If a Dyson sphere did not vent an equal amount of energy as produced internally, the interior of the sphere would quickly heat up and roast everything inside.
There's no evidence for magnetic monopoles. Inflation explains why they are rare, but it doesn't explain why they are no longer being produced (in particle accelerators, for example). The ad-hoc explanation is that they are extremely massive, so they can't be produced. Yet, we are constantly bombarded by ultra high energy cosmic rays, some with up to 10^20 eV. If some pairs of magnetic monopoles are created, then it doesn't matter if the primordial ones are all gone. The onus of proof is on the claim that monopoles exist, not the claim that they don't exist.
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't explain why the universe began in a low entropy state. Rather, the low starting entropy explains the second law.
Inflation is not necessary to answer the horizon problem (or why far reaches of the universe are at equal temperatures). It's much cleaner to attribute that fact to initial conditions of the universe. Frankly, if the temperatures were different across the CMB, then we would need an explanation for why they are different. With prejudice for whether the temperatures should be different or the same, we should expect the universe to be in the scenario which is more likely (e.g., has higher entropy). Just like how it is more likely for the molecules of gas in a box to be spread evenly on both sides of the box than bunched up on one side, it is more likely for a random distribution of thermal energy to be equal across the universe than bunched up.
None of the pillars of inflation are particularly robust. We don't see magnetic monopoles because they don't exist, not because inflation has diluted them. Space might have some other reason for being flat, related to this dark energy which we don't understand.
We have no way of assigning probability to initial conditions of the universe because we don't anything about the space of possible universes. We can't even say that probability was involved. We already know that the universe began in a low entropy state, so a naive estimate of the probability of our universe is vanishingly small. So there must be some reason for the universe to start in a low entropy state, and until we understand that reason, we can't make any sense of initial probabilities.
No, dark matter contains more baggage than just embodying the discrepancy in galaxy rotation shear. For one thing, the title dark matter presumes that it is, in fact, matter. This is a different hypothesis than various modifications of gravitational force theories (which are not tenable now).
Well, you would also need to strip power from the judicial branch as well as the legislative, because the elites wield the law as a weapon against the poor.
Unless you are some kind of majority shareholder, what kind of voice do you think you really have? Usually, the board elections are something like this: The board has nominated the following candidates. The board recommends approval of all x candidates. x1: approve, decline x2: approve, decline... No write in votes are allowed.
It drives on sidewalks and is intended for the elderly. It's more wheelchair than car. I don't understand the purpose of a closed cabin if it doesn't go very fast.
You can hardly fault someone for playing the game, when the whole economic system is built around playing the game, even if the game is evil. You would have to go to the barter system to avoid somehow financing evil.
This isn't a stretched example. Any example of pollution comes up with the same conclusion.
You mention companies, but companies die just like people die. Often, they die even more quickly, and there is nobody to inherit their liabilities, or the liabilities exceed anybody's limited stake in the company.
That's exactly the problem. What if nobody wants the nuclear barrels? Who gets them when the owner dies? The next of kin? How does that make any logical sense? "Your uncle passed away and didn't have any heirs, so now this is your problem." This is exactly the kind of short-sighted thinking which is causing people to act without regard to the far future.
You don't get it. Property rights cannot protect the planet's future from the present inhabitants, because the present inhabitants are incapable of assigning value to the planet's future. The true value of a piece of land is infinite, because it will outlast ten generations of you. Yet, you only paid a price negotiated on your personal value based on your short life. And you want to destroy it, because you don't care about the far future.
Property rights only makes sense for perishable products, where the source of the product can be traced to the efforts of specific humans. Nobody is worthy of owning mineral rights to a piece of land. The only reason mineral rights exists is because some government assigned mineral rights to someone at some point in the past. Mineral rights don't exist in nature, and there is nothing honest about them.
Spammers already don't care about the law. Who in their right mind would think they would pay the tax? The lusers of the zombied computers will be ones stuck with the bill.
Slashdot Mirror
I vote to give them Mississippi.
If a Dyson sphere did not vent an equal amount of energy as produced internally, the interior of the sphere would quickly heat up and roast everything inside.
