Let's have some facts please. How has a lack of judicial experience affected previous justices? There are an abundance of justices with no judicial experience, so you should be able to point out all sorts of related flaws. Since you hold this opinion, I'm sure that you already have specific examples in mind.
No thanks. I am not going to research a project which could take me days, if not weeks. You are asking for no small task. But are you implying that someone with NO experience is just as good as someone WITH experience? Because you will really need to back that up with some facts.
Who are you refering to? The only Democrat Senator in Bush's first cabinet was Norm Mineta, and he had already retired from Congress.
Given that it was at the start of his first term, I do not have the name. Bush asked a number of people to join his cabinet, including active D-senators.
So, in your opinion, Rehnquist, Warren, Marshall, Jay, Rutledge, Ellsworth, et al were are lousy justices? Prior to Roberts, only 3 of 16 Chief Justices had judicial experience, and many associate justices had none. More than had judicial experience had political experience. Could you imagine if Bush had appointed a Republican Senator to the bench?
Nope thats not my opinion. That does not invalidate my belief. Experience is fundamental.
Bush wouldn't selected a Republican Senator to the bench because that would free up the seat and a possible democrat might sit there, bringing the Congress back to the democratic side. That is why, in his first term, Bush selected Democratic senators to join his cabinet. He was able to say "look i am not partisan, i want to unite everyone" AND remove a democrat from the senate. And if the person (i forget who it was) said "no" Bush would say the senator was not trying to be a uniter. Then again, considering the position of the Supreme Court, Bush would not select a democratic senator...the democratic party MIGHT be willing to lose a D-Senator for that position.
As a scotus, she will need to know the in's and out's of the law. When a case is brought up before her she will need to understand the lower-courts rulings - hence she will need to realize admissibility of evidence, motions, etc. But it is more then just knowing the rules. I am sure as an accomplished lawyer she knows the rules, laws, procedures....but again, she is lacking in the judge EXPERIENCE! That is a big thing. For example. A person who practices boxing in a non-contact environment (just like this boxing class I take at a gym I go to) has NO idea what it really means to get into a fight. One of the girls in my boxing class, I told her to start hitting me - that I wouldn't hit back. She said "I don't know what to do." I responded "how come? You have been in this class for at least a year. You should know." That is the difference...she never got in an actual boxing match.
This lawyer has never been a judge - she does not have the judge experience and that is integral. Also, as a person with judge experience "we, the people" can see how she reacted to certain cases. Let's say she was an attorney for anti-abortion rights; she could say "well I was hired to do that, I was just doing my job." Now lets say she was a judge who presided over an anti-abortion rights case -- well now she has no such excuse.
We are not talking about just any court position. Obviously people start as a judge with zero experience - but for the HIGHEST seat in the land, yea some judge-court experience is necessary. It is completely different sitting on the bench then trying to curry favor with the bench.
Put it this way, I work closely with my boss. DOes that mean I am qualified to do my bosses job? No. She may have been a lawyer for years, but that does not mean she knows what to do as a judge.
Let's also remember that we have been told MUCH (if not all) of the information regarding her position in the White house will not be disclosed. It is amazing that the last confirmation (Roberts) and this one they will go with the mindset of "I don't have to tell you anything"...that is crap. I am a citizen - I want to know. I want to know what her thoughts on civil liberties are, abortion, privacy. Things like abortion, search and seizure, etc. I think someone who goes to sit on this seat has to answer these questions and more... Not only do I want to hear what she has to say to ALL the questions asked, but I want to see evidence backing it up. It is not simply enough, for me and others, "Hey are you a good person?" and she responds with "Yea I'm a good person". I want to see evidence proving she is a "good person". My reason - because once you get the job of supreme court justice, you cannot be removed from that seat unless you: resign voluntarily, die, become mentally incompetant, or are deemed to have comitted treason.
As for who appointed her to this position. yea Bush...someone I do not trust in the least. Not to mention she was his private lawyer for years.
While I do believe judge experience is necessary, the fact she worked for one of the biggest companies in the world does nothing but put credit to her. MS hired her...the list of people trying to work for MS is quite long, and those who do work there are probably the cream of the crop.
Seems like it will work too. I probably never even would have noticed this album or heard it. I did download it, though. I'm currently listening to it, and I'll be damned...it's pretty good. I think I might have to pick up a copy.
