smoking Camel cigarettes).
You should check to see what "middle class" living was actually like in 1950. You might have a car and a house but the house was only 600 sq ft. The father got bacon and eggs and the rest got porridge because that was all they could afford. The family had to do laundry at the end of the week as if they didn't they wouldn't have any clothes for the next week. The wife had to stay home because most modern appliances did not exist or were not available to their price range.
The 50's were good times not because we were wealthy through the entire thing but because it was a time of increasing wealth. It was a general.com boom for everybody. Men were job hopping every year or two into a new job at a higher pay. Appliances were becoming affordable to lessen the work load at home. Clothes and food were becoming cheaper. What was considered middle class in the beginning of the 1950's in terms of size of house lived in, food purchased, and clothing owned would be considered well below poverty level these days.
If you really want to see bad times though, go back and look at the great depression. People in the US were actually in threat of starving to death. The soldiers of WW2 were an inch or two shorter than the generation before and after simply due to lack of food while growing up. People of today would consider great depression conditions worse than apocalyptic and probably were worse than some movies show life after the apocalypse.
fuck you, americans. you'll start wars to keep the price so low....
Don't kid yourself. We started that war to keep prices high. At what time did prices ever drop to near prewar levels? If we wanted cheap oil, we would have just cut a deal with Iraq like France, Germany, and Russia did. The US is an oil producing country with lots of the oil companies and their refineries. If there was an ulterior motive to that war it was to jack the prices up.
As for weird working practices, for each and every 'crazy' union rule, there is a corresponding previous attempt by management to cheat in some way either to edge the union out or to extract more work than agreed upon or to pay less than agreed upon./
From personal experience in workplaces I've been at trying to unionize, and from people I know that work for the unions, the number one cause of getting people to unionize is bad management. Pay rarely figures into the equation these days. What a union might get the company to increase is easily lost to the union by the workers. Rather it's being told they have to work back to back shifts again because the manager decided to change the schedule without notice, have to come in on the weekend because somebody else quit, and generally being expected to dance when some bad manager yells to dance, usually to try and cover up for their own bad management. ("I am altering the schedule. Pray I don't alter it any further.") Where I work now, even the managers who were around before the union say its better now. Everybody has guidelines and knows what is expected of them and there are no more yelling fights with workers and everybody is happier and gets more done.
The moral to the story is, if you think your protest is organic, and it ends up being huge, it probably isn't organic. It's astroturf. Someone's bankrolling it. Things like the march on Washington lead by MLK are the exception rather than the rule.
Well, no. You had unions, blue collar worker organizations, political groups from all over the world which did includes a fair number of conservative right wing ones also. What WTO in Seattle was is the result of European and world politics and protests coming to the USA. Anybody who knew what the WTO was knew we were headed for something. In the one prior to that in the lawless hellhole of Switzerland, they were overturning and setting fire to police cars. In the next one in Prague, there was full on combat in the streets, Molotov cocktails, rock throwing, etc. I saw videos and nothing like that could have happened in the US without the police just shooting people down. We simply aren't used to that level of violence. Of course, Prague had three protest parades, one for the leftists, one for the right wingers, and the one I saw video of that was specifically organized for people who just wanted to start some shit with the police. And there was a large group of people who just wanted to start shit. Ya Basta, 1,500 anarchists from Italy occupied a train until their representatives and the train companies came to a mutual agreement on the cost of driving them to Prague would be. Just to drive home the difference between European and American politics, when the train was denied entry into the Czech Republic, because who would let in a train with 1500 screaming anarchists going to protest, the ambasador from Italy showed up, talked to the people and the train and then walked back telling everybody he was re-entering the country and everybody should get off the tracks as the train and everybody on it was now part of his diplomatic envoy. I knew a marching band that sent themselves to many of those protests, working jobs, networking, and sleeping on people's floors, because that's what they believed in. They certainly weren't being bankrolled by anybody though and neither were most of the people at any of them.
