What about making a while on earth so the asteroid would just go through it and never hit anything?
Anyways the best way to approach this problem is to focus on creating technology that can detect these asteroid as far away as possible. The distance not just buys time but enables us to change its course earlier so smalle change in its path is need. Just like it says on the article.
As for landing on the asterods and the asteroid rotating I'd think it is much better that the asteroid is rotating if you plan to shoot at it or use explosive. The faster the better. The kinetic rotational energy would probably splatter the pieces of the asteroid further away in case of explosives. Plus the rotation puts additional stress on the asteroid itself which makes it more fragile. Depending how fast it rotates though.
In the end the real threat is that we find the oncoming asteroid way too late. If you can't see it you can't shoot it.
"My show" is a lot more than "just sorrow, loss and depression". Just because I find star trek cheery and campy in its sense of lack of depth of human emotion I don't want to watch some marathon of pain... or tragedy just for the sake of tragedy...
Games of thrones is great example because it has ALL shades of feelings. Not just the extremes of the spectrum like awesome happyness and blind anger (which later turns into endless understanding) but also has the grey stuff in between those too. Star trek is the very essence of the idea that every character in a show needs to be either good or bad. Not in between. That polarized vision is very much the way 14 year olds view the world and that is also very much the way the shows that are targeted for them view the world. What games of thrones, the wire and good shows like that show is that no one is perfect, no one is black and white, no one is living in polarized world where some are good and some are bad.
Unlike in startrek people are not just born evil or born good. There are reasons that make them what they are. This is what builds the foundations of what I consider adult scifi. Real reasons for stuff to happen and not just endlessly sculpting the story to only allow good guys be good and bad guys be bad.
Who are the good guys in startrek? Do they ever do bad things? Who are the good guys in games of thrones or the wire? Do they ever do bad things? Is the good/bad guy distinction so easy to make that you never need to have any second thoughts about it?
Star trek is as much about human potential and moral questions as other similar flicks like stargate or firefly. Or buffy. Maybe in the 60s startrek was little bit about those things but these days? No, just no. At best you get shallow experimentation about morals but in the end it is nothing more than a shallow attempt to present an illusion of choise when in fact everyone knows from the first moment there is no choise. The hero will always do the right thing. Always. Because doing bad things gives the wrong impression for the target audience and that's bad bad thing.
I don't think you get what I said. What I want is a scifi series that is written by adults for adults. A proper story, realistic characters who are not all just 100% good or 100% evil. Game of thrones is as much about sex and gore fest as stargate is about pyjamaparty in strange looking levitating bedroom.
I meant 100% what I said about startrek. I did not mean to offend or troll just by saying startrek is written for 14 year olds. I really mean what I said. And not just about star trek but about every scifi movies and tv series in larger scale.
I'm just really sad that all scifi that is written and every tv series and movies are either totally dumb action flicks or just stuff written to suit the corporate idea of what young teens like and are able to see and understand in this politically correct world. Where are complex drama and real sense of loss, tragedy, victory, cost and relationships? Instead we get fireflys and stargates with shallow thin characters and polarized good/bad theme where our own always-correct-do-the-right-thing-tough-guy/girl beats evilness, fixes all things wrong and looks good while doing it too.
I am just so envious that we have great fantasy shows like game of thrones or great police series like the wire that are clearly not written for 14 year olds. My love is scifi though and as adult I find all scifi movies and tv series just childish versions of what could be decent scifi movie or series.
Is there really no market for a scifi series that is written for adults? Like the wire or game of thrones that are/were very popular? I think the scifi today is not popular simply because it is bad. Sure, battlestar galactica had a nice try but in the end it was terribad. Caprica was pure awful unwatchable and stargate universe was just buffy on space ship with the typical superhero/last minute saves/do all always the right thing stargate cliches.
What makes game of thrones good is that it is nothing like stargate, star trek, firefly or buffy.
Take game of thrones, remove dragons, put in space ships and receive success.
Would be awesome if HBO made startrek. Instead of lame, goofy show that is aimed for 14 year olds we might get something watchable for those of us who are totally tired of scifi series being written to 14 year olds.
