I am not claiming anything different, I'm just saying that the conclusion of TFA is obvious from the Drake equation even without the complex analysis. If you have good data on the first two terms, and only assumptions about the rest, it is kind of obvious that the stronger your assumptions are, the higher your estimates will be. So, the question is really what is the novelty and the value of the article research? I think they are just stating the obvious in a needlessly complicated way.
Also, the person who replied to you before me is right, we are not standing in place, but slowly filling in the gaps with data, which, unlike TFA is useful research.
Why would it be? Life is a series of complex chemical reactions. Proposing that it is not possible to have similar sequences elsewhere strikes me as earth-centric, not the opposite.
Besides, this "result" isn't anything new or unexpected. You can see it easily if you just look at the Drake equation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#The_equation). At this time, we can pretty well estimate the first two terms, and have not enough ata about the last four, but we can say with confidence that if you put larger number in the last four items, you will obviously get a larger estimate. And we can do that without any complex mathematical analysis.
So, IMHO, there is very little of value in this kind of modelling.
And having read the link, I can only say that my own statistical analysis shows with a high degree of confidence that every earth-centric or earth-is-unique argument made so far has been proven wrong. Therefore, expectations that this particular view will endure are probably based on optimism rather than evidence.
You're not scared enough. Just wait until the Chinese scientists get permission to do the breeding on that asteroid that Google is about to bring in Earth orbit. Anyway, I am off to stock up on some shotgun shells, plasma cells and rockets.
And that is exactly the problem, although lighting is a small part of it. Efficiency will require retooling and refurbishing most of the economy and industry. This will require not only new technology, but also enormous capital and energy expenditure and serious financial incentives.
It seems we have plenty in the way of incentives for efficient extraction provided by the oil and gas market itself already, but the incentives to save energy and resources for a better future are just not there, neither in the developed, nor in the developing world. Not until it is too late, at least.
But we're getting better extraction efficiency instead, and only hoping that the increase in fuel costs will be enough to trigger said efficiencies. Will it?
The only hope is to develop alternatives that do not require burning of precious resources for energy. Given the many irreplaceable uses that oil and gas have beyond energy, not investing enough into research of safe and plentiful alternatives seems like a much bigger folly than even tolerating Khamenei, Chavez or even Putkin.
Shale gas and oil is still fossil fuel, and we are still threatened by climate changes due to the increase of greenhouse gases, aren't we? Or is the Sun going to dim and save us all?
You have it the wrong way around. The argument isn't biological in nature, it deals with economics. People are not bacteria in a petri dish. They can think about the future and plan according to the means that are available to them. Children are the only investment available to many peoples in the poorest parts in the world, since they receive little care, but tend to take care of their parents. In the West, children bear a huge opportunity cost, as they need to be taken care of, but don't contribute directly to the well-being of their parents as much as the offspring in poorer nation.
This is why there is a lot more demand for contraceptives and abortions in the West, and that is why methods for birth control were developed in the first place.
I haven't been on one since I was for the first/last time ransacked by TSA thugs on a flight to Taipei, which I thought was a Taiwanese airline, but turned out to be a Northworst code sharing.
I have survived without problems and look at the huge queues of fat people with opened suitcases with amusement every time I board a plane.
There is virtually no interest in space among the many people I interact with, my customers, my suppliers, the other parents at school, or my neighbors. My interest in astronomy and space is regarded in the same manner as my telescopes, as a curiosity or mild eccentricity.
I can't imagine that people like these will be willing to commit money, either as tax or investment, in furthering space research, not until they see something that affects them personally and requires return to space.
On the positive side, this something can be anything, even a surprise threat from North Korean FTL probe leaving for Alpha Centauri.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not claiming anything different, I'm just saying that the conclusion of TFA is obvious from the Drake equation even without the complex analysis. If you have good data on the first two terms, and only assumptions about the rest, it is kind of obvious that the stronger your assumptions are, the higher your estimates will be. So, the question is really what is the novelty and the value of the article research? I think they are just stating the obvious in a needlessly complicated way.
Also, the person who replied to you before me is right, we are not standing in place, but slowly filling in the gaps with data, which, unlike TFA is useful research.
