The Moon will be very costly to maintain humans on. The "plentiful" water on the Moon is in very relative terms. It's likely to take days of work for a glass full enough to drink. And the extremely abrasive regolith and pitch-black-only shadows plus zero protection for radiation is all going to add risks and work.
[citation needed]. Your claims are at odds with this NASA study which suggests that "thermal extraction of the in-situ water [in lunar regolith] is an attractive means of satisfying water requirements for a lunar mission".
On Mars, north and south of the equator hold hundreds of large, fresh water glaciers more than 2 km deep.
If by "fresh water" you mean "the exact opposite of fresh water" -- it is my understanding that Martian water is more like a brine. Where are you seeing reports of large deposits of "fresh water" on Mars?
And the atmosphere and gravity make it easy to launch this stuff into orbit on single-stage rockets.
Mars' atmosphere is thicker than the moon's, and Mars' gravity is stronger than the moon's. You're wrong on both counts here, if you're still comparing Mars with the moon.
There's also the fact that a fuel depot at Earth-Moon L1 would be a lot more useful than one near Mars, since most missions start here.
So Democrats want money for improved detainment facilities, additional judges to address the backlog of cases, and improved technology to provide a "virtual wall" in many locations, along with additional border agents? Hold that thought.
I would say Democrats want money for things like single payer and green energy (or big pharma and the entertainment industry, if you're more of a cynic), but it turns out that you're somewhat right -- "sensible immigration reform that keeps America’s promise" is the third point listed on the DNC's page itemizing their self-professed beliefs. Digging a bit deeper about what specific actions that might entail, I find this, but the closest reference to anything you describe may be "strengthening in-country... processing", which is quite a far cry from the explicit points you make. As such, I'm not sure if your claim about what Democrats want money for is entirely accurate. I don't doubt that some Democrats have wanted money for some of these policies in the past, or want money for them presently, and I also wouldn't be surprised if Democrats as a party were willing to support policies like this as part of a broader compromise with Republicans, but you're making a much stronger claim for which there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence.
First off, it was always a "scaled-down" solution - he never proposed a border-to-border wall fro $5.7BN, he wanted $25BN for a border-to-border wall, to be built over time - you know, the wall Democrats voted for in 2006.
Presumably you're referring to H.R. 6061, 2006's Secure Fence Act, which both parties supported, but which was primarily opposedby Democrats (it's not clear why you'd think it was most accurate to describe this piece of legislation as "the wall Democrats voted for" and not "the wall Republicans voted for", since it enjoyed much greater support on the Republican side of the aisle). Note, the Secure Fence Act only included $1.4B in appropriations funding for the eponymous "Secure Fence" which it authorized, so it's not clear how you can cite the tepid support Democrats offered this earlier legislation (13 years ago, mind you) as evidence of Democrats' willingness to spend larger amounts on border security, whether $5.7B or $25B. At best, it's evidence that Democrats are willing to tolerate a certain nonzero level of spending increases when it comes to border security, which is consistent with what we're seeing today -- Democrats have offered some $1.3B-$1.6B in increased border funding in the last month or so.
Trump derangement syndrome. Their hatred for him runs so deep that they're willing to do a complete 180 on border security just to stick it to him, the rest of us be damned.
You falsely imply that keeping illegal border crossings open is important to Democrats.
First, it's not clear what it means for an "illegal border crossing" to be "kept open", but more importantly, the Democrats have already offered over a billion dollars to improve border security -- it's the $5.7B for a "wall" or "physical barrier" or "not a wall from sea to shining sea but merely a few improvements" that Trump's requesting that they're disagreeing with.
I'd also like to point out that while the scope of Trump's proposed border security "solution" keeps shrinking, the price tag does not. If he needed $5.7B to "build the wall!", then why isn't it considerably cheaper to implement his newly scaled down plan?
and the US now nolonger is reliant on Russia for ferrying astronauts to and from the ISS
I'm as big a SpaceX fan as the next guy, but Crew Dragon hasn't even had an uncrewed launch yet (scheduled for 2019 January 17). We're still very much reliant on foreign providers, for now.
In the west, virtually nothing can be done that isn't massively subsidized by taxpayers. From the infrastructure that taxpayers have already funded to the international stability that is enforced by the US military at taxpayer expense, it's hard to engage in any economic activity, no matter how trivial, without benefiting from a taxpayer subsidy of some sort.
Also, regarding your point about waste: if it's still radioactive, it's not waste, it's fuel. Political opposition to fast breeder reactors is the primary reason why large amounts of fissile material are put into storage instead of being used as fuel, so it's somewhat disingenuous for nuclear's opponents to complain about a problem they themselves are the cause of.