Games of thrones in space. Bring it on!
I think adhd is a bigger and more complex issue than just not behaving or not being able to focus. I don't think anything that Stroufe said was offending otwards parents. in fact everything he says makes sense but it's not something some people want to hear.
We all know parents are not perfect and some are able to do it better than others. Fact of life is that there are good parents and bad parents. Most are in between of those two. Not because some are evil or indifferent. But because some parents are tired, doing the wrong thing while trying to do right or have other problems too to deal with. Just like children are different too. Some can handle difficult childhood better while others break.
It is a bit funny though. Whenever child pornography is discussed about it absolutely stomps over everything else because "somebody think of the children". But when we talk about adhd it is the parents we should feel sorry for. There is this instant defense mode that is turned on the first moment somebody says something that even hints that not all parents are good. Immediately tons of people feel angry and insulted.
What for and why? Is it the same with kids being overweight? Is the pill the only cure?
Maybe that picture was taken after the wheelchair guy had already been stuck there for an hour?
Anyways, he looks like a terrorist anyways.
in a way I find it hard to see what is there to philosophically analyse in cosmology. Natural sciences don't really need "creationisms" to fully explore their own areas. Only way this philosophical cosmology can "make sense" is that the philosophy is used as some kind of back door to once again try to inject religious ideas into science.
Does this have anything to do with dark matter? I mean could these planets and their combined mass partially explain the dark matter? Or at least reduce the amount of dark mass needed to explain the things scientitst try to explain with dark matter?
Sorry if my post came across as me trying to say this is how it is for everybody. It was my own opinion and also a reaction to the way the question assumes this would be normal in some way. I don't believe in aliens visiting earth nor angels. Both are just stories and fairytales for me. I'm sure saying that will annoy some people in the same I was a bit annoyed by the title of this article which assumed that I personally would mix a fairytale character with something from real life.
I never said anything about it being stupid. I said it was a bad question. It is in my opinion just as good question as:
"Could you tell the difference between an alien visitation and being touched by santa?"
Santa does not exist in real life (sorry young people who are reading this! He will still bring you presents though!) just like angels don't. The question itself includes an impossible condition that no answer can fulfill unless you also believe into the condition of the question. If you believe in angels and aliens visiting earth then surely it is just a question you can ponder and analyze like a real what-if question.
I never said anything about it being stupid. I said it was a bad question. It is in my opinion just as good question as:
"Could you tell the difference between an alien visitation and being touched by santa?"
Santa does not exist in real life (sorry young people who are reading this! He will still bring you presents though!) just like angels don't. The question itself includes an impossible condition that no answer can fulfill unless you also believe into the condition of the question. If you believe in angels and aliens visiting earth then surely it is just a question you can ponder and analyze like a real what-if question.
The possibility of seeing angles is just flat 0. They do not exist. The possibility of seeing aliens is almost zero. All kinds of facts make that kind of incident extremely unlikely to happen.
In my world a contact with angel just isn't possible. Just like contacts with talking dogs or cartoons are not possible. It is just as likely to confuse an alien to angel as it is to confuse and alien with santa.
It's just a really bad question and nothing more imho.
In my world a contact with angel just isn't possible. Just like contacts with talking dogs or cartoons are not possible. It is just as likely to confuse an alien to angel as it is to confuse and alien with santa.
It's just a really bad question and nothing more imho.
Yeah, the kind of answer I was expecting from you...
So a blob of meat is a person? Is that what you are trying to say? If you read my earlier post I did not mean "not human" literally as not human but more in the line of not a person.
I have sources. Just wondering if it is worth anything to post them if you will not read them anyways. Here are couple straight from wikipedium:
[en.wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development
[en.wikipedia.org](human)
Look at the time limits for abortion and then check what that blob of meat is capable at that point.
What kind of sources are you looking for anyways?
I have sources. Just wondering if it is worth anything to post them if you will not read them anyways. Here are couple straight from wikipedium:
[en.wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development
[en.wikipedia.org](human)
Look at the time limits for abortion and then check what that blob of meat is capable at that point.
