"Jesus would have taught "Thou shalt not murder," if he meant it to apply only to human beings"
Both the Greek and Hebrew scriptures do indeed make this distinction. "Thou shalt not murder" is the correct translation - the translators screwed up on this one.
Fundamentalist christians make plenty of stupid mistakes. This is not one of them.
I do not mean to use the ion engines to accelerate the projectiles - just to move them into the comet's path. The comet's speed is what we will use. I think this is what you meant then you said " I suppose you can just sort of float them up there, since the relative velocity would be effective."
To your other objection, well, it looks like we need to launch them into some parking orbit (likely well above geo-sync) long before we see the comet comming. (ie, let's get in gear and defend our planet already!)
Remember the recent NASA probe that rammed a comet to see what is inside? The used a solid copper impactor, cause the kinetic energy was greater than the energy of that much explosive.
Just send up a dozen or so ion engine powered impactors, and aim for the same side, with each impact a week apart.
"Reality is that in most cases, a vote for an independent candidate is a wasted vote. Sorry, I really hate that it's true, but it is."
In most cases a vote for a Republicrat is also a wasted vote. I live in Utah. The Republican candidate[1] will win here regardless of who I vote for, Republican, Democrat or independant. This situation applies to at least half of the nation.
Why shouldn't I vote for Filet Mignon when what I am going to get is day-old lasagne no matter how I vote? (even If I would prefer stupid wiener-wraps?)
The solution is actually discussed in The Federalist No. 10. Bonus points[2] to whoever posts a summary.
[1]context is presiential elections. congress/local may be different..
FTA : "That application used four batteries each of which measure 55mm by 43mm and are 4mm thick, which is about the same size a stack of three credit cards."
Forget capacitors, use these batteries. Not only do they take high charge currents, they can output high currents. They ran a PC on one of these the size of 3 credit cards. (from the article - 15 seconds only) Most batteries cannot output all of their power that fast without serious damage.
Another use would be hybrid cars. The regenerative braking part especially. You have high currents produced and needed.
"The brain rewires itself throughout life, but how much and where, this is unknown."
Not completely unknown. We know quite a lot. Like say, if language is not learned by a certain age, (IIRC about 3?) it will never really be learned. Hence my qualification of 'at least after puberty'. By that age, if not sooner, these are fixed, and short of massive dammage - stroke etc, - do not change. Certainly not by thinking different, which is what was implied and I was disputing.
A chisel does not become a pry-bar just because you use it as one, even if it works just fine as a pry-bar.
Likewise the neural circuits of an introvert do not become those of an extrovert by acting extroverted. [intr,extr]oversion is not changeable, at least after the beginning of puberty.
I am afraid that you seriously overestimate the intelligence of the average human.
In addidtion to this, even he is told, or figures out that it is not realistic, if he has no examples of 'realistic' it will still badly mess up his views of reality. Porn does harm some people, and I believe that this is the primary reason.
"It is a fact that two different species, when mated, cannot produce reproductible offspring. It has never happened. There is no evidence to indicate that this has ever happened."
" Sure, sometimes hybrids are fertile."
So, you not only admit to being wrong, you imply that you knew you were wrong when you said it? And then you try to change the subject to spontaneous biogenisis?
At any rate - hybrids are not the primary forces that cause speciation in large vertabrates at least. They play a minor role if any - in part for the reasons you just stated. Just note that I never said that it did, just that hybrids are sometimes fertile. That happens enough to be irrefutable. BTW, hybrids are often the source of new species - in plants. There are dozens of examples in the lab and a handful in nature.
And anyway, that would mean that the evolved mutant is even able to hybrid with its former species to begin with, which is certainly not guaranteed."
Not at all. there are almost no mutations that come anywhere near the amount of change involved in hybrids. Look at known mutations in humans. sycle cell, hemophilia, dwarfism, etc. Almost none of them cause any fertility problems with non-mutants. Mutant!=Hybrid. That is a strawman.
