"I mean, what did we do BEFORE we had booze?"
No such time existed . . . . .
162 posts • joined 14 Aug 2007
"I mean, what did we do BEFORE we had booze?"
No such time existed . . . . .
This all starts from the perfectly respectable desire to not have people die unnecessarily early. Along with hygiene, medicine and health and safety we all, in modern countries live longer, healtheir lives than our ancestors.
Unfortunately we have now moved from the 'small changes making massive differences' part of the curve to the 'incremental improvements' part of the curve where the accompanying consideration has to be 'quality of life'.
I have never smoked, rarely drink (just don't feel the desire usually) and have never taken any psycho-active substances but those are MY choices. What is the point spending an extra ten years on the planet if you spend a large part of that craving those bacon sarnies you can't have, or just wishing you could 'pop out for a drink with the lads'.
As others have said (better than me) living is risky. Perhaps the real problem is that people are not educated in assessing risk/reward especially in the context of unavoidable background risks.
On the other hand perhaps the real problem is the Daily Mail and its ilk.
@Martin Moloney: they do but without any scientific justification (that I have encountered) for why that should be the case.
To be clear: I've seen a number of rationalisations and explanations for why what's out there may not be they way we imagine it to be (which is of course possible) but the reason for creating these rationalisations and explanations is NEVER (in my experience) a piece of scientific evidence that needs to be explained in this way.
It is always (in my experience) to allow one particular interpretation of one story written in a very old book which has seen transmission through oral history long before a long chain of edits, translations and sundry other human-common alterations.
I have made this exact point to a couple of young earth believers that once you allow a created moment with back-filled evidence then that moment can be just about anytime.
I may not in fact have read your post or even typed the start of this sentence . . . .
Germany still had access to industrial products (and support) from less damaged nations to rebuild. That would not be the case in this scenario.
That's without even worrying about irradiated food, land, water, etc.
"While it would take decades, perhaps even a century, humanity would be back on our feet."
I think it would take a LOT longer than that. Massive loss of infrastructure and know-how. Much information only available in irretrievable electronic formats (EMP, no power infrastructure, spares, transport, etc.) and all the easily accessible fossil fuels well and truly mined out with none of the knowledge, experience and industrial infrastructure required to access the rest. I think it would be a long, hard, millennial climb back from a new bronze or iron age.
And wiser? Humanity (en masse) has shown little ability to learn from much more recent lessons in where violence leads.
Thanks all. I knew about the 'going sideways' but I hadn't reckoned on how much more demanding (in energy terms) that is than getting off the ground and pushing through atmosphere.
Learnt something . . . another successful day!
if it could be used to reduce the cost of sending 'stuff' into orbit.
I suppose the limiting factor is that for a greater payload you need bigger and bigger wings and presumably at some point there just isn't enough air mass at those altitudes moving fast enough to generate the necessary lift. But then you could, perhaps, use some hybrid large-wing, low-power engine for the 'last mile'. But then maybe the extra complexity negates the initial advantages.
But then it also seasonal so perhaps overall just not worth the effort. Anyone 'know'?
"Open borders were allowed before with the Nordic Passport Convention, so there's no real reason that it could not be done again to keep the Irish border open."
But in that case what is to stop EU nationals travelling to Eire and just walking into the UK (via NI) without let or hindrance? Are we going to have full border control between 'the mainland' and NI?
Otherwise EU still has 'free movement' into UK but we don't have the same privilege.
"There is no possibility to "take two" of your options, either of points one and two exclude the possibility of three happening."
I tend to agree with you but I was trying to imagine that because of economic fears/breakup of the EU/any other of the Brexiteer's suggestions for why we would get special treatment we *might* manage a "two out of three ain't bad" agreement but even on this (unlikely) basis I can't see the 'leavers' being happy.
And that only leaves a break with tariffs/visas/etc. (WTO or EU-agreed) which hurts everybody, <Very sad face>.
"So no I dont want to plough on ahead regardless, I want out of that doomed wreck"
. . . even if your Brexiteer heroes can't get a good deal for that exit. We're not talking about eternity here; we're talking about making sure that out economoy doesn't fall off a cliff before world+dog trades equally/more profitably with us. Even on a doomed wreck its worth leaving with a lifeboat or two. The rest of your post is just diversionary hand-waving.
Well done on answering all/any of the substantive points above. I'm convinced.
@SmartyPants - although I am on the same side of the debate as on this and agree with many of your points the recent 'Post-Referendum Brexit Debate' (on ITV?) showed the results of a poll with no significant change of voting intentions from either the 'Leave' or 'Remain' camp so I don't think it is clear that the result would change if the referendum was held again.
"Nope. Moving goal posts again just because a majority gave the 'wrong' result is not democracy. Saying X,Y,Z must be agreed minimums or we will ignore the people is again another tantrum against democracy."
