et pet

   Psyche 16

Some members might be interested in researching the asteroid named "Psyche 16"

  "The golden asteroid that could make everyone on Earth a billionaire" : https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Golden-Asteroid-Worth-700-Quintillion.html#

    "     Who Will Get There First?

China has vowed to dominate this race, and that’s an easier game for a country that controls all the major natural resource companies and maintains a tight leash on tech developers.

That’s not to say that the U.S. doesn’t have ambitions here. The difference, though, is stark. While NASA is focused on space exploration and scientific missions, China is focused on a space-based economy that is zeroing in on long-term wealth generation.

Even Europe, where EuroSun is developing a major goldmine in Romania, has its hand in the game. In January, the European Space Agency (ESA) announced a deal with ArianeGroup, the parent company of Arianespace, to study a prep mission to the moon in 2025. It’s got natural resources on its mind.

Even tiny Luxembourg has 10 space-mining companies registered since 2016, with some targeting space ventures to the Moon, and others eyeing near-Earth asteroids for mining.

Tokyo-based iSpace, for instance, is a private space exploration company that plans to complete a lunar orbit in 2020, and a soft landing in 2021.

For Moore, the prospect is daunting, even if it is the clear future reality, because mining in EuroSun’s Rovina Valley project in west-central Romania has been a cakewalk, both in terms of geology and infrastructure. Everything lines up for a large, low-cost project (the biggest in-development gold mine in Europe.) That won’t be the case in space, but it’s a big bill that governments will want to help foot or risk losing their place in space.

Whoever gets there first will become the new god of gold, and the competition is heating up." : https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Golden-Asteroid-Worth-700-Quintillion.html#

     A couple of similar Links -

    "NASA headed towards giant golden asteroid that could make everyone on Earth a billionaire" : https://www.foxnews.com/science/nasa-headed-towards-giant-golden-asteroid-that-could-make-everyone-on-earth-a-billionaire

   "Space miners race to an asteroid worth quintillions" : https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/space-miners-race-to-an-asteroid-worth-quintillions

Note carefully, beecee, that you have yet to provide a citation for your petty bold statement : 

1 hour ago, et pet said:

certainly we know that at one time there was no life [universally speaking] then there was. 

16 minutes ago, beecee said:

Note carefully et pet, that the article starts of thus.......

"Origin of life" redirects here. For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth.

Not to be confused with Biogenesis".

Note carefully, beecee, this is the Science News section. This is not the place to raise your "Creation myth".

15 minutes ago, beecee said:

So the statement "certainly we know that at one time there was no life [universally speaking] then there was" is valid. 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

That seems a pretty bold statement. Do you have a citation?

17 hours ago, beecee said:

It is though just a hypothetical at this time, but certainly we know that at one time there was no life [universally speaking] then there was. 

to quote zapatos :

52 minutes ago, zapatos said:

That seems a pretty bold statement. Do you have a citation?

Should this be considered?  :  https://www.science.org.au/curious/space-time/how-do-astronomers-know-universe-expanding

   " When looking at the radiation emitted by distant stars or galaxies, scientists see emission spectra ‘shifted’ towards the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum—the observed wavelengths are longer than expected. Something causes the wavelength of the radiation to ‘stretch’. But rather than an actual change in the wavelength, this phenomenon was something similar to the Doppler effect—they only appear stretched relative to the observer. The further away an object is, the greater the shift.

   The Doppler effect

  The noise of a siren or a car speeding past sounds higher in pitch the closer it gets to you and lower as it moves away. This is called the Doppler effect, where waves, in this case sound waves, change in frequency and wavelength as the source moves towards you (higher frequency, shorter wavelength) or away from you (lower frequency, longer wavelength). There is no actual change in sound; the car isn’t making a different noise. It just sounds different due to the car’s movement relative to you. "

   https://www.science.org.au/curious/space-time/how-do-astronomers-know-universe-expanding

   Does the expansion of the universe actually affect the wavelength of light or does it simply affect how that wavelength of light appears or is perceived relative to the observer?

   Isn't it similar to the Doppler Effect, in that the sound of a Train, a Siren or a Race Care doesn't actually change as it approaches or recedes, it just appears to change relative to the listener?

1 hour ago, HopDavid said:

Personally Tyson's suggestion doesn't sway me one way or the other. The man is an incompetent buffoon.

but, but, he's a Pop-Science Icon!

2 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

They have basic forms of it now. What all are you interested in using it for?

   With a name like "Obsessed With Gaming", I'm guessing the interest is not for using a BCI to figure the Square Root of Sodium Chloride...

   So, I was "obviously...somewhat blinkered"('tainted" after the edit!) in my view?

   And I was not correct in my assessment because I was not in agreement with "others that have watched it, nor to the general consensus of how history records it"?

   And I "have mistakenly arrived" at my assessment of the HBO series "Chernobyl"?

