Actually I just so happen to keep abreast of news regarding Ethical Concerns for other reasons.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Safe until it kills millions when a plant blows up.
Unlike, say, coal, which kills millions under normal operations, right?
Or didn't you know that routine coal-mining fatalities are a couple of orders of magnitude more numerous than all fatalities associated with nuclear power? Hell, coal mining fatalities in the 20th century in the USA ALONE were comparable to the death-toll from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
And then there's the rest of the world's coal mining casualties, plus secondary effects from the pollution.
And never mind that nuclear plants don't "blow up". Unless you fill them up with TNT and set it off, of course.
Nuclear is dead, I can't be bothered to argue about it. Ten years from now renewable energy will be a fraction of the cost of nuclear and will be the cheapest form of energy worldwide without any need for subsidy. 10 years from now if you suggest we use more nuclear energy, anybody who knows anything will frown at you like you're mad.
It's funny, but I remember hearing the same sort of comment back in the '70s during the energy crisis.
Oddly enough, it didn't seem to have worked out that way.
Surely not Clarke, he perfectly knew we will never be halfway to anywhere. He was a real scientist.
Which no doubt explains "Rendezvous with Rama" and 2001:a Space Odyssey"....
Clarke was enough of a scientist to know that we don't know the limits of the "possible" quite yet....
Wait until the SCOTUS tells states that immigration enforcement is a federal matter, and that states therefore cannot prevent illegal immigrants from voting or holding elected office.
While some elected office require citizenship, not all do, in case you are unaware.
However, voting requires citizenship at local, state, or federal level.
Which means that even if SCOTUS says that immigration enforcement is a Federal issue (it is, frankly), that won't result in any new voters until citizenship requirements are met. Though it might result in some new candidates for public office....
As far as we know, there may be no way to produce or find and mine hydrocarbons such as methane. Mars's atmosphere lacks significant hydrogen content. If there's subsurface minable water, that could solve the problem, but only if there's plenty of it.
Hmm, CH4...so methane is 1/4 H2 by mass, and 3/4 C...
Which means, absolute worst case, that we have to carry the H2 to Mars, thus giving us only a factor of four improvement over having to carry ALL the fuel to Mars.
If, as seems moderately probable, Mars has frozen water under its surface, you produce all the fuel there. Or, if our moon has H2O, as seems probable, then it's actually easier to ship fuel from Luna to Mars than to put the same fuel into Mars orbit FROM Mars.
Note that a mass-driver, a la "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (which would also be workable on Mars, if you built one on steroids) would make the process even more efficient, in that all the H2O from Luna could be sent to Mars or LEO without having to burn any of it to get it off the moon.
The writer of the original article should be shot, hung, shot, and then boiled.
The writer may very well have twelve inches, but that's not important here. What's important is the past tense of "to hang" (in the sense of putting a man on the end of a rope) is "hanged"....
From what I understand she just so happens to be suing someone else for exactly the amount of money they're in the hole for...
All those "that hold women's salaries back compared to men" like arithmetic and counting. Goddamn math is part of the patriarchy.
What even is an "anti-feminist"? Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali an anti-feminist? Is Karen DeCrow? What about Amanda Marcotte? Or Lindy West? The first two are diametrically opposed to the latter two, they're almost complete opposites. If you support Karen DeCrow and Ayaan Hirsi Ali you by definition vehemently oppose Amanda Marcotte and Lindy West.
"Anti-feminist" is a meaningless term, it's even more meaningless than McCarthy's use of "communist". It's impossible to NOT be an "anti-feminist" because of how absurdly over-broad it is.
The problem is their utter domination of academia and the media, and incredibly active base of zealots, gives them a profoundly disproportionate ability to control the narrative and wield political and social influence. It's easy to punch far above your weight when you can print off dozens of article saying whatever you want, woozle wikipedia into rewriting the truth to suit your politics, and then dump some screaming violent protestors on people that know they can even get away with assaults and other crimes. I still remember one video of a university protest where an SJW ran up to someone, started screaming accusing him of touching her breast to set him up (both of his hands were out in front of him in the air), and then shoved him off a ~5 foot ledge.
Could you imagine the media response if anyone did that to feminists?
Well, sure. I have tested General Relativity, and would love to have found a case where it was not "good enough." But, that is different from an internal contradiction, which as far as we know GR doesn't have.
There have been several theories built on that assumption, most prominently one called MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics), but more recently one that builds on relativity rather than Newtonian gravity/dynamics.
But none of these theories (hypotheses?) have gained much acceptance from the physics community, as far as I know.
Yes, and one reason is that they find it hard to model these kinds of galaxy cluster observations in MOND / TeVeS without assuming there is also some dark matter or some other non-MOND effect involved. Now, that could be (and MOND proponents will point out that standard CMD also has its problems, e.g., with the core/cusp problem, and we don't throw out CDM every time such a problem is encountered), but it certainly takes some of the shine off of the theory.
What objects are moving away from us faster than light and how was this determined?
None. That poster was overly enthusiastic.
I don't have the article in the mail yet, but I'm guessing that's new. At the very least, Weakly Interacting is now Really Weakly Interacting.
Here you go.
From my perspective, it hardly changes a thing (it lowers the cross section / mass constraint a little, but not even an order of magnitude). But, then, I'm not a WIMP guy.