Gee that smells a little bit of "Here let me prove how making music free for d/l can really work for artists. I got it for free, now let me buy it." When in reality, most people who d/l it for free will burn it ot CD. Not only is it cheaper, but it is more convenient then running to the store. More then likely, someone who really likes the group will try and see a concert or buy some shirts/posters/etc - very few (relative to our conversation) will spend the $10-$15 when they have it for free...especially in this day and age when people are switching to MP3 players - so it is no longer about "look at my cool CD"
make no promises whatsoever that the mail stored on their servers won't get wiped due to a failure, upgrade or whatever.
Any company making this gaurantee is asking for a world of hurtin in the future. It's along the lines of doctors saying it's 99.9% effective...there is always that slim sliver of a chance that something might go wrong. Saying 100% and backing it up is a tough thing to do.
Don't you have any confidential data in your yahoo/gmail/hotmail/whatever account?
No, actually I don't. While I may have some ranchy jokes, conversations, etc I am not going to be a politician so I do not have to worry about that kind of embarassment. I am also not stupid enough to keep personal information like SS#, credit cards, etc. The most someone could get out of my e-mail is my home address/phone number/name. Big whoop, a person can get that from the white pages.
In all honesty, anyone who spends a minute in thought should realize that if you plan to convey any kind of sensitive information - do not store it in a public e-mail account, if in any. At least, if you are on a "secure" e-mail server (i.e. a corporation's) you can do a little bit more, but I wouldn't send my HR department my SS# via e-mail.
If you think about it, it would mean having access to your office documents from any browser
"I swear professor, my internet connection went down last night and I couldn't work on my project." Or, how about this, Google ads in your document which uses relevant text words from the document. Can you see any businesses utilizing this technology when their proprietary information is being dissected?
THe biggest problem, other then privacy, of Internet based programs like this is what happens when you can't connect to the server. You are in a world of hurting. How many people have played online games and not been able to connect at one point or another - frustrating, now imagine if it's for a project due the next day or hour.
The defect affects less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all the nanos that have shipped so far
I would like to see those numbers. Are they sure thats not reported issues. So if they shipped 5 million, and only 100,000 were bought, and of those 100,000 only 100 people REPORTED a problem well yea. If the defect is in the material, and it is the same material (and processing) for all of the products - then all of the products should have the defect; none of this 1/10 of 1% crap.
Here is another potential problem. MS might come out with an add-on to their OS where it prevents unauthorized (or authorized) installation of these malwares....it will do this because they are not digitally signed, and authenticated to the user...the only problem: My friend does not want to use a program (i.e. photoshop) so he deletes it from his computer and gives me the disk. The disk is registered to his windows...now I can't install it....or what if I want to rip my DvD movie to my computer (backup)...it won't let me play it.
In the end, the best answer is for people to start using their noodle...protection software can also hinder us.
Yes my view will be unpopular, and if I don't get modded down I will be shocked...but guess what, even Open Source software has problems with code vulnerability. Look at the recent news regarding FireFox. Windows is still the mainstream OS so it is the most heavily targeted and exploited....once there is another majority shareholder in the market it will also be targeted....Again, point in case FireFox...people touted it as TEH answer, but it was only a temporary reprieve.
Was the exorbinant prices that we pay for our NASA equipment. Lockhead, Boeing, etc charge rip-off prices and NASA forks the cash over. For the amount of money they pay they could have opened up their own manfucaturing plants, and made more fleets of ships. 250 billion..that could have been slashed if the government didn't allow itself to get robbed.
Well first, in general, companies don't want to have to get plug-ins...they want the stuff to work the way they want it to out of hte box. Outlook has a lot of rich features...it is a good product. I use tasks to manage projects, I use calander for appointments (and can be used for projects). Thunderbird needs the same features as Outlook to get a foothold. But then you get to other things...how will Thunderbird (in it's upgraded state) act with all of my corporate programs such as MS Web Outlook, Soloman, CRM, etc. How will it act with Active X (maybe/. crew don't like it, but corporate world does). These are all things to consider.
I was actually talking about this with my friend last night. If Thunderbird gets a quality calander (task, calander, etc) and contact list it will SMOKE Outlook. First MS Outlook doesn't (as far as I have been able to figure it out) support multiple mailboxes, where they go into different directories and are treated differently (sort rules do not count). Thunderbird handles this well.
I use (on my home computer) Outlook for work (required) and Thunderbird to handle my four different e-mail accounts. Very convenient.
The thing about our government, our policies, our laws is that they can be modified/reversed. If Congress comes out with an assinine law that inhibits our rights, we can have it removed. The President can veto it, the Supreme Court can declare it unconstitutional...and in the end the people can vote new representatives (and there are plenty of choices, contrary to popular belief) to recind the laws.
To equate the US gov't to the Chinese gov't in any fashion is just nonsense.
People like you make me sick. If you get sick from Quizno's, you shouldn't sue anyone because:
1)it's not the parent company's fault you got a bad sandwich
2)the parent company didn't - and couldn't possibly - interview each individual, and - while the store itself can do this and does - an interview doesn't really represent an individual 100% accurately. No one goes into an interview dropping the "F" bomb or using ebonics, but that doesn't mean they won't talk like that on the job.
3)it could've been poorly processed meat - which isn't the store's fault, or the company's, or the individual's.
Instead, you should demand a refund.
Anyways, your argument has no grounds. You think they can just take control of what their users do? Firefox's license says you can redistribute it freely - this Korean site didn't violate the license, so the most Mozilla can do is to ask them to remove the virus.
There's no way Mozilla can stop the web site's owner from downloading the code - either in a literal sense or in a legal sense. As I mentioned before, the site's not in violation of Firefox's license, so they can't threaten to sue or anything unless they can prove that the site is PURPOSELY trying to hurt their name. And technically, since the Firefox code is available to everyone, it's not like they'd slow the web site's owner down at all by not sending him the code. All he has to do is go on the Web and get it.
You are an idiot and let's respond to your numbers:
1)It is a franchise, which they pay a lot of money for the franchise (to the parent company). That is the legal ramifications for having a franchise. It is also my legal right. Not to mention, a lot of the times, if not all, the parent company supplies the food
2)In most franchises the parent company interviews the managers (who paid a lot of money...think McDonalds). They also provide high end training. It is up to the managers, representatives of the company to makes ure the employees they hire do what they are supposed to do. And yes, peopledo go into interviews dropping foul language and ebonics...but thanks for stereotyping against black people you racist bastard.
3)Poorly processed meat - It's the meat makers fault...you know what happens then? The plaintiff would sue the franchise, the parent company and the meat company (all in one lawsuit) and the people making the decision on the winners would decide who pays.
Yea, I get a stomach virus and sit in a hospital and I should ask for a $5 refund. You are a naive idiot.
Please show me the pertinent license information. I can't imagine they don't have a malicious modification clause.
Mozilla can tell companies "Yes you can distribute Mozilla, but not our compiled version. Also, you must use this modified logo which represents it didn't come from an authorized Mozilla website." There nice and simple. The source code is still free, but they can't use the logo without becoming authorized.
Do you take issue with Google's practice of caching pages as well?
Actually, yes. Why can't I advertise, via google, "Come to my website because" but the actual content remains on my website. Remember, I am arguing this on the side of a person who wants to keep his works protected, but still wants people to read the work.
I still wouldn't worry about that. According to the GP (or GGP) poster from Here even if the galaxies collided, we probably wouldn't be effected in a catastrophic level. Meaning, even if you were alive in 3 billion years, playing your X-Box 360 version 1.5e30 you would still be playing it.
The article say our solar system may get darker (from lack of stars) OR it may get very bright (enough light to make a night at the country-side look like a night in the city of downtown Toronto)
P.S. Sorry, it's one of my pet pieves when someone says "that not how physics works!"
I guess you really didn't like Einstein then?
Stars form however they damn well please
Unless you can prove otherwise, I am pretty sure Stars don't "please" to do anything. Also, do you have a better - scientifically accepted model as to a stars formation? If you don't have that, can you at least scientifically prove the current understanding is wrong?
If you cannot do these things, you should not really speak against them.
According to Here Our sun will still be burning brightly.
According to the article, it should happen in about 3 billion years
On a side note---considering the lifespan of planets, galaxies, universis - it is kind of depressing we won't be around to see spectacular things (i.e. Star Trek space travel). Ah I need to find me a "Q" and get them to let me join up:)
Slashdot Mirror
Let's have some facts please. How has a lack of judicial experience affected previous justices? There are an abundance of justices with no judicial experience, so you should be able to point out all sorts of related flaws. Since you hold this opinion, I'm sure that you already have specific examples in mind.
