To an outside observer. I don't think it's the same in the inertial frame.

Before we call this real, we need to put one on some object in orbit, leave it in continuous operation, and use it to raise the orbit by a measurable amount large enough that there would not be argument regarding where it came from. The Space Station would be just fine. It has power for experiments that is probably sufficient and it has a continuing problem of needing to raise its orbit.

And believe me, if this raises the orbit of the Space Station they aren't going to want to disconnect it after the experiment. We spend a tremendous amount of money to get additional Delta-V to that thing, and it comes down if we don't.

You missed the GP's point: the problem is not that true negatives were found; the problem is that they were not published. Because they were not published, future researchers might waste more effort re-discovering them.

Thanks!

Brian Webb isn't listing this on his Vandenberg AFB Launch Schedule yet. I think he's going to wait until someone official tells him a date.

With some optimism that might only be thousands of years rather than hundreds of Millions.

But it's only necessary for Earth to be uninhabitable for a short time to end the Human race. And that can happen due to man or nature, today. If people aren't somewhere else during that process, that's the end.

Of course. But if I'm going to use an antenna, then what the fuck would I be paying the cable company for?!

More to the point, I think the situation violates at least the spirit (if not the letter) of the FCC's must-carry rules.

The answer to both of those issues ("green" fuels for aviation and trucking) is biofuel or synthetic (hydrocarbon) fuel. (FYI, we had an article here about the latter just a few days ago.)

Nobody said we need to be "carbon-less;" it's sufficient to be "carbon-neutral."

Excuse me; let me clarify: I'm talking about laws restricting people's ability to get on the ballot as a candidate (especially when said candidate lacks affiliation with the Democrat or Republican Party).

Having laws restricting who can vote is a different issue.

Pick almost ANY topic and the parties are going to take polar opposite views of it.

Only the ones that don't matter, but make for good sound bites. On the actual important topics, both halves of our oligarchic regime enthusiastically agree:

1. Both parties love the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping and Gitmo.
2. Both parties think corporate "rights" -- particularly "imaginary property" -- are more important than the real property rights of actual people.
3. Both parties love pork and wealth redistribution (albeit not necessarily to the same groups).
4. Both parties love Federal control, and hate Federalism (i.e., separation of powers between the Federal government and the States).
5. Both parties abuse the Commerce Clause and the Elastic Clause.
6. Both parties feel free to ignore various parts of the Bill of Rights.
7. Both parties are big fans of restrictive ballot access laws, gerrymandering and first-past-the-post voting systems (to hamstring third parties).

And that's just off the top of my head, not anywhere close to a complete list.

Actually I was thinking nuclear power rather than magic.

I agree with the other commenter, there will be lots of people living in space if they can only get there. Mars is a good start.

Obviously I am missing something, then. Please fill me in on your better information sources. Email to bruce at perens dot com if you don't want to put them on Slashdot.

It's time to start planning another trip to Lompoc. The Motel 6 was sort of yukky last time. Maybe I'll try something else. There was an official visitor observation site that I found and got into last time, but that was for the Delta, and it was on Pad 4 if I remember correctly. This one is all the way on the other side of the base on Pad 7 or 8, isn't it? There are some farm roads that might be good observation sites if they are open.

If the science can be discredited, should the federal government really be using it to impose burdensome regulations onto the public?

There's a difference between "actually discredited, according to a reasonable person's opinion" and "'discredited' as an excuse for a biased person to ignore it." With this law, we're talking about the latter situation.

In particular, the Republican goal is to make the burden of proof for climate change so high -- by eliminating consideration of "non-reproducible" data, like all historical climate records -- that in order to be allowed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions the EPA would have to construct two full-scale artificial Earths, build a civilization's worth of polluting industry on one, and wait 100 years to see what happens.

I am not confident that the world will remain a hospitable place for life until we are ready by your standard.

Getting the resources and people there is very close to being within our technical capability. The task ourselves, if we perform it, will take care of the remaining gaps.

Creating a self-sustaining colony outside of the Earth's environment is going to need a lot of work, but it is not work that can ever be achieved on this earth. We have to actually put people in space to achieve this. Our best experience so far is with submarines. Academic research has so far yielded only farcial frauds like Biosphere II.

Technically, making transceivers work when there are 30 of them in vehicles next to each other can get difficult. People wonder why you can buy a dual-band walkie talkie for $60 but the one in the police car costs much more. If it's well engineered, the one in the police car has some RF plumbing that isn't in the $60 walkie talkie.