Maybe the rest of the world is wrong?
Even with the American Love-fest for guns, Americans did not exterminate tens of millions of their own population like Europe/Asia did less than 60 years ago.
And for Global warming, prove that it is a reversible process initiated by humans and not a result of the cyclical nature of our solar system.
Wouldn't the neutrinos actually be younger than 8 minutes by the time they pass through your body because of time dilation?
If their speed was 99.9% the speed of light they would only be about.358 minutes = 21.5 seconds old by the time they reached earth in the neutrino frame. However, I don't recall the typical speed of a neutrino so this value will be off.
Haha, funny.
Property rights are human rights.
There are entangled as one.
If you cannot keep the proceeds of your efforts that you rightfully earned (through financial interactions with others), then you are not free at all. If you cannot keep that money or items you earned, then you cannot possibly take care of yourself, and must rely on others for help.
That is why theft is a crime. If I work hard to put food on the table and somebody steals the money in my wallet that I rightfully earned, I cannot feed my family. Hopefully, my friends will suffer a bit from the theft to help me eat, but overall humanity suffers from the theft.
When people take money that they have not rightfully earned, humanity as a whole suffers. When people squander money and don't save for retirement, humanity as a whole suffers. It is in everyone's best interest to be financially independent and smart about their investments, without dependency on others.
I have a hard time forseeing a lack of private charities for such a situation.
The best thing to do is bite the bullet and kill social security. Sure, it will cause IMMEDIATE problems that will have to be aided by private charity. However, that would be the extent of the problem because only this particular batch of retired people will suffer. LONG TERM, the problem would disappear completely as future generations become more responsible and intelligent about their financial situations and the limits that they should place on their governments.
If social security continues, this catostrophe will be a continuing event. In fact, it will get worse. People growing up to be child bearing age will be less likely to have children (less money availible because you have to feed retired people), and thus the old people will no longer be able to raid the pockets of the young for their retirements.
Besides, where have you ever heard of a line in the constitution for "Right to a full paid retirement"? I never saw one, and I don't think there should be such a thing.
Retirements are extravagance. It is a nice thing that all of our old people have a good retirement but it is not necessary and when the times get tough, we won't be able to preserve retirement for everyone anyway.
That law pisses me off. I would love to go straight from tampa to love field, but I can't because of that stupid law.
And I refuse to fly American, I am constantly disappointed with the way they run things on their end.
5 months or almost half a year.
If he's an average guy, he'll live to be around 75 years old.
So, he'll be spending almost 1/125th of his life waiting in line for a star wars movie, probably much more than that since he saw the other two barf fests.
doesn't the probe have an RTG or some power source other than a battery?
It's a shame to have come all this way with only a very short operating life for the probe.
A book I read, called Before It's Too Late by Bernard Cohen, talked about this. The author offered to eat as much plutonium as someone else ate in caffeine to make a point, but nobody took him up on the offer.
No, actually they do.
There are small amounts of radioactive isotopes in coal that, when burned, are easily breathed in where they can do harm in the lungs.
Like radon, if I remember correctly.
Even if all the cars in the world were hydrogen, we would still be polluting. Where do you think the electricity to make the hydrogen comes from?
In the U.S., we'll have to get realistic about nuclear power and reprocessing, or else we won't have any alternatives to coal.
Are these the same people that are incapable of predicting where a hurricane is going to hit on the panhandle of florida within the span of 3 days?
Assuming the climate is a chaotic system with unknown variables (the sun's cycle isn't fully known, the model of the earth itself isn't entirely accurate, and who knows what other contributions are there), there is no way to extrapolate the data and say "We are all DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED! Revert back to the energy levels of a few centuries ago!"
The variables simply cannot be known within enough certainty to predict a chaotic system (and chaotic systems, are in fact, unpredictable because of this reason.) A change in one variable of.01% can result in a massive difference in the behavior of a system a period of time from now.
Also, are these climate models being used to predict the weather now? I mean, if I were to plug in the values for the climate in 1970 could I predict to within any certainty the bounds for earth's climate in any reasonable time after 1970? I doubt that I could do such a thing without fudging my results.
The car you drive should be bigger than the coffin you plan to be buried in. If you want to have to be creamated, go ahead and drive in a deathbox.
Also, with 20 seconds to get to 60mph I can imagine it being a nuisance to other cars, and a hazard if it really needs to get out of the way of something bigger. Being so small, it is also probably hard to see in the rear or side view if it is in the right location at the time.
Go ahead and drive those things, just don't force your decision on everyone else.
An altitude of 130km? How long would a capsule stay at that altitude without additional boost?