The largest consumer of fuel in the USA is the US Air Force. The largest air force in the world is the US Air Force. The second largest air force in the world is the US Navy. The third largest air force in the world is the US Marine Corps.
Not that this has any bearing on the validity of your argument, but you seem to have forgotten Army.
According to a Quora post based on data pulled from a Wikipedia page (I know, I know), Air Force comes in first with 5005 airframes, but Army comes in second with 4193 airframes. I'm actually surprised to see this, as I was under the impression that Army actually had more than anyone else. Indeed, as one of the other Quora posts indicates: "The standard answer about the U.S. Army is that it has more aircraft than the Air Force and more boats than the Navy."
Find one original experimental study which shows a direct, causative link between CO2 and temperature increase.
You know what's great about science? You can do it yourself!
Here you'll find one of many youtube videos that demonstrates a simple experiment that you can perform using commonly available materials in your own home to show a direct, causative link between CO2 and temperature increase, just as you've asked.
Hopefully your mind will be equally blown this time around.
Also, your google-fu sucks. Seriously. That video took me all of 10 seconds to find, and the experiment it describes could be performed by a kid in grammar school.
I know the Sanders supporters are going to claim until they die that Bernie won and Clinton stole the nomination, but the superdelegates did not put her over the top.
What is your methodology for quantifying the momentum Clinton benefited from as a result of the abnormally early public declarations of support she received from superdelegates? Without knowing that, it's hard to evaluate the validity of your claim that the superdelegates did not put her over the top.
People forget that in 2008 the superdelegates voted mostly for Obama and they didn't mostly vote for supposed vote stealing Hillary.
People forget a lot about 2008. Like the fact that only a single superdelegate publicly declared support for a candidate ahead of the Iowa caucuses (and, perhaps ironically, for Clinton, not Obama). In 2016, Team Hillary rushed the field long before Iowa, amassing [I believe] hundreds before the first vote was even cast.
The only downside I've seen to virtualization is if you should need some graphically intense application to work. Don't even try running something like Starcraft II in a VM'd Windows. MS Office sure, but no 3D games.
This hasn't been the case for years. IOMMU makes it possible to passthrough your GPU to a VM, allowing near-native performance.
My primary home computer is a VM host (running Arch), and I have a handful of VMs on it for various purposes. One of them is a Windows 10 VM, to which I passthrough a GTX 970 (thinking about upgrading), and gaming benchmarks suggest it's within 5% of running Windows baremetal.
One reason (of many) that this debate never goes anywhere is because the participants don't seem to be speaking the same language, in a sense.
To one person, a fully automatic rifle means what the dictionary says it means. To another, it means "oh, well, you know what I mean". This doesn't facilitate effective communication and often prevents meaningful discussion, as both participants end up arguing over definitions, as we just saw here.
In response to your amendment of the original point, you raise an interesting question (or, perhaps you seem to assume an answer as well): How do other jurisdictions in which semiautomatic arms are legal treat bump stocks? My understanding is that bump stocks are a relatively novel (and impractical) development, and based on the assumption that legislatures are slow to draft laws for which there is no pressing need, I'm curious if they are indeed banned in other countries as you seem to assume.
In any case, I'm of the opinion that digressing onto the niche subject of bump stocks (are they commonly used in crime?) moves the discussion in an unproductive direction. Most gun deaths in the US (2/3, in fact) are attributable to plain old handguns (though this may or may not include suicides, research your own stats), so talking about machine guns and/or bump stocks seems like a bit of a distraction.
But one thing I did see was that this hunk of shit takes about 7.2 MegaWatt hours per-charge. That's an INSANE amount of power just to keep one of these rigs running. By comparison your average US house hold uses about 897 kilowatt hours a month for all of their electrify needs.
A typical diesel truck has two 100-gallon fuel tanks. Diesel is about 40.7 kWh/gallon. That's over 8 mWh to fuel up a diesel truck.
Then it's very interesting that Sweden and Norway have a higher proportion of foreign-born residents than the USA but still manage to have more "uniformity of culture", no?
So, for the record, the article I linked to which quotes Tamarra James-Todd has nothing to do with this study about sitting. It predates the publication of this sitting study by over a year, even.
That being said, while I agree that performing studies exclusively on females explicitly in response to the historical focus on men wouldn't really make sense, I'm not aware of any evidence to make such a claim. Your response here, however, seems quite emotionally charged. I'm not sure how allegations of a "vengeful temper-tantrum" are warranted in response to someone dispassionately and objectively reporting statistical observations. The only thing that's "revealing" here is your apparent anger with anyone embracing evidence-based reasoning if its conclusions conflict with your worldview.
