Leaderboard

QFT. KJU has already gotten what he wants... He's been recognized as a world leader... He's been given a seat at the table among the "league of nations," and he's now been platformed as a peer. He's been taken seriously by the world, is meeting with the most powerful countries of US and China, and it has legitimized him as a powerful person who has made N.Korea a player. Everything else is just gravy at this point. Kim got what he wanted the moment Trump agreed to meet. Sure, KJU's been discussing specific industry investments from the US into NK with Pompeo, but that's all secondary to his push to develop nuclear weapons in an attempt to be taken seriously by the world. He's solidified his place, been praised by the POTUS as a great chairman, elevated instead of treated like the teapot dictator he is. They got what they wanted already, and the US keeps losing more and more credibility. Are you tired of all that winning yet?

You do make a point, several other species of humans did at one time exist, why were we successful and they are gone? Evolution does indeed favor organisms that are just good enough, all you have to do is be able to reproduce, no one on one battles with cave lions except in Conan novels... WOW! I'd like to see the flow chart on that conclusion... This is such bullshit, I live where i can drive to a large game lands area and see adult eastern diamondback rattlesnakes. I have caught enormous rattle snakes, well over six feet long, huge fangs, huge venom glands, and yet living after being bitten even without anti venom is more likely than not. Corals snakes are tiny in comparison and I am far more cautious with them than I am with the rattle snakes. Rattlesnakes can BTW control the amount of venom they inject and dry bites are not uncommon... A big venomous snake is always far more dangerous than it's babies, it's just an old wives tale... In the interest of full disclosure we do have a pygmy rattlesnake here that looks like a baby snake but packs a wallop in it's bite. It should also be said that you don't need to be superman to reproduce, a human smart enough to avoid all contact with those cave lions is more likely to survive than the guy who looks for trouble to impress the ladies... too kool four skool...

I don't think that it is entirely accurate. Based on various articles on NK, it seems that the Kim's position is far more precarious than one might imagine. The purges and assassinations were means to strengthen his internal power and there are reported worries regarding military coups, especially when he leaves the country. Now, NK has again stated that they are open for talks any time, thus placing the blame squarely at the US. Thus Kim has effectively eased pressure on NK and made the US president look bad. These are huge wins for Kim who can use his external wins to cement his position. I suspect the wedge between SK and US is one of the biggest wins for NK, in this respect.

I don't think matters. The question (OP) is how would we homo sapiens treat Neanderthals if they were alive today. My question about consciousness is sloppily asking if the ethics of Neanderthals would impact our own ethics. Can things like "treat others as you'd like to be treated" apply to those who may possibly think or treat themselves in ways separate from how we would? It is just a thought. I actually believe Neanderthals would be so much like us that it would take a trained observer to tell the difference.

http://theconversation.com/more-bad-news-for-dinosaurs-chicxulub-meteorite-impact-triggered-global-volcanic-eruptions-on-the-ocean-floor-91053

20k years is not part of the parameters in the OP. “If an industrial civilization had existed on Earth many millions of years prior to our own era, what traces would it have left and would they be detectable today?” (emphasis added) Worldwide is technically not a parameter, either. You could have an industrial society that has machine power but never invents modern medicine, limiting its overall population and reach.

No, we haven't — we don't know masses to that many significant digits, for example. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of any non-quantized (or null) particle property we've measured to 12 places. If we discover anything new it's likely in the realm of more massive particles. If they were smaller mass, then some larger mass particle would decay into it, unless some selection rule prevented it. (a new small particle would thus probably require some new interaction) Smaller particles as constituents would be new particles. Quarks are new and distinct from the particles they comprise, for example. Anything new along these lines would be distinct particles. You have claimed this without support, a number of times. It has not really been "discussed" as much as asserted. Invalid conclusion based on your assertion. Nope. They could differ in angular momentum or charge but have the same mass. More non-mainstream assertions. Spin is a property, just like mass is. Every particle is at rest in its own frame, but there is no absolute rest frame, so the question makes no sense in the light of relativity. More nonsense. Acceleration needs a cause, but not simple motion.

There are elements that get substituted in molecules owing to the similar chemical nature. Especially if they are in the same column of the periodic table. Strontium, for example, replaces Calcium in bones for this reason (meaning it stays in the body a long time, which is why radioactive Strontium is such a danger) So the answer there would be "not always"

This is how coast line of Sunda shelf looked like in Upper Paleolithic: Extend it to the entire world coast line, e.g. 20k years ago, till now.. and you will have answer for Flood Myth. If increase of temperature, because of global warming, will continue melting ice, you will have Flooding v2.0.

You are right. It was Edwin Hubble, who discovered in 1923 that those spiral nebulae were much farther away than one previously thought. The Hubble telescope is named after him.