Now to your 'change of subject'. It would be easy to dodge the question - there isn't a definition of 'alive' that has much meaning at that level, is a virus 'alive'? etc. So I won't go there. We cannot yet know how life evolved to it's current state, in large part because we don't know enough about the current state of life. Rapid progress is being made there. That said, we have several clues that tell us that it is possible, and give us some good ideas about how it happens.
RNAis made of adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil. Four fairly simple molecules. If an arbitrary strand of RNA is placed into a solution of adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil, it will start to replicate itself, without any other compounds, protiens, etc. RNA can also do many of the same sort of things that protiens can do - catalyse reactions, form structures etc. Not as well as most protiens, to be sure, but it happens still even in modern cells. With this understanding of RNA it is not inconceivable that life could arise from far simpler RNA replicator/catalysers. See this pdf for a reasonable theory on the role RNA could play in the evolution of the first cells. Once again, 'proof' of these theories is currrently out of our reach, but we know of nothing that is impossible, and many things that are plausible. And from what we do know about the current state of life - including at the cellular level - it looks like an evolved system.
"Why doesn't spontaneous biogenesis occur today?"For the same reason that large mammals did not occur until the dinosaurs and other large animals died out. Any spontaneously formed organism would be simple, probably fragile, and it would require a rich biological soup to form in. Any such soup would be a rich feeding ground for any already formed organism - and it would eat it all very fast, long before this new organism could form. And even if it did form - it would get eaten along with the rest of the soup. Short version, competition. Things evolve to fit their environment. Something that has already evolved to fit a particular niche will out-compete something not suited to that environment. The conditions for spontaneous biogenesis include no other lifeforms. That is not now the case, so it dosen't happen.
Can it be reproduced in a lab? Not exactly the way it happened - that is for sure, and it likely would require a few hundred million years. We haven't had labs around for that long yet, nor do we know enough yet to do the expieriment. The closest that we have come are computer simulations of simpler things, and those have generall
"It is a fact that two different species, when mated, cannot produce reproductible offspring. It has never happened. There is no evidence to indicate that this has ever happened."
Dead Wrong. Google wholphin for more. I think this even made Slashdot.
Even the famous example of a sterile hybrid the mule occasionally reproduces. Didn't you catch the meaning of 'almost always sterile'?
You can't understand how biologists can put so much credence into an 'obviously wrong theory' because you are ignorant.
You did get one thing right, if only by accident. "Yet, somehow evolutionists want us to believe that not only can one species mutate into another, but that they do this in male-female pairs!" They really don't want us to believe this, 'cause they know it is wrong. The part you got right is that this is pretty much impossible. It is not a matter of one big mutation. If you really want to understand how new species can arise, google "ring species"
Some editing is needed to a your last paragraph. You used a term that is not correct.
"No matter how you slice it, dice it, or spin it, it all boils down to the fact that copyright infringement involves the acquisition of something of value, without the permission of, or compensation to, its original creator(s). People who want change in the business models used by the content providers NEED TO STOP FUNDING THE CURRENT MODEL."
This makes a great deal of difference. The creators never owned the copy that the infringer recieved, nor did they own the copy that was used in infringing the copyright at the time of the infringment. And often they never owned that copy at all.
This situation has nothing to do with ownership. (see TFA) Copyright is about privledges granted by restricting others actions. Not rights, and not ownership.
You misunderstood the 'one exception' principal. You don't throw out a theory when it is proved wrong. You just mark it as 'in need of replacement'. A flawed theory is usually better than no theory at all, especially if you know where the flaws are and work around them.
So, when do you throw out a disproved theory? When you come up with a better one. (better means it explains everything the old one did, plus whatever evidence disproved the old one. Usually you get some more stuff too - that is bonus)
Assumption - this guy is right and Quantum mechanics has been proved wrong. Where is the better theory?