Why did they just study women?
It seems like anything that affects women gets attention, while society doesn't even value men.
While I'm not familiar with this particular study and can't explain why the researchers chose to focus on women exclusively, I'd like to call your attention to this exerpt from a Guardian article from 2015:
For several reasons, female subjects have historically been excluded from toxicology or biomedical research, says Tamarra James-Todd, an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School. While progress has been made since 1993, when the National Institutes of Health mandated that women and minorities be included in any government-funded health research, there’s still a long way to go.
Indeed, this trend of including females in studies at all is relatively recent, and females are still underrepresented in study populations in general to this day. Please consider that your perception of an unreasonable focus on women when it comes to medical research seems at odds with the empirical data that we have.
But if the malicious code was put on an electric utility machine by Russian intelligence you have to assume that the grid is at least one of their ultimate targets.
Sure, as long as you're consistent in your reasoning. So if the malicious code was put on Joe Sixpack's machine by Russian intelligence you have to assume that the general public is also one of their ultimate targets. And indeed, this being generic malware available for purchase, your reasoning really starts to look questionable.
Hi. Militant atheist here. I'm no historian, and it seems like you guys know a lot more about this subject than I do, so I'm not even trying to participate in this discussion on any meaningful level. But...
Perhaps I'm being pedantic here, but it seems like you're somewhat surprised that nobody wrote about Jesus's alleged resurrection during his lifetime. But, in a strict sense, if they had, wouldn't that constitute prophecy? Since his alleged resurrection would've happened until after his life had already ended?
They're also in Windows-1252 (cp1252) as 0x93 and 0x94, which are control codes in utf-8. However, many web sites using this encoding claim (falsely) that they're utf-8, which causes these characters to fail to render properly. The blame can be shared between Microsoft (for having their own idiotic encoding) and web developers (who don't understand the concept of character encoding at all).
Slashdot Mirror
The Moon will be very costly to maintain humans on. The "plentiful" water on the Moon is in very relative terms. It's likely to take days of work for a glass full enough to drink. And the extremely abrasive regolith and pitch-black-only shadows plus zero protection for radiation is all going to add risks and work.
[citation needed]. Your claims are at odds with this NASA study which suggests that "thermal extraction of the in-situ water [in lunar regolith] is an attractive means of satisfying water requirements for a lunar mission".
On Mars, north and south of the equator hold hundreds of large, fresh water glaciers more than 2 km deep.
If by "fresh water" you mean "the exact opposite of fresh water" -- it is my understanding that Martian water is more like a brine. Where are you seeing reports of large deposits of "fresh water" on Mars?
And the atmosphere and gravity make it easy to launch this stuff into orbit on single-stage rockets.
Mars' atmosphere is thicker than the moon's, and Mars' gravity is stronger than the moon's. You're wrong on both counts here, if you're still comparing Mars with the moon.
There's also the fact that a fuel depot at Earth-Moon L1 would be a lot more useful than one near Mars, since most missions start here.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world...
So Democrats want money for improved detainment facilities, additional judges to address the backlog of cases, and improved technology to provide a "virtual wall" in many locations, along with additional border agents? Hold that thought.
I would say Democrats want money for things like single payer and green energy (or big pharma and the entertainment industry, if you're more of a cynic), but it turns out that you're somewhat right -- "sensible immigration reform that keeps America’s promise" is the third point listed on the DNC's page itemizing their self-professed beliefs. Digging a bit deeper about what specific actions that might entail, I find this, but the closest reference to anything you describe may be "strengthening in-country... processing", which is quite a far cry from the explicit points you make. As such, I'm not sure if your claim about what Democrats want money for is entirely accurate. I don't doubt that some Democrats have wanted money for some of these policies in the past, or want money for them presently, and I also wouldn't be surprised if Democrats as a party were willing to support policies like this as part of a broader compromise with Republicans, but you're making a much stronger claim for which there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence.
First off, it was always a "scaled-down" solution - he never proposed a border-to-border wall fro $5.7BN, he wanted $25BN for a border-to-border wall, to be built over time - you know, the wall Democrats voted for in 2006.
Presumably you're referring to H.R. 6061, 2006's Secure Fence Act, which both parties supported, but which was primarily opposed by Democrats (it's not clear why you'd think it was most accurate to describe this piece of legislation as "the wall Democrats voted for" and not "the wall Republicans voted for", since it enjoyed much greater support on the Republican side of the aisle). Note, the Secure Fence Act only included $1.4B in appropriations funding for the eponymous "Secure Fence" which it authorized, so it's not clear how you can cite the tepid support Democrats offered this earlier legislation (13 years ago, mind you) as evidence of Democrats' willingness to spend larger amounts on border security, whether $5.7B or $25B. At best, it's evidence that Democrats are willing to tolerate a certain nonzero level of spending increases when it comes to border security, which is consistent with what we're seeing today -- Democrats have offered some $1.3B-$1.6B in increased border funding in the last month or so.
