The galaxy and earth in general are pretty hostile places. Why should we care what they think?
Who said I even anthropomorphized them like you did? It's not about them, it's about us, and our motivation for taking an action of questionable value and astronomical (literally!) cost.
On the other hand if you are content to see all life as we know it wiped out, theres not much more that can be said.
Emphasis added. If we cease to exist, then the importance of "life as we know it" ceases to exist. Or are you claiming there's an underlying importance to the existence of life as we know it that exists beyond our ability to know it?
We might be the only intelligent race in this entire Universe, is that something not worth saving? Maybe it's not, maybe it is, I don't know and neither do you.
So it's an issue to be dismissed, not worthy of consideration or discussion?
The point is that we can spend trillions to make it more likely that we'll survive a planetary catastrophe. The need for this presumes that it is important to do so. So, if people want to justify the need for it, they need to justify the underlying belief that the need arises from.
Sorry if you got your panties all in a bunch over the question, it wasn;t meant to irk you or anyone else. To answer your first couple questions:
Then maybe you should go kill yourself? I mean why is your life so important that you must live and suck up the resources of this planet?
Because I exist, and that is enough. It is an imperative that I be able to continue to exist of my own free will, which requires consumption of resources, so long as I do not needlessly infringe upon that right in others. But if I cease to exist, that imperative disappears. In the event of a catastrophe, where all but a handful of humanity is destroyed (myself included in those who perish), where is the imperative for me to ensure survival of strangers?
Is there some reason that the civilization that has achieved that shouldn't be preserved?
I'm asking the opposite question... is there some reason it *should* be preserved? Your question, while useful, doesn't really answer mine... I get the feeling that I asked "Why?" and your answer is "Why not?"
We're rational creatures to a certain extent... surely there is a rationale other than "because we evolved to want to survive". We use our powers of logic and reasoning to overcome behavior that arises from our desire to procreate and survive all the time. People use birth control and wear condoms, for example, and not just to prevent disease.
I'm reminded of Ozymandias by Shelley -- it ends in the sextain
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: And on the pedestal these words appear:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away".
The private Tier One spaceship cost between 20 and 30 million dollars... from scratch.
FYI, the craft was called SpaceShipOne. The program is called Tier One. Too bad neither compares with what the NASA programs are/were working on. To sum up:
1. Altitude. That 20-30 MM got to suborbital altitude only. How about going high enough to actually *get something done*? 2. Duration. SpaceShipOne can only stay at altitude for a few minutes due to the ballistic nature of the final trajectory. How about staying long enough to *get something done*? 3. Payload. SpaceShipOne has a max payload of some 2400 kg (in theory -- has not been tested), compared to 22,700 kg for the shuttle program, and projected 188,000 kg for LEO / 71,000 to the moon for the Constellation program. Even the Ares V Lite would carry 140,000 kg to LEO. 4. Crew capacity. SpaceShipOne can carry three crew members only, compared to seven for the shuttle, and six for the Orion capsule.
If you want to compare cost of the programs, you need to compare utility as well. And Tier One is woeful in terms of anything other than a stepping stone for more ambitious programs.
If you want to compare the cost of Constellation and Orion to what Scaled Composites is doing, then you need to wait until we know the full cost of TierTwo, which is supposed to encompass LEO, and some of TierThree, which is rumored to encompass both lunar travel and interplanetary travel. Until then, kindly fasten your seatbelt before takeoff and enjoy the view, because commenting on cost of programs with disparate utility and goals is meaningless.
For me it's as simple as survival. As long as humanity is confined to a single planet, we're vulnerable to being wiped out by a planetary scale disaster. Move some of us to a self-sufficient base on Mars, and even if Earth turns back into molten slag, humanity will continue to exist.
Out of curiosity, why is the survival of the human race so important?
I mean, I really want to know... what is the foundation of the idea that the human race must survive at all costs? Why should we not accept that if the earth gets hit by a quasar pulse, our time is up and that's all she wrote? Are we that important to the galaxy or the universe that the survival of the human race is of such paramount importance? Seems like a bit of hubris to me.
I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious about the philosophical underpinnings of your common mentality. I'm not saying I disagree with it, I haven't completely thought it out... so I'd like to read why it's a given that we need to ensure the survival of human life.