No thanks. I am not going to research a project which could take me days, if not weeks. You are asking for no small task. But are you implying that someone with NO experience is just as good as someone WITH experience? Because you will really need to back that up with some facts.
Who are you refering to? The only Democrat Senator in Bush's first cabinet was Norm Mineta, and he had already retired from Congress.
Given that it was at the start of his first term, I do not have the name. Bush asked a number of people to join his cabinet, including active D-senators.
So, in your opinion, Rehnquist, Warren, Marshall, Jay, Rutledge, Ellsworth, et al were are lousy justices? Prior to Roberts, only 3 of 16 Chief Justices had judicial experience, and many associate justices had none. More than had judicial experience had political experience. Could you imagine if Bush had appointed a Republican Senator to the bench?
Nope thats not my opinion. That does not invalidate my belief. Experience is fundamental.
Bush wouldn't selected a Republican Senator to the bench because that would free up the seat and a possible democrat might sit there, bringing the Congress back to the democratic side. That is why, in his first term, Bush selected Democratic senators to join his cabinet. He was able to say "look i am not partisan, i want to unite everyone" AND remove a democrat from the senate. And if the person (i forget who it was) said "no" Bush would say the senator was not trying to be a uniter. Then again, considering the position of the Supreme Court, Bush would not select a democratic senator...the democratic party MIGHT be willing to lose a D-Senator for that position.
As a scotus, she will need to know the in's and out's of the law. When a case is brought up before her she will need to understand the lower-courts rulings - hence she will need to realize admissibility of evidence, motions, etc. But it is more then just knowing the rules. I am sure as an accomplished lawyer she knows the rules, laws, procedures....but again, she is lacking in the judge EXPERIENCE! That is a big thing. For example. A person who practices boxing in a non-contact environment (just like this boxing class I take at a gym I go to) has NO idea what it really means to get into a fight. One of the girls in my boxing class, I told her to start hitting me - that I wouldn't hit back. She said "I don't know what to do." I responded "how come? You have been in this class for at least a year. You should know." That is the difference...she never got in an actual boxing match.
This lawyer has never been a judge - she does not have the judge experience and that is integral. Also, as a person with judge experience "we, the people" can see how she reacted to certain cases. Let's say she was an attorney for anti-abortion rights; she could say "well I was hired to do that, I was just doing my job." Now lets say she was a judge who presided over an anti-abortion rights case -- well now she has no such excuse.
We are not talking about just any court position. Obviously people start as a judge with zero experience - but for the HIGHEST seat in the land, yea some judge-court experience is necessary. It is completely different sitting on the bench then trying to curry favor with the bench.
Put it this way, I work closely with my boss. DOes that mean I am qualified to do my bosses job? No. She may have been a lawyer for years, but that does not mean she knows what to do as a judge.
Let's also remember that we have been told MUCH (if not all) of the information regarding her position in the White house will not be disclosed. It is amazing that the last confirmation (Roberts) and this one they will go with the mindset of "I don't have to tell you anything"...that is crap. I am a citizen - I want to know. I want to know what her thoughts on civil liberties are, abortion, privacy. Things like abortion, search and seizure, etc. I think someone who goes to sit on this seat has to answer these questions and more... Not only do I want to hear what she has to say to ALL the questions asked, but I want to see evidence backing it up. It is not simply enough, for me and others, "Hey are you a good person?" and she responds with "Yea I'm a good person". I want to see evidence proving she is a "good person". My reason - because once you get the job of supreme court justice, you cannot be removed from that seat unless you: resign voluntarily, die, become mentally incompetant, or are deemed to have comitted treason.
As for who appointed her to this position. yea Bush...someone I do not trust in the least. Not to mention she was his private lawyer for years.
While I do believe judge experience is necessary, the fact she worked for one of the biggest companies in the world does nothing but put credit to her. MS hired her...the list of people trying to work for MS is quite long, and those who do work there are probably the cream of the crop.
Seems like it will work too. I probably never even would have noticed this album or heard it. I did download it, though. I'm currently listening to it, and I'll be damned...it's pretty good. I think I might have to pick up a copy.