I think this is most likely actually (the opportunistic seizing part). Giving up nukes is Kim's big play, the one he gets the most concessions for (if he's even thinking like that -- it doesn't fit in with his larger stated goals). Bolton painted a grim future that starts with unequivocal denuclearization. Why on Earth would Kim start negotiations shackled like that, like it's a hostile takeover by a corporation? This move of Trump's does the same for Kim as it does for Putin, making them seem like more reasonable actors in international politics (and especially more reasonable than the US for a change). Trump clowns to his popular base (who have no idea what successful negotiations on that scale look like), the media covers his every ignorant tweet because money, and the boring, bad ratings voices of reason at home are drowned out by the blare.

! Moderator Note To be honest, there aren't a lot of females who frequent this website. You may be better off going somewhere more targeted to the advice you are seeking. Regardless, we are not a forum that dispenses medical related advice and as such, I am forced to close this thread. Sensei, it is not your business why people want to have children. In the future, you should keep those opinions to yourself.

Great Aussie group! Shame I'm not into there type of music or anything post '80's. My Son has told me I'm stuck in a time warp from '50's/60's music Here's an old Aussie rock n roll singer: One I actually went to school with, and who like me got sacked from the Altar boys union after being caught drinking the Altar wine.

I would certainly assume that when most cosmologists say that a physics singularity should not exist, they would certainly be saying that some mechanism at the quantum/Planck level would stop further collapse. Yes, obviously we have no idea what that is at this time. That's the way I see it. GR tells us that when the Schwarzchild radius is reached then an EH is formed, and further collapse up to the quantum/Planck level is compulsory. There GR fails us and probably then some mechanism should stop further collapse and prevent any singularity and associated infinities. But that's just our best guess. Whatever happens, we have no reason to assume that somehow matter changes its nature. That's how I see it anyway from where I'm sitting.

The distinction I make between faith and hope/wishful thinking is in the willingness to change one's life for the belief. I can hope there is something for my consciousness to continue into after the death of my body without doing anything different in my life. Faith, however, often requires great sacrifices and strictures on lifestyle based only on the strength of the belief.

Hi Oliver, I take it you don't live by the sea? If you did you would be used to the fact that things don't last. Cars, bridge steel, metal lamposts rust more quickly, aluminium corrodes, even stainles steel does not last indefinitely. Non metal materials don't fare any better In the water fibreglass boat hulls are subject to absorbing salt water and swelling, becoming jelly like.

The courses, depending on which university and the specifics, are usually very similar. There is likely to be a more focused role on aerospace applications in aerospace, but the core fundamental stuff will probably be the same between the two degrees. In lectures (I do mechanical), I sit with those doing automotive/motorsport/aerospace technology. The guys doing automotive engineering have exactly the same modules as we do, except a handful over the 3 years are the "vehicle version" of what we're doing. Someone who started on motorsport could potentially switch to mechanical because they're so similar.

Abiogenesis came before bacteria. Those gazillions of opportunities to make complex chemisty made chemistry with enough attributes of life to become the living precursors to more complex forms. Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting bacteria - which are complex and sophisticated lifeforms with a lot of evolutionary history - got assembled from primordal sea chemistry in one extraordinary and unlikely chemical occurrance. Umm, that is unless you count the precursor life forms as extraordinary and unlikely chemical occurrances.

It's not called 'The circle of life' for nothing. I can't see where the "apex" is in a circle.

Why is not a science question. But if you look at available evidence, one could put together a decent argument that a planet with life on it needs at least one species that can leave to spread life to other planets.

Humans evolved to be just good enough. Not extraordinarily good. Not exceptionally bad. A fair turn of speed. Excellent endurance. Good enough eyesight. Hearing. Some sense of smell. A very big brain. Plus the important thing you need to remember about humans is that they always run in packs. One human alone was weak. Fifty together were superior. What is also important is that at the time Humans really got going there was nothing else standing in their way. All the environmental conditions were ripe. Humans had the vital capacity to quickly adapt to a changing environment. The final factor was that people learned to adapt the environment to their needs rather than just blending in. The rest is history.

If you had an industrial civilization millions of years prior to ours they would have depleted coal and perhaps oil, and I suspect that would be detectable — not finding coal (or much coal) in a region where the geology told you you should. Mining tunnels filled in with the wrong material, inconsistent with the surrounding rock.

You should go with your sexual partner to the doctor, to check his sperm (quantity and quality (activity) of spermatozoons) under microscope. Or buy your own microscope (1000x-1200x would be enough). It does not cost much. https://www.ebay.com/bhp/microscope-1200x https://www.ebay.com/bhp/microscope-1000x e.g. Being lonely is very inappropriate reason for having babies..