   But, I was "of course...correct" in something that I DID NOT SAY, when I merely quoted HBO"s 'tag line' for the series?

1 hour ago, et pet said:

  HBO's descriptions of "Chernobyl" refer to it as :" Chernobyl dramatizes the story of the 1986 nuclear accident — one of the worst man-made catastrophes in history — and the sacrifices made to save Europe from unimaginable disaster.". : https://www.hbo.com/chernobyl

     Kind of makes me wonder though how HBO was correct in their 'tag-line' when , instead of describing it as a "near catastrophe", they describe it as "— one of the worst man-made catastrophes in history — "?

The HBO series, "Chernobyl", that I watched, was a melodrama in five(5) parts, in the US, instead of the four(4) parts you evidently viewed.

"Chernobyl" is not a documentary.

It seemed to me that it veered quite a bit from what "actually transpired".

Quite a lot of fictional liberties taken by the writer, Craig Mazin, possibly to increase the melodrama. Craig Mazin is, I believe, the same person that wrote or co-wrote the last two "Hangover" movies. Poor comedies...but moneymakers, I guess.

Quite a bit of repetition in the storytelling. But then again, it is in five(5) parts, so it may be that HBO or the British network Sky thought that the viewers would need reminded about the previous weeks story.

I found it rather slow moving and it seemed to be pushing more of a Soviet Propaganda(?) narrative than anything else.

HBO's descriptions of "Chernobyl" refer to it as :  " Chernobyl dramatizes the story of the 1986 nuclear accident — one of the worst man-made catastrophes in history — and the sacrifices made to save Europe from unimaginable disaster.". : https://www.hbo.com/chernobyl

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Could he gauge it for himself?

   Like I said,  John Cuthber :

3 hours ago, et pet said:

Be careful asking questions.

   I would've liked to have asked why he refers to the Chernobyl Disaster as only "a near catastrophic accident", when most of the world agrees that it was definitely "a catastrophic nuclear accident", but...

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

   " The Chernobyl disaster was a catastrophic nuclear accident that occurred on 26 April 1986 at the No. 4 nuclear reactor in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, near the city of Pripyat in the north of the Ukrainian SSR. "

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

   ...like i said, John...

3 hours ago, et pet said:

Be careful asking questions.

29 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Did you use the scientific methods in your research or did you just look for (and found) materials that confirm events in the film?

17 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Are  you deliberately missing the point?

Be careful asking questions.

     It appears that some of the Posters in this Thread might benefit from the following Links :   https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/background/items/3145.php   " Kyoto Protocol - Targets for the first commitment period

Countries included in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol for the first commitment period and their emissions targets

*  The 15 States who were EU members in 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, took on that 8% target that will be redistributed among themselves, taking advantage of a scheme under the Protocol known as a “bubble”, whereby countries have different individual targets, but which combined make an overall target for that group of countries. The EU has already reached agreement on how its targets will be redistributed.
**  Some EITs have a baseline other than 1990.
***  The US has indicated its intention not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
**** On 15 December 2011, the Depositary received written notification of Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. This action became effective for Canada on 15 December 2012.   " https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/background/items/3145.php

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I can easily see why you feel that way. Why attach a value to something (like wine) based on what others think of it (especially when the grapes were probably sour to begin with)?

  "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." by Eleanor Roosevelt

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

Minus points don't mean anything

On that we appear to agree, MigL.

17 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Rapid climate change can certainly make it hard for many current species to survive.

Yep!

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

I find them pretty helpful in determining with whom I'm interacting and what their history is

You have shown that repeatedly, iNow.

Not a problem, though. I understand that "Rep Points" can be quite useful to small minds, iNow

   "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." by Eleanor Roosevelt

   So, again, iNow :

18 minutes ago, et pet said:

Like I Posted : The Minus Points mean nothing.

20 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This isn't true. You assume the points are given by participants in the discussion, and not by all the members reading.

The staff often checks to make sure members aren't singling out anyone for persecution via rep points. Since we discovered you doing just that to someone else a while back, we've checked your points pretty carefully for retaliation. Your negative rep comes from LOTS of sources, not the SAME FEW POSTERS. 

Like I Posted : The Minus Points mean nothing.

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Nevertheless, they do. The question before us is why they do.

 

Why?

Answer :

19 minutes ago, et pet said:

Just keeping That pot stirred?

10 hours ago, Sarah Knightley said:

Why are leading politicians and nations in denial of global warming and climate change?

Just keeping That pot stirred?

No one, that has any intelligence at all, should fall for arguing either For or Against ACC.

There should be no arguing about it period!

Realistically, with over 7 Billion Humans on this Planet, how could anyone with even the tiniest amount of intelligence possibly think that these 7 billion+ Mammals at this stage of technological advancement(?) would NOT be impacting our Home's Climate?

Humans, on a multitude of levels, are actively destroying the ability of this Planet to continue to support Any and All Life.