What kind of sources are you looking for anyways?
You know, biologically. Do some reading about fetuses. Not religious books though!
If there are 10 candidates and each gets 10% then there can not be a winner. That is an impossible example you have chosen. That example does not work with he ranked choice voting either :). There are always possible situations that can not be solved. These are quite rare instances though.
What you also need to remember that votes do not spread out as evenly as they might do if you look at it purely from mathematical perspective. You will never have a situation with three candidates for example: A, B and C where: people who vote 1st A and then secondly B, people who vote 1st B and then secondly C and people who vote 1st C and then secondly A. That is politically quite impossible. With counting everyone's votes twice you will get a nice spread that reflects the political landscape if you don't do too many iterations.
What will happen in real life is that votes are spread out into groups based on political views. A, B and C will vote each other only if they are essentially the same candidates. In reality you'd get A and B vote each other while C might spread out its vote for both A and B.
Also what happens in ranked choice voting if the 2 first candidates' 2nd votes would have gone to each other? You have effectively dropped 2 candidates out without getting anywhere. There is no guarantee of getting a result there either. This (cross voting of the two least scoring candidates) is even more likely to happen than the 10 candidates with 10% each because votes will get pooled into groups based on political ideologies.
I don't see runoff votes such a bad deal. I think it is money well spent and instead of needing to understand the process it is very clear and straightforward. Choosing just one person with voting is still in my opinion a flawed process by design.
What you also need to remember that votes do not spread out as evenly as they might do if you look at it purely from mathematical perspective. You will never have a situation with three candidates for example: A, B and C where: people who vote 1st A and then secondly B, people who vote 1st B and then secondly C and people who vote 1st C and then secondly A. That is politically quite impossible. With counting everyone's votes twice you will get a nice spread that reflects the political landscape if you don't do too many iterations.
What will happen in real life is that votes are spread out into groups based on political views. A, B and C will vote each other only if they are essentially the same candidates. In reality you'd get A and B vote each other while C might spread out its vote for both A and B.
Also what happens in ranked choice voting if the 2 first candidates' 2nd votes would have gone to each other? You have effectively dropped 2 candidates out without getting anywhere. There is no guarantee of getting a result there either. This (cross voting of the two least scoring candidates) is even more likely to happen than the 10 candidates with 10% each because votes will get pooled into groups based on political ideologies.
I don't see runoff votes such a bad deal. I think it is money well spent and instead of needing to understand the process it is very clear and straightforward. Choosing just one person with voting is still in my opinion a flawed process by design.
I think you misunderstood what I proposed so I say it again :). Let's imagine a situation where we have 20 derpzillion citizens voting for president. Every person votes for his 1st, 2nd and 3rd candidate and no vote can be the same (can't vote a 3 times the same person)
We have 6 candidates who got this much votes after counting the 1st votes:
A gets 30% votes.
B gets 27%
C 22 %
D 11 %
E 8 %
F 2 %.
Now since no one got 50% we count the 2nd votes and add them to the total so everyone gets to vote twice (let's count everyone's 2nd votes):
A gets 17% votes.
B gets 16%
C 40 %
D 15 %
E 11 %
F 1 %.
Still no 50% majority. So we count the 3rd votes:
A gets 14% votes.
B gets 12%
C 56 %
D 8 %
E 9 %
F 1 %.
This is naturally just an example but shows what I mean. Everyone gets 2 (3) votes as no single candidate is never dropped out. In this system everyone's vote count each time votes are calculated. The benefit for this system is that every time votes are counted everyone's votes are counted. It also works heavily against two party system. Becasue you can not vote your own party more than once you need to vote someone else. And that someone else is not the main opposing party of your primary choice. This would lead into system where you always have at least 3 parties all having equal chance.
I understand that mathematically it is possible to only have certain number of new votes in this system though. After x (=number of candidates/2) turns it the votes would just level off.
The Ranked Choice Voting takes the approach that in a runoff voting people who voted for the the highest scoring candidates would vote similarly. Historically this is not true. First of all in runoffs you have people voting who did not vote on first time. And you have people who change their minds. Therefore the 2nd vote can not represent the runoffs in that sense.