Just curious, because I don't take astrodynamics until next semester and that seems like a rather low orbit.
What's to keep someone from crashing into your ass with a car? Or a semi? or hitting you in the neck with an axe? or shooting you in the face with a bullet from a pistol? All of these things can happen. Afterall, we were heavily regulated in the FAA when two people decided to take control over a few airliners and started plunging them into buildings. Regulations didn't stop them either.
Shit happens, that is reality. Regulation doesn't stop shit from happening. They just provide the illusion of security.
I remember seeing a news show demonstrating Delta's (or some other airline's) lack of concern for the proper direction of a child seat on their airplanes. In all likelyhood, if a child is on a plane and it crashes that child is dead. All the childseat does is provide the illusion of safety, and lawsuits to keep lawyers happy.
I've heard from multiple sources that n-body (with n > 2) problems are unsolvable exactly with current techniques.
For instance, we can predict the motion of all the planets of the solar system for a certain length of time by only considering the sun's gravity, and once that prediction goes bad we use new boundary conditions for another estimate that will last a length of time. But we have no way of predicting what planetary motion will look like millions of years from now with much accuracy. (I could be wrong in magnitude here, I haven't reached my orbital mechanics class yet)
My problem with the article is not the feasibility of the various electronics incorporated into every day life. My problem with the article is the lack of energy discussion. For all of this electricity to be flowing around in our various appliances, including our toilets, in 10 years, something is going to have to change. With the massive fear of global warming being drummed into everyone's heads, the U.S. still hasn't built a nuclear power plant in a couple of decades.
Coal and oil power kills at least 10,000 people a year, and although we need the power to continue living as we do, there are other ways to make that massive amount of energy without the cost to the environment in the form of pollution. I do not particularly ascribe to the notion that all hell is going to break loose because of CO2 emissions, but I do think that reducing our production of sulfer dioxides and spewing radioactive particles in the air by burning coals is something to move away from.
There has never been a fatal nuclear power accident in the U.S., nuclear power produces no harmful emissions, and radioactive waste can be safely buried underground where it poses no harm to humans. If we seriously are looking forward to a day where everything is run by electronics, we will need to increase our power imput, and the best way, as I see it, is nuclear power.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the rest of the world is wrong? Even with the American Love-fest for guns, Americans did not exterminate tens of millions of their own population like Europe/Asia did less than 60 years ago. And for Global warming, prove that it is a reversible process initiated by humans and not a result of the cyclical nature of our solar system.
Wouldn't the neutrinos actually be younger than 8 minutes by the time they pass through your body because of time dilation? If their speed was 99.9% the speed of light they would only be about .358 minutes = 21.5 seconds old by the time they reached earth in the neutrino frame. However, I don't recall the typical speed of a neutrino so this value will be off.
Sounds like a good way for them to get shot or stabbed in retaliation
Haha, funny.
Property rights are human rights.
There are entangled as one.
If you cannot keep the proceeds of your efforts that you rightfully earned (through financial interactions with others), then you are not free at all. If you cannot keep that money or items you earned, then you cannot possibly take care of yourself, and must rely on others for help.
That is why theft is a crime. If I work hard to put food on the table and somebody steals the money in my wallet that I rightfully earned, I cannot feed my family. Hopefully, my friends will suffer a bit from the theft to help me eat, but overall humanity suffers from the theft.
When people take money that they have not rightfully earned, humanity as a whole suffers. When people squander money and don't save for retirement, humanity as a whole suffers. It is in everyone's best interest to be financially independent and smart about their investments, without dependency on others.
I have a hard time forseeing a lack of private charities for such a situation. The best thing to do is bite the bullet and kill social security. Sure, it will cause IMMEDIATE problems that will have to be aided by private charity. However, that would be the extent of the problem because only this particular batch of retired people will suffer. LONG TERM, the problem would disappear completely as future generations become more responsible and intelligent about their financial situations and the limits that they should place on their governments. If social security continues, this catostrophe will be a continuing event. In fact, it will get worse. People growing up to be child bearing age will be less likely to have children (less money availible because you have to feed retired people), and thus the old people will no longer be able to raid the pockets of the young for their retirements. Besides, where have you ever heard of a line in the constitution for "Right to a full paid retirement"? I never saw one, and I don't think there should be such a thing. Retirements are extravagance. It is a nice thing that all of our old people have a good retirement but it is not necessary and when the times get tough, we won't be able to preserve retirement for everyone anyway.
They learn. If not, they go to private charity to get assistance when needed.
That law pisses me off. I would love to go straight from tampa to love field, but I can't because of that stupid law. And I refuse to fly American, I am constantly disappointed with the way they run things on their end.