To those replying 'we still use newtons law of gravity - and we know it is wrong' That is different. we have a better theory, newton's laws have been thrown out. It is just that the new theory is hard to use, and the flaws in the old theory are well known. We use it because it gives good enough answers. Nothing more. As an explaination of 'how the universe works', Newton's laws are long gone.
You are right about 'price gouging'. Price controls are worse, they are 'first come first serve rationing' with no money to build new supplies/energy sources.
Where I disagree with you is in your assumption that without this sort of political stupidity, we will have time to wean ourselves off of oil. I give us about 30% chance of that happening, assuming the politicians get smart.
Fairly sure. See this link note they state that birds have a blind spot, This implies that the eye construction is basically the same.
Besides, eyes evolved in our common ancestor before mammals and reptiles/dinosaurs diverged. So if birds eyes do not have these flaws, then this would disprove most of our theories of how birds and mammals evolved. If not evolution itself;-)
Dump enough of it into an enclosed space and it gets hot enough to melt itself, and other rocks. Nuclear waste is heavy too. so it should be possible to do as the GP post said, and just let the nuclear waste melt itself a hole the rest of the way.
The biggest problem with your idea though is that we haven't figured out how to get anything that deep yet - and there have been attempts, samples would be interesting.
There are two layers of nerves and a layer of capilaries in front of the cones and rods. Not only that, but the capilaries are between the two layers of nerves, so a burst capillary can separate the two, resulting in blindness. Bad design all the way around.
For what it is worth, this applies to all vertebrate eyes, not just mammals.
Sorry, the testing procedure that the article you referenced is flawed.
They take a light, shine it in a sensor at a 2.5 foot distance, and measure the light.
LED's have a built-in lens that focuses the light. so more of their light falls on the sensor. Of course this means that the LED's will test better. They get to cheat. If you redid the test with parabolic reflectors for all the lights that do not have lenses built-in, then the LED's actually measure out about the same as 100W incandesant bulbs.
OTOH, if what you want is what the article was testing (a reading lamp) LED's rock. but for general purpose lighting, LED's are not all that great. See this article for more details.
If your breakeven point is $45/barrel (earnings=costs, selling at $45) and *worst case* all of your costs are due to oil at current $60/barrel, then you will make a profit of $15/barrel if you use your own oil.
This means that a self sustained system would be less expensive, not more.
The error in your statement stems from "cheap oil pumped from the ground" Hint. It is not cheap now. This means that either a) it is not economical at $45 any more (ie you are wrong) or b) a self sustained system is now less expensive than other oil (ie you are wrong) or c) $60/barrel outprices your average suburbanite. (possible, but has nothing to do with tar sands)
If you have more information than you posted to make sense of this mess, please post it, 'cause as of now, you are wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Both the Greek and Hebrew scriptures do indeed make this distinction. "Thou shalt not murder" is the correct translation - the translators screwed up on this one.
Fundamentalist christians make plenty of stupid mistakes. This is not one of them.
When it comes to launching things into space, these terms are mutually exclusive.
To your other objection, well, it looks like we need to launch them into some parking orbit (likely well above geo-sync) long before we see the comet comming. (ie, let's get in gear and defend our planet already!)
Just send up a dozen or so ion engine powered impactors, and aim for the same side, with each impact a week apart.
In most cases a vote for a Republicrat is also a wasted vote. I live in Utah. The Republican candidate[1] will win here regardless of who I vote for, Republican, Democrat or independant. This situation applies to at least half of the nation.
Why shouldn't I vote for Filet Mignon when what I am going to get is day-old lasagne no matter how I vote? (even If I would prefer stupid wiener-wraps?)
The solution is actually discussed in The Federalist No. 10. Bonus points[2] to whoever posts a summary.
[1]context is presiential elections. congress/local may be different..
[2]not redeemable for actual karma...
That would have resulted in a change in his original site's clickthroughs. Cringely says (less clearly than I would like..) that this did not happen.
