To support a hypothesis of an Intelligent Designer, you need a design that is in fact intelligent, and in the real world, biological "designs" are filled with stupid, pointless, and downright psychotic flaws.
But, you can't be psychotic without intelligence!;)
And you didn't even specifically mention Mars in your original post. I was just pointing out that in this case we would need to talk about leaving the solar system. I suspect that if we get a sustainable colony on Mars by 2107 (500 years after Jamestown), then perhaps we could have an extra-solar system colony by 2607 (based on nothing but extremely wild extrapolation).
As previously alluded to, it could be that the survival mechanism is to be small and reproduce quickly. There's selection pressure on some species to be large. These species would have a harder time adapting quickly due to a slower reproductive cycle (fewer generations per year/century).
(Sure, that's encoded in the genes, but it's not exactly a simple DNA sequence.)
The KT event, for example, had a much larger impact on biodiversity but happened off-cycle, and is pretty clearly the result of a specific meteor strike that we already know about.
Most of them seem to be off-cycle, though:
251-200 = 51 myr - doesn't fit nicely with 62 myr cycle
360-251 = 111 myr - "
360-200 = 160 myr - "
444-360 = 84 myr - "
444-251 = 193 myr - OK, this one isn't too bad (cf. 186 myr = 62 myr x 3)
444-200 = 244 myr - Pretty good (cf. 248), but only one of the 2 (200,251) could be on-cycle
488-444 = 44 myr - doesn't fit nicely with 62 myr cycle
488-360 = 128 myr - Not too bad, but out of cycle with 444, so...
488-251 = 237 myr - doesn't fit nicely with 62 myr cycle
488-200 = 288 myr - "
So, either the 488 and 360 myr ago events were on cycle, the 444 myr and 251 myr events were on cycle, or the 444 and 200 myr events were on cycle. 2 of the other 4 were were off-cycle. Keep in mind that to have only one of them "on-cycle" is meaningless, so this seems like a bigger miss than a hit. Granted, this is all amateur analysis.
Perhaps increased Cosmic Rays caused a massive amount of mutations that forever changed the genetic data of organisms by making them more likely to survive.
Along those lines, I found this interesting figure in Wikipedia that also mentions the 62 million year cycle.
Some of our oldestprobes are just now leaving the heliopause (which tends to move around a bit), and they were launched 30 or more years ago. Also, I think it might be harder to use a multiple-planet gravity assist to help with speed, although I could be wrong about that.
Almost all of the diversity minima precede the cosmic ray maxima, and all of the declines (from diversity maxima) precede the cosmic ray maxima. I think you're on to something there...;)
It's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis if one accepts the premise that mass extinctions have an approximately 62 million year period. From Wikipedia, the last 6 extinction events happened 65 million years ago, 200 million years ago, 251 million years ago, 360 million years ago, 444 million years ago, and 488 million years ago. The time between extinctions being 135 million years, 51 million years, 109 million years, 84 million years, and 44 million years. I'm having a hard time wrapping even an approximate 62 million year period into those.
To assume people (or businesses) act in their own rational self-interest is to ignore a lot of history. Sure, they tend to, and they almost always think they are, but ignorance and stupidity are mighty powerful forces.
Indeed, theater managers are recruited from the pool of "special education" students who in turn ended up there because their teachers found it too much trouble to teach them how to read.
As a former theater manager, I'm going to have to take exception to that. For a lot of us, it was either a way to pay for our college or as a temporary job after graduating from college before getting a "real" job. Granted, there were a few "lifers" (there was only one in our Atlanta district), but most do not view it as part of their career plan. (No real offense taken, though. Especially when I consider that you might have been just "channeling" the person who was making the original statement.)
(Disclaimer: I actually was in special education, but that was just for a speech impediment, you insensitive clod!)
The latter, because it's very unlikely to happen. Sure, it might happen on a very rare occasion, but I strongly suspect it'll be far less common than people bringing in camera phones and recording a little clip.
Stop! Or I'll say "Stop" again! (Robin Williams, I believe)
But seriously, technically you can have laws without enforcement. In fact, IIRC, there have been laws passed by Congress that a certain president has said (via signing statements) he will not enforce/implement. Still, I'm not arguing this is a good idea.
Article I, section 8: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
I'll be the first one to admit that this clause has been abused, but if this constitutes abuse, it's at least much closer to the original intent than many other applications of the ICC.
For those who missed it, the stock market took a dive in 2000, in part because the whole Y2K(Year 2000) issue ended up being uneventful, and many people who were working because companies were spending money to make sure Y2K didn't hurt them suddenly were out of a job. The other reason for the crash really deserves to be looked at.
(Disclaimer: my work on y2k issues was only incidental. It was not the primary part of our work.)
I think the y2k issue could be related to the dive, but it wasn't because it ended up being uneventful. It was because it ended. If we had done a lousy job preparing for it (but still hired all of the people to fix problems), it still would have mainly ended on January 1, 2000. For some people disaster might have prolonged their job situation, but I suspect that for most people it would have made things even worse. If your company didn't fix most of your code by 2000, it most likely wouldn't be around anymore to pay your salary to fix problems afterwards.
If not, I don't completely understand your situation. I'm going to assume that you have Linux at home, MS at work, and a Mac. If so, you could use OO.o or Abiword on all 3 (and maybe Kword - I don't know).