5 months or almost half a year. If he's an average guy, he'll live to be around 75 years old. So, he'll be spending almost 1/125th of his life waiting in line for a star wars movie, probably much more than that since he saw the other two barf fests.
doesn't the probe have an RTG or some power source other than a battery? It's a shame to have come all this way with only a very short operating life for the probe.
A book I read, called Before It's Too Late by Bernard Cohen, talked about this. The author offered to eat as much plutonium as someone else ate in caffeine to make a point, but nobody took him up on the offer.
No, actually they do. There are small amounts of radioactive isotopes in coal that, when burned, are easily breathed in where they can do harm in the lungs. Like radon, if I remember correctly.
Yeah, and afghan females just voted for the first time--ever--thanks to U.S. involvement.
Wow seems like some people don't like your opinion. (being modded straight down to hell) I definitely agree with what you just said.
Even if all the cars in the world were hydrogen, we would still be polluting. Where do you think the electricity to make the hydrogen comes from? In the U.S., we'll have to get realistic about nuclear power and reprocessing, or else we won't have any alternatives to coal.
Are these the same people that are incapable of predicting where a hurricane is going to hit on the panhandle of florida within the span of 3 days? Assuming the climate is a chaotic system with unknown variables (the sun's cycle isn't fully known, the model of the earth itself isn't entirely accurate, and who knows what other contributions are there), there is no way to extrapolate the data and say "We are all DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED! Revert back to the energy levels of a few centuries ago!" The variables simply cannot be known within enough certainty to predict a chaotic system (and chaotic systems, are in fact, unpredictable because of this reason.) A change in one variable of .01% can result in a massive difference in the behavior of a system a period of time from now.
Also, are these climate models being used to predict the weather now? I mean, if I were to plug in the values for the climate in 1970 could I predict to within any certainty the bounds for earth's climate in any reasonable time after 1970? I doubt that I could do such a thing without fudging my results.
The car you drive should be bigger than the coffin you plan to be buried in. If you want to have to be creamated, go ahead and drive in a deathbox.
Also, with 20 seconds to get to 60mph I can imagine it being a nuisance to other cars, and a hazard if it really needs to get out of the way of something bigger. Being so small, it is also probably hard to see in the rear or side view if it is in the right location at the time.
Go ahead and drive those things, just don't force your decision on everyone else.
An altitude of 130km? How long would a capsule stay at that altitude without additional boost? Just curious, because I don't take astrodynamics until next semester and that seems like a rather low orbit.
What's to keep someone from crashing into your ass with a car? Or a semi? or hitting you in the neck with an axe? or shooting you in the face with a bullet from a pistol? All of these things can happen. Afterall, we were heavily regulated in the FAA when two people decided to take control over a few airliners and started plunging them into buildings. Regulations didn't stop them either. Shit happens, that is reality. Regulation doesn't stop shit from happening. They just provide the illusion of security. I remember seeing a news show demonstrating Delta's (or some other airline's) lack of concern for the proper direction of a child seat on their airplanes. In all likelyhood, if a child is on a plane and it crashes that child is dead. All the childseat does is provide the illusion of safety, and lawsuits to keep lawyers happy.
Now we can get Viagra spam when we drive by billboards!
I've heard from multiple sources that n-body (with n > 2) problems are unsolvable exactly with current techniques. For instance, we can predict the motion of all the planets of the solar system for a certain length of time by only considering the sun's gravity, and once that prediction goes bad we use new boundary conditions for another estimate that will last a length of time. But we have no way of predicting what planetary motion will look like millions of years from now with much accuracy. (I could be wrong in magnitude here, I haven't reached my orbital mechanics class yet)
My problem with the article is not the feasibility of the various electronics incorporated into every day life. My problem with the article is the lack of energy discussion. For all of this electricity to be flowing around in our various appliances, including our toilets, in 10 years, something is going to have to change. With the massive fear of global warming being drummed into everyone's heads, the U.S. still hasn't built a nuclear power plant in a couple of decades. Coal and oil power kills at least 10,000 people a year, and although we need the power to continue living as we do, there are other ways to make that massive amount of energy without the cost to the environment in the form of pollution. I do not particularly ascribe to the notion that all hell is going to break loose because of CO2 emissions, but I do think that reducing our production of sulfer dioxides and spewing radioactive particles in the air by burning coals is something to move away from. There has never been a fatal nuclear power accident in the U.S., nuclear power produces no harmful emissions, and radioactive waste can be safely buried underground where it poses no harm to humans. If we seriously are looking forward to a day where everything is run by electronics, we will need to increase our power imput, and the best way, as I see it, is nuclear power.