Not just Human Life...ALL LIFE!

NO, there should be NO arguing about it, PERIOD! There should only be a concerted effort by EVERYONE to END IT!

Oddly, though, it seems that most would rather argue about the issue than to actually work together to do anything about resolving the issue.

3 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

I hope there are no lasting ill effects to be gleaned from excessive minus points?

Such as being muted or banned for instance?

I hope this is not the case for if it is so, I shall immediately cut down on my creative output and confine myself to a propounding on existing ideas alone. 

Right now I'm balancing a 3 dimensional tightrope of creativity, learning and discussion. However if my tenure on site is at stake I shall proceed to leap off said tightrope like a leapin lizard, cut down on creativity and learning and merely focus on discussion. 

 

   The Minus Points mean nothing. I get them all the time from the SAME FEW POSTERS.

10 hours ago, Strange said:

It says that people with high EQ can recognise emotions. It says nothing about controlling them. That appears to be your invention. 

Highly Emotionally Intelligent People are better able to Recognize and Master(control) their emotions, Strange.

    https://www.talentsmart.com/articles/9-Habits-of-Highly-Emotionally-Intelligent-People-2147446657-p-1.html

   " 

When emotional intelligence first appeared to the masses, it served as the missing link in a peculiar finding: people with average IQs outperform those with the highest IQs 70% of the time. This anomaly threw a massive wrench into what many people had always assumed was the sole source of success—IQ. Decades of research now point to emotional intelligence as the critical factor that sets star performers apart from the rest of the pack.

How much of an impact does emotional intelligence (EQ) have on your professional success? The short answer is: a lot! It’s a powerful way to focus your energy in one direction with a tremendous result. Of all the people we’ve studied at work, we’ve found that 90% of top performers have high EQs. You can be a top performer without emotional intelligence, but the chances are slim.

Emotional intelligence is the “something” in each of us that is a bit intangible. It affects how we manage behavior, navigate social complexities, and make personal decisions that achieve positive results. Emotional intelligence is made up of four core skills that pair up under two primary competencies: personal competence and social competence.

Personal competence comprises your self-awareness and self-management skills, which focus more on you individually than on your interactions with other people. Personal competence is your ability to stay aware of your emotions and manage your behavior and tendencies.

1. Self-Awareness is your ability to accurately perceive your emotions and stay aware of them as they happen.
2. Self-Management is your ability to use awareness of your emotions to stay flexible and positively direct your behavior.

Social competence is made up of your social awareness and relationship management skills; social competence is your ability to understand other people’s moods, behavior, and motives in order to respond effectively and improve the quality of your relationships.

1. Social Awareness is your ability to accurately pick up on emotions in other people and understand what is really going on.
2. Relationship Management is your ability to use awareness of your emotions and the others’ emotions to manage interactions successfully.

Despite the significance of emotional intelligence, its intangible nature makes it very difficult to know which behaviors you should emulate. So I’ve analyzed the data from the million-plus people TalentSmart has tested in order to identify the habits that set high-EQ people apart.

      -----------

2. They have a robust emotional vocabulary. All people experience emotions, but it is a select few who can accurately identify them as they occur. Our research shows that only 36% of people can do this, which is problematic because unlabeled emotions often go misunderstood, which leads to irrational choices and counterproductive actions. People with high EQs master their emotions because they understand them, and they use an extensive vocabulary of feelings to do so. While many people might describe themselves as simply feeling “bad,” emotionally intelligent people can pinpoint whether they feel “irritable,” “frustrated,” “downtrodden,” or “anxious.” The more specific your word choice, the better insight you have into exactly how you are feeling, what caused it, and what you should do about it. "

On 6/15/2019 at 5:41 PM, nec209 said:

A high emotional IQ is bad.

  Not sure where you got that idea. Below are a few Links that you may want to check out if you really want to understand Emotional Intelligence : 

https://www.success.com/18-signs-you-have-high-emotional-intelligence/

https://www.inc.com/john-rampton/10-qualities-of-people-with-high-emotional-intelligence.html

https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/13-things-emotionally-intelligent-people-do.html

    ...and the one I quoted :

https://www.talentsmart.com/articles/9-Habits-of-Highly-Emotionally-Intelligent-People-2147446657-p-1.html

You might possibly have confused something else with a High Emotional IQ, because a High Emotional IQ seems to be more of a benefit than any kind of hindrance.

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”
-George Bernard Shaw

Because there is no telling the lengths that Governments, Military's and the Media will go to show how little regard for the intelligence and abilities of Humankind.

   Analogy - CBS NEWS runs story with Link to paper that actually states that 2+2=4

          Then CBS NEWS says in that story that the paper states that 2+2=5. 

           Seems ain't no telling the lengths CBS NEWS will go to show that it has no regard for the Intelligence and Abilities of Human Civilization.