Also, somebody on this thread ignored the word from. Banning flights from infected countries still allows personnel to get there.
You're going to end up with a fuck of a lot of doctors and airliners in Liberia then.
You stop the unsecured flights from coming out.
You allow secured flights going into and coming out of secured areas.
You then transfer supplies to the workers securing and treating other areas.
You forgot a step: you budget and pay the many tens of billions of dollars that this will cost. Good luck.
No, but definitely the time to enact common sense, and if anybody says, "but that's offensive to..." give them a good punch in the mouth. Good common sense, like not allowing people to fly from those countries.
Except that if you cancel all the flights, medical personnel and drugs and equipment have no way to get there. Which means that the disease can't be contained. Which means that it spread to places that there are still flights allowed, before you are aware of it, or have countermeasures. What do you do then? Cut off all flights to that country, rinse and repeat?
The people who actually do disease control are warning, based on science, that the douchebag reactionary approach to this is going to kill hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people, and put even First World countries at risk. Sorry, America isn't going to shoot its way out of this one.
Studies suggest that if solar adoption continues growing at its current rate, incumbents will be forced to raise their prices, which will only persuade more people to switch to solar.
Which means the subsidies are effective and successful, and we should have more of them.
Oh, wait. I thought I lived in a sane country for a second there.
The work shows that good science on gravitational waves can be done without spending the hundreds of millions of dollars for bespoke gravitational wave detectors, such as LIGO, which have yet to find any evidence of the waves either.
Do you mean aside from the cost of putting seismometers on the moon in the first place?
The experiment referenced is a fabulously clever re-use of existing data, but it has nothing whatsoever to say about the funding case for LIGO. LIGO, like many cutting-edge experiments, requires very long-term technology development before it can produce a positive result. Some science requires long-term thinking, not just until the next quarter or the next election cycle.
.... rant rant
Wow. It took six minutes for the first angry, misogynistic douchebag to start venting bile.
Slashdot, you can do better. It should be no more than two minutes thirty.
There are two possibilities: He lost his tenure because there was an anonymous, incorrect peer review negative towards him. His work was actually good. In that case he should sue the university to make decisions based on anonymous, incorrect peer reviews.
There's a third, more mundane possibility: he lost his tenure because he quit. When he lost his new job offer, he went back to Wayne State asking for his old job back, and they said no. The devil is in the details here. If he had a written employment and tenure agreement with Mississippi all signed and finalized, he would have a damn good case against Mississippi. TFA is not clear on this point, but I would hazard a guess that he got an informal notice that Mississippi intended to hire him, quit at Wayne State before the offer was official, and then Miss yanked the offer before they were legally committed. This kind of shit happens all the time. So sorry.
Moral: never, ever, quit your current job until the ink is dry on the legal papers for your new one.
I'd like to bet somebody a dollar that we go to a steady-state universe in our lifetime.
As several other posters have pointed out, whether BICEP2 is seeing gravity waves or dust has very little to do with whether or not the Big Bang is right. Even if BICEP2 is entirely explained by dust, the Big Bang is still just fine as a theory. Sorry to disappoint you.
The first is not specifically wrong. Thermodynamics implies that the big bang's energy had to some from somewhere.
No. This is specifically wrong. Thermodynamics implies no such thing.
The Big Bang does have thermodynamic issues, but the primary problem is entropy, not energy. And the problem is that the entropy of the early universe is too low, not too high. (Inflation, BTW, is one way to explain the initial low-entropy state of the universe, but even that is an incomplete explanation.)
- The universe did not come from nothing. Thermodynamics prevents this.
- The universe did not create itself. Thermodynamics prevents this.
- The universe was created by an intelligent Creator is the sole, logical conclusion.
At least the first point above is just plain wrong, and the second is either wrong or meaningless, depending on exactly what you mean by "create itself".
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I really don't like how they do this extrapolation stuff. Like the universe is currently expanding, and based on the current rate of expansion (or the rate of change of that expansion) we assume it has always been expanding and that 14 billion years ago everything was crammed into something the size of a golf ball. I'm not anti-science, but that seems to be making a pretty big leap.
This is mostly because you apparently don't understand the theory (or the data) very accurately, which is fine. But to take a layman's understanding of something and concluded that "all teh scientists are idiots" is really, really not a good idea.
The evidence that cosmological expansion occurred in the distant past, not just today, is compelling, and direct. We can actually see light that has been traveling unimpeded since the universe was only 300,000 years old, which means that we can directly observe the conditions in the universe at that time. And it was hot, and dense.
This is another thing that bothers me. If we can see stars as far away as the universe is old, then we (or the matter we are composed of) must be moving away from them at very close to the speed of light, since we were once very close to them.
Things as (almost) far away as the universe is old are moving away from us at (close to) the speed of light. Things farther away from us than the universe is old are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. This is perfectly consistent with General Relativity: it seem to contradict Special relativity, but it actually doesn't.
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