What happened in Seattle was actually quite tame as far as WTO and G-number protests go, especially when you consider that the police did most of the damage themselves. Rubber bullets broke more windows than any protesters, the police even said so. Tear gas drifting across the town created more protests from people who had decided they wanted nothing to do with it when they were driven from their homes on Capital Hill, not to mention all the food in Pike's Place Market that had to be destroyed when police tear gassed there. The problem was aggravated because to get all the police to provide security, they called in lots of small town police (I know and have talked with some of them too.) whose idea of controlling a situation is to escalate violence until the police win. They were no means prepared or trained to handle an event like that and were told so before the event by both European police and protest organizers who were looking to minimize the violence.
Why is that? Because it was a leftist newspaper and a leftist group?
I don't know if I would really call the Stranger a "leftist" paper. They typically support the gay, 20-something, and artists communities and therefore dislike things such as police brutality while taking up for the underdog if only to play devil's advocate. I'd just sort of call that normal rather than leftist. You say "leftist newspaper" and I get the idea of Marxist politics, red clothing, and stuff. Sure, the normal democrat is leftist to the average Glen Beck supporter, but I really wouldn't call them that.
I am an American. By the way, many companies will punish you for coming to work sick now, especially in retail and food service positions where you might infect the customers.
Yes, but they punish you more if you don't come in sick.
In the last 20 years, 13 people have died from gas bombs. Five people died from biological attacks in that same amount of time. Care to guess how many people have been killed by guns?
Not as many has have been killed by hammers, or knives. I think you have a little bias and have yet to show that getting rid of the guns actually does save lives. Yes, gun related murders goes down after gun control, but murders do not. Your convenience excuse has no actual scientific backing that I'm aware of.
If they had refused the flu vaccine because they're allergic to eggs, would you still approve of them being fired?
Not all the media that the vaccines were grown in use eggs, and you can get others. My hospital has three different types of vaccines specifically for such issues, and even then, you can still shop around for other flu vaccines with your health care provider (which is usually with a different hospital as being cared for at the one you work at could be a HIPAA issue as well as embarassing) or drug stores.
Harmless my ass. I get sick every. single. year. within 24 hours of recieving the flu shot.
Well, by time you notice that you are sick with the flu, you have actually already been sick and contagious for much longer than 24 hours. However, the more likely answer is that you are allergic to the media that the vaccines were grown in. There are different methods of taking the vaccine and if you explain that you seem to be having reactions to a particular method, they can try giving you another one.
Viruses live longer inside the body than outside, and so if a person is immunised against a particular virus, the time they can transmit it is reduced significantly. It's not a case of the immunisation making a person an incompatible target for the virus, but the immunisation making the person's body a place the virus simply can't exist in any dangerous form for a substantial length of time.
Well, then, we have a hypothesis. It should be pretty easy to get some experimental data to show we are actually using evidence based medicine then. Just saying, "ya, that makes sense" just doesn't cut it these days as doctors are wanting actual research to back up what they are doing, because in some cases, it has been found out that some treatments provide no patient benefit and can actually be a determent to the patient due to things such as additional heath care costs or unneeded exposure to drugs or x-rays.
If there is a definition of cloud computing, it's the abstraction of administration. Managers at a hospice in Idaho are not qualified to make IT decisions about encryption. Even Microsoft's cloud is more secure than what they can put together : ) Combine bio-authentication with a website white list and you eliminate all passive/opportunistic attacks.
But until Microsoft, Google, Apple, or any other cloud server encrypts all information transfer and signs HIPAA agreement forms, nobody can put their information on them. There are such services out there, but AFAIK, the easy solutions are not signing those forms which every management in a HIPAA covered enterprise should know.
Okay, so what exactly does TPM have to do with encrypting your data?
Windows, particularly WIndows 7 Enterprise, requires a TPM chip for the included encryption software, Bitlocker, to work. Previous poster is saying that since business laptops come with TPM anyway and Windows that most large enterprises use comes with encryption anyway, the only reason business laptops are not encrypted is because somebody is too lazy to click a button.
In reality, it's a bit more complicated than that. There are many older laptops out there running WinXP that has no built in encryption and are still "good enough" to do their jobs. People, especially doctors and executives, buy their own laptops to do their work on but don't know about the TPM chip or what version of Windows they need, and usually don't have the easy solution available to them as they buy cheaper versions without the needed components because it's "good enough" they also don't know about encryption and the laws involved. Include user apathy because they don't care and don't think the law includes them or what they do or because proper solutions are harder than simple solutions that don't account for HIPAA, and the task of encrypting everything becomes an order of magnitude harder.
