Comment Re:Why not 500? (Score 1) 126
Every time I hear about more sanctions I'm puzzled that they didn't go scorched earth when the war first started.
Every time I hear about more sanctions I'm puzzled that they didn't go scorched earth when the war first started.
I wholeheartedly endorse your post.
- Vlad's other sock.
There is clipping in low bitrate Digital. It USED To be a thing back in the day of the very first digital playback devices (not CD players). CDs haven't changed since then.
I know "Okay Boomer"
CD Audio is digital. It literally offers no difference to all other Digital Formats, excepting for bitrate differences. Most listening is via some sort of digital conversion.
Vinyl is analog. There is a real benefit to analog, as it does not have some of the clipping effects digital is known for. Can most people tell the difference? Probably not.
California brings water from a lot farther than that -- the Aqueduct runs about 500 miles to service Los Angeles. (And has turned the formerly-lush Owens Valley into a desert.)
Destroying the first dam was environmentally catastrophic, and produced a massive fish kill. Ooops.
Now the Cat Detector Vans, those are legit!
If Europe had been a nice comfortable place America would not have been settled.
Except by Siberians about 15000 years ago. And possibly by other Siberians 35000 or even 130000-odd years ago - though if those settlements happened, they may have died out. Which isn't necessarily a comfortable thought for some.
did you know that the ancient sumerian tablets (I think) said that the "god" Ra came out of a comic egg, eh?
I bet they didn't.
"Ra" (in the normal Latin transcription) was a major Egyptian god, something like a 1000km form Sumeria.
"It's stunned."
The campaigns are continuing - I still see reports from them on ArXiv - with improved sensitivity and detection rates. We see the sort of events expected. But not as many as would be needed to provide the Milky Way (and Magellanic Clouds) with enough mass to explain the rotation rate problem in large-planet/ small star size lumps.
Whatever provide the necessary non-luminous mass, it's not floating around in large-planet/ small star size lumps. UNLESS someone is specifically steering all of them so that they don't occult background stars form our point of view. That caveat is equivalent to saying "god is deliberately deceiving us about the universe" - which is a hypothesis that natural scientists would reject (because "god" : not a natural phenomenon) and most theologians would also reject (because "evil/ lying god" is not a hypothesis they find comfortable).
In more recent times, when a mathematics and astronomy professor who was also a Roman Catholic Priest suggested the currently accepted model of the universe, the expert scientific consensus was to reject it.
Do try to get your history of science right. When Georges LeMaître proposed his model of the universe - incorporating Hubble's then-new red shift results, it was rejected by Einstein - who never have described himself as an astronomer, and who relied on other to point out the astronomical consequences of his theories - with the double-edged comment that "your maths is correct, but your physics is abominable." Which was arguably Einstein's second greatest blunder - after the introduction of the "cosmological constant" into General Relativity in the late 19-teens to make it fit with the astronomical theories of the late 19-teens. Hubble hadn't even begun his red shift observation campaign at that point.
Big fuck-up on Einstein's behalf. Not LeMaître's. It's not even clear that (theoretical physicist) Einstein was aware of (observational astronomer) Hubble's results at the time of that conference. 1930 or '31, wasn't it?
Dismiss it out of hand as smelling of religion, too close to the Genesis story.
That was a concern LeMaître expressed, but wasn't a charge I've seen evidence of being levelled at him from the scientific community. If you have contemporary records of such charges, from the scientific community, feel free to share them.
Mocking it by calling it the Big Bang Theory.
That was Fred Hoyle, in the late 1940s, not Einstein (or anyone else) in 1930-ish. By then the galactic red shift was accepted, and Hoyle's beef with LeMaître's (and most others, by then) idea was that he had a different mechanism for the expansion which led to the red shift - distance relationship, not that he disagreed with the (by then) accepted observational fact of the galactic red shift - distance relationship.
Then Hubble confirmed the model and the expert scientific consensus was thrown into the trash can.
And now you've jumped back into the early-1930s, when various competitors of Hubble also found a correlation between red shift and distance. By the time of Hoyle's "Big Bang" footshot (1948/9, IIRC), the distance "ladder" had had at least two significant improvements in it's accuracy, both of which improved the statistical significance of the estimated expansion rate.
If you're going to make a claim about history, do try to get your dates right, and not link events from decades apart as if they were contemporary. That's on a par with talking about Guillame The Bastard fighting the Danish king Knut in England.
fortune: No such file or directory