Trump derangement syndrome. Their hatred for him runs so deep that they're willing to do a complete 180 on border security just to stick it to him, the rest of us be damned.
You falsely imply that keeping illegal border crossings open is important to Democrats.
First, it's not clear what it means for an "illegal border crossing" to be "kept open", but more importantly, the Democrats have already offered over a billion dollars to improve border security -- it's the $5.7B for a "wall" or "physical barrier" or "not a wall from sea to shining sea but merely a few improvements" that Trump's requesting that they're disagreeing with.
I'd also like to point out that while the scope of Trump's proposed border security "solution" keeps shrinking, the price tag does not. If he needed $5.7B to "build the wall!", then why isn't it considerably cheaper to implement his newly scaled down plan?
and the US now nolonger is reliant on Russia for ferrying astronauts to and from the ISS
I'm as big a SpaceX fan as the next guy, but Crew Dragon hasn't even had an uncrewed launch yet (scheduled for 2019 January 17). We're still very much reliant on foreign providers, for now.
In the west, virtually nothing can be done that isn't massively subsidized by taxpayers. From the infrastructure that taxpayers have already funded to the international stability that is enforced by the US military at taxpayer expense, it's hard to engage in any economic activity, no matter how trivial, without benefiting from a taxpayer subsidy of some sort.
Also, regarding your point about waste: if it's still radioactive, it's not waste, it's fuel. Political opposition to fast breeder reactors is the primary reason why large amounts of fissile material are put into storage instead of being used as fuel, so it's somewhat disingenuous for nuclear's opponents to complain about a problem they themselves are the cause of.
The largest consumer of fuel in the USA is the US Air Force. The largest air force in the world is the US Air Force. The second largest air force in the world is the US Navy. The third largest air force in the world is the US Marine Corps.
Not that this has any bearing on the validity of your argument, but you seem to have forgotten Army.
According to a Quora post based on data pulled from a Wikipedia page (I know, I know), Air Force comes in first with 5005 airframes, but Army comes in second with 4193 airframes. I'm actually surprised to see this, as I was under the impression that Army actually had more than anyone else. Indeed, as one of the other Quora posts indicates: "The standard answer about the U.S. Army is that it has more aircraft than the Air Force and more boats than the Navy."
until they can actually show renewed neuron activity
but, as per your own quote...
billions of individual cells in the brains were found to be healthy and capable of normal activity.
Find one original experimental study which shows a direct, causative link between CO2 and temperature increase.
You know what's great about science? You can do it yourself!
Here you'll find one of many youtube videos that demonstrates a simple experiment that you can perform using commonly available materials in your own home to show a direct, causative link between CO2 and temperature increase, just as you've asked.
Hopefully your mind will be equally blown this time around.
Also, your google-fu sucks. Seriously. That video took me all of 10 seconds to find, and the experiment it describes could be performed by a kid in grammar school.
I know the Sanders supporters are going to claim until they die that Bernie won and Clinton stole the nomination, but the superdelegates did not put her over the top.
What is your methodology for quantifying the momentum Clinton benefited from as a result of the abnormally early public declarations of support she received from superdelegates? Without knowing that, it's hard to evaluate the validity of your claim that the superdelegates did not put her over the top.
People forget that in 2008 the superdelegates voted mostly for Obama and they didn't mostly vote for supposed vote stealing Hillary.
People forget a lot about 2008. Like the fact that only a single superdelegate publicly declared support for a candidate ahead of the Iowa caucuses (and, perhaps ironically, for Clinton, not Obama). In 2016, Team Hillary rushed the field long before Iowa, amassing [I believe] hundreds before the first vote was even cast.
... you guys hiring? :P
Have you considered the possibility that she may be really smart?
The only downside I've seen to virtualization is if you should need some graphically intense application to work. Don't even try running something like Starcraft II in a VM'd Windows. MS Office sure, but no 3D games.
This hasn't been the case for years. IOMMU makes it possible to passthrough your GPU to a VM, allowing near-native performance.
My primary home computer is a VM host (running Arch), and I have a handful of VMs on it for various purposes. One of them is a Windows 10 VM, to which I passthrough a GTX 970 (thinking about upgrading), and gaming benchmarks suggest it's within 5% of running Windows baremetal.