Gee that smells a little bit of "Here let me prove how making music free for d/l can really work for artists. I got it for free, now let me buy it." When in reality, most people who d/l it for free will burn it ot CD. Not only is it cheaper, but it is more convenient then running to the store. More then likely, someone who really likes the group will try and see a concert or buy some shirts/posters/etc - very few (relative to our conversation) will spend the $10-$15 when they have it for free...especially in this day and age when people are switching to MP3 players - so it is no longer about "look at my cool CD"
make no promises whatsoever that the mail stored on their servers won't get wiped due to a failure, upgrade or whatever.
Any company making this gaurantee is asking for a world of hurtin in the future. It's along the lines of doctors saying it's 99.9% effective...there is always that slim sliver of a chance that something might go wrong. Saying 100% and backing it up is a tough thing to do.
Don't you have any confidential data in your yahoo/gmail/hotmail/whatever account?
No, actually I don't. While I may have some ranchy jokes, conversations, etc I am not going to be a politician so I do not have to worry about that kind of embarassment. I am also not stupid enough to keep personal information like SS#, credit cards, etc. The most someone could get out of my e-mail is my home address/phone number/name. Big whoop, a person can get that from the white pages.
In all honesty, anyone who spends a minute in thought should realize that if you plan to convey any kind of sensitive information - do not store it in a public e-mail account, if in any. At least, if you are on a "secure" e-mail server (i.e. a corporation's) you can do a little bit more, but I wouldn't send my HR department my SS# via e-mail.
If you think about it, it would mean having access to your office documents from any browser
"I swear professor, my internet connection went down last night and I couldn't work on my project." Or, how about this, Google ads in your document which uses relevant text words from the document. Can you see any businesses utilizing this technology when their proprietary information is being dissected?
THe biggest problem, other then privacy, of Internet based programs like this is what happens when you can't connect to the server. You are in a world of hurting. How many people have played online games and not been able to connect at one point or another - frustrating, now imagine if it's for a project due the next day or hour.
The defect affects less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all the nanos that have shipped so far
I would like to see those numbers. Are they sure thats not reported issues. So if they shipped 5 million, and only 100,000 were bought, and of those 100,000 only 100 people REPORTED a problem well yea. If the defect is in the material, and it is the same material (and processing) for all of the products - then all of the products should have the defect; none of this 1/10 of 1% crap.
Really they just want you to buy expensive skins.
Here is another potential problem. MS might come out with an add-on to their OS where it prevents unauthorized (or authorized) installation of these malwares....it will do this because they are not digitally signed, and authenticated to the user...the only problem: My friend does not want to use a program (i.e. photoshop) so he deletes it from his computer and gives me the disk. The disk is registered to his windows...now I can't install it....or what if I want to rip my DvD movie to my computer (backup)...it won't let me play it.
In the end, the best answer is for people to start using their noodle...protection software can also hinder us.
This would be a resounding YES.
Yes my view will be unpopular, and if I don't get modded down I will be shocked...but guess what, even Open Source software has problems with code vulnerability. Look at the recent news regarding FireFox. Windows is still the mainstream OS so it is the most heavily targeted and exploited....once there is another majority shareholder in the market it will also be targeted....Again, point in case FireFox...people touted it as TEH answer, but it was only a temporary reprieve.
Was the exorbinant prices that we pay for our NASA equipment. Lockhead, Boeing, etc charge rip-off prices and NASA forks the cash over. For the amount of money they pay they could have opened up their own manfucaturing plants, and made more fleets of ships. 250 billion..that could have been slashed if the government didn't allow itself to get robbed.
Well first, in general, companies don't want to have to get plug-ins...they want the stuff to work the way they want it to out of hte box. Outlook has a lot of rich features...it is a good product. I use tasks to manage projects, I use calander for appointments (and can be used for projects). Thunderbird needs the same features as Outlook to get a foothold. But then you get to other things...how will Thunderbird (in it's upgraded state) act with all of my corporate programs such as MS Web Outlook, Soloman, CRM, etc. How will it act with Active X (maybe /. crew don't like it, but corporate world does). These are all things to consider.
I was actually talking about this with my friend last night. If Thunderbird gets a quality calander (task, calander, etc) and contact list it will SMOKE Outlook. First MS Outlook doesn't (as far as I have been able to figure it out) support multiple mailboxes, where they go into different directories and are treated differently (sort rules do not count). Thunderbird handles this well.
I use (on my home computer) Outlook for work (required) and Thunderbird to handle my four different e-mail accounts. Very convenient.
A better question to ask:
"which scares the Chinese government more? Democracy or pr0n?
