Art Man

1. They control what most people think about through what content the media presents, but obviously cant control what everyone is concerned with. 2. That isn't a bizarre fantasy. The only scientists the public hears from are mostly government funded. Reports from large privately owned corporations are largely internal and the government usually has to audit them for information. What reports they do release freely get buried and dont receive much media attention. The point I was trying to make is a sample survey such as the one they conducted cannot be considered a true representation and the reason why they only found a few Republican scientists could be the result of their sampling procedure. Republicans arw a lot more reclusive than Democrats. 3. I particularly have noticed that Democrats are more supportive of scientific issues and reporting scientific data than Republicans.Republicans tend to dismiss scientific reports and ignore factual reporting unless they are pressured to make a public deal of it.

I would speculate that the Earth is already too small for the present human population. Factor in pollution, climate change, disappearing resources, extinctions and all the other negatives currently plaguing the world as a direct result of human folly and it is very obvious that we are already on a crash course with sustainability. Now if you're asking "how many of us can we make before it all tumbles down?" then I would say 20 billion max. At 20 billion the last tree would fall and the last gallon of clean fresh water would be drunk, right before global third world chaos plays out the end of humanities' existence. Earth will take millenia to recover.

We usually start with what we observe. Foreign galaxies were seen before the expansion of the universe was discovered. So there was no expectation on how large a faraway galaxy would look because we were already seeing some of them. Through looking further back in time and studying the universe at all of its distances scientists can further refine their theories about the size and age and rate of expansion. That the light of those furthest galaxies has traveled through expanding space for 13 billion years raises many questions, but you can say that the light has reached us and through comparing what we observe of it to the light of other galaxies we can learn more of those nuances such as how large the universe was at any given time.

Hmm.... Monty Python. I didn't understand their humour.

Fair enough, I was trying to be humorous with that -1 post but didn't work out that way.

What about this topic turns you away?

At the most extreme example, a leftist is communist and a rightist is a king. Denying scientists freedom of press to publish their papers as they see fit and forcing it all into a universally available database is very communist (left).

I would say that you don't need to be a genius to see that most scientists are leftists and somewhat socialist. This poll conducted in 2009 says Lab Politics: Most scientists in this country are Democrats. Those numbers probably haven't changed much in these past 10 years since. The reason for this political lopsidedness among scientists comes from the diversity of the scientific professions. For science to advance quickly we need international cooperation and an open forum for the knowledge gained in lab studies and field research. There's been a real hard push lately to make all scientific papers available in a sort of Google-type system internationally (see Plan S) and that sort of thing is a very leftist agenda. Republicans aren't well suited for public science because of it's openness. You aren't going to find Republican scientists at NASA or at the science fair getting to know the crowd. If you're looking for Republican scientists try the billionaire oil rigs, the arms dealers, try the tool companies or vehicle manufacturers. Republican scientists are going to work for the private sector and not spend their time socializing and making themselves available for surveys. You're going to find Republican scientists quietly gravitate towards the less social demanding higher paying jobs, jobs with little recognition and higher tech demand such as engineering jobs or resource gathering jobs. While a Democrat would love the glory of landing on the moon, a Republican would rather mine an asteroid and become a trillionaire. Any thoughts on science and politics? Specifically, why you think that Republicans make such a low percentage of the survey sample and do you think that sample is accurate and do you think it has changed much in 10 years? Also, why do you think Republican candidates often target science in their hostilities at the soap box? I think Republicans should take science and scientists more seriously.

Machines always widen the America class gaps. You lay off 10,000 people and many of them will have to start in a new profession at a lower pay, some will keep their pay level and some will never recover. Each round of layoffs produces some ups but mostly downs. Some are movin' up, most are movin' down. The middle class suffers the most and is constantly shrinking. Eventually it'll be rags and riches like it was once upon a time, long ago.

I sorta thought that the password save function and the code that runs notepad were already similar enough to a covert keylogger app that all a hacker would need to do was modify the already existing code and use that to record all the key presses. You're right that you can't let security paranoia keep you from using computers. Some hackers simply want to stop you and if they can use your uncertainty against you without actually using some deep hacks well then they'll settle for that. Ordinary people living ordinary lives shouldn't need to worry all that much.

I read on tech forums that pretty much all Windows since Windows 7 have a secret keylogger code that can be difficult to find if you really want to delete it. I couldn't find it on the computer that I used last time although I spent over 12 hours trying to find the code.

Personal data recording... offline stuff... bill records and other documents. Don't need much power or memory. Just security. Keep the drive empty and save everything on a password protected flashdrive, back that up and lock them up in a safe.

I'm not all that fascinated with physics anyway.

That's "critical density" not "critical mass".

I'm going to stick with Windows.

So radioactivity and radiation are not the same... The pressures of all the mass in a star creates plasma, which radiates heat under extreme gravity... And the star decays until all fuel is expelled or reaches a critical mass, in which it becomes a black hole or a pulsar....

When atom smashers are used to blow apart atoms and heavier isotopes result from those collisons the matter is pushed into a state of decay and emits radioactivity. When mass accumulates into star sizes and new suns are born natural radioactive decay begins. In the early years of the universe before stars were formed there was much less radioactive decay because everything was dust and separated particles.

Yeah, I'm getting a message that Word will be disabled if I don't register with Microsoft in 3 days so I'm going to need to visit them at least once. Theyll probably activate some spyware when I register so I'm going to get some apps that prevent auto-updates without my permission before I let them tinker, the way its suppose to be. I use my well compromised smartphone for my internet needs.

Thank you.

I bought a cheap low end HP notebook, second one in 2 years. I'm not liking having to customize and format another computer but looks like I'm going to need to go through and delete a lot of operating code and unwanted Windows 10 garbage. It would be nice if I could delete Cortana but they seemed to have got that one covered. Windows 10 sucks ass and makes it feel like you don't even own your computer. I might get a retro Windows 7 or Windows 8 and wipe and reboot with that to avoid this pesky "everything must be accessible to Microsoft" trash. I hate you Microsoft. This is gonna take forever.

A lower cost would be the selling point. You say hey, we get a deal on this and man, we'll sign everyone up! Otherwise, if another senator tries yet again for the 100th time to convince congress to sign a healthcare for everyone bill theyre going to say we cant afford it and we cant force anyone to sign up.

I would look at whats cutting edge right now and its seems obvious. 1. Artificial Intelligence 2. Augmented Reality 3. Virtual Reality 4. Direct brain to device integration 5. Implanted chips and nanotech 6. Quantum technology - instant communications 7. Brain sensor technology (requiring no direct integration) Theres some things Im forgetting. Id say these are just the beginning.

Granting universal coverage to all Americans before attempting to negotiate the market to a lower price. Which would effectively deepen the debt already there. I suppose that I should have shortened my quote. My mistake. Using Canada as a model doesn't work anyways as someone already pointed out.

That would be an even greater risk and so would not be possible.

Pretty much all my life I heard about how much better Canadian healthcare is than U.S. healthcare. In Canada every citizen is fully covered (there may be a line but you are guaranteed). While in the U.S.A. 91% of people are insured at least partially, I couldn't quickly find statistics on what percent are fully covered but I would imagine that number is much lower than 91%. An overhaul of the health system would greatly benefit seniors but before they can find a system that works they need to reduce the cost of healthcare per person. In Canada the cost of healthcare per person is $6,839 while here in the U.S.A. the cost per person is $10,739. Basically, if healthcare cost in the U.S.A. can drop in price to a number that resembles the Canadian expenditure then universal full coverage in the U.S.A. might be possible.