Secondly the process of counting the 2nd votes from only the candidate who got the smallest number of votes distorts the results because that certain minority gets to choose who wins overall. I don't see it being better than a true runoff voting where everyone gets to vote again if the own candidate did not get enough votes or whatever.
But like I said the whole problem of trying to choose just one person with 50%+ overall majority is kind of flawed one. There should not be one person having all that power for one single nation simply because it leaves no room for compromise. The democratic is that country should not be lead by president but by the parliament. Parliament can be voted without having to mix with the votes to get a "winner".
We have 6 candidates who got this much votes after counting the 1st votes:
A gets 30% votes.
B gets 27%
C 22 %
D 11 %
E 8 %
F 2 %.
Now since no one got 50% we count the 2nd votes and add them to the total so everyone gets to vote twice (let's count everyone's 2nd votes):
A gets 17% votes.
B gets 16%
C 40 %
D 15 %
E 11 %
F 1 %.
Still no 50% majority. So we count the 3rd votes:
A gets 14% votes.
B gets 12%
C 56 %
D 8 %
E 9 %
F 1 %.
This is naturally just an example but shows what I mean. Everyone gets 2 (3) votes as no single candidate is never dropped out. In this system everyone's vote count each time votes are calculated. The benefit for this system is that every time votes are counted everyone's votes are counted. It also works heavily against two party system. Becasue you can not vote your own party more than once you need to vote someone else. And that someone else is not the main opposing party of your primary choice. This would lead into system where you always have at least 3 parties all having equal chance.
I understand that mathematically it is possible to only have certain number of new votes in this system though. After x (=number of candidates/2) turns it the votes would just level off.
The Ranked Choice Voting takes the approach that in a runoff voting people who voted for the the highest scoring candidates would vote similarly. Historically this is not true. First of all in runoffs you have people voting who did not vote on first time. And you have people who change their minds. Therefore the 2nd vote can not represent the runoffs in that sense.
Secondly the process of counting the 2nd votes from only the candidate who got the smallest number of votes distorts the results because that certain minority gets to choose who wins overall. I don't see it being better than a true runoff voting where everyone gets to vote again if the own candidate did not get enough votes or whatever.
But like I said the whole problem of trying to choose just one person with 50%+ overall majority is kind of flawed one. There should not be one person having all that power for one single nation simply because it leaves no room for compromise. The democratic is that country should not be lead by president but by the parliament. Parliament can be voted without having to mix with the votes to get a "winner".
Please read my post again.
Why not just count everyone's 2nd votes instead of just the one's who got the fewest votes?
Why not just count everyone's 2nd votes instead of just the one's who got the fewest votes?
I'm pretty sure I replied to you. I just read your post as you were saying something like religion and science are something you can compromise... Sorry if I misunderstood your post.
Reading it again I came to same conclusion. You have some kind of strange point about some compromise between religion and science. Here:
"And try as we might, science and religion are never going to form two perfectly-matching sides of the same coin because most people aren't willing to simply compromise and leave it be. "
What is this compromise you are talking about?
Reading it again I came to same conclusion. You have some kind of strange point about some compromise between religion and science. Here:
"And try as we might, science and religion are never going to form two perfectly-matching sides of the same coin because most people aren't willing to simply compromise and leave it be. "
What is this compromise you are talking about?
I'm not a native english speaker. By saying a fetus is not human (within the range of abortion time limits) I just meant that the fetus has not developed far enough to be called human being. Apart from its genes it is probably closer to pig and monkey than human at that stage. I think the actual word I'm looking for is "person".
Science does not cancel out its past discoveries. Scientific development merely makes them more precise over time. To say science is all about correcting its earlier mistakes is just plain wrong and libellous.
Science is not just about facts and theories but also about discovery and logical thinking. When something does not make sense and there is no proof for it and there is proof against it you know you are wrong. To say otherwise is just stupid. Evolution has been proven scientifically just like the big bang. We can prove it with math, physics. Real science. There are no religious factors in those equations. To say those things are wrong is a scientific statement which requires scientific evidence. Religions can not provide that so they are useless.
