We believe we have a pretty good idea about a star's life cycle, so to determine when Betelgeuse will "go boom", we need to figure out what element it is mostly fusioning at the moment. If it's hydrogen or helium or even oxygen, we're pretty safe from a boom, but if it's silicon we might have to look out for a pretty light show in the not distant future.
Either way, it shouldn't come as a surprise, and that we'd first know it from the gamma burst is most likely wrong.
No, my argument is that it's a pointless question.
Of course you're perfectly within your rights to ask pointless questions, just don't expect the answers to be very enlightening.
Face it, whenever you fly, be it in a Boeing or in an Airbus, you're putting your "lives in the hands of a computer", because computers fly planes these days. The "battle-tested pilot" is just along for the ride like the rest of us.
In an emergency the pilot will try to fly the plane and no matter if it's an Airbus or a Boeing, it will let him do that.
So I'll just go ahead and change my argument. The question isn't just pointless, it's in fact meaningless. The only correct answer is "Mu".
(Also doesn't help airbus that they seem to be having many more crashes then Boeing over the last five years).
It might SEEM that way, but the FACTS state that Boeing have had quite a few more crashes than Airbus over the last five years and a lot more if we go back even further.
"Your safety is in the hands of the computers for 99% of the flight, only at takeoff and landing are the pilots involved in any actual flying."
or
"Your safety is in the hands of our capable and well trained pilots and staff, who we assure you are doing their utmost to get you to your destination safely and without troubles. Please fly with us again!"
One of these is true and one is feel-good bullshit. Which one do you think you are more likely to hear?
Now is the question still reasonable if you don't really want to know the answer?
Huh. Funny that the Wikipedia article on Fuel dumping even shows a picture of a "Fuel dumping point of an Airbus A340-311"...
Here's another quote from that article: "Longer-range twin jets such as the Boeing 767 and 777 and the Airbus A300, A310, and A330 may or may not have fuel dump systems, depending upon how the aircraft was ordered, since on some aircraft they are a customer option. Three- and four-engine jets like the Lockheed L-1011, McDonnell Douglas DC-10 / MD-11, Boeing 747 and Airbus A340 usually have difficulty meeting the requirements of FAR 25.119 near maximum structural takeoff weight, so most of those have jettison systems. A Boeing 757 has no fuel dump capability as its maximum landing weight is similar to the maximum take-off weight."
You fail to mention the most feared question of all though: "Honey, does this dress make my butt look big?"
There's no good answer to that at all. If you hear it coming from your loved ones lips, you're better off throwing yourself out the window than trying to answer it.
And no, "No honey, your butt makes your butt look big" isn't really as conducive to not sleeping on the couch for a few weeks as many single young men would think.
Damn pesky words! And these books are full of 'em!;)
I remember reading Mother of Daemons for the first time - it was a really enjoyable experience, and it didn't bother me one bit that there were "as-yet-completely-unrelated set of characters and unpronounceable place names" - in fact I didn't even notice it. Reading comprehension FTW, I guess:)
Since, I've purchased the physical book twice, and recently downloaded the e-book to my phone, to read it again while commuting.
The usual definition of the "exact same situation" is "if we somehow could rewind the universe to this specific time so that everything in it is exactly the same as it was then". It's a bit silly, but it is also the extreme case which is always good to reason from.
In that context, everything is the same, memories included. Now, the question is: Put in that situation, is it possible that you could choose to act differently than you did when the situation actually occurred?
Don't worry if you can't quite put your finger on any of this, it's a problem that has vexed minds immeasurably superior to ours, or at any rate to mine:) I spent two and a half years studying these things during my university days, so I can tell you that confusion is a state of mind you get used to:)
A further note; neither consciousness, memory, reality, decisions or free will are very well understood or even defined, so there's always going to be room left for interpretation. Which we philosophers thrive on:)
My personal conclusion is that we are indeed deterministic, but that the causal chains that determine our actions are long enough and loose enough that we don't see them, and indeed can't see them. So for us, in a very real sense, we have free will. If nothing else just because of the fact that our understanding of the universe is shaped in a way so that we think that our conscious choices have a real effect on what our actions are.
And what is free will if not the experience that our conscious choices do matter?
The reason forbidding murder doesn't damage our free will is that free will as a philosophical concept has nothing to do with social or monetary restrictions etc, but only with the hypothetical ability to act differently if the exact same situation somehow presented itself again. If that is a possibility we can be said to have free will, if not we are deterministic.
The devil's in the details though, and most discussion about free will nowadays is about how to reconcile the concept of free will with determinism.