There's no evidence for magnetic monopoles. Inflation explains why they are rare, but it doesn't explain why they are no longer being produced (in particle accelerators, for example). The ad-hoc explanation is that they are extremely massive, so they can't be produced. Yet, we are constantly bombarded by ultra high energy cosmic rays, some with up to 10^20 eV. If some pairs of magnetic monopoles are created, then it doesn't matter if the primordial ones are all gone. The onus of proof is on the claim that monopoles exist, not the claim that they don't exist.
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't explain why the universe began in a low entropy state. Rather, the low starting entropy explains the second law.
Inflation is not necessary to answer the horizon problem (or why far reaches of the universe are at equal temperatures). It's much cleaner to attribute that fact to initial conditions of the universe. Frankly, if the temperatures were different across the CMB, then we would need an explanation for why they are different. With prejudice for whether the temperatures should be different or the same, we should expect the universe to be in the scenario which is more likely (e.g., has higher entropy). Just like how it is more likely for the molecules of gas in a box to be spread evenly on both sides of the box than bunched up on one side, it is more likely for a random distribution of thermal energy to be equal across the universe than bunched up.
None of the pillars of inflation are particularly robust. We don't see magnetic monopoles because they don't exist, not because inflation has diluted them. Space might have some other reason for being flat, related to this dark energy which we don't understand.
We have no way of assigning probability to initial conditions of the universe because we don't anything about the space of possible universes. We can't even say that probability was involved. We already know that the universe began in a low entropy state, so a naive estimate of the probability of our universe is vanishingly small. So there must be some reason for the universe to start in a low entropy state, and until we understand that reason, we can't make any sense of initial probabilities.
Printing negative money is different though.
I'm going to open a bottle of dihydrogen monoxide once the plane gets off the ground.
No, dark matter contains more baggage than just embodying the discrepancy in galaxy rotation shear. For one thing, the title dark matter presumes that it is, in fact, matter. This is a different hypothesis than various modifications of gravitational force theories (which are not tenable now).
Well, you would also need to strip power from the judicial branch as well as the legislative, because the elites wield the law as a weapon against the poor.
Were you alive during the dot-com bubble?
Unless you are some kind of majority shareholder, what kind of voice do you think you really have? Usually, the board elections are something like this: ...
The board has nominated the following candidates. The board recommends approval of all x candidates.
x1: approve, decline
x2: approve, decline
No write in votes are allowed.
You also need to purchase a kiln or something.
But the main difference between gas and liquid is compressibility.
It drives on sidewalks and is intended for the elderly. It's more wheelchair than car. I don't understand the purpose of a closed cabin if it doesn't go very fast.
I think you misunderstood what the GP means by "liability". He didn't mean legal liability, but moral liability.
You can hardly fault someone for playing the game, when the whole economic system is built around playing the game, even if the game is evil. You would have to go to the barter system to avoid somehow financing evil.
This isn't a stretched example. Any example of pollution comes up with the same conclusion.
You mention companies, but companies die just like people die. Often, they die even more quickly, and there is nobody to inherit their liabilities, or the liabilities exceed anybody's limited stake in the company.
That's exactly the problem. What if nobody wants the nuclear barrels? Who gets them when the owner dies? The next of kin? How does that make any logical sense? "Your uncle passed away and didn't have any heirs, so now this is your problem." This is exactly the kind of short-sighted thinking which is causing people to act without regard to the far future.
You don't get it. Property rights cannot protect the planet's future from the present inhabitants, because the present inhabitants are incapable of assigning value to the planet's future. The true value of a piece of land is infinite, because it will outlast ten generations of you. Yet, you only paid a price negotiated on your personal value based on your short life. And you want to destroy it, because you don't care about the far future.
Property rights only makes sense for perishable products, where the source of the product can be traced to the efforts of specific humans. Nobody is worthy of owning mineral rights to a piece of land. The only reason mineral rights exists is because some government assigned mineral rights to someone at some point in the past. Mineral rights don't exist in nature, and there is nothing honest about them.
You can sell your movie locally that you bought overseas. Nobody said anything about breaking the region lock.
The whole point of national security letters is to suspend rule of law due to an emergency, right?
This is what it sounds like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsNaR6FRuO0
Would that legislation impose a tax on itself, or only on newer legislation?
What would the point of that be?
Spammers already don't care about the law. Who in their right mind would think they would pay the tax? The lusers of the zombied computers will be ones stuck with the bill.