I used to work on a truck dock, and we had a philosophy that we lived by when loading and unloading trucks: never move your freight twice. It's double work. I'm with Glenn.
I want to refer all of you to a book titled "The Last Extinction" by Kaufman and Mallory, published in 1986 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Just a few excerpts.. pg 1.
"The prognosis is clear for the 5 to 10 million other kinds of living things that share the Earth. They are in big trouble."
"...the entire liveable universe of other species can vanish overnight as one river is dammed or one hillside is laid bare."
Norman Myers projected that by the end of this century, species will be vanishing at the rate of 100 per day, due largely to the destruction of tropical rainforests. On a human time scale, these rates may seem slow. On a geological time scale, however, the wheel is spinning at a blurring rate, and the disappearance of species amounts to a virtually instantaneous mass extinction."
"...conservation of biological diversity means safeguarding both species and varieties within species."
pg 58
"...mass extinctions now take on a dual significance: destroyers of diverse, well adapted lineages and deliverers of new groups into dominance and diversification."
"...So sweeping are the changes wrought by Man and so swift are they in their action that they obscure and almost submerge the slow march of the other processes of nature, and this difference in degree, associated with Man's purposefulness, almost inevitably leads to a sharp distinction being drawn between nature and man... but Man himself is still "Natures insurgent son." -Scottish naturalist James Ritchie in his book 'The influence of Man on Animal Life in Scotland'
It sounds like he wants to draw the line, but we know we cannot because we are part of nature.
The point is that the mass extinction of any species will have great effects on other species, if we continue to kill the birds and just write it off to 'Natural Selection' it could backfire right in our face, and maybe for the worse.
In the end it comes down to conservation and being responsible. If we can do something to stop killing the birds needlessly, then lets take steps to do it, and fast!
Yeah, we're part of nature. We're for sure the shaper of it. We have the technology to remedy this situation, but most choose not to. Save the birds, and maybe save ourselves in the process. It's unfair and selfish to push every other living thing out of the picture. Their is without a doubt a mass extinction of many species in the works, and we have caused it. I guess you can show a picture of the rhino's to your kids (or their kids), and maybe play back a recording of a whale but it's not fair to anyone that it should come to that (especially the extinct species). Unfortunately, the damage has been done in many cases. Let's turn it around!
I see your point, that's an excellent post.
However, what if we did cause the extinction of all species of birds because of this 'glass' problem? According to the rule, they would all be considered to be unfit- correct?
And what if, by proxy other species died off because of an interruption of the food chain?
And what if, because of an epedemic of overpopulation we contributed to other mass extinctions, eventually cutting our own food supply? Would it not be ourselve the ones that are truly unfit?
That would throw a wrench in Darwin's theory, or at least work ironically in favor of us protecting the so-called 'unfit'.
We are the only species to inhabit every continent on Earth. Our brains are so far superior to every living creature on Earth, that it would be more responsible to exclude ourselves from Darwin's theory (when compared with all other beings on Earth)and take measures to protect those that share the planet with us. We have identified a problem, and we should rectify it, not just write it off to Darwin's theory.
They're bones are hollow, they're not made for crashing into what may as well be a brick wall at top speed, especially if the bones we're talking about is the spinal cord. As a side note, birds ALWAYS hide their weakness and/or sickness. They are a flock animal and any signs of weakness or sickness will cause the flock to reject that member, therefore they keep it a secret. If you think your bird may not have been hurt by that 'incident', think again.
The rules have been changed by us. An invisible force that cracks your neck has nothing to do with natural selection. Inevitably it will lead to extenction because they cannot adapt to something they can't see. Remember natural selection refers to nature. A skyscraper is not natural.
It's true, trust me. I work in a control tower, and they fly into the windows at top speed. It's a horrible, regular sight. Thankfully, they never knew what hit them because their neck gets instantly cracked. They come in all sizes. I have tried to put things out their to distract them, but it doesn't work- they look 'through'.
It's a thought provoking question that you refuse to answer. Not disrespectful to any of the crew that died. They know the risks involved with their job, and they accept that.
Do you think it's wrong that NASA did a full report on how exactly the astronauts died in the Challenger?
So, I'll ask again:
Knowing what you know about both accidents; if you had to make a decision, would you ride on the Challenger or Columbia?
After reading the Atlantic article, to find that PowerPoint slides helped contribute to the destruction of the Columbia and the death of the astonauts when there was a chance they could have been saved
Can you post a link to that article (or.PPS) please? I have not seen it.
The lower gravity would create long-term medical problems and the cosmic radiation that penetrates the thin atmosphere is bound to increase the risk of cancer.
But the first Martian baby will adjust for these problems, and so on, and so on, and so on.
The monies being spent will not go to Mars; it will stay here on Earth. This will create jobs, and boost our economy. The science to come from this will be revolutionary, which I'm sure everyone will benefit from someday. Eventually, millions of years from now (maybe sooner), it will lead to the terraforming and relocation/expansion to Mars for the human race. Do the math.
Slashdot Mirror
"I didn't see it."
I have an emachines and it's a great machine!
I used to work on a truck dock, and we had a philosophy that we lived by when loading and unloading trucks: never move your freight twice. It's double work. I'm with Glenn.
I want to refer all of you to a book titled "The Last Extinction" by Kaufman and Mallory, published in 1986 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Just a few excerpts.. pg 1.