æ -> æ
Four, not one the size of 3 credit cards.
Another use would be hybrid cars. The regenerative braking part especially. You have high currents produced and needed.
Not completely unknown. We know quite a lot. Like say, if language is not learned by a certain age, (IIRC about 3?) it will never really be learned. Hence my qualification of 'at least after puberty'. By that age, if not sooner, these are fixed, and short of massive dammage - stroke etc, - do not change. Certainly not by thinking different, which is what was implied and I was disputing.
Since there were state religions at the time, I would say, yes.
Likewise the neural circuits of an introvert do not become those of an extrovert by acting extroverted. [intr,extr]oversion is not changeable, at least after the beginning of puberty.
In addidtion to this, even he is told, or figures out that it is not realistic, if he has no examples of 'realistic' it will still badly mess up his views of reality. Porn does harm some people, and I believe that this is the primary reason.
So, you not only admit to being wrong, you imply that you knew you were wrong when you said it? And then you try to change the subject to spontaneous biogenisis?
At any rate - hybrids are not the primary forces that cause speciation in large vertabrates at least. They play a minor role if any - in part for the reasons you just stated. Just note that I never said that it did, just that hybrids are sometimes fertile. That happens enough to be irrefutable. BTW, hybrids are often the source of new species - in plants. There are dozens of examples in the lab and a handful in nature.
And anyway, that would mean that the evolved mutant is even able to hybrid with its former species to begin with, which is certainly not guaranteed."
Not at all. there are almost no mutations that come anywhere near the amount of change involved in hybrids. Look at known mutations in humans. sycle cell, hemophilia, dwarfism, etc. Almost none of them cause any fertility problems with non-mutants. Mutant!=Hybrid. That is a strawman.
Now to your 'change of subject'. It would be easy to dodge the question - there isn't a definition of 'alive' that has much meaning at that level, is a virus 'alive'? etc. So I won't go there. We cannot yet know how life evolved to it's current state, in large part because we don't know enough about the current state of life. Rapid progress is being made there. That said, we have several clues that tell us that it is possible, and give us some good ideas about how it happens.
RNAis made of adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil. Four fairly simple molecules. If an arbitrary strand of RNA is placed into a solution of adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil, it will start to replicate itself, without any other compounds, protiens, etc. RNA can also do many of the same sort of things that protiens can do - catalyse reactions, form structures etc. Not as well as most protiens, to be sure, but it happens still even in modern cells. With this understanding of RNA it is not inconceivable that life could arise from far simpler RNA replicator/catalysers. See this pdf for a reasonable theory on the role RNA could play in the evolution of the first cells. Once again, 'proof' of these theories is currrently out of our reach, but we know of nothing that is impossible, and many things that are plausible. And from what we do know about the current state of life - including at the cellular level - it looks like an evolved system.
"Why doesn't spontaneous biogenesis occur today?"For the same reason that large mammals did not occur until the dinosaurs and other large animals died out. Any spontaneously formed organism would be simple, probably fragile, and it would require a rich biological soup to form in. Any such soup would be a rich feeding ground for any already formed organism - and it would eat it all very fast, long before this new organism could form. And even if it did form - it would get eaten along with the rest of the soup. Short version, competition. Things evolve to fit their environment. Something that has already evolved to fit a particular niche will out-compete something not suited to that environment. The conditions for spontaneous biogenesis include no other lifeforms. That is not now the case, so it dosen't happen.
Can it be reproduced in a lab? Not exactly the way it happened - that is for sure, and it likely would require a few hundred million years. We haven't had labs around for that long yet, nor do we know enough yet to do the expieriment. The closest that we have come are computer simulations of simpler things, and those have generall
Dead Wrong. Google wholphin for more. I think this even made Slashdot.
Even the famous example of a sterile hybrid the mule occasionally reproduces. Didn't you catch the meaning of 'almost always sterile'?
You can't understand how biologists can put so much credence into an 'obviously wrong theory' because you are ignorant.