One reason (of many) that this debate never goes anywhere is because the participants don't seem to be speaking the same language, in a sense.
To one person, a fully automatic rifle means what the dictionary says it means. To another, it means "oh, well, you know what I mean". This doesn't facilitate effective communication and often prevents meaningful discussion, as both participants end up arguing over definitions, as we just saw here.
In response to your amendment of the original point, you raise an interesting question (or, perhaps you seem to assume an answer as well): How do other jurisdictions in which semiautomatic arms are legal treat bump stocks? My understanding is that bump stocks are a relatively novel (and impractical) development, and based on the assumption that legislatures are slow to draft laws for which there is no pressing need, I'm curious if they are indeed banned in other countries as you seem to assume.
In any case, I'm of the opinion that digressing onto the niche subject of bump stocks (are they commonly used in crime?) moves the discussion in an unproductive direction. Most gun deaths in the US (2/3, in fact) are attributable to plain old handguns (though this may or may not include suicides, research your own stats), so talking about machine guns and/or bump stocks seems like a bit of a distraction.
Taxation is theft!
Just like copyright infringement, right?
But one thing I did see was that this hunk of shit takes about 7.2 MegaWatt hours per-charge. That's an INSANE amount of power just to keep one of these rigs running. By comparison your average US house hold uses about 897 kilowatt hours a month for all of their electrify needs.
A typical diesel truck has two 100-gallon fuel tanks. Diesel is about 40.7 kWh/gallon. That's over 8 mWh to fuel up a diesel truck.
Counterexample: I'm a liberal (I voted for Sanders in the primary and Stein in the general) and I've liked Comey for the duration of this mess.
Then it's very interesting that Sweden and Norway have a higher proportion of foreign-born residents than the USA but still manage to have more "uniformity of culture", no?
So, for the record, the article I linked to which quotes Tamarra James-Todd has nothing to do with this study about sitting. It predates the publication of this sitting study by over a year, even.
That being said, while I agree that performing studies exclusively on females explicitly in response to the historical focus on men wouldn't really make sense, I'm not aware of any evidence to make such a claim. Your response here, however, seems quite emotionally charged. I'm not sure how allegations of a "vengeful temper-tantrum" are warranted in response to someone dispassionately and objectively reporting statistical observations. The only thing that's "revealing" here is your apparent anger with anyone embracing evidence-based reasoning if its conclusions conflict with your worldview.
Why did they just study women?
It seems like anything that affects women gets attention, while society doesn't even value men.
While I'm not familiar with this particular study and can't explain why the researchers chose to focus on women exclusively, I'd like to call your attention to this exerpt from a Guardian article from 2015:
For several reasons, female subjects have historically been excluded from toxicology or biomedical research, says Tamarra James-Todd, an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School. While progress has been made since 1993, when the National Institutes of Health mandated that women and minorities be included in any government-funded health research, there’s still a long way to go.
Indeed, this trend of including females in studies at all is relatively recent, and females are still underrepresented in study populations in general to this day. Please consider that your perception of an unreasonable focus on women when it comes to medical research seems at odds with the empirical data that we have.
But if the malicious code was put on an electric utility machine by Russian intelligence you have to assume that the grid is at least one of their ultimate targets.
Sure, as long as you're consistent in your reasoning. So if the malicious code was put on Joe Sixpack's machine by Russian intelligence you have to assume that the general public is also one of their ultimate targets. And indeed, this being generic malware available for purchase, your reasoning really starts to look questionable.
our only Mid-Eastern ally Israel
Is Saudi Arabia no longer part of the Middle East? Oman? UAE?
In most cases there are sculptures or paintings or drawings or written records of these people created during their life.
Here you set the bar at "during their life".
I mean, seriously- he died and then came back to life, and no one wrote a single fucking word about it?
Here you identify alleged resurrection (had it occurred) as sufficiently noteworthy to have merited some mention.
Hi. Militant atheist here. I'm no historian, and it seems like you guys know a lot more about this subject than I do, so I'm not even trying to participate in this discussion on any meaningful level. But...
Perhaps I'm being pedantic here, but it seems like you're somewhat surprised that nobody wrote about Jesus's alleged resurrection during his lifetime. But, in a strict sense, if they had, wouldn't that constitute prophecy? Since his alleged resurrection would've happened until after his life had already ended?
They're also in Windows-1252 (cp1252) as 0x93 and 0x94, which are control codes in utf-8. However, many web sites using this encoding claim (falsely) that they're utf-8, which causes these characters to fail to render properly. The blame can be shared between Microsoft (for having their own idiotic encoding) and web developers (who don't understand the concept of character encoding at all).