What the hell is this compromise between religion and science you talk about? Is the earth half flat and half not? Is there a hell but the flames are not really all that hot? Did god create the universe but half of it was big bang? Does god half exist and half not? How do you merge real life facts with a fairy tale when everything in that fairy tale is against everything you see all around you?
Is that compromise you talk about some kind of half religious view of the world? Like there is some kind of compromise between being an atheist and being a theist? Are you saying the compromise is to believe just 50%? No, that is just totally impossible situation. There is no compromise. The compromise is not possible. "Maybe" is not between "yes" and "no" just like a compromise does not exist between science and religion.
The whole concept of compromise between religion and science is nothing less than some random way you are trying to prove yourself why religion could still exist. You trying to explain it like religion makes sense. It doesn't. It's contrary to sense and thus contrary to science.
Science is not just about facts and theories but also about discovery and logical thinking. When something does not make sense and there is no proof for it and there is proof against it you know you are wrong. To say otherwise is just stupid. Evolution has been proven scientifically just like the big bang. We can prove it with math, physics. Real science. There are no religious factors in those equations. To say those things are wrong is a scientific statement which requires scientific evidence. Religions can not provide that so they are useless.
What the hell is this compromise between religion and science you talk about? Is the earth half flat and half not? Is there a hell but the flames are not really all that hot? Did god create the universe but half of it was big bang? Does god half exist and half not? How do you merge real life facts with a fairy tale when everything in that fairy tale is against everything you see all around you?
Is that compromise you talk about some kind of half religious view of the world? Like there is some kind of compromise between being an atheist and being a theist? Are you saying the compromise is to believe just 50%? No, that is just totally impossible situation. There is no compromise. The compromise is not possible. "Maybe" is not between "yes" and "no" just like a compromise does not exist between science and religion.
The whole concept of compromise between religion and science is nothing less than some random way you are trying to prove yourself why religion could still exist. You trying to explain it like religion makes sense. It doesn't. It's contrary to sense and thus contrary to science.
One day it will be human but a fetus (within the range of abortion time limits) isn't it a human. It's a damn fetus that is not able to feel pain, have any kinds of thoughts nor be able to survive outside the body. It is more like an piece of meat growing inside you at that point than any kind of entity we could call human being. A piece of meat is not a person! A cell is not a person! That's a biological and scientific fact and something some religious ramblings can not annul or prove wrong in any way.
To say a fetus (within the range of abortion time limits) is a human being is first of all downright imaginery, nonscientific and a view based on ideology and not facts. It is nothing else than an opinion based on an interpretation of 2000 year old writings about biology written by people who for example thought brain in human has no function.
The whole thing is not about pro-choise. It is about not forcing your own religious beliefs and ways of life on other people. Ways of life that cause suffering. Banning abortion leads to suffering.
I will gladly hear the anti-abortion people's opinions once they have some proper arguments for their cause. So far they have not come up with one single one. Their arguments are nothing less than religious drivel totally disconnected from reality.
Support the persons who have gone through abortions. Do not throw stones on them just because some fundamentalist thinks it's ok to do so. It's their right and they have no done anything wrong. By supporting abortion you support better society that is free from religious oppression, needless suffering and downright idiocy at the cost of lives of women.
To say a fetus (within the range of abortion time limits) is a human being is first of all downright imaginery, nonscientific and a view based on ideology and not facts. It is nothing else than an opinion based on an interpretation of 2000 year old writings about biology written by people who for example thought brain in human has no function.
The whole thing is not about pro-choise. It is about not forcing your own religious beliefs and ways of life on other people. Ways of life that cause suffering. Banning abortion leads to suffering.
I will gladly hear the anti-abortion people's opinions once they have some proper arguments for their cause. So far they have not come up with one single one. Their arguments are nothing less than religious drivel totally disconnected from reality.
Support the persons who have gone through abortions. Do not throw stones on them just because some fundamentalist thinks it's ok to do so. It's their right and they have no done anything wrong. By supporting abortion you support better society that is free from religious oppression, needless suffering and downright idiocy at the cost of lives of women.
