Though it would seem more tactful to go first with cancers that are also common, but as far as we can tell essentially "random", with no good working tips @prevention.
What annoys me are people burning trash in home furnaces. Yes, that might be not a problem at your place, but it is at many, including mine. Formally banning it doesn't seem to do the trick...
Even if - there won't be much difference in relation to current faiths (assuming also that there would be any humans left - those are two immense "if"). Just look at our historical record - mythologies don't survive even few thousands years, even when we do have good record of them.
They are just becoming fairytales for adherents of mythologies prevalent at given time (little do they realize that it will be the same with theirs...)
Add to the above that we have no way of determining the state, type of society or even consciousness 5 billion years from now - but it will be most certainly quite alien, not easily falling under our criteria.
I think you have a hard time (as all of us do) imagining the time periods involved. There was even no mammals 1/10th of that 5 billion years ago; heck, life hadn't really colonized land yet.
And anyway, the Sun is slowly becoming brighter as time passes; in around 1 billion years theere will be no oceans left on Earth, no biosphere.
Perhaps. OTOH Siberian Traps (I assume you're referring to this) wasn't exactly a volcanic event per se, more like massive resurfacing; something which happens to Venus on a global scale from time to time, exactly what happens when you don't have very active plate tectonics that is able to vent the energy continuously.
And I imagine that life is perfectly capable of adopting to the latter. Rapid global changes, that's the real problem for life.
...what you think I did for Earth. You totally ignored their internal composition.
Yes, their atmospheres are composed primarily of hydrogen. Yes, there is no sharp boundary, whatever. Crust is largely from water ice (or "ice"), and it constitutes most of the planet mass.
Yes, what you did is equivalent to saying that Earth is composed mostly from nitrogen.
It amazes me that we think as a people that our lives on this planet are somehow more significant than other life forms.
How is that amazing? It's perfectly natural for any species to act that way, for one simple reason: those which don't have such trait, don't survive long.
One doesn't mean the other automatically. For quite a while we will be detecting exoplanets primarily by slight movements of parent star or its occultation by the planet passing in front of it.
I suspect the effects of Earth-like moons are likely to be drowned in the effects of their host planets; less pronounced than in the case of terrestrial planet in its own orbit.
While big gas giant planets don't seem very useful to us (though - floating habitats?;) ) or organic life generally, they might have moons offering similar environment to that of Earth.
Geological activity on Earth isn't a hindrance for organic life, it's crucial for it. Keeps the carbon cycle going, maintains strong magnetic field which protects the atmosphere.
Technical capabilities seem to be there, since Fermilab is apparently searching for appropriate, IR-heavy star signatures even in the data from WISE predecessor, IRAS, launched 25 years ago.
WISE is supposed to be hundreds of times more sensitive.
Nope, brown dwarfs are really, really dim for a star. Your intuition cheats you here because majority of the stars you can see on the night sky are really bright; and Sun, Jupiter, are practically at our doorstep.
Our failure to discover such a star is feasible enough that it is quite seriously considered: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(star) (and hey, there won't be any problems with picking a name;) )
Look, it's simple. There will always be problems with everybody taken care of in the best possible way, in case the medical necessity arises. And don't kid yourself the corporate insurers can do that! How often we hear a story about people being turned down completely on the basis of preexisting conditions, or denying of payment for certain procedures of people that were insured?
So we always can at best strive to as great medical coverage as we can. As you noticed, there ideally needs to be some oversight, in both systems. But now the crucial difference...insurers are in it for money. They have the obligation (to shareholders, etc.) to take from insured people as much as they can get away with, and spend on medical care as little as they can get away with.
So ask yourself, who is more likely to act in unethical way, as far as assuring people get proper healthcare goes?
They are of course. Far too many drivers set their headlights constantly to the most "up" position, barely adequate even when they are traveling alone and with nothing in the trunk.
But it's more "the less random stuff in visual field, the better", I think (especially in case of bright GPS screen that has no relation to outside situation and illumination). As far as I am concerned more cars should have the idea from Saab implemented, switch that toggles all dashboard lights on/off.
@WW1 - wasn't fragmented Europe more beneficent for US? Heck, not only US didn't have real beef with Germany & Co. as you point out, but also with large portion of the US being of German and Irish origin there was perhaps enough of a national-style sentiment to ally with the Axis.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot (use search box)
And falling into water does have a high chance of killing you.
Intel's shenanigans (in general, not just this one) are very relevant, also when for example looking at Nehalem.
What do you think helped Intel finance their R&D in fabs and microarchitectures?
Or simply you've never heard about it before today.
"...once this last one's gone"? You haven't quit yet ;p
Though it would seem more tactful to go first with cancers that are also common, but as far as we can tell essentially "random", with no good working tips @prevention.
Cars aren't so bad, as other posters pointed out.