So, if even committed Brexiteers can't get a deal that is not entirely crippling for the country you would rather just plough ahead regardless? Wow!
"All are waiting to hear what the rebooted Conservative government under Prime Minister Theresa May means when she says “Brexit means Brexit"."
One month on and NOBODY knows what Brexit means. There seem to me to be three planks for the Leavers:
- No free movement (take back control)
- No EU 'subscription' (take back control)
- Access to the single market (don't want to reallly f@ck the economy before the world comes banging down the doors now that 'Britain is open for business').
I cannot see anyway there can be a three for three deal worked out. So will the anti-immigrant leavers be happy if their bete-noir is abandoned or will the 'money wasted' supporters be happy if the other two are the deal?
And if we lose access to the single market (on current terms) how bad an economic shock will THAT be?
but I got enough to be impressed.
In principle I can see the benefits of out-sourcing to employers and employees; areas of competence, possibilities for career progression, efficinecies, etc.
In practice, what you said.
"if UK has not done so within that period, it is automatically excluded."
That's not quite true - the deadline can be extended if ALL parties agree.
Is it concluded from the composition on the stars?
- Wasp stings Queen
- Queen wipes bum with paper
- Wasp gets wrapped up in paper and thrown in the bin
A Prime Minister is never elected as Prime Minister and yet every time a conversation comes up like this somebody trots out about the 'unelected Prime Minister' line. All the candidates are elected MPs eligible to stand for the leadership of the ruling party and therefore become Prime Minister. End of.
I was with you right up until this ". . .without the people voting for her as PM."
No, just no! Downvote.
"what happens is we are out with no deal.
and can charge WTO tarriffs in European imports.
So boosting UK economy."
. . . and get charged them in return. Noone wins in that scenario.
You know, I believe that Boris is bright enough (whatever you think of his schtick) to have known that negotiating a sensible and beneficial withdrawal that 27 other national entities have all agreed to (in line with their own national self-interests) would be a hideous game of russian roulette which really does lend weight to the view that he never expected to win and only wanted to undermine Cameron.
If that is true then I would guess right now, rather than planning for said sensible and beneficial agreement, he is tearing around the hamster wheel in his mind wondering how he can still be Prime Minister without shooting his political career in the head.
I want to see him get the job and i will stand an applaud while he chokes on it.
"I dont think negotiations with the EU CAN last more than 2 years unless everybody in the EU wants them to."
Exactly, if someone doesn't agree to extend and the talks are not complete then WTO rules come into force; 10% tarrifs on cars, 35% on dairy, etc. and apparently the rules are 'not favourable' for financial services (alarm bells anyone?).
Greenland took two years to sort out essentially fishing and they were far less deeply embedded in the EEA, as was, than we are in the EU.
Shortened talks do NOT work in our favour.
Nothing is going to change for a lot more than two years (assuming that no country - out of 27 - is suicidal enough to spike extensions to the talks). For the next 2-10 years we will be locked in unending horse-trading and politicking. In the meantime we will continue to be members of the EU (but with no influence), we will continue to pay our subscription, immigration will remain unchanged, there will be no new money for the NHS or any other bribe that was offered.
By the time this comes to pass most of the 'leavers' will have forgotten they voted for it and will have moved on to blaming some other entity for all of their woes.
They better make sure the identification system is un-hackable.
"They are predicted to have formed in the early universe from massive dense clouds that collapsed straight into black holes without forming any stars and galaxies beforehand"
I have seen this mentioned a number of times recently and I'm wondering how is this supposed to happen? My vague memories suggest that as the gas collapses it heats, nuclear fusion starts, radiation slows the inflow of matter (or dissipates it into the outer reaches of the 'system'. Does this model depend on matter falling in such large volumes and so rapidly that it snuffs out the nascent star?
Think . . neither can afford to get both hands out the others pocket but if they both keep one hand each in then they both have a hand free for the third party.
It's really not that hard.
Read the line - does not get plundered *separately*
@Ken Strain - Ken, it is indeed I. And I'm very glad to see you haven't had to correct any egregious errors on my part. It's been a long time and the memory's not what it was. I re-read my thesis after the announcement of the first detection and it really brought home how much I had forgotten..
Oh, and congratulations of course to everyone in Glasgow!
It's an interesting question - and I don't know the answer - but you need to consider that such a proposed planet has to be far enough away from both black holes not to have been ripped apart by tidal forces (which will be far more powerful than the tidal forces of any gravitational radiation emitted by the system) so I am going to say - at such a distance - still pretty negligible.
"I wonder how they arrange it so that, say, a nuke going off in North Korea doesn't disturb the mirrors by such a tiny amount?"
Basically the nuke will generate 'ringing' at one set of frequencies and the detector will be sensitive at different frequencies. Also if there a coincident signal at two or more detectors in the right frequency range there are plenty of seismometers (including at the sites of the detectors) to throw up a 'just check this would you?' alert. Then you look at amplitudes, frwquencies, attack, decay, etc.