Where are politicians with guts who care more about the future of the country than getting elected with phony promises and posturing?
Where are the purple flying unicorns?
A politician cannot get elected to the highest offices unless they prioritize getting (re-)elected over achieving meaningful progress. This is why there are no politicians with the fortitude to do what must be done. And if one somehow manages to claw his way to the top and get elected to Congress, he is quickly marginalized by the deadbeat politicians who dominate the system. He'll slowly be brought into the system, as he willingly trades away his ideals in order to get something done, one small step at a time.
Our culture disembowels those who wish to maintain principles while in office. But we put them there... we vote on 15-second sound-bites. We vote on who has better hair, who we'd rather our daughter date, who we'd like to imagine our fathers and grandfathers would look like if they weren't drunken whoring bastards (never mind the fact that many of those we elect ARE drunken whoring bastards -- they just don't look like it because they have an army of PR staff).
And the worst part of it -- for me -- those who do appear to have principles, who have a spine, too often are mired in a religious conservatism that I believe has no place in national politics. But I digress...
The rich and famous are only required to appear as though they want a better future, or we would rise up and slay them.
Oh come on, we would do no such thing. We don't live in a D&D fantasy world, we don't live in some silly movie. We would just go about our business and grumble and complain about one more thing. The rich and famous get away with whatever they want because we (in general) envy them. End of story.
HOV lanes are an insult to the taxpayers who pay for highways. They're an even greater insult to the drivers who pay never-ending tolls to use those roads, then are told that they can't use part of it while everyone sits in traffic wasting fuel and polluting.
Not carpooling is an insult to the taxpayers who pay for highways. What, you think *you* are so special that you need to wastefully use the resources *I* help pay for? Get off my roads, douchebag.
Your argument works better when it's applied to wasteful users of public resources.
Apparently MS management feels the employees want to drive their own cars to work by themselves.
FWIW, my experience is that car-pooling is very common in the Seattle area, especially among people under 40. Much more so than in the NY area where I live now. Actions to encourage more carpooling there might be likely to meet a decent response than here in NJ where HOV lanes have been converted back to general-purpose lanes.
Totally fair. I think it's also fair to say that herbal medicine is a subset or aspect of naturopathy.
I'm not sure I was clear if you second statement still rings true to you:)
Naturopathy EXCLUDES herbal medicine, although some practitioners of naturopathy also prescribe herbal treatment in conjunction with naturopathy.
But it's tough because there are no, or very hazy, legal definitions. Some people who claim to be naturopathy practitioners use herbal remedies, but if they do, they're not really naturopaths, according to purists.
Of course, language is mutable, and definitions change, but most well-renowned naturopathy centers do not recommend herbal medicine... if a disease is beyond their ability to treat it, they recommend going the traditional route of seeing a modern MD for "real" treatment. A great example are diabetics... naturopathic centers can be very successful at getting blood sugar under control through programs of nutrition and exercise. But for patients who require traditional medical intervention (insulin, metformin, etc) a good naturopathic center will send the patient to a regular MD (or have one on staff) to prescribe treatment over and above naturopathic treatment.
It's also why you don't tend to see drugs companies showing how much better their product works than a placebo. If you have to compare your new product with an inert sugar pill you might as well admit it's shit up front.
Ummm.. not sure where you're getting that from. They may not put it in their advertising, but the package insert for any scheduled drug includes information of effectiveness vs. placebo, in the clinical studies section (after all the adverse effects sections, where relevant information of incidence compared to placebo). Hell, I've even seen it in advertising (usually when they make a claim of effectiveness that is unproven, they include the no-better-than-a-placebo-in-controlled-trials disclaimer at the end of the ad in an overvoice or in small type (in print) so that people dismiss it.
For people who actually read the full package insert (and not just the black box warnings), the information is there -- it's required to be, by law.
Homeopathy is, quite literally, the treatment of disease via the "like cures like" theory. Practitioners of homeopathy find a substance that causes the same symptoms the patient is suffering from. Then they greatly dilute that substance and administer it to the patient. The theory is that this will prime the immune system and cause the patient to be able to fight off the disease on their own.
Note that the dilution is done to such a great extent that it is likely that the medicine actually has NO molecules of the substance that's supposed to help cure the patient -- good thing too, since those substances are harmful (since they cause disease symptoms -- it's a tautology).
Herbal medicine (a.k.a. naturopathy ) is BY NO MEANS the same thing as homeopathy. You should really educate yourself before you start correcting people.
Herbal medicine is by no means same thing as naturopathy.
True naturopathic treatment involves NO medication, of herbal or industrial sources. Naturopathy is a system involving the use of light, heat, exercise, massage, nutrition, air, acupuncture, etc., that focuses on disease prevention but also is used to treat some disease. Some people who practice naturopathy also recommend herbal medicines, but this is counter to what naturopathy is really all about.
That said, you're absolutely correct about naturopathy, or even herbal medicine, being completely different from homeopathy.
The yeast involved in bottle conditioning a beer generally consume all of the sugar long before the abv reaches a level that is toxic to them.
Not quite so simple, IIRC... residual sugars are key to the profile of many ales. Different yeasts will consume a different percentage of the original sugars... this is the attenuation profile of the yeast. I think most are in the 70-80% range. Typically when the sugars drop to the threshold for that particular yeast strain, the yeast flocculates out of suspension and becomes almost completely inactive. I'm not sure if flocculation is the mechanism for the yeast becoming inactive, or if it's something else.
To sum up, it's not that the alcohol concentration is toxic.. it's that the sugar concentration is too low for the yeast to actively metabolize.
You're 100% right on it not being a tragedy of the commons situation. This makes me happy, now I can enjoy my bottle-conditioned ales without reservation.
This is just like when I had a huge gob of wax stuck in my ear. I went to a medicine man, and he used a candle to melt and suck out the blockage. This fix to your problem works almost the same way.
Well, first you're gonna need a can of WD-40 -- make sure you have the red straw. You're also going to want to have a fuse handy, at least a foot long. You can make your own from black powder, but it may be easier to just buy one at the agricultural store (they sell them with the smoke bombs you use to kill groundhogs). You'll need some duct tape to connect a few fuses -- they only sell them in lengths of a few inches. You'll also need a bucket of water.
Now, make sure the nozzle on the WD-40 can is clear. You're gonna want to shove the straw up there real deep before you spray it. Go ahead, empty the can.
OK, done with that step?
Now you're gonna want to replace the straw with the fuse. Go ahead, you're lubed up -- you should be able to really jam it up there. If you have one of the groundhog smokebombs, might as well shove that up there too. The powder in those is an excellent laxative.
Now here's the key step -- don't lose faith. Make sure you have the bucket of water handy. Now light the fuse.
Now, you should be getting a clear picture of how this will help you unplug your ass.
If you're curious what the bucket of water is for, it's to make cleanup a little easier for the poor sot who has to clean up the fetid pile of crap that used to be you.
In the same way, individual yeast in a jar of sugar water will ferment, ferment, ferment until the alcohol concentration is so high it kills them all. Each yeast is just doing what it needs to survive.
Great. Now I'm *really* conflicted. Most of the time I lament the tragedy of the commons, because it really does lead to ragedy. But now every time I drink a bottle-conditioned beer I'm going to *celebrate* it instead.
Here's to you, Mr. Conflicted-about-processes-leading-to-delicious-imbibables-man.
Sorry, Bruce... but this line reminds me oh-so-much of an exchange in "The Untouchables". As the conflict with Capone and his gangsters esacalates, Jim Malone (Sean Connery), asks Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner) what he's prepared to do.
Malone: You said you wanted to get Capone. Do you really wanna get him? You see what I'm saying is, what are you prepared to do? Ness: Anything within the law. Malone: And *then* what are you prepared to do? If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way. Because they're not gonna give up the fight, until one of you is dead. Ness: I want to get Capone! I don't know how to do it. Malone: You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way! And that's how you get Capone. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that? I'm offering you a deal. Do you want this deal? Ness: I have sworn to capture this man with all legal powers at my disposal and I will do so. Malone: Well, the Lord hates a coward.
[jabs Ness with his hand, and Ness shakes it] Malone: Do you know what a blood oath is, Mr. Ness? Ness: Yes. Malone: Good, 'cause you just took one.
Now, I surely don't want to see you repeating the question through wet bloody coughs as you lie dying on the floor, like Malone does in the movie.
But for some reason I think if they were to make a movie out of the struggles of Open Source, they should cast Connery as you. How's your Scottish accent?
Slashdot Mirror
Who said I even anthropomorphized them like you did? It's not about them, it's about us, and our motivation for taking an action of questionable value and astronomical (literally!) cost.
Emphasis added. If we cease to exist, then the importance of "life as we know it" ceases to exist. Or are you claiming there's an underlying importance to the existence of life as we know it that exists beyond our ability to know it?
So it's an issue to be dismissed, not worthy of consideration or discussion?
The point is that we can spend trillions to make it more likely that we'll survive a planetary catastrophe. The need for this presumes that it is important to do so. So, if people want to justify the need for it, they need to justify the underlying belief that the need arises from.
Sorry if you got your panties all in a bunch over the question, it wasn;t meant to irk you or anyone else. To answer your first couple questions:
Because I exist, and that is enough. It is an imperative that I be able to continue to exist of my own free will, which requires consumption of resources, so long as I do not needlessly infringe upon that right in others. But if I cease to exist, that imperative disappears. In the event of a catastrophe, where all but a handful of humanity is destroyed (myself included in those who perish), where is the imperative for me to ensure survival of strangers?
I'm asking the opposite question... is there some reason it *should* be preserved? Your question, while useful, doesn't really answer mine... I get the feeling that I asked "Why?" and your answer is "Why not?"
We're rational creatures to a certain extent... surely there is a rationale other than "because we evolved to want to survive". We use our powers of logic and reasoning to overcome behavior that arises from our desire to procreate and survive all the time. People use birth control and wear condoms, for example, and not just to prevent disease.
I'm reminded of Ozymandias by Shelley -- it ends in the sextain
FYI, the craft was called SpaceShipOne. The program is called Tier One. Too bad neither compares with what the NASA programs are/were working on. To sum up:
1. Altitude. That 20-30 MM got to suborbital altitude only. How about going high enough to actually *get something done*?
2. Duration. SpaceShipOne can only stay at altitude for a few minutes due to the ballistic nature of the final trajectory. How about staying long enough to *get something done*?
3. Payload. SpaceShipOne has a max payload of some 2400 kg (in theory -- has not been tested), compared to 22,700 kg for the shuttle program, and projected 188,000 kg for LEO / 71,000 to the moon for the Constellation program. Even the Ares V Lite would carry 140,000 kg to LEO.
4. Crew capacity. SpaceShipOne can carry three crew members only, compared to seven for the shuttle, and six for the Orion capsule.
If you want to compare cost of the programs, you need to compare utility as well. And Tier One is woeful in terms of anything other than a stepping stone for more ambitious programs.
If you want to compare the cost of Constellation and Orion to what Scaled Composites is doing, then you need to wait until we know the full cost of TierTwo, which is supposed to encompass LEO, and some of TierThree, which is rumored to encompass both lunar travel and interplanetary travel. Until then, kindly fasten your seatbelt before takeoff and enjoy the view, because commenting on cost of programs with disparate utility and goals is meaningless.
Out of curiosity, why is the survival of the human race so important?
I mean, I really want to know... what is the foundation of the idea that the human race must survive at all costs? Why should we not accept that if the earth gets hit by a quasar pulse, our time is up and that's all she wrote? Are we that important to the galaxy or the universe that the survival of the human race is of such paramount importance? Seems like a bit of hubris to me.
I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious about the philosophical underpinnings of your common mentality. I'm not saying I disagree with it, I haven't completely thought it out... so I'd like to read why it's a given that we need to ensure the survival of human life.
Where are the purple flying unicorns?
A politician cannot get elected to the highest offices unless they prioritize getting (re-)elected over achieving meaningful progress. This is why there are no politicians with the fortitude to do what must be done. And if one somehow manages to claw his way to the top and get elected to Congress, he is quickly marginalized by the deadbeat politicians who dominate the system. He'll slowly be brought into the system, as he willingly trades away his ideals in order to get something done, one small step at a time.
Our culture disembowels those who wish to maintain principles while in office. But we put them there... we vote on 15-second sound-bites. We vote on who has better hair, who we'd rather our daughter date, who we'd like to imagine our fathers and grandfathers would look like if they weren't drunken whoring bastards (never mind the fact that many of those we elect ARE drunken whoring bastards -- they just don't look like it because they have an army of PR staff).
And the worst part of it -- for me -- those who do appear to have principles, who have a spine, too often are mired in a religious conservatism that I believe has no place in national politics. But I digress...
I've never seen a post disappear into the ether.
Perhaps you should try browsing at -1, raw and uncut*? Then you'll see the posts that have been downmodded into oblivion.
Warning: not for the faint of heart. It will abuse your faith in the general goodwill and competence of mankind, if you have any.
Hah. I guess he should stick to the bus or train then... except then general ridership of mass transit might decrease as the loony factor skyrockets.
[citation needed]
Are you aware that there were more federal government employees in the 1980s under Reagan than there are today?
Are you aware that there were more government employees in the 70s under Nixon, Ford, and Carter than there are today?
Go take your horseshit somewhere else.
Sources: Article on Bush increasing the federal employment rolls, just to point out your misplaced ire.
All fed employees, 1962 to 2008 Here you go. What's that? Federal employment peaked at the end of Reagan's term and decreased under Clinton, only to increase again slighlty under Bush? How can that be, in your misinformed little world?
An article pointing out the increase in federal employees due to Obama's stimulus packages as of last September. It was newsworthy that 25k federal employees were added from Dec 08 to Aug 09. FYI, more have been added since, with 33k added in Jan 2010 as an example. Still far under what we had in the 80s under Reagan.
Get a clue. Dig into the numbers before you make erroneous claims parroting your stupid right-wing ideological leaders.
Oh come on, we would do no such thing. We don't live in a D&D fantasy world, we don't live in some silly movie. We would just go about our business and grumble and complain about one more thing. The rich and famous get away with whatever they want because we (in general) envy them. End of story.
Not carpooling is an insult to the taxpayers who pay for highways. What, you think *you* are so special that you need to wastefully use the resources *I* help pay for? Get off my roads, douchebag.
Your argument works better when it's applied to wasteful users of public resources.
FWIW, my experience is that car-pooling is very common in the Seattle area, especially among people under 40. Much more so than in the NY area where I live now. Actions to encourage more carpooling there might be likely to meet a decent response than here in NJ where HOV lanes have been converted back to general-purpose lanes.
Just some food for thought.
Except marketing (of which politics is a subset).
... Frederick's of Hollywood crotchless panties
KY Sensual Massage Lubricant
Their own ears
vlm forgot to mention that he works for the NSA and is using their backdoor access path.
Well, that's kind of the point of the chicken-and-egg conundrum mentioned in the summary.
No one will sign until validation is being done, but no one has bothered setting up validation because no one was signing.
So Comcast has said, screw it, we'll create the chicken de novo, we don't need to hatch it from no stinkin' egg.
I love the tongue-in-cheekiness of your response. Endearing.
I'm not sure I was clear if you second statement still rings true to you :)
Naturopathy EXCLUDES herbal medicine, although some practitioners of naturopathy also prescribe herbal treatment in conjunction with naturopathy.
But it's tough because there are no, or very hazy, legal definitions. Some people who claim to be naturopathy practitioners use herbal remedies, but if they do, they're not really naturopaths, according to purists.
Of course, language is mutable, and definitions change, but most well-renowned naturopathy centers do not recommend herbal medicine... if a disease is beyond their ability to treat it, they recommend going the traditional route of seeing a modern MD for "real" treatment. A great example are diabetics... naturopathic centers can be very successful at getting blood sugar under control through programs of nutrition and exercise. But for patients who require traditional medical intervention (insulin, metformin, etc) a good naturopathic center will send the patient to a regular MD (or have one on staff) to prescribe treatment over and above naturopathic treatment.
Ummm.. not sure where you're getting that from. They may not put it in their advertising, but the package insert for any scheduled drug includes information of effectiveness vs. placebo, in the clinical studies section (after all the adverse effects sections, where relevant information of incidence compared to placebo). Hell, I've even seen it in advertising (usually when they make a claim of effectiveness that is unproven, they include the no-better-than-a-placebo-in-controlled-trials disclaimer at the end of the ad in an overvoice or in small type (in print) so that people dismiss it.
For people who actually read the full package insert (and not just the black box warnings), the information is there -- it's required to be, by law.
That's not homeopathy. That's herbal medicine.
Homeopathy is, quite literally, the treatment of disease via the "like cures like" theory. Practitioners of homeopathy find a substance that causes the same symptoms the patient is suffering from. Then they greatly dilute that substance and administer it to the patient. The theory is that this will prime the immune system and cause the patient to be able to fight off the disease on their own.
Note that the dilution is done to such a great extent that it is likely that the medicine actually has NO molecules of the substance that's supposed to help cure the patient -- good thing too, since those substances are harmful (since they cause disease symptoms -- it's a tautology).
Herbal medicine is by no means same thing as naturopathy.
True naturopathic treatment involves NO medication, of herbal or industrial sources. Naturopathy is a system involving the use of light, heat, exercise, massage, nutrition, air, acupuncture, etc., that focuses on disease prevention but also is used to treat some disease. Some people who practice naturopathy also recommend herbal medicines, but this is counter to what naturopathy is really all about.
That said, you're absolutely correct about naturopathy, or even herbal medicine, being completely different from homeopathy.
Not quite so simple, IIRC... residual sugars are key to the profile of many ales. Different yeasts will consume a different percentage of the original sugars... this is the attenuation profile of the yeast. I think most are in the 70-80% range. Typically when the sugars drop to the threshold for that particular yeast strain, the yeast flocculates out of suspension and becomes almost completely inactive. I'm not sure if flocculation is the mechanism for the yeast becoming inactive, or if it's something else.
To sum up, it's not that the alcohol concentration is toxic.. it's that the sugar concentration is too low for the yeast to actively metabolize.
You're 100% right on it not being a tragedy of the commons situation. This makes me happy, now I can enjoy my bottle-conditioned ales without reservation.
This is just like when I had a huge gob of wax stuck in my ear. I went to a medicine man, and he used a candle to melt and suck out the blockage. This fix to your problem works almost the same way.
Well, first you're gonna need a can of WD-40 -- make sure you have the red straw. You're also going to want to have a fuse handy, at least a foot long. You can make your own from black powder, but it may be easier to just buy one at the agricultural store (they sell them with the smoke bombs you use to kill groundhogs). You'll need some duct tape to connect a few fuses -- they only sell them in lengths of a few inches. You'll also need a bucket of water.
Now, make sure the nozzle on the WD-40 can is clear. You're gonna want to shove the straw up there real deep before you spray it. Go ahead, empty the can.
OK, done with that step?
Now you're gonna want to replace the straw with the fuse. Go ahead, you're lubed up -- you should be able to really jam it up there. If you have one of the groundhog smokebombs, might as well shove that up there too. The powder in those is an excellent laxative.
Now here's the key step -- don't lose faith. Make sure you have the bucket of water handy. Now light the fuse.
Now, you should be getting a clear picture of how this will help you unplug your ass.
If you're curious what the bucket of water is for, it's to make cleanup a little easier for the poor sot who has to clean up the fetid pile of crap that used to be you.
Great. Now I'm *really* conflicted. Most of the time I lament the tragedy of the commons, because it really does lead to ragedy. But now every time I drink a bottle-conditioned beer I'm going to *celebrate* it instead.
Here's to you, Mr. Conflicted-about-processes-leading-to-delicious-imbibables-man.
Sorry, Bruce... but this line reminds me oh-so-much of an exchange in "The Untouchables". As the conflict with Capone and his gangsters esacalates, Jim Malone (Sean Connery), asks Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner) what he's prepared to do.
Now, I surely don't want to see you repeating the question through wet bloody coughs as you lie dying on the floor, like Malone does in the movie.
But for some reason I think if they were to make a movie out of the struggles of Open Source, they should cast Connery as you. How's your Scottish accent?