A south puget sounder would stab you in the face with a fair-trade knife for claiming a californian knows rain.
As an Okie who lives in the Puget Sound, I'd shoot a south puget sounder with my God given 2nd amendment guns for claiming he knows rain, but I'm back home for the holidays and currently hiding in the cellar because of a tornado.
The first issue is that for the universe to be rotating, according to relativity, then there must be an observer outside the universe and that really messes up our definition for a universe. Second, if the universe is rotating, the according to some of the Kerr solutions for a rotating universe, we can build a time machines which would allow acausal time like path much like Tippler's solutions for a infinitely long rotating cylinder. Not that I have issues with acausal things like some other people because as far as I've seen the math does not rule them out, however because of this, people have looked and some reasonably easy tests can be done to show that the universe shows no indication that it is rotating.
Now, dark energy is a force we can't yet explain. It's accelerating everything away from the center of the Universe -- Why it's almost like the Universe is in a centrifuge, and though the relative motion of everything seems not to be spinning, there's this strange force accelerating things outwards. If everything inside the water is wet, then the water itself is wet. If everything inside the Universe is spinning, then the Universe itself is spinning...
No, there is no center of the universe. Space is expanding in all directions equally as far as we can tell. There is no radial component to this acceleration and has nothing to do with conservation of angular momentum as there is no angular component. You are jumping to false conclusions because you do not understand yet insist on calling other people morons.
Trace amounts? The entire northern polar cap of Mars is water ice, not to mention the sizable amount of ice locked up in Martian soil. There is enough water on Mars to fill the Hellas Basin and then some, possibly enough to turn the entire northern hemisphere into a swamp. As for the Moon, there is enough ice hidden in the polar areas to be useful as fuel for spaceships. In neither case is the amount so small as to be "meaningless."
There however, is not enough water or CO2 ice on Mars to give it a sufficient atmosphere to keep it from boiling off if melted. Thus, there will not be any lakes or swamps once you start melting the Mars ice unless you supplement it with even more gases from such things as ice comets. Once you build up a sufficient atmosphere, then you can start talking lakes and swamps. There is a decent amount of ice on Mars but not nearly enough by itself as would be needed to do anything but use it as a source for spaceships and habitats, just like on the moon.
The question is not whether Mars can hold an Earth-like atmosphere (of course it can), but how long it can hold it, and how fast and how many times it can be regenerated. Anyone have any info on how long Mars could hold onto (for example) a 7 psi atmosphere, starting from 14 psi?
I haven't done the math but an astrophysics friend of mine has. He says that if Mars is given an Earthlike atmosphere, it will last for 10k years. There is a question of the mixture of component elements and partial pressure, but I think it's safe to assume such an atmosphere could be human habitable for 5k years. So then it becomes a question of if Mars' atmosphere can be terraformed over a course of 5k years. If so, then it could be achieved it could remain stable.
I have done the math on the energy requirements to give Mars an Earthlike atmosphere by moving ice comets assumed to be of the proper elements from the oort cloud to Mars along with frozen gases on the planet. To do so in 10 years would take roughly 3 days total output of the sun. Of course, you have to assume at least ten years to get needed material into place in the oort cloud as well as material around the sun of sufficient area to collect the energy and transport it, and the engineering issues start to become apparent. Things get easier by expanding the timeline and I have not done a 5k year estimate which might be doable, but then you are talking about a 5k year project which is roughly the extent of current total human history.
Seems to me that doing so would simply result in Samsung not getting a contract that someone else will happily fulfill. They may be competitors, but why would samsung deprive themselves of a large, lucrative contract simply to spite and inconvenience a competitor? Sounds like bad business to me.
Yes, but it would take time to ramp up the production someplace else. That would cost Apple money. How much money is that worth to Apple? What if Samsung decides to up their prices just under that amount when renegotiating the new contract with Apple? Likewise, how much would Samsung lose if they lost Apple as a customer? With a competitor already in place, Apple could lower their offer by just a little less than that amount. It's about bargaining power and using competition to keep prices low also I bet.
