The article quotes a NASA study from 2007 on the best way to "deflecting NEOs". They found nuclear devices to be "10-100 times more effective than the non-nuclear alternatives analyzed in this study." You are actually saying what the article is saying. The article doesn't say the nukes are to explode the NEO, leave it to Slashdot to have a misleading summary.
The summary is wrong. TFA says the nuke would be for changing the trajectory of the NEO, not destroy the NEO. It also found nukes to be better than other methods of changing trajectories.
Can someone explain this comment to me?
I'm not sure these assumptions are correct, but saying that 1.07 to 1.12 is "not as big as many people may think" is a bit disingenuous. Let's look at the numbers
Lets assume 1.07 would be their natural ratio. In India it's 1.12. India has a birth rate of around 25 million people a year. The "natural" ratio would lead that to be:
25m * 1.07/2.07
Their actual ratio is more like (1.12):
25m * 1.12/2.12
Female birth number should be assuming a 1.07 ratio = 13,207,547 / 1.07 = 12,343,502
If this imbalance was only due to deaths of females before being reported as births this would lead to 551,050 females being killed in India.
We're talking half a million female babies each year (just in India). That's probably more than most people think.
Another post has already said this, but in case you don't see it. The professor admitted that there were some students that didn't deserve to fail. He asked the university for permission to teach just those students. The university denied his request and he was not willing to teach the class.
misattributed to Socrates.
a paraphrase of a quote from Aristophanes' Clouds, (see w:The Clouds,) a comedic play known for its caricature of Socrates.
Most people that hate on Columbus are using http://theoatmeal.com/comics/c... as their reference. The fact is most historical figures are not saints or devils, but people with complex motivations living in a world very different than ours. (disclaimer: I still think Columbus wasn't a "good" guy.)
If you give an inch, they take a foot. Any time you give an overarching exception to the rule of law, it will be abused. I'm not interested in comparing our freedom losses relative to anything or anyone else. We can do better than we are doing now. For example:
--US Gov. can hold you indefinitely without pressing charges. (gitmo)
--Big data queries without warrants can cause false positive flags on innocent civilians
--Recent choke hold fiasco has shed light on the police force being slapped on the wrist for killing using methods outside their own approval
--CIA lies to senate in front of the world (about spying on citizens). Faces no charges or repercussions
--Michael Chertoff (got money from US citizens for backscatter machines without the proper vetting and RFPs)
I don't think you're familiar with the patriot act.
I realize my earlier statement could be construed as an ambiguous "everything effects everything" chaos theory type of statement. But, believe me, it is more than just wild conjecture. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... . IF this theory is true (and there is certainly a fair amount of evidence) then it would explain how hormones effect motivations for STEM careers. Yes, there is still culture in there. They are not desperate systems, and could even create a feedback loop. So, failing other more compelling explanations, I'll go with the theory I linked.
Your #2 should be responded to as "Yes. While social pressures can make us make choices we would not otherwise, so too can hormones. Motivations are varied by hormones, and hormone levels are influenced greatly by sex." Pump someone full of different hormones and see their actions change.
You are right about that. Objectification of women is rampant across the whole entertainment industry. There is not a "gamer culture" of objectification. It far transcends this. This reporting is the same thing that happened with violence. People see something repulsive, and instead of realizing it's a problem that occurs everywhere and needs to be addressed they blame it on a sub-culture. Violence in video games is
There are problems, but lets not blame "gamers" for the problem. And if one only blames the objectification when it's in something that they don't already like then it becomes obviously hypocritical.
I think this has less to do with Gamer culture than it has to do with Marketing culture. It is not unique to gaming. Beer companies and any other company that markets to men uses the same techniques. This story and many other use the response to topics involving Misogyny as a reflection of gaming culture. I'm not sold. There is no data on this that I am aware of. I imagine if they had done the same video and posts about a book or beer commercials you would have the same sort of response. People that have Misogynistic prejudices are drawn to the types of things that bring them out of the woodwork.
Let's see problems and fix them. Let's not construe things. Objectification of women in marketing is an issue. The same goes for art (books, games, tv, movies). We don't see shows like game of Thrones and say "Tv watchers have a culture of Misogyny".
I chose funding since the tech I would want is not something feasible at the moment. My state has pilot programs with these recorders and they have to manually turn on and off the recording and the battery is only so good. If we decide we want these and buy them across the board we'll end up with another back-scatter fiasco and a billion dollars in paper weights. If we let departments get these slowly we will see the tech get refined and updated. Having said all that, it's a moot point if the data is handled incorrectly.