"The prognosis is clear for the 5 to 10 million other kinds of living things that share the Earth. They are in big trouble."
"...the entire liveable universe of other species can vanish overnight as one river is dammed or one hillside is laid bare."
Norman Myers projected that by the end of this century, species will be vanishing at the rate of 100 per day, due largely to the destruction of tropical rainforests. On a human time scale, these rates may seem slow. On a geological time scale, however, the wheel is spinning at a blurring rate, and the disappearance of species amounts to a virtually instantaneous mass extinction."
"...conservation of biological diversity means safeguarding both species and varieties within species."
pg 58
"...mass extinctions now take on a dual significance: destroyers of diverse, well adapted lineages and deliverers of new groups into dominance and diversification."
"...So sweeping are the changes wrought by Man and so swift are they in their action that they obscure and almost submerge the slow march of the other processes of nature, and this difference in degree, associated with Man's purposefulness, almost inevitably leads to a sharp distinction being drawn between nature and man... but Man himself is still "Natures insurgent son." -Scottish naturalist James Ritchie in his book 'The influence of Man on Animal Life in Scotland'
It sounds like he wants to draw the line, but we know we cannot because we are part of nature.
The point is that the mass extinction of any species will have great effects on other species, if we continue to kill the birds and just write it off to 'Natural Selection' it could backfire right in our face, and maybe for the worse. In the end it comes down to conservation and being responsible. If we can do something to stop killing the birds needlessly, then lets take steps to do it, and fast! Yeah, we're part of nature. We're for sure the shaper of it. We have the technology to remedy this situation, but most choose not to. Save the birds, and maybe save ourselves in the process. It's unfair and selfish to push every other living thing out of the picture. Their is without a doubt a mass extinction of many species in the works, and we have caused it. I guess you can show a picture of the rhino's to your kids (or their kids), and maybe play back a recording of a whale but it's not fair to anyone that it should come to that (especially the extinct species). Unfortunately, the damage has been done in many cases. Let's turn it around!
I see your point, that's an excellent post.
However, what if we did cause the extinction of all species of birds because of this 'glass' problem? According to the rule, they would all be considered to be unfit- correct?
And what if, by proxy other species died off because of an interruption of the food chain?
And what if, because of an epedemic of overpopulation we contributed to other mass extinctions, eventually cutting our own food supply? Would it not be ourselve the ones that are truly unfit? That would throw a wrench in Darwin's theory, or at least work ironically in favor of us protecting the so-called 'unfit'.
We are the only species to inhabit every continent on Earth. Our brains are so far superior to every living creature on Earth, that it would be more responsible to exclude ourselves from Darwin's theory (when compared with all other beings on Earth)and take measures to protect those that share the planet with us. We have identified a problem, and we should rectify it, not just write it off to Darwin's theory.
Negative. It's the unnecessary accelerated extinction of a species because they were pushed out of their habitat.
But if we're responsible for killing them for no reason at all, we should rememdy this situation, and let natural selection remain natural.
They're bones are hollow, they're not made for crashing into what may as well be a brick wall at top speed, especially if the bones we're talking about is the spinal cord. As a side note, birds ALWAYS hide their weakness and/or sickness. They are a flock animal and any signs of weakness or sickness will cause the flock to reject that member, therefore they keep it a secret. If you think your bird may not have been hurt by that 'incident', think again.
The rules have been changed by us. An invisible force that cracks your neck has nothing to do with natural selection. Inevitably it will lead to extenction because they cannot adapt to something they can't see. Remember natural selection refers to nature. A skyscraper is not natural.
It's true, trust me. I work in a control tower, and they fly into the windows at top speed. It's a horrible, regular sight. Thankfully, they never knew what hit them because their neck gets instantly cracked. They come in all sizes. I have tried to put things out their to distract them, but it doesn't work- they look 'through'.
So, I'll ask again: Knowing what you know about both accidents; if you had to make a decision, would you ride on the Challenger or Columbia?
PS DEAL WITH IT
How is it insulting or sick? You're to indecisive to be an astronaut... you're grounded permanently!
Hear hear!
I would go with Columbia.
Can you post a link to that article (or .PPS) please? I have not seen it.
Since the article was printed in Newsday, which is a New York newspaper, one can conclude the temperature referred to is degrees fahrenheit.
Speaking of the ATV design, Darpa is sponsoring a race http://www.darpa.mil . This technology will be used by the military and maybe NASA.
The lower gravity would create long-term medical problems and the cosmic radiation that penetrates the thin atmosphere is bound to increase the risk of cancer.
But the first Martian baby will adjust for these problems, and so on, and so on, and so on.
What about taking them out to sea and dumping them? Seems like that would work, but might be expensive.
The monies being spent will not go to Mars; it will stay here on Earth. This will create jobs, and boost our economy. The science to come from this will be revolutionary, which I'm sure everyone will benefit from someday. Eventually, millions of years from now (maybe sooner), it will lead to the terraforming and relocation/expansion to Mars for the human race. Do the math.
10 Feet = 3.048 Meters! :p
Damn, I should apply to NASA ;) lol
Nice view, thanks for posting.
More like 12 minutes.
That guy had a propane tank in his car, and it's safe to say his propane tank wasn't wearing a seat belt!
were you involved in the planning stages of the Beagle mission? :p