World of Warcraft is profitable, the monthly fee covers a player's activity costs with a profit. If/when they shut WoW down, there will probably be just a half dozen active paying players.
Or it will be after a Korean company buys it and then decides to shut it down because it shames them as it sells better than their own games they were trying to push.
Maybe not recently, but mass sacrifices, blood rituals and canibalism has all been part of various pagan traditions.
Ya, but they weren't in the closet about it. The Buddhists were open about wanting to rule territory and start wars as were pagans about human sacrifice.
Sure, you just have to force people to use it. Since just about every form of public transit in the US is running on government subsidies and cannot pay its own costs I think it's pretty conclusive that Americans don't want it.
Hrrm. That would mean that since roads don't pay their own costs, that people don't want them.
Well considering that the Republicans are just Southern Democrats from 40 years ago that switched sides after the Democrats backed civil rights, it's only appropriate. Look at the Tea Party: Southern Conservatives in favor of states rights and leaving the union because a black man in in charge. 40 years ago, they were blue dog Dixiecrats.
Slashdot Mirror
The civil war was actually started by the north. It wasn't a revolution per se as the states retain a certain amount of sovereignty and they voluntarily joined the union. The south did not want to overthrow the US government, they just did not want to be part of it any more.
So, no.. The civil war was not a revolution, it was a secession.
Which the South couldn't do unilaterally by state. One could just as easily say that the war was started by the South as they took economic advantage and material mostly paid for by the North and left without offering restitution. Take the entire state of Texas for example which was finally won uncontested independence due to the Mexican-American war, which was mostly paid for in terms of money, material, and lives by the North. It was done with the expectation that they would be part of the Union. Taking everything and trying to secede could certainly be construed as an act of war. Even then, the war actually started when the South attacked Fort Sumner, a US fort that would not give up to the South. In his memoirs, U S Grant said that he does not doubt that if one of the original 13 states had wanted to secede, it would have been allowed to, but after so much time and shared resources (again, mostly paid by the North), that simply wasn't an option any longer due to economic entanglement. If the South had pooled their political clout, been otherwise obstructionist, and passed an agreement in congress allowing them to secede under terms, then they might have pulled it off.
I once had a gun stuck in my face for refusing a shot of whiskey; it turned out that refusing a gift is a grave insult. Funnier was the guy was cool after I drank the shot.
Sounds like Texas.
Hmmm....
Work two days a week and ... raise 2.5 children, own a home in the suburbs and a sensible late-model auto, enjoy an annual family vacation to a popular American tourist destination, and have not one single case of throat irritation (from smoking Camel cigarettes).
You should check to see what "middle class" living was actually like in 1950. You might have a car and a house but the house was only 600 sq ft. The father got bacon and eggs and the rest got porridge because that was all they could afford. The family had to do laundry at the end of the week as if they didn't they wouldn't have any clothes for the next week. The wife had to stay home because most modern appliances did not exist or were not available to their price range.
The 50's were good times not because we were wealthy through the entire thing but because it was a time of increasing wealth. It was a general .com boom for everybody. Men were job hopping every year or two into a new job at a higher pay. Appliances were becoming affordable to lessen the work load at home. Clothes and food were becoming cheaper. What was considered middle class in the beginning of the 1950's in terms of size of house lived in, food purchased, and clothing owned would be considered well below poverty level these days.
If you really want to see bad times though, go back and look at the great depression. People in the US were actually in threat of starving to death. The soldiers of WW2 were an inch or two shorter than the generation before and after simply due to lack of food while growing up. People of today would consider great depression conditions worse than apocalyptic and probably were worse than some movies show life after the apocalypse.
fuck you, americans. you'll start wars to keep the price so low ....
Don't kid yourself. We started that war to keep prices high. At what time did prices ever drop to near prewar levels? If we wanted cheap oil, we would have just cut a deal with Iraq like France, Germany, and Russia did. The US is an oil producing country with lots of the oil companies and their refineries. If there was an ulterior motive to that war it was to jack the prices up.