You did get one thing right, if only by accident. "Yet, somehow evolutionists want us to believe that not only can one species mutate into another, but that they do this in male-female pairs!" They really don't want us to believe this, 'cause they know it is wrong. The part you got right is that this is pretty much impossible. It is not a matter of one big mutation. If you really want to understand how new species can arise, google "ring species"
Wrong. Block port 80. boom - most of the sites on the internet are gone.
And that is exactly the sort of thing TFA is talking about. Pay us, or your site goes bye-bye.
"No matter how you slice it, dice it, or spin it, it all boils down to the fact that copyright infringement involves the acquisition of something of value, without the permission of, or compensation to, its original creator(s). People who want change in the business models used by the content providers NEED TO STOP FUNDING THE CURRENT MODEL."
This makes a great deal of difference. The creators never owned the copy that the infringer recieved, nor did they own the copy that was used in infringing the copyright at the time of the infringment. And often they never owned that copy at all.
This situation has nothing to do with ownership. (see TFA) Copyright is about privledges granted by restricting others actions. Not rights, and not ownership.
But I thought this post was a good idea. So, perhaps nudging was also a good idea.
So, when do you throw out a disproved theory? When you come up with a better one. (better means it explains everything the old one did, plus whatever evidence disproved the old one. Usually you get some more stuff too - that is bonus)
Assumption - this guy is right and Quantum mechanics has been proved wrong. Where is the better theory?
To those replying 'we still use newtons law of gravity - and we know it is wrong' That is different. we have a better theory, newton's laws have been thrown out. It is just that the new theory is hard to use, and the flaws in the old theory are well known. We use it because it gives good enough answers. Nothing more. As an explaination of 'how the universe works', Newton's laws are long gone.
Where I disagree with you is in your assumption that without this sort of political stupidity, we will have time to wean ourselves off of oil. I give us about 30% chance of that happening, assuming the politicians get smart.
Besides, eyes evolved in our common ancestor before mammals and reptiles/dinosaurs diverged. So if birds eyes do not have these flaws, then this would disprove most of our theories of how birds and mammals evolved. If not evolution itself ;-)
Dump enough of it into an enclosed space and it gets hot enough to melt itself, and other rocks. Nuclear waste is heavy too. so it should be possible to do as the GP post said, and just let the nuclear waste melt itself a hole the rest of the way.
The biggest problem with your idea though is that we haven't figured out how to get anything that deep yet - and there have been attempts, samples would be interesting.
There are two layers of nerves and a layer of capilaries in front of the cones and rods. Not only that, but the capilaries are between the two layers of nerves, so a burst capillary can separate the two, resulting in blindness. Bad design all the way around.
For what it is worth, this applies to all vertebrate eyes, not just mammals.
They take a light, shine it in a sensor at a 2.5 foot distance, and measure the light.
LED's have a built-in lens that focuses the light. so more of their light falls on the sensor. Of course this means that the LED's will test better. They get to cheat. If you redid the test with parabolic reflectors for all the lights that do not have lenses built-in, then the LED's actually measure out about the same as 100W incandesant bulbs.
OTOH, if what you want is what the article was testing (a reading lamp) LED's rock. but for general purpose lighting, LED's are not all that great. See this article for more details.
If your breakeven point is $45/barrel (earnings=costs, selling at $45) and *worst case* all of your costs are due to oil at current $60/barrel, then you will make a profit of $15/barrel if you use your own oil.
This means that a self sustained system would be less expensive, not more.
The error in your statement stems from "cheap oil pumped from the ground" Hint. It is not cheap now. This means that either a) it is not economical at $45 any more (ie you are wrong) or b) a self sustained system is now less expensive than other oil (ie you are wrong) or c) $60/barrel outprices your average suburbanite. (possible, but has nothing to do with tar sands)
If you have more information than you posted to make sense of this mess, please post it, 'cause as of now, you are wrong.