Area54

My suspicion is that after some nine months of covid avoidance measures a significant proportion of the population will feel that the mere existence of a vaccine somehow means it's OK to relax. It won't register that it will be well through next year before the majority of people have received a vaccine. As a consequence I fear that we could see third and fourth waves occurring. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think humans have got a good track record for long term, sustained, widespread rational behaviour. On the plus side, ignoring Covid completely, we now know the names of 18 astronauts destined to travel to the moon. That's something nice to think about.

The UK one is reported here on the BBC's children's channel/site. It was produced by a local man who was amused by the Utah one. Plus this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-55227034 and on Glastonbury Tor: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-55248257

Speaking personally, it just means I'm an idiot.

Sometimes people with high IQs are just better at rationalising their bad decisions. Sometimes people with high IQs use them to con people with low IQs. (I leave it as an exercise for the student to think of any noteworthy examples.) Sometimes people with high IQs are smart enough to avoid politics. Sometimes people with high IQs are too busy making posts on science forums.

I've long taken personal exception to the under-representation of old, bald, white men, with questionable bladder control amongst Olympic athletes.

I think I'd rather educate discriminating individuals not to discriminate. I don't insist that this is easy, or even possible in each instance, but the same may be said of justice. On the whole I'd prefer the former (education) and nothing says we can't strive for both.

The South Atlantic Anomaly is not a pole reversal. It is a distortion/reduction of the geomagnetic field that might be a step towards a pole reversal, but probably is not . Domingos et al note that "One of the striking characteristics of the present geomagnetic field is denoted the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) where the total field intensity is unusually low and the flux of charged particles, trapped in the inner Van Allen radiation belts, is maximum." However the ozone hole has nothing to do with the van Allen Belts or the SAA. Its causes are discussed in this wikipedia article. The presence of the holes at the poles is related to extended sunlight hours in hemisphere summers, wind patterns, low temperatures, etc. The ozone hole arose largely because of CFCs. The ban on these is allowing the ozone levels return towards normal. It will take till near the end of the century before these levels recover to those present before CFC use.

Perhaps if we send them videos of Trump they will change their minds and quarantine us instead.

Surely any thorough comparison of success and failure would include discussion of responsibility. It would certainly be a valid topic of discussion.

Spinning your wheels?

While I don't rule it out, it runs counter to our present understanding of language and of animal communication. The power of language is its ability to combine various elements to communicate complex concepts. A corollary of that is the ready opportunity to create completely unique messages that are nevertheless understood directly by those familiar with the language. For example, I doubt if the following sentence has ever been written or spoken before: The elderly spinster from Copenhagen had never expected the train journey by express through the Low Countries would lead, during a meal at the station buffet in Brussels, to an introduction to the former chancellor of Edinburgh University and his adopted daughter, a violinist en route from Prague. You are unlikely to have had any difficulty in understanding the sentence. No animal is known to able to do anything akin to this. (I accept that the jury is still out in regard to cetaceans and that is an area worthy of further research. ) I suspect at least that level of sophistication is necessary for any advanced civilisation, but that may just be ignorance on my part. Certainly I can well imagine a species that complemented its full blooded language with a variety of more primitive and simple signals. After all we humans do it with body language and non-verbal noises, so I am not arguing against having a sound understanding of all communicaiton systems. Surely a picture of Donald Trump should be sufficient.

Since the only creatures on Earth that definitley* have language, as opposed to a small array of signals, is homo sapiens, the objective has already been met. *This applies even although some of them cannot type definitely correctly.

You could consider the plaques added to the Pioneer spacecraft, both destined for interstellar space, where they might get intercepted by aliens. They are described in the Wikipedia article. The logic used for them seems a good starting point. In a sense the object is not to develop a language as such, but rather to find the most convenient way of conveying information. Of course, we need to account for the possibility that the aliens we hope to "talk" to are deaf, or blind, and communicate via odours, or body movement, or . . . .

No. Policy makers rely heavily upon the global average temperature as a means of simplifying the concept of climate change for the generally uneducated and under informed public who lack the inclination to study the data and the resultant science to the degreee* necessary to move beyond such simplifications. You have fixed, even fixated, upon average temeprature as if it was the apex and all subsuming acme of climate science. That is why I say, beyond doubt, you have erected a strawman. I ponder now on your motives. Perhaps you would explain them.

Before I decided to go for the jugular this contrast/comparison was the one I was going to make. It's almost as telling and probably more practical. Thanks for adding it.