The answer becomes much more different.
The thing about our government, our policies, our laws is that they can be modified/reversed. If Congress comes out with an assinine law that inhibits our rights, we can have it removed. The President can veto it, the Supreme Court can declare it unconstitutional...and in the end the people can vote new representatives (and there are plenty of choices, contrary to popular belief) to recind the laws.
To equate the US gov't to the Chinese gov't in any fashion is just nonsense.
We welcomed our new Internet Overlords!
People like you make me sick. If you get sick from Quizno's, you shouldn't sue anyone because: 1)it's not the parent company's fault you got a bad sandwich 2)the parent company didn't - and couldn't possibly - interview each individual, and - while the store itself can do this and does - an interview doesn't really represent an individual 100% accurately. No one goes into an interview dropping the "F" bomb or using ebonics, but that doesn't mean they won't talk like that on the job. 3)it could've been poorly processed meat - which isn't the store's fault, or the company's, or the individual's. Instead, you should demand a refund. Anyways, your argument has no grounds. You think they can just take control of what their users do? Firefox's license says you can redistribute it freely - this Korean site didn't violate the license, so the most Mozilla can do is to ask them to remove the virus. There's no way Mozilla can stop the web site's owner from downloading the code - either in a literal sense or in a legal sense. As I mentioned before, the site's not in violation of Firefox's license, so they can't threaten to sue or anything unless they can prove that the site is PURPOSELY trying to hurt their name. And technically, since the Firefox code is available to everyone, it's not like they'd slow the web site's owner down at all by not sending him the code. All he has to do is go on the Web and get it.
You are an idiot and let's respond to your numbers:
1)It is a franchise, which they pay a lot of money for the franchise (to the parent company). That is the legal ramifications for having a franchise. It is also my legal right. Not to mention, a lot of the times, if not all, the parent company supplies the food
2)In most franchises the parent company interviews the managers (who paid a lot of money...think McDonalds). They also provide high end training. It is up to the managers, representatives of the company to makes ure the employees they hire do what they are supposed to do. And yes, peopledo go into interviews dropping foul language and ebonics...but thanks for stereotyping against black people you racist bastard.
3)Poorly processed meat - It's the meat makers fault...you know what happens then? The plaintiff would sue the franchise, the parent company and the meat company (all in one lawsuit) and the people making the decision on the winners would decide who pays.
Yea, I get a stomach virus and sit in a hospital and I should ask for a $5 refund. You are a naive idiot.
Please show me the pertinent license information. I can't imagine they don't have a malicious modification clause.
Mozilla can tell companies "Yes you can distribute Mozilla, but not our compiled version. Also, you must use this modified logo which represents it didn't come from an authorized Mozilla website." There nice and simple. The source code is still free, but they can't use the logo without becoming authorized.
That wasn't too painful, was it?
You should patent this and sue Google for potential IP infringement.
Do you take issue with Google's practice of caching pages as well?
Actually, yes. Why can't I advertise, via google, "Come to my website because" but the actual content remains on my website. Remember, I am arguing this on the side of a person who wants to keep his works protected, but still wants people to read the work.
I still wouldn't worry about that. According to the GP (or GGP) poster from Here even if the galaxies collided, we probably wouldn't be effected in a catastrophic level. Meaning, even if you were alive in 3 billion years, playing your X-Box 360 version 1.5e30 you would still be playing it.
The article say our solar system may get darker (from lack of stars) OR it may get very bright (enough light to make a night at the country-side look like a night in the city of downtown Toronto)
Well anytime I get sucked into a black hole, well I tend to feel really good. So maybe the Earth is just trying to get laid?
P.S. Sorry, it's one of my pet pieves when someone says "that not how physics works!"
I guess you really didn't like Einstein then?
Stars form however they damn well please
Unless you can prove otherwise, I am pretty sure Stars don't "please" to do anything. Also, do you have a better - scientifically accepted model as to a stars formation? If you don't have that, can you at least scientifically prove the current understanding is wrong?
If you cannot do these things, you should not really speak against them.
According to Here Our sun will still be burning brightly.
:)
According to the article, it should happen in about 3 billion years
On a side note---considering the lifespan of planets, galaxies, universis - it is kind of depressing we won't be around to see spectacular things (i.e. Star Trek space travel). Ah I need to find me a "Q" and get them to let me join up