Your statement does not contradict what the article is saying. Did you intend it to?

Everything heavier than hydrogen is cooked within and then ejected from a star. Stars are where atomic fusion occurs, you see.

The water droplets shoot out from the poles of the star. They are perpendicular to Earth's orbit. So, those droplets wouldn't have landed directly on the Earth. They first would have frozen out in the void of space, and collapsed into one another due to their mutual gravity, forming big icy rocks that we call "asteroids." Some of those then got drawn back in by the Sun's gravity, and crashed into the Earth.

So....asteroids delivered water to the Earth, exactly as the article says. And the water was baked up and shot out from our own Sun before that. Though some of the water may have drifted in to our outer solar system from other solar systems after they went through the same process, too.

Asteroid impacts are neither good nor bad. They are just natural events.

An asteroid impact on Earth today would kill a lot of people, so we can be forgiven for thinking of that as bad. But back when there was no life on Earth, the impacts mostly just increased the Earth's mass (and delivered a little water). THOSE turned out to be good for us today because they helped set the stage for our evolution.

Liquid water does not last long on the moon; the solar radiation boils it away. There could still be water on the moon, though, but our missions there have still barely scratched the surface (so to speak).

If you are really curious, you could just type the word "moon" into wikipedia. There is a lot of info there.

You become old when new technologies stop making sense to you, and seem silly, unnatural, evil, or just plain valueless.

This exactly describes my opinion of Facebook, despite the fact that it is wildly successful.

Ugh. I am depressed now.

Just make test case documentation, code comments, code-reviews, and whatever documentation you need be key deliverables of your sprints. Also, if you can't hold a developer for five years, then you have a morale problem that will cause such pain no matter what process you use. Or maybe you have a bias for cheap entry-level developers over experienced ones, which will also ruin all your code no matter what process you use.

Agile might not be right for your environment, but from what you say, it sounds like you are doing agile wrong.

My experience with agile has been the exact opposite of yours.

Finally, Agile has a tendency to fail in its goal of producing software that is actually usable by its intended consumer.

That is *exactly* why you are supposed to be demoing the software to the client on a daily basis. If you aren't doing that, your failure is not the fault of agile, but of your misimplementation of it.

Agile is built on a different philosophy than waterfall, and those who cannot grasp those underpinnings will *always* do agile wrong. They will then blame agile for their own failures.

Agile *is* wrong for some environments. But it is a perfect fit for others....assuming it is done right.

Amazing. I recognize that not everyone is motivated by money, and I can sympathize with a distaste for boredom, but it just seems strange to me that someone would turn down $20k per year and most of their personal life for a less boring job.

How likely do you think it is that you will all have the spirit and the endurance to keep this pace up when you are past your 40's? And how likely do you think it is that your company won't start looking at replacing you with younger people at that time? sub-100k salaries are generally not retire-early salaries, and there is a bias against old programmers in the industry.

Kudos for finding happiness, but, I hope you all know what you are doing.

And are the salaries around $150 k per year? If they are much below that you are being taken advantage of; the market has many employers who are having a hard time hiring employees with half your devotion. You could easily make equivalent salary and still have free time for a personal life.

Godel's proof fails to prove the existence of God.

1) It begins by re-defining God to mean something quite different (and containing far fewer attributes) than the common meaning. Even if such a thing can be proven to exist, what has been proven to exist is not "God." This is the logical fallacy of ignoratio elenchi"

2) The premise "necessary existence is a positive property" is not an a priori truth, but an interesting equivocation. It translates to "something that actually exists is morally superior to something that is merely imaginary," which might make sense to some people but is ultimately based on opinion rather than logical necessity.

3) As Hume astutely pointed out, it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of any concrete thing from purely a priori truths. This includes God. To summarize: a priori truths can only be proven if their opposite necessarily implies a contradiction. Any concrete thing that exists could also not-exist without there being a contradiction. So, to prove that a real thing exists one must include at least one relevant a posteriori premise in the argument.

Fun fact: Godel was an atheist, and delayed the publication of this "proof" for fear that people might think he believed in God.

It seems relevant to point out that even if we can infer the existence of a creator from the level of intelligent design that is evident in the universe, that alone tells us nothing about what the creator is like.

It is one thing to say "the universe was created." It is quite another to say "the creator of the universe wants you to fly an airplane into a building" or "the creator wants you to give me ten percent of your income."

If you are wrong, you still lose everything, because you believed in the wrong god, and the right one will send you to hell for it.

The people who's votes are being played for, by this move, are in a demographic that is largely unconcerned with the value of your house (or, by extension, the current state of the real estate market).

The right to work is mis-envisioned. Most people who think they have a right to work don't realize that it translates to a requirement to employ liabilities and lose one's business. The bigger issue, though, is that most people see the having of a job as the only means by which they can subsist, and so they consider it an extension of the right to life.

We are entering an era of such technological ascendency that very few people must actually work in order to provide for the subsistence of the entire population. Capitalistic values do not work well in such an economic landscape. The fact that civilized governments pay landowners to NOT grow food, in an effort to protect a market, while children go to bed hungry within their own borders, demonstrates the absurdities of this disparity.

Of course...people who can't find jobs are not content to just die. They absolutely will turn to crime instead, where they will either:

a) take your wealth from you by stealing it, to your detriment, or
b) receive free food and clothing, paid by your tax dollars, in jail.

We will be providing for their subsistence one way or the other. It would be better, however, if humans could maintain a more enlightened means of solving the distribution problem.

Aristotle pointed out that one's capacity for virtue is limited by one's intelligence.

To put it simply: if you truly want to do the right thing, but you are so uneducated that you can't figure out what the right thing is, you wind up not doing the right thing. The thing you actually do is one of the wrong things, and so it is probably harmful to someone.

Even if the soul of such a person is as pure as untrodden snow, the actual outcomes of their actual actions are equivalent to those of a morally inferior person.

When a person is in a position that his actions could harm others (such as, say, an airplane pilot who’s actions could crash the plane), that person is morally obligated to attain and maintain a high level of competence. However, since we all live as part of an interconnected society, we are *all* in this position. Any action we take could harm others if not thought through, so lifelong self-education is a moral imperative for all of us.

Everyone has genetic limits to intelligence, and limits on opportunities for education, which are forgivable. When you hit those limits and need to make decisions that are beyond them, the morally correct thing to do is seek guidance from someone who is more appropriately educated.

If you do neither; if you insist on remaining ignorant and on directing your life based on this ignorance, then you harm everyone around you. You are therefore guilty of negligence, and therefore you are a bad person.

That is a common line of thinking among those who haven't thought things through.

1) When you make a highly-desired commodity illegal, you create organized crime. Mafia bosses who have no qualms about sending your children home minus a few digits just to make a point wind up receiving tremendous economic power from people who want the item. This level of crime is far worse, and far harder for the police to protect against, than random muggings by petty junkies.

2) You assume that once it becomes legal, demand will increase significantly. This is very fallacious. Most people who desire to use drugs already do so, whether it is legal or not. The only people who refrain from using drugs due to their legal status are precisely the sort of people who are responsible enough to keep their use under control. Furthermore, the current (illegal) users who are the type that would lose control and start mugging people to fuel the habit are already doing so. So, even if usage increases, crime does not increase.

3) Once legal, it can be taxed to fund addiction clinics and other support services that users can now turn to without fear of legal punishment. So, that naturally helps to control the problem and further reduce crime.