Re: Thoughts on Martian timekeeping
I remember reading a thorough MArtian calendar in, what, Ad Adtra? Many years ago. Astronomer-approved and everything. Though I love the suggestion of PinoSol and ElectraSol for day names. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ From: G. D. Akin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Thoughts on Martian timekeeping Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:34:23 +0900 Julia Thompson wrote: http://lihan161051.livejournal.com/28786.html He hasn't read any of the KSR Mars books. (If you comment, don't shred him - I'd like to be able to have lunch with him again! Thanks.) Julia - Allen Steele has a very thorough calendar for an alternate world in his Coyote series. George A ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
BSG
== TOPFIVE.COM'S LITTLE FIVERS -- SCIENCE FICTION http://www.littlefivers.com/scifi == August 25, 2006 NOTE FROM DAVE: In the latest incarnation of Battlestar Galactica on the Sci-Fi Channel, there have been some major character changes. Some might even say improvements. The Top 10 Reasons New Starbuck Is Better Than Old Starbuck 10 Then: Your girlfriend had a crush on Starbuck, and you were jealous. Now: Your girlfriend has a crush on Starbuck, and you want to hear more. 9 The sexual tension between Apollo and Starbuck no longer creeps you out. 8 New Starbuck appears 73% less likely to be stopped by a chipped nail. 7 Viper-pilot shower scenes improve 300%. 6 In the unrated version, Starbuck finds out why Cylons' helmets are shaped like that. 5 One word: Hooters. 4 She's at least a Grande. In the right top, she's a Venti. 3 New Starbuck: Long blonde hair, