As it stands, we're never ever going to get there.
For interstellar colonization you need either:
1. Artificial wombs and frozen sperm/eggs
2. Colossal generation ship (impractical and very depressing way to travel)
3. Cryogenic storage of humans
3. Self-reproducing sentient robots (humanity wouldn't be spread, but intelligent life would).
And the ability for humanity to spend ass loads of money on something which they certainly won't see a return on in their lifetimes.
Their website doesn't inspire confidence either. Plus, you're better off just learning the FFmpeg command line args - a possibly suspicious GUI isn't worth it.
Because you stated that we only see in 2D, at each eye. My point is that seeing occurs internally, in the brain, in the form of a model of reality based on sensory input. Which is 3D.
Er, no, you don't "truly" see anything. Your brain forms a representation of reality based on sensory input. In the visual side of that, the spatial representation is 3D.
Furthermore, you don't "see" in 2 dimensions, in your understanding of the word (which is kinda meaningless, cf visual illusions, hallucinations etc), because of the parallax effect afforded by having two eyes.
Also, the complete internal representation of a thrown ball is fundamentally 4 dimensional (3 spatial + 1 temporal). But it's hard to visualize curvature of 4 dimensional spacetime.
With massively, massively lower probability than comets or asteroids: small black holes. Black and brown dwarfs. And interstellar planets (which have been posited to exist).
Given that we don't know what (most) dark matter is, maybe there are other possible surprises. But dark matter seems to be very unclumpy.
What's "sustainability" exactly, other than a trite meaningless buzzword? Capitalism seems plenty sustainable (more so than any other economic mechanism).
It also produces less corpses than any other economic mechanism.
Sure, most communicating civilizations may not last more than 1k years (and this is an idea based entirely on observation of our own civilization).
And what observation would that be? That humanity hasn't used its most powerful weapons ever in anger, not once, in spite of having them for over half a century (thermonuclear devices)? And that there seems to be no realistic threat of them being used?
And that the number of them has been falling for two decades?
And that, even at the height of the cold war, if every weapon had been used, humanity would have survived, and eventually (say a hundred years or so) returned to the same level of technology and prosperity?
We're like cockroaches in terms of survivability, and no, we don't want to wipe ourselves out.
Faulty reasoning. We know we exist (with probability one). We don't know how many alien civilization will exist, or how many do exist right now, so you cannot make any kind of estimate on the probability that we're first.
If google "pulled the plug" on chrome, some else would take it over.
Personally, I think it's great that there are 3 well known alternatives to IE on windows, each of which is far better than IE (lets not forget Opera, which is a really fine browser).
Also, I think the more people are hit on the head with the fact that other browsers exist, the more they will start to use them. So chrome being released can only be a good thing (long term).
Slaughtered. So LBJ didn't save them. He started US involvement, and then fought the war badly enough to irreparably erode a huge amount of belief in it from the US public and to galvanize a lot of South Vietnamese opinion against their corrupt rulers, wasted vast amounts of tax dollars and large numbers of US lives (along with Koreans and Australians), and ultimately it didn't turn out exactly well, did it?
Yeah, maybe the 60,000 Americans who died pointlessly because of LBJ would disagree.
I'd wager the 1.5 million Vietnamese who did likewise would, also.
And maybe congress would think that being deliberately misled about a false enemy attack in order to start said war would constitute the president "breaking the seal of office".
It's worth bearing in mind that Nixon's predecessor was objectively far worse than him, namely LBJ.
Starting and then fighting the Vietnam war badly, deliberately falsifying the Gulf of Tonkin incident (whatever about Bush, I think he genuinely believed his pretext, that Iraqi WMDs existed), ordering the USS Liberty to not be defended when it was under attack and then falsifying details of the attack later (probably the most spineless act in US military history).
Aside from that, there's the personal - forcing aides to talk to him while he was talking a dump, laughing at the dead body of JFK, etc..
I'm skeptical about IPCC scientists because they have deliberately manipulated data on many occasions, and always in one direction - to downplay previous climate change, and skew modern climate change upwards. Examples of blatant manipulation include the infamous "Hockey Stick" graph, with its bizarre weightings (and which incidentally was publicized massively), and tree-ring forcings.
IPCC scientists (at least several of them) also seem loath to produce their averaging methods, source code and raw data, in order to verify their work.
So A. They aren't objective. They definitely have a vested interest in promoting the man-made global warming leading to doom theory.
B. They're not open enough.
C. Re. those numbers, are they taking into account particulate changes? (This alone was going to lead to an ice age in the 70s, until it didn't happen). And water vapor changes. Have they been inserted into a model, along with other real-world parameters (no magic numbers), which is capable of post-dicting climate change of the last century and making accurate predictions about the next decade or two (which we can then eventually verify)? If anyone knows of such a thing, with the code, I'd be interested.
Re. the scare-mongering thing, I don't buy this inane left/right dichotomy. The far left USSR committed full out genocide against some of its minorities. The US drug prison population sky rocketed under former pot-smoking Bill Clinton. Far right Nazi Germany cracked down hard on private gun ownership. I think you're looking for libertarian/authoritarian, which has absolutely nothing to do with left/right. Two orthogonal political axes.
Slashdot Mirror
As it stands, we're never ever going to get there.
For interstellar colonization you need either: 1. Artificial wombs and frozen sperm/eggs 2. Colossal generation ship (impractical and very depressing way to travel) 3. Cryogenic storage of humans 3. Self-reproducing sentient robots (humanity wouldn't be spread, but intelligent life would).
And the ability for humanity to spend ass loads of money on something which they certainly won't see a return on in their lifetimes.
Yeah, it's not that Chrome (and perhaps now IE8) are technically far better browsers, it's the users who are using teh internets wrong.
Their website doesn't inspire confidence either. Plus, you're better off just learning the FFmpeg command line args - a possibly suspicious GUI isn't worth it.
The religious don't have a logical leg to stand on, so attack the messenger. That's their idea of debate.
There's nothing hateful about arguing against mere ideas. Especially bizarre and plain wrong ones.
Fossilized mud-print -> angle of wrists -> palms up not down -> could hold basketball.
Because you stated that we only see in 2D, at each eye. My point is that seeing occurs internally, in the brain, in the form of a model of reality based on sensory input. Which is 3D.
Er, no, you don't "truly" see anything. Your brain forms a representation of reality based on sensory input. In the visual side of that, the spatial representation is 3D.
Furthermore, you don't "see" in 2 dimensions, in your understanding of the word (which is kinda meaningless, cf visual illusions, hallucinations etc), because of the parallax effect afforded by having two eyes.
Also, the complete internal representation of a thrown ball is fundamentally 4 dimensional (3 spatial + 1 temporal). But it's hard to visualize curvature of 4 dimensional spacetime.
They're showing it in three dimensions. We humans can visualize up to 3 very well. Adding another gets complex.
It's not trying to explain, it's an analogy that gives an example of how distortion in topology can affect motion.
The reason they use it in pop science programs is it's hard to visualize 4 dimensions of curvature.
That's how English people speak English, dolt.
Just imagine the hideous calamity that would have to befall us to have nuclear subs colliding in mid air. Heavy.
With massively, massively lower probability than comets or asteroids: small black holes. Black and brown dwarfs. And interstellar planets (which have been posited to exist).
Given that we don't know what (most) dark matter is, maybe there are other possible surprises. But dark matter seems to be very unclumpy.
Yes, and perhaps the Universe rests on a infinite and invisible totem of gargantuan turtles.
There's a probability cut-off that makes some "perhaps" statements utterly pointless. Yours is well over it.
What's your real name, HoboCop? And your address? Hypocrisy, much?
The option to be anonymous is liberty.
Closed ballots and open democracy go hand in hand.
What's "sustainability" exactly, other than a trite meaningless buzzword? Capitalism seems plenty sustainable (more so than any other economic mechanism).
It also produces less corpses than any other economic mechanism.
And what observation would that be? That humanity hasn't used its most powerful weapons ever in anger, not once, in spite of having them for over half a century (thermonuclear devices)? And that there seems to be no realistic threat of them being used?
And that the number of them has been falling for two decades?
And that, even at the height of the cold war, if every weapon had been used, humanity would have survived, and eventually (say a hundred years or so) returned to the same level of technology and prosperity?
We're like cockroaches in terms of survivability, and no, we don't want to wipe ourselves out.
No, it means civilizations that spread out and use radio waves to communication for longer than 1k years are exceedingly rare.
Faulty reasoning. We know we exist (with probability one). We don't know how many alien civilization will exist, or how many do exist right now, so you cannot make any kind of estimate on the probability that we're first.
If google "pulled the plug" on chrome, some else would take it over.
Personally, I think it's great that there are 3 well known alternatives to IE on windows, each of which is far better than IE (lets not forget Opera, which is a really fine browser).
Also, I think the more people are hit on the head with the fact that other browsers exist, the more they will start to use them. So chrome being released can only be a good thing (long term).
Slaughtered. So LBJ didn't save them. He started US involvement, and then fought the war badly enough to irreparably erode a huge amount of belief in it from the US public and to galvanize a lot of South Vietnamese opinion against their corrupt rulers, wasted vast amounts of tax dollars and large numbers of US lives (along with Koreans and Australians), and ultimately it didn't turn out exactly well, did it?
I don't follow your logic.
Yeah, maybe the 60,000 Americans who died pointlessly because of LBJ would disagree.
I'd wager the 1.5 million Vietnamese who did likewise would, also.
And maybe congress would think that being deliberately misled about a false enemy attack in order to start said war would constitute the president "breaking the seal of office".
It's worth bearing in mind that Nixon's predecessor was objectively far worse than him, namely LBJ.
Starting and then fighting the Vietnam war badly, deliberately falsifying the Gulf of Tonkin incident (whatever about Bush, I think he genuinely believed his pretext, that Iraqi WMDs existed), ordering the USS Liberty to not be defended when it was under attack and then falsifying details of the attack later (probably the most spineless act in US military history).
Aside from that, there's the personal - forcing aides to talk to him while he was talking a dump, laughing at the dead body of JFK, etc..
A truly odious and terrible president.
What colour paint do Jewish fishing trawlers use?
I'm skeptical about IPCC scientists because they have deliberately manipulated data on many occasions, and always in one direction - to downplay previous climate change, and skew modern climate change upwards. Examples of blatant manipulation include the infamous "Hockey Stick" graph, with its bizarre weightings (and which incidentally was publicized massively), and tree-ring forcings.
IPCC scientists (at least several of them) also seem loath to produce their averaging methods, source code and raw data, in order to verify their work.
So A. They aren't objective. They definitely have a vested interest in promoting the man-made global warming leading to doom theory.
B. They're not open enough.
C. Re. those numbers, are they taking into account particulate changes? (This alone was going to lead to an ice age in the 70s, until it didn't happen). And water vapor changes. Have they been inserted into a model, along with other real-world parameters (no magic numbers), which is capable of post-dicting climate change of the last century and making accurate predictions about the next decade or two (which we can then eventually verify)? If anyone knows of such a thing, with the code, I'd be interested.
Re. the scare-mongering thing, I don't buy this inane left/right dichotomy. The far left USSR committed full out genocide against some of its minorities. The US drug prison population sky rocketed under former pot-smoking Bill Clinton. Far right Nazi Germany cracked down hard on private gun ownership. I think you're looking for libertarian/authoritarian, which has absolutely nothing to do with left/right. Two orthogonal political axes.