If you were talking about 3 different people with 3 different tastes, then it all makes sense.
Slashdot Mirror
You actually made me do the math to find out it equals 84.6. Which, I'm sure, you already knew. :P
And you didn't even specifically mention Mars in your original post. I was just pointing out that in this case we would need to talk about leaving the solar system. I suspect that if we get a sustainable colony on Mars by 2107 (500 years after Jamestown), then perhaps we could have an extra-solar system colony by 2607 (based on nothing but extremely wild extrapolation).
As previously alluded to, it could be that the survival mechanism is to be small and reproduce quickly. There's selection pressure on some species to be large. These species would have a harder time adapting quickly due to a slower reproductive cycle (fewer generations per year/century).
(Sure, that's encoded in the genes, but it's not exactly a simple DNA sequence.)
"to study the ... transition region of the heliosphere"
I was surprised myself to discover that. And, as already pointed out, visiting the other planets made it faster, not slower.Mars is no better. Our solar system is just a slightly bigger basket. In this case a hand-basket...
- 251-200 = 51 myr - doesn't fit nicely with 62 myr cycle
- 360-251 = 111 myr - "
- 360-200 = 160 myr - "
- 444-360 = 84 myr - "
- 444-251 = 193 myr - OK, this one isn't too bad (cf. 186 myr = 62 myr x 3)
- 444-200 = 244 myr - Pretty good (cf. 248), but only one of the 2 (200,251) could be on-cycle
- 488-444 = 44 myr - doesn't fit nicely with 62 myr cycle
- 488-360 = 128 myr - Not too bad, but out of cycle with 444, so...
- 488-251 = 237 myr - doesn't fit nicely with 62 myr cycle
- 488-200 = 288 myr - "
So, either the 488 and 360 myr ago events were on cycle, the 444 myr and 251 myr events were on cycle, or the 444 and 200 myr events were on cycle. 2 of the other 4 were were off-cycle. Keep in mind that to have only one of them "on-cycle" is meaningless, so this seems like a bigger miss than a hit. Granted, this is all amateur analysis.Some of our oldest probes are just now leaving the heliopause (which tends to move around a bit), and they were launched 30 or more years ago. Also, I think it might be harder to use a multiple-planet gravity assist to help with speed, although I could be wrong about that.
Almost all of the diversity minima precede the cosmic ray maxima, and all of the declines (from diversity maxima) precede the cosmic ray maxima. I think you're on to something there... ;)
Specifically, you're confusing now with 7 million years in the future. I understand, it's pretty easy for some people to get them confused.
It's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis if one accepts the premise that mass extinctions have an approximately 62 million year period. From Wikipedia, the last 6 extinction events happened 65 million years ago, 200 million years ago, 251 million years ago, 360 million years ago, 444 million years ago, and 488 million years ago. The time between extinctions being 135 million years, 51 million years, 109 million years, 84 million years, and 44 million years. I'm having a hard time wrapping even an approximate 62 million year period into those.
That said, I'm not willing to throw in the towel yet. The pendulum is still swinging.
To assume people (or businesses) act in their own rational self-interest is to ignore a lot of history. Sure, they tend to, and they almost always think they are, but ignorance and stupidity are mighty powerful forces.
As a former theater manager, I'm going to have to take exception to that. For a lot of us, it was either a way to pay for our college or as a temporary job after graduating from college before getting a "real" job. Granted, there were a few "lifers" (there was only one in our Atlanta district), but most do not view it as part of their career plan. (No real offense taken, though. Especially when I consider that you might have been just "channeling" the person who was making the original statement.)
(Disclaimer: I actually was in special education, but that was just for a speech impediment, you insensitive clod!)
'Cause it really seems like you have an ax to grind there...
But the other day I went to a concert and they wouldn't let me bring my piano in!
I'll throw out Open Office Base just for all of those who feel compelled to point out that Excel-is-not-a-database-application. :)
The latter, because it's very unlikely to happen. Sure, it might happen on a very rare occasion, but I strongly suspect it'll be far less common than people bringing in camera phones and recording a little clip.
Stop! Or I'll say "Stop" again! (Robin Williams, I believe)
But seriously, technically you can have laws without enforcement. In fact, IIRC, there have been laws passed by Congress that a certain president has said (via signing statements) he will not enforce/implement. Still, I'm not arguing this is a good idea.
Article I, section 8: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
I'll be the first one to admit that this clause has been abused, but if this constitutes abuse, it's at least much closer to the original intent than many other applications of the ICC.
(Disclaimer: my work on y2k issues was only incidental. It was not the primary part of our work.)
I think the y2k issue could be related to the dive, but it wasn't because it ended up being uneventful. It was because it ended. If we had done a lousy job preparing for it (but still hired all of the people to fix problems), it still would have mainly ended on January 1, 2000. For some people disaster might have prolonged their job situation, but I suspect that for most people it would have made things even worse. If your company didn't fix most of your code by 2000, it most likely wouldn't be around anymore to pay your salary to fix problems afterwards.
If not, I don't completely understand your situation. I'm going to assume that you have Linux at home, MS at work, and a Mac. If so, you could use OO.o or Abiword on all 3 (and maybe Kword - I don't know).
If you were talking about 3 different people with 3 different tastes, then it all makes sense.