"However, aren't there quite a lot of other variables to consider? If there's a large sun between us and the event (a sun which passed across the wave front) then wouldn't that distort the wave? So, I would imagine that large events produce such enormous waves that other objects in their path have limited impact but I'd also imagine that there will come a point where it is like looking at the waves on the shore... so many that it's basically noise with no useful information."
Not really. The waves are quadropoles and therefore will be pretty well unaffected by a 'monopole' object (not the best scientific explanation but I think gives a clear image of what is happening).
Also for your second point the waves are incredibly weak to start with, energy falls off according to 1/R^2 as they expand spherically and therefore 'soon' fade into undetectability. Also there is no 'shore' for them to be reflected from (current modesl, etc.)
@John Sager - "gravitational radiation has only been measured by one method". Not entirely true. If you are referring to direct measurement I will grant you the point. However I believe that the energy loss of certain pulsars has been calculated to match what would be predicted by GR for gravitational radiation - so an indirect detection and not for the same sources.
"Cold gas raining in . . " sounds like a purely radial flow which makes me wonder what conditions give rise to gas with no angular momentum?
Also, as the gas gets closer to the super-massive black hole presumably it is accelerated and compressed and so becomes 'hot'. So wouldn't any gas actually seen falling into a black hole be hot and, if so, how can anyone know that previously observed infalls weren't cold gas as well (originally). What criteria are being applied here?
Yes, it was shit!
On so many levels and for so many reasons.
Thanks for asking.
I truly wish I could believe that.
I tend to side with the view that most of these people are doing the best job they can and are looking at efficiency, savings, etc. but if anyone of a totalitarian disposition every does get into power with these tools to hand then we are all well and truly f@cked on a scale never before seen in human history.
Agreed with you right up to the reckless, ill-considered
" In the short term, we should be reviving bodies left and right despite whatever horrifying outcomes are encountered due to damaged brain tissue. Hopefully they signed consent forms beforehand, but that is just a courtesy"
No, there have to be checks, balances and forethought!
Sometimes stuff can arrive sooner than you think - and betting that it won't would be much more of a mug's game than putting in a little ground work in preparation.
is that they are no use for the frequent, reliable transfer of information. Although what you are suggesting would probably work very nicely for a single communication, or set of communications, with a known other (who knows what tricks you are pulling) it would not work as a widely available communications system where standards have to be created, agreed to, implemented and therefore become common knowledge and easily reversed.
The reason we rely on maths is because it provides a known method for reducing structured information into essentially random data together with a key that can be shown to be breakable only by the application of 'n' clock cycles and that 'n' can be adjusted to whatever level of security you require (bugs and implementation errors excepted).
To be fair it has been 'quite a few' if not yet 'many years'.
. . that before an encryption apocalypse is upon us there are already several avenues of investigation open because mathematicians (I assume) 'wasted' their time with developing branches of Number Theory that most people would look at and say, "What's the use of that?".
Anyone responsible for science funding should take lessons from these sort of developments.
The magic of geometry . . a quick scribble reveals that little 7 degrees can throw Mercury up to 11 times the Sun's radius above/below our orbital plane. Apparently Mercury's orbit isn't as really, really close as I thought.
. . . or does a 'transit' demand it cross at least, say, 90% of the transited object?
But don't the relative sizes and positions allow for quite a lot of non-coplanarity and still let you see Mercury doing its dash?
why, if Mercury whizzes around the Sun every 88 days, and Earth and Mercury both orbit in the same plane, and tiny, tiny Mercury is really, really close to really big the Sun that a transit only happens 13 times a century rather than, say, four times a year?
Okay I'm definitely not an expert but:
There is a fundamental problem that universe is an archaic term for when we thought what we could see was all there was. That is no longer the case but we still call what we can see (by whatever physically allowed means) the universe. it is, by definition, the only one we can 'know' about.
There are, as you have surmised, several possibilities for other 'universes'. An incomplete list includes:
- universes beyond the observable horizon. There are some theories which allow some inferences to be made from movements of matter within our observable uinverse.
- multiple universes existing in various branes in the multi-dimensional M-theory
- multiple universes generated by (or causing indirectly) quantum weirdness (take your pick).
. . . . and others.
You have selected a specific sub-set of universes that you are happy with and arrived at a (possibly valid) conclusion based on that alone.
As one of the other posters alluded to there are very many books, programmes and web articles on these subjects and you need to do some investigation of your own before you can ask a question that others will find sufficiently well formed/defined to provide an answer to.
I don't want to come off as patronising because I am only too well aware how short my knowledge in this area falls but (I hope I'm not being too presumptious here) the general tenor of your question implies that you are not.
I probably should post this anonymously . . . .
It's a simple question but the terms are poorly defined.