Although the data appear to indicate a clear relationship between sunbed use and the development of melanoma, these data could be confounded by the lack of accurate measurement of timing and dose of sunbed exposures and lack of thorough control for concurrent sun exposure and host factors such as phenotype and genetic susceptibility. Until these factors are better characterized, we must exercise caution in evaluating the extent of the risk for cutaneous melanoma posed by sunbeds. Nonetheless, because of this very uncertainty, the data do not support a claim that sunbeds are safe, and such claims should be considered misleading.
In conclusion, it is clear that both UVA and UVB are mutagenic for skin, and for melanocytes in particular. UVA is much less mutagenic in unpigmented cells, but UVA flux to the basal epidermis from sunlight is typically around 50-100-fold higher than UVB flux. Moreover there is evidence that melanin and especially pheomelanin can photosensitize cells to UVA mutagenicity. UVA can initiate melanomas in fish and melanocytic hyperplasia in pigmented opossums, while UVB can induce melanoma in susceptible mice and UVA has generally not been tested. Pending better experimental data on whether UVA can indeed cause melanoma in mammals, and given that it is mutagenic and cell mutations can cause cancer, much stronger steps should be taken internationally to warn users of sunbeds â" even those emitting UVA only â" that this activity may be hazardous, such as mandatory warning notices. An example of such a notice has been made available in the UK (Health and Safety Executive 1995), also at http://www.hse.gov.uk/radiation/nonionising/sunbeds.htm. Specifically use by those under 18 should be banned, and publicity claiming that UVA sunbeds are safe should not be permitted.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty far. It needs to be about 75 times as massive as it is right now to become a star.
Seeing as that would require the equivalent of about 23835 earth masses, I think we're safe for the moment. Or sorry, if you're that way inclined.
Nah. The sun's not due to bloat for about 5 billion years, so this is a much, much more imminent threat.
It would never be implemented simply because there's no good profit in it.
I die a little everytime I hear something like this.
We believe we have a pretty good idea about a star's life cycle, so to determine when Betelgeuse will "go boom", we need to figure out what element it is mostly fusioning at the moment. If it's hydrogen or helium or even oxygen, we're pretty safe from a boom, but if it's silicon we might have to look out for a pretty light show in the not distant future.
Either way, it shouldn't come as a surprise, and that we'd first know it from the gamma burst is most likely wrong.
Well, NOW I do. Curse you, dmomo!
No, my argument is that it's a pointless question.
Of course you're perfectly within your rights to ask pointless questions, just don't expect the answers to be very enlightening.
Face it, whenever you fly, be it in a Boeing or in an Airbus, you're putting your "lives in the hands of a computer", because computers fly planes these days. The "battle-tested pilot" is just along for the ride like the rest of us.
In an emergency the pilot will try to fly the plane and no matter if it's an Airbus or a Boeing, it will let him do that.
So I'll just go ahead and change my argument. The question isn't just pointless, it's in fact meaningless. The only correct answer is "Mu".
(Also doesn't help airbus that they seem to be having many more crashes then Boeing over the last five years).
It might SEEM that way, but the FACTS state that Boeing have had quite a few more crashes than Airbus over the last five years and a lot more if we go back even further.
A simple Google query would have told you this.
And the answer would be what?
"Your safety is in the hands of the computers for 99% of the flight, only at takeoff and landing are the pilots involved in any actual flying."
or
"Your safety is in the hands of our capable and well trained pilots and staff, who we assure you are doing their utmost to get you to your destination safely and without troubles. Please fly with us again!"
One of these is true and one is feel-good bullshit. Which one do you think you are more likely to hear?
Now is the question still reasonable if you don't really want to know the answer?
Huh. Funny that the Wikipedia article on Fuel dumping even shows a picture of a "Fuel dumping point of an Airbus A340-311"...
Here's another quote from that article:
"Longer-range twin jets such as the Boeing 767 and 777 and the Airbus A300, A310, and A330 may or may not have fuel dump systems, depending upon how the aircraft was ordered, since on some aircraft they are a customer option. Three- and four-engine jets like the Lockheed L-1011, McDonnell Douglas DC-10 / MD-11, Boeing 747 and Airbus A340 usually have difficulty meeting the requirements of FAR 25.119 near maximum structural takeoff weight, so most of those have jettison systems. A Boeing 757 has no fuel dump capability as its maximum landing weight is similar to the maximum take-off weight."
Get your facts straight, Mr. Boeing-Name-Tag.
You can learn about ethics without the mindfuck that religion is.
Quoted For Truth.
Ostrich philosophy?! OSTRICH?!?
Hand in your geek card immediately, son!
It's the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal philosophy!
"You can't handle the truth!"
Good one, Colonel Jessep! :)
Cynical, yet insightful. Well done, Sir!
Oh, and I agree completely.
What's that then, when you move your lens in a particularly talented way?
Or did you mean flare?