Why would it be? Life is a series of complex chemical reactions. Proposing that it is not possible to have similar sequences elsewhere strikes me as earth-centric, not the opposite.
Besides, this "result" isn't anything new or unexpected. You can see it easily if you just look at the Drake equation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#The_equation). At this time, we can pretty well estimate the first two terms, and have not enough ata about the last four, but we can say with confidence that if you put larger number in the last four items, you will obviously get a larger estimate. And we can do that without any complex mathematical analysis.
So, IMHO, there is very little of value in this kind of modelling.
How do you tell them apart from the crowd, do they have a yellow apple stitched to their overcoats or something?
And next - entry and exit permits will be required. Been there, but it was a whole government in charge.
4. Not since the government is paying for a weekly visit from the exorcist.
And having read the link, I can only say that my own statistical analysis shows with a high degree of confidence that every earth-centric or earth-is-unique argument made so far has been proven wrong. Therefore, expectations that this particular view will endure are probably based on optimism rather than evidence.
And it is a paywall to a blog. What kind of world are we living in these days? Anyway, I suppose this: https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S33/52/89I01/ is the news the article was supposed to link to.
You should have started earlier. Version 6 still has the DXF file import.
Google returned "user rampant mac is banned from using this service". That you?
I'm afraid not everybody shares your anorexic fantasies. Most of us prefer natural women, with enough fat in the proper places.
You're not scared enough. Just wait until the Chinese scientists get permission to do the breeding on that asteroid that Google is about to bring in Earth orbit. Anyway, I am off to stock up on some shotgun shells, plasma cells and rockets.
You'll end up with two subprime mortgage contracts before you even have a house to lose.
http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/background.asp
And that is exactly the problem, although lighting is a small part of it. Efficiency will require retooling and refurbishing most of the economy and industry. This will require not only new technology, but also enormous capital and energy expenditure and serious financial incentives.
It seems we have plenty in the way of incentives for efficient extraction provided by the oil and gas market itself already, but the incentives to save energy and resources for a better future are just not there, neither in the developed, nor in the developing world. Not until it is too late, at least.
But we're getting better extraction efficiency instead, and only hoping that the increase in fuel costs will be enough to trigger said efficiencies. Will it?
The only hope is to develop alternatives that do not require burning of precious resources for energy. Given the many irreplaceable uses that oil and gas have beyond energy, not investing enough into research of safe and plentiful alternatives seems like a much bigger folly than even tolerating Khamenei, Chavez or even Putkin.
Shale gas and oil is still fossil fuel, and we are still threatened by climate changes due to the increase of greenhouse gases, aren't we? Or is the Sun going to dim and save us all?
You have it the wrong way around. The argument isn't biological in nature, it deals with economics. People are not bacteria in a petri dish. They can think about the future and plan according to the means that are available to them. Children are the only investment available to many peoples in the poorest parts in the world, since they receive little care, but tend to take care of their parents. In the West, children bear a huge opportunity cost, as they need to be taken care of, but don't contribute directly to the well-being of their parents as much as the offspring in poorer nation.
This is why there is a lot more demand for contraceptives and abortions in the West, and that is why methods for birth control were developed in the first place.
Were they flying by with the typical asteroid speed of 30-40km/s when they hit Earth? Were they targeting something valuable?
I haven't been on one since I was for the first/last time ransacked by TSA thugs on a flight to Taipei, which I thought was a Taiwanese airline, but turned out to be a Northworst code sharing.
I have survived without problems and look at the huge queues of fat people with opened suitcases with amusement every time I board a plane.
Actually, I come from beautiful Kazakhstan.
There is virtually no interest in space among the many people I interact with, my customers, my suppliers, the other parents at school, or my neighbors. My interest in astronomy and space is regarded in the same manner as my telescopes, as a curiosity or mild eccentricity.
I can't imagine that people like these will be willing to commit money, either as tax or investment, in furthering space research, not until they see something that affects them personally and requires return to space.
On the positive side, this something can be anything, even a surprise threat from North Korean FTL probe leaving for Alpha Centauri.
I believe that sufficiently advanced technology exists that will manifest itself on time to help me. So, I'm, like, totally rational.
I'll just download Angry Birds for iPhone a million times and I'll be okay.
No worry, my expensive lawyer can spell it allrite.