Emphasis added. How fortunate the climate scientists provide an abundance of other information concerning temeprature variations in the oceans, the land and the atmosphere, locally and regionally, over the short term ( hours and days) to the long term (years, decades, millenia and beyond), relating it to such diverse issues as ocean currents, weather, atmospheric composition, albedo influences, etc. In short, you have erected a strawman upon which you are making a pointless and ill-informed attack.

That's phenotype, not genotype. If oyu think otherwise post the evidence. (Also a single instance counts as an anecdote)

Yeah. Those damn, well-written, properly researched books. What a waste of time they are. Best you steer clear of them laddie.

We are not talking mathematics. We are talking science. I gave you link that refers to a variety of experiments that confirm my assertion that hallucinations are likely for most people if they go for long periods without sleep. I used an example in order to avoid searching for dozens of instances detailing the research that confirms my assertion. The normal way of countering an assertion such as mine would be to produce links that describe research that says hallucinations do not commonly follow long periods without sleep. Now, are you, as you appear to be doing, denying that long periods without sleep commonly cause hallucinations. If you are denying this, on what basis are you denying it? Once again the 80 hours was chosen to illustrate the point. I thought it clearer than just saying a long time. I could just as easily have said 50 hours, or 100 hours, or 40 - 90 hours. Which is why I included my warning after mentioning going without sleep for 80 hours. I was making clear (or so I thought) that going without sleep for long periods was not a good idea.

You may think it should be incorrect, but the evidence clearly shows otherwise. "It cannot be generalised". That is precisely what is noted in the link I provided. I chose the 80 hours as an example. I'm sorry that was not clear. My point was a simple one. You apparently doubted the possibility that drugs might induce hallucinations. I noted that drugs were not necessary. Simply go without sleep for an extended period. Now, apparently, you have doubts about that also. I would point out that I do not offer any medical advice or clinical methods, other than - "don't deliberately deprive yourself of sleep".

Drugs are not necessary. Try remaining awake for 80 hours and I shall be surprised if you do not hallucinate. See this, for example. Warning: remaining awake for 80 hours can be (seriously) damaging to your health.

I don't understand you. Science does not rely upon what we know presently. As Zapatos has noted we rely upon the findings of science and their application in technology because they are proven, at least to a greater extent than untried and untested ideas. However, Science - the scientific method - continually revisits data and hypotheses and theories, probing and questioning them, doubting the current findings. Building on them and advancing our knowledge, certainly, but relying to them only to the extent that they are continually tested. Whose knowledge should he rely on then? God's? If so, which God? There are several thousands to choose from. Now I readily concede that Christianity, for example, may offer some sound knowledge in regard to moral issues (though I shake my head in sadness and oftimes disgust at some of the misinterpretations made by some denominations), but the Bible offers very little of value on aerodynamics, chemical processing, or solid state circuitry. Again, I don't understand what you mean by this. Science is limited to the extent that its methodology has an area of application and using it ouside that area will not provide answers. So? If you mean that inventions are ethically neutral and it requires human judgement to decide whether it is good to employ them at all, and if so, how they should be employed, then I suspect everyone here would agree. So?

Perhaps the other planets don't have Donald Trump. Now as to the report. I found some of the assumptions rather flaky. Perhaps this is down to the inadequacies of popular rendings and would be properly addressed in the original research. With that caveat consider these issues - extracts from the article are in italics: "Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, but the researchers argue that the sweet spot for life is a planet that is between 5 billion to 8 billion years old." This runs counter to the probable extinction of all life on Earth, due to increases of solar output, in from 1 to 2 billion years time, right in the middle of the researchers sweet spot. "A slightly overall warmer temperature, a mean surface temperature of about 5 degrees Celsius (or about 8 degrees Fahrenheit) greater than Earth, together with the additional moisture, would be also better for life." This ignores the obvious point that temperatures vary over the lifetime of a planet, both because of gradual increases in stellar output, but also changes in atmosphere, ocean and land. "A planet that is 10% larger than the Earth should have more habitable land." A significant determinant of the continental mass is likely the outcome of the posited moon-creating impact. The researchers appear to have ignored that.

The above is in defence of your statement, "Don't forget most religion is psychological abuse." I don't see even a smidgeon of evidence or argument to justify the the most in your statement. Likewise. I acquired many of my moral values from my religious upbringing. I have discarded the theistic belief, but still find reflection in a quite church, reading a Bible passage, or listening to the Hallelujah Chorus evoke positive feelings that are completely untouched by any taint of psychological abuse. I recgonise that not all others are so fortunate. Joigus seems to wish to use a "one size fits all" version of religion and chooses the most damaging of possible images.

Here you go - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3fAcxcxoZ8 There is 2:55 of lead in that is worth watching of itself.