I guess that may explain those forums that now have those annoying "imposed" hyperlinks on users' posts - i.e. where some word is emphasized by the hosting system (i.e. not the poster), and if you hover on it you get some popup link. Sure, it's pretty obvioius (esp. since they at least use a different look e.g. a dashed underline) but I still find it distracting and annoying (if not insulting).

In light of the observation that "in the middle there's kind of a low spot that's dark red", mission scientists now believe the mysterious object is not a jelly donut but, in fact, a danish.

Work is ongoing in order to determine whether it is raspberry or strawberry.

I dug around ESA's pages and finally found details on the orbital parameters: on Comet Rendezvous, under "Comet mapping and characterisation (August 2014)" (halfway down) it says: "...the spacecraft is inserted into orbit around the nucleus at a distance of about 25 kilometres. Their [sic] relative speed is now down to a few centimetres per second. "

That slow orbital speed (OK, slow compared to what we're used to dealing with) is due to the small mass of the comet (again, compared to things like the Earth or Moon), which Wikipedia gives as about 3e12 kg. Checking the math, the equation for circular orbital velocity v[circ] = sqrt(GM/R) ~= sqrt( (7e-11)(3e12) / 25e3 ) = 0.09 m/s = 9 cm/s, cool. (Even if the quoted 25 km is to the surface rather than the centre, using that figure for R is OK since the comet's radius is only about 2 km.)

FWIW, at the surface, escape velocity sqrt(2)*v[circ] = sqrt( 2(7e-11)(3e12) / 2e3 ) = 0.5 m/s. You could easily jump off of that comet!

ESA: "Rosetta will prepare for its upcoming rendezvous with comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko"

Probe: Groan, mumble. "Whatever... where's my coffee?"

It that synopsis based on your reading of the book? IIUC from reading the book it wasn't the owners-as-owners but owners-as-doers (i.e. industrialists who were central to their business' success) who formed the new town, and not because they didn't want to pay workers, but because they were fed up with the contempt their society and government had for their accomplishments. IIRC one of them became a small cattle rancher in the new town.

The "wondrous machine" was a magic BS energy invention that was (a) an example of a "good for all" technology developed by one of these people (Galt himself, actually) that the system probably wasn't going to allow him to market, and (b) a plot device that allowed the new town to deploy a sci-fi BS-energy shield to hide from the outside world.

(Sigh... not defending Rand's philisophy here, just my reading of the book... Oh yeah, I can poke huge holes in Galt's Gulch, not including the magic energy supply.)

Insertion of genes? An advanced degree?

Yes, we could. (We could call it "free trade".) Actually, until we get over our nationalities, people could keep them, provided there was a way of internationally agreeing (and enforcing) that your nation can do what it wants provided people are free to leave.

A bit of a tangent, but that reminded me of a physics teacher I had who told us something like (more jokingly than seriously) "You know why I hope there's a god? Because the afterlife could be like a physics seminar, we'd all be sitting at tables, God would be up at the chalkboard, and we could ask him questions; "Hey, that thing about information lost in a black hole - how'd you do that?" (And God picks up the chalk...)

This is not meant as a dig at the entertainment, artistic, or leisure industries; but is it possible that these economic activities, being arguably optional to our basic maintenance, have up til now depended on a significant economy engaged in more "necessary" activities, like food and manufacturing, with "disposable" income available to spend on the "optional" stuff? Sure, a fair amount of crap food and idiotic manufactured goods can be regarded as unnecessary, but is there a distinction here? For example, in a recession does a tool and die shop suffer less than a movie theatre? And what will our economy do to itself when vast numbers of people are no longer needed to meet our basic needs? IANAEconomist, so any enlightenment (or, smacks to the head, I suppose) are welcome...

I've wondered about doing the above for the simple reason of fairness: would it not make tax evasion more difficult? If taxes are a necessary evil, I'll pay my fair share, but it really bugs me when I see others ducking them. It's not hard for a contractor to do "cash" deals, or pay someone under the table, but you can't avoid a property tax since it's recorded at the deed office (or also the patent office, etc.).

And on that note, why should we try to insert the tax collector into every economic transaction? Although that very concept offends those with a Libertarian streak, aside from that it simply seems inefficient. (Down to retailers charging and redeeming sales taxes, to entrepreneurs doing our increasingly complicated taxes*.)

Sure, I'm probably being simple-minded and ignorant about tax policy; I've never studied economics (yet), but I do find it fascinating. Were there reasons we generally moved away from wealth taxes (aside from the fact that the wealthy didn't like them)?

*When families or organizations need more space, they'll have to acquire it. Sure, higher property taxes will incentivize us to rent, but our need for space will be met by someone who's willing to own (and indirectly pass on to us some of the tax hit). OTOH, are current systems of having a wide net of taxes on everything seen as advantageous since we aren't putting a lot of "friction" in any one place?...

Error (in cmp_phenom_numer), missing argument 'scale'

"...of clinical ECG machines" (summary). Does the submitter or anyone else care to elaborate?