As for weird working practices, for each and every 'crazy' union rule, there is a corresponding previous attempt by management to cheat in some way either to edge the union out or to extract more work than agreed upon or to pay less than agreed upon./
From personal experience in workplaces I've been at trying to unionize, and from people I know that work for the unions, the number one cause of getting people to unionize is bad management. Pay rarely figures into the equation these days. What a union might get the company to increase is easily lost to the union by the workers. Rather it's being told they have to work back to back shifts again because the manager decided to change the schedule without notice, have to come in on the weekend because somebody else quit, and generally being expected to dance when some bad manager yells to dance, usually to try and cover up for their own bad management. ("I am altering the schedule. Pray I don't alter it any further.") Where I work now, even the managers who were around before the union say its better now. Everybody has guidelines and knows what is expected of them and there are no more yelling fights with workers and everybody is happier and gets more done.
The moral to the story is, if you think your protest is organic, and it ends up being huge, it probably isn't organic. It's astroturf. Someone's bankrolling it. Things like the march on Washington lead by MLK are the exception rather than the rule.
Well, no. You had unions, blue collar worker organizations, political groups from all over the world which did includes a fair number of conservative right wing ones also. What WTO in Seattle was is the result of European and world politics and protests coming to the USA. Anybody who knew what the WTO was knew we were headed for something. In the one prior to that in the lawless hellhole of Switzerland, they were overturning and setting fire to police cars. In the next one in Prague, there was full on combat in the streets, Molotov cocktails, rock throwing, etc. I saw videos and nothing like that could have happened in the US without the police just shooting people down. We simply aren't used to that level of violence. Of course, Prague had three protest parades, one for the leftists, one for the right wingers, and the one I saw video of that was specifically organized for people who just wanted to start some shit with the police. And there was a large group of people who just wanted to start shit. Ya Basta, 1,500 anarchists from Italy occupied a train until their representatives and the train companies came to a mutual agreement on the cost of driving them to Prague would be. Just to drive home the difference between European and American politics, when the train was denied entry into the Czech Republic, because who would let in a train with 1500 screaming anarchists going to protest, the ambasador from Italy showed up, talked to the people and the train and then walked back telling everybody he was re-entering the country and everybody should get off the tracks as the train and everybody on it was now part of his diplomatic envoy. I knew a marching band that sent themselves to many of those protests, working jobs, networking, and sleeping on people's floors, because that's what they believed in. They certainly weren't being bankrolled by anybody though and neither were most of the people at any of them.
What happened in Seattle was actually quite tame as far as WTO and G-number protests go, especially when you consider that the police did most of the damage themselves. Rubber bullets broke more windows than any protesters, the police even said so. Tear gas drifting across the town created more protests from people who had decided they wanted nothing to do with it when they were driven from their homes on Capital Hill, not to mention all the food in Pike's Place Market that had to be destroyed when police tear gassed there. The problem was aggravated because to get all the police to provide security, they called in lots of small town police (I know and have talked with some of them too.) whose idea of controlling a situation is to escalate violence until the police win. They were no means prepared or trained to handle an event like that and were told so before the event by both European police and protest organizers who were looking to minimize the violence.
Why is that? Because it was a leftist newspaper and a leftist group?
I don't know if I would really call the Stranger a "leftist" paper. They typically support the gay, 20-something, and artists communities and therefore dislike things such as police brutality while taking up for the underdog if only to play devil's advocate. I'd just sort of call that normal rather than leftist. You say "leftist newspaper" and I get the idea of Marxist politics, red clothing, and stuff. Sure, the normal democrat is leftist to the average Glen Beck supporter, but I really wouldn't call them that.
I am an American. By the way, many companies will punish you for coming to work sick now, especially in retail and food service positions where you might infect the customers.
Yes, but they punish you more if you don't come in sick.
In the last 20 years, 13 people have died from gas bombs. Five people died from biological attacks in that same amount of time. Care to guess how many people have been killed by guns?
Not as many has have been killed by hammers, or knives. I think you have a little bias and have yet to show that getting rid of the guns actually does save lives. Yes, gun related murders goes down after gun control, but murders do not. Your convenience excuse has no actual scientific backing that I'm aware of.