Why would you want to run a file system check on her? She got bad sectors or something?
</straightface>
You fail to mention the most feared question of all though: "Honey, does this dress make my butt look big?"
There's no good answer to that at all. If you hear it coming from your loved ones lips, you're better off throwing yourself out the window than trying to answer it.
And no, "No honey, your butt makes your butt look big" isn't really as conducive to not sleeping on the couch for a few weeks as many single young men would think.
Worked fine here, and a really impressive video it is (it's the moon passing in front of the sun).
For the crashers - you might want to check your Java version.
Damn pesky words! And these books are full of 'em! ;)
I remember reading Mother of Daemons for the first time - it was a really enjoyable experience, and it didn't bother me one bit that there were "as-yet-completely-unrelated set of characters and unpronounceable place names" - in fact I didn't even notice it. Reading comprehension FTW, I guess :)
Since, I've purchased the physical book twice, and recently downloaded the e-book to my phone, to read it again while commuting.
People don't read Doctorow because it's good (because it isn't), but because it's Doctorow.
That's your opinion, and while you're quite welcome to it, don't try to sell it off as the truth. I quite like his writing.
And as for the "internet [sic] gasbag" moniker - ever looked into a mirror lately? ;)
The usual definition of the "exact same situation" is "if we somehow could rewind the universe to this specific time so that everything in it is exactly the same as it was then". It's a bit silly, but it is also the extreme case which is always good to reason from.
In that context, everything is the same, memories included. Now, the question is: Put in that situation, is it possible that you could choose to act differently than you did when the situation actually occurred?
Don't worry if you can't quite put your finger on any of this, it's a problem that has vexed minds immeasurably superior to ours, or at any rate to mine :) I spent two and a half years studying these things during my university days, so I can tell you that confusion is a state of mind you get used to :)
A further note; neither consciousness, memory, reality, decisions or free will are very well understood or even defined, so there's always going to be room left for interpretation. Which we philosophers thrive on :)
My personal conclusion is that we are indeed deterministic, but that the causal chains that determine our actions are long enough and loose enough that we don't see them, and indeed can't see them. So for us, in a very real sense, we have free will. If nothing else just because of the fact that our understanding of the universe is shaped in a way so that we think that our conscious choices have a real effect on what our actions are.
And what is free will if not the experience that our conscious choices do matter?
bah, tl;dr... ;)
The reason forbidding murder doesn't damage our free will is that free will as a philosophical concept has nothing to do with social or monetary restrictions etc, but only with the hypothetical ability to act differently if the exact same situation somehow presented itself again. If that is a possibility we can be said to have free will, if not we are deterministic.
The devil's in the details though, and most discussion about free will nowadays is about how to reconcile the concept of free will with determinism.
But... But... It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion!
(Behold the might of my repertoire of Clichés! You will succumb to my powers! Muahahahaha!)
Bah, missed the second link:
Ultraviolet wavebands and melanoma initiation
Not really any strong conclusions in there.
Conclusions from the research papers (emphasis mine):
Are tanning beds "safe"? Human studies of melanoma:
Although the data appear to indicate a clear relationship between sunbed use and the development of melanoma, these data could be confounded by the lack of accurate measurement of timing and dose of sunbed exposures and lack of thorough control for concurrent sun exposure and host factors such as phenotype and genetic susceptibility. Until these factors are better characterized, we must exercise caution in evaluating the extent of the risk for cutaneous melanoma posed by sunbeds. Nonetheless, because of this very uncertainty, the data do not support a claim that sunbeds are safe, and such claims should be considered misleading.
In conclusion, it is clear that both UVA and UVB are mutagenic for skin, and for melanocytes in particular. UVA is much less mutagenic in unpigmented cells, but UVA flux to the basal epidermis from sunlight is typically around 50-100-fold higher than UVB flux. Moreover there is evidence that melanin and especially pheomelanin can photosensitize cells to UVA mutagenicity. UVA can initiate melanomas in fish and melanocytic hyperplasia in pigmented opossums, while UVB can induce melanoma in susceptible mice and UVA has generally not been tested. Pending better experimental data on whether UVA can indeed cause melanoma in mammals, and given that it is mutagenic and cell mutations can cause cancer, much stronger steps should be taken internationally to warn users of sunbeds â" even those emitting UVA only â" that this activity may be hazardous, such as mandatory warning notices. An example of such a notice has been made available in the UK (Health and Safety Executive 1995), also at http://www.hse.gov.uk/radiation/nonionising/sunbeds.htm. Specifically use by those under 18 should be banned, and publicity claiming that UVA sunbeds are safe should not be permitted.
Huh. You're comparing the well-renowned Russian rocketry competence with the technology-adverse Amish?
What a strange world you must live in...