What annoys me are people burning trash in home furnaces. Yes, that might be not a problem at your place, but it is at many, including mine. Formally banning it doesn't seem to do the trick...
The resulting smoke is choking even for smokers.
Even if - there won't be much difference in relation to current faiths (assuming also that there would be any humans left - those are two immense "if"). Just look at our historical record - mythologies don't survive even few thousands years, even when we do have good record of them.
They are just becoming fairytales for adherents of mythologies prevalent at given time (little do they realize that it will be the same with theirs...)
Add to the above that we have no way of determining the state, type of society or even consciousness 5 billion years from now - but it will be most certainly quite alien, not easily falling under our criteria.
I think you have a hard time (as all of us do) imagining the time periods involved. There was even no mammals 1/10th of that 5 billion years ago; heck, life hadn't really colonized land yet.
And anyway, the Sun is slowly becoming brighter as time passes; in around 1 billion years theere will be no oceans left on Earth, no biosphere.
Perhaps. OTOH Siberian Traps (I assume you're referring to this) wasn't exactly a volcanic event per se, more like massive resurfacing; something which happens to Venus on a global scale from time to time, exactly what happens when you don't have very active plate tectonics that is able to vent the energy continuously.
And I imagine that life is perfectly capable of adopting to the latter. Rapid global changes, that's the real problem for life.
...what you think I did for Earth. You totally ignored their internal composition.
Yes, their atmospheres are composed primarily of hydrogen. Yes, there is no sharp boundary, whatever. Crust is largely from water ice (or "ice"), and it constitutes most of the planet mass.
Yes, what you did is equivalent to saying that Earth is composed mostly from nitrogen.
It amazes me that we think as a people that our lives on this planet are somehow more significant than other life forms.
How is that amazing? It's perfectly natural for any species to act that way, for one simple reason: those which don't have such trait, don't survive long.
One doesn't mean the other automatically. For quite a while we will be detecting exoplanets primarily by slight movements of parent star or its occultation by the planet passing in front of it.
I suspect the effects of Earth-like moons are likely to be drowned in the effects of their host planets; less pronounced than in the case of terrestrial planet in its own orbit.
Uranus and Neptune are primarily composed of hydrogen in the same way Earth is primarily composed of nitrogen.
While big gas giant planets don't seem very useful to us (though - floating habitats? ;) ) or organic life generally, they might have moons offering similar environment to that of Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Earth
If any would have comparable biosphere and civilization to ours - yeah, pretty much; all thanks to higher gravity and atmospheric pressure.
Geological activity on Earth isn't a hindrance for organic life, it's crucial for it. Keeps the carbon cycle going, maintains strong magnetic field which protects the atmosphere.
As a matter of fact, some researchers speculate that Earth is a borderline small planet for life: http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2008/pr200802.html
Technical capabilities seem to be there, since Fermilab is apparently searching for appropriate, IR-heavy star signatures even in the data from WISE predecessor, IRAS, launched 25 years ago.
WISE is supposed to be hundreds of times more sensitive.
From the wiki page about WISE, it seems it will be able to discover also gas giant planets in the Oort cloud.
It would be most interesting if such body turned out to be rogue planet.
Nope, brown dwarfs are really, really dim for a star. Your intuition cheats you here because majority of the stars you can see on the night sky are really bright; and Sun, Jupiter, are practically at our doorstep.
Our failure to discover such a star is feasible enough that it is quite seriously considered: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(star) (and hey, there won't be any problems with picking a name ;) )
Look, it's simple. There will always be problems with everybody taken care of in the best possible way, in case the medical necessity arises. And don't kid yourself the corporate insurers can do that! How often we hear a story about people being turned down completely on the basis of preexisting conditions, or denying of payment for certain procedures of people that were insured?
So we always can at best strive to as great medical coverage as we can. As you noticed, there ideally needs to be some oversight, in both systems. But now the crucial difference...insurers are in it for money. They have the obligation (to shareholders, etc.) to take from insured people as much as they can get away with, and spend on medical care as little as they can get away with.
So ask yourself, who is more likely to act in unethical way, as far as assuring people get proper healthcare goes?
Ahh, yes, the old "he beats you because he loves you!" bullshit...
They are of course. Far too many drivers set their headlights constantly to the most "up" position, barely adequate even when they are traveling alone and with nothing in the trunk.
But it's more "the less random stuff in visual field, the better", I think (especially in case of bright GPS screen that has no relation to outside situation and illumination). As far as I am concerned more cars should have the idea from Saab implemented, switch that toggles all dashboard lights on/off.
@WW1 - wasn't fragmented Europe more beneficent for US? Heck, not only US didn't have real beef with Germany & Co. as you point out, but also with large portion of the US being of German and Irish origin there was perhaps enough of a national-style sentiment to ally with the Axis.