Actually, the problem is the guns. Or, rather, it's that guns are so widespread and easy to obtain that any nutcase can get one.
Damn straight. We should outlaw them like drugs!
If they had refused the flu vaccine because they're allergic to eggs, would you still approve of them being fired?
Not all the media that the vaccines were grown in use eggs, and you can get others. My hospital has three different types of vaccines specifically for such issues, and even then, you can still shop around for other flu vaccines with your health care provider (which is usually with a different hospital as being cared for at the one you work at could be a HIPAA issue as well as embarassing) or drug stores.
Harmless my ass. I get sick every. single. year. within 24 hours of recieving the flu shot.
Well, by time you notice that you are sick with the flu, you have actually already been sick and contagious for much longer than 24 hours. However, the more likely answer is that you are allergic to the media that the vaccines were grown in. There are different methods of taking the vaccine and if you explain that you seem to be having reactions to a particular method, they can try giving you another one.
Viruses live longer inside the body than outside, and so if a person is immunised against a particular virus, the time they can transmit it is reduced significantly. It's not a case of the immunisation making a person an incompatible target for the virus, but the immunisation making the person's body a place the virus simply can't exist in any dangerous form for a substantial length of time.
Well, then, we have a hypothesis. It should be pretty easy to get some experimental data to show we are actually using evidence based medicine then. Just saying, "ya, that makes sense" just doesn't cut it these days as doctors are wanting actual research to back up what they are doing, because in some cases, it has been found out that some treatments provide no patient benefit and can actually be a determent to the patient due to things such as additional heath care costs or unneeded exposure to drugs or x-rays.
If there is a definition of cloud computing, it's the abstraction of administration. Managers at a hospice in Idaho are not qualified to make IT decisions about encryption. Even Microsoft's cloud is more secure than what they can put together : ) Combine bio-authentication with a website white list and you eliminate all passive/opportunistic attacks.
But until Microsoft, Google, Apple, or any other cloud server encrypts all information transfer and signs HIPAA agreement forms, nobody can put their information on them. There are such services out there, but AFAIK, the easy solutions are not signing those forms which every management in a HIPAA covered enterprise should know.
Okay, so what exactly does TPM have to do with encrypting your data?
Windows, particularly WIndows 7 Enterprise, requires a TPM chip for the included encryption software, Bitlocker, to work. Previous poster is saying that since business laptops come with TPM anyway and Windows that most large enterprises use comes with encryption anyway, the only reason business laptops are not encrypted is because somebody is too lazy to click a button.
In reality, it's a bit more complicated than that. There are many older laptops out there running WinXP that has no built in encryption and are still "good enough" to do their jobs. People, especially doctors and executives, buy their own laptops to do their work on but don't know about the TPM chip or what version of Windows they need, and usually don't have the easy solution available to them as they buy cheaper versions without the needed components because it's "good enough" they also don't know about encryption and the laws involved. Include user apathy because they don't care and don't think the law includes them or what they do or because proper solutions are harder than simple solutions that don't account for HIPAA, and the task of encrypting everything becomes an order of magnitude harder.
A south puget sounder would stab you in the face with a fair-trade knife for claiming a californian knows rain.
As an Okie who lives in the Puget Sound, I'd shoot a south puget sounder with my God given 2nd amendment guns for claiming he knows rain, but I'm back home for the holidays and currently hiding in the cellar because of a tornado.
.
The first issue is that for the universe to be rotating, according to relativity, then there must be an observer outside the universe and that really messes up our definition for a universe. Second, if the universe is rotating, the according to some of the Kerr solutions for a rotating universe, we can build a time machines which would allow acausal time like path much like Tippler's solutions for a infinitely long rotating cylinder. Not that I have issues with acausal things like some other people because as far as I've seen the math does not rule them out, however because of this, people have looked and some reasonably easy tests can be done to show that the universe shows no indication that it is rotating.
