I don't know, exactly. I'm assuming it's the same Aristotlean Physics Kook from quite some time ago with a new nick. They had a pretty extensive blog about how Newtonian mechanics was wrong and Aristotlean motion was obviously correct. Seemed like a bit much for just a troll. So, instead, I think it's your run of the mill Internet Crackpot who never studied any physics, came across one puzzling question, decided ignorance + a question + their genius = proving everyone else wrong. The rest is history and irrational slashdot posts.

Well I don't know about how big a coincidence we are, but so what. There might be a trillion sentient species in our galaxy, but so what. None of them are us. Just like there are billions of humans out there besides myself, but none of them are me. "Humanity will still exist" isn't an acceptable excuse for me to neglect my own survival, and "Sentient life forms will still exist" wouldn't be an acceptable excuse to let our species die out.

Bravado, such a perfect word for this. Funny how this kind of bravado is the opposite of the bravery to go on existing. We didn't get here by not wanting to survive.

Bwa ha ha! So glad to know I nailed it the first time. But wait, there is in fact a nuance here that I missed. It's not that they're wasting their time actually doing the research -- even though, you know, that's exactly what you said -- because obviously nobody should give a shit what you think is important to research or not. Obviously.

No, it's that they just shouldn't bother releasing their research until they've converted it into something you think is important.

And of course you think that's not ridiculous.

Since you're a Tardino emitter of intensity equal to the Large Moron Colider, let me explain: Releasing their research is how they make others aware of and interested in their findings, eventually enabling one of them to be the ones who discovers how to turn this into something you'd care about. Science is colaborative, you see, and you never know which other scientist might be the one to make the breakthrough; it might not even be someone who has their degree yet, and is only reading about this on /.. Notice how this is basically the same thing I already said? No matter. Now that I understand your point better, though, I think I can cut down to what you really meant.

You didn't really mean that it's a waste of time to do the research, or publish the research. You said those things, but that's obviously not what you meant.

What you really meant is that they're wasting their time telling you.

Which is also obvious. But not their problem. Don't click the link if you're not interested in things that won't go into your iPhone, you incurious clod.

What didn't I understand? It's a pretty simple point. Research of things occurring on a time frame of billions of years is useless, research of things that will show results in a few decades isn't.

Right? That's almost exactly what you wrote.

And since if you understood that researching things that'll happen billions of years from now could result in unexpected discoveries relevant on the shorter timescale you approve of, but that you don't know this when you begin researching, you never would have written something so stupid, I think I get the point quite well.

Feel free to elaborate. I'm sure there's a deep nuance to your point that I'm missing.

Oh God, not this Aristotlean nonsense again. Nothing keeps or is needed to keep an object in motion. Something (as in a transfer of momentum and energy) is what you need to make an object stop.

It is certainly true that you are not equally clueless as physicists.

Uh huh. And then someone researching this 10 billion year problem, trying to discover if they can test whether it will really happen, or if there might be some unknown physical principle that will prevent it, makes a discovery that enables other researchers to develop, in a mere 10 years, a better battery and slightly prettier screen for your iPhone 17.

Then you say "Gee, why couldn't you have been working on that the whole time instead of wasting your time studying the fate of the universe."

Which leads the researchers to their ultimate goal: Measuring emissions from your head at the moment you make that statement, they discover the elusive Irony Tardino.

Let's forget about colonialism and the last 100 years.

What I'm interested in is how the paper reconciles the notion that genetic diversity correlates with economic growth, that genetic diversity correlates with migratory distance from Africa, and the periods in time where the greatest centers of civilization, trade and economic growth were in Africa, while areas more distant were as to Ethiopia today?

Are they suggesting that genetic diversity rapidly tracks up and down with the rise and fall of nation-states absent any explanatory mass influx of immigrants or genetically-selective die-offs? Where did all the genetic diversity come from in Europe that led to today's economic growth if it was not there when Europe was in economic doldrums?

Or could this simply be yet another case of a researcher starting with the assumption that the socio-economic tapestry of today and only today is the natural, inevitable workings of biology?

I give them props for considering the entire globe, at least. It's really funny when someone only looks at a specific time and place and declares it the perfect reflection of inherent biological differences.

Apples to penguins results in an unhappy penguin. Fish to penguins on the other hand leads to fat and happy penguins.

Wait, I think I'm misunderstanding.

Semiconductor device physics depends on quantum mechanics.

We can't manipulate the nuclear forces at will, but we do have enough understanding of them for certain applications like nuclear power.

Manipulating gravity like we do magnetism sounds great but I'm not holding my breath.

Nevertheless, I agree with your general sentiment. :)

No, only that the poster I replied to hadn't gotten the message yet.

Right. They're called that because the majority of their flight is ballistic. So it's an accurate term, even if they do incorporate terminal guidance.

They aren't called "ballistic" because terminal guidance is verboten, as you are implying.

Though I do. And I also know that being in the "ballistic" category does not categorically prohibit having terminal guidance... something you apparently do not understand. Fortunately weapon and defense system designers are smarter than you.

Shows what you know. There are lots of ICBMs with terminal guidance -- you know, guidance during the phase that begins once the RV reenters the atmosphere when you said it is 'purely ballistic' -- dating back to the 80s.

You're so funny!

Um, no, according to the website JREF may use those materials freely. That's not the same as owning exclusive rights. So no, they can't prevent the applicant from publishing, fuddy.

Or does it...

A very good question! One which occurred to ballistic missile makers as soon as they realized 1) trajectories can very much not be predicted with 100% accuracy, and so your options are either make them bigger and bigger, or have a way to steer and 2) the possibility of anti-ballistic missile defenses.

The GP thinks the issue is settled by looking at the dictionary definition of "ballistic."

Ah, it's the "it's named this ergo it works like this" method of reverse-engineering. "Ballistic" is only partially descriptive of how modern (which is relative) missiles work. They've been capable of guidance and steering for a long time -- one of the dirty secrets the ABM folks haven't been talking about much when displaying their "successes". It's not as much as a cruise missile, but it doesn't need to be.