Now, dark energy is a force we can't yet explain. It's accelerating everything away from the center of the Universe -- Why it's almost like the Universe is in a centrifuge, and though the relative motion of everything seems not to be spinning, there's this strange force accelerating things outwards. If everything inside the water is wet, then the water itself is wet. If everything inside the Universe is spinning, then the Universe itself is spinning...
No, there is no center of the universe. Space is expanding in all directions equally as far as we can tell. There is no radial component to this acceleration and has nothing to do with conservation of angular momentum as there is no angular component. You are jumping to false conclusions because you do not understand yet insist on calling other people morons.
Trace amounts? The entire northern polar cap of Mars is water ice, not to mention the sizable amount of ice locked up in Martian soil. There is enough water on Mars to fill the Hellas Basin and then some, possibly enough to turn the entire northern hemisphere into a swamp. As for the Moon, there is enough ice hidden in the polar areas to be useful as fuel for spaceships. In neither case is the amount so small as to be "meaningless."
There however, is not enough water or CO2 ice on Mars to give it a sufficient atmosphere to keep it from boiling off if melted. Thus, there will not be any lakes or swamps once you start melting the Mars ice unless you supplement it with even more gases from such things as ice comets. Once you build up a sufficient atmosphere, then you can start talking lakes and swamps. There is a decent amount of ice on Mars but not nearly enough by itself as would be needed to do anything but use it as a source for spaceships and habitats, just like on the moon.
The question is not whether Mars can hold an Earth-like atmosphere (of course it can), but how long it can hold it, and how fast and how many times it can be regenerated. Anyone have any info on how long Mars could hold onto (for example) a 7 psi atmosphere, starting from 14 psi?
I haven't done the math but an astrophysics friend of mine has. He says that if Mars is given an Earthlike atmosphere, it will last for 10k years. There is a question of the mixture of component elements and partial pressure, but I think it's safe to assume such an atmosphere could be human habitable for 5k years. So then it becomes a question of if Mars' atmosphere can be terraformed over a course of 5k years. If so, then it could be achieved it could remain stable.
I have done the math on the energy requirements to give Mars an Earthlike atmosphere by moving ice comets assumed to be of the proper elements from the oort cloud to Mars along with frozen gases on the planet. To do so in 10 years would take roughly 3 days total output of the sun. Of course, you have to assume at least ten years to get needed material into place in the oort cloud as well as material around the sun of sufficient area to collect the energy and transport it, and the engineering issues start to become apparent. Things get easier by expanding the timeline and I have not done a 5k year estimate which might be doable, but then you are talking about a 5k year project which is roughly the extent of current total human history.
Seems to me that doing so would simply result in Samsung not getting a contract that someone else will happily fulfill. They may be competitors, but why would samsung deprive themselves of a large, lucrative contract simply to spite and inconvenience a competitor? Sounds like bad business to me.
Yes, but it would take time to ramp up the production someplace else. That would cost Apple money. How much money is that worth to Apple? What if Samsung decides to up their prices just under that amount when renegotiating the new contract with Apple? Likewise, how much would Samsung lose if they lost Apple as a customer? With a competitor already in place, Apple could lower their offer by just a little less than that amount. It's about bargaining power and using competition to keep prices low also I bet.
World of Warcraft is profitable, the monthly fee covers a player's activity costs with a profit. If/when they shut WoW down, there will probably be just a half dozen active paying players.
Or it will be after a Korean company buys it and then decides to shut it down because it shames them as it sells better than their own games they were trying to push.
Think again.
Maybe not recently, but mass sacrifices, blood rituals and canibalism has all been part of various pagan traditions.
Ya, but they weren't in the closet about it. The Buddhists were open about wanting to rule territory and start wars as were pagans about human sacrifice.
Sure, you just have to force people to use it. Since just about every form of public transit in the US is running on government subsidies and cannot pay its own costs I think it's pretty conclusive that Americans don't want it.
Hrrm. That would mean that since roads don't pay their own costs, that people don't want them.
Democrats: The New GOP.
Well considering that the Republicans are just Southern Democrats from 40 years ago that switched sides after the Democrats backed civil rights, it's only appropriate. Look at the Tea Party: Southern Conservatives in favor of states rights and leaving the union because a black man in in charge. 40 years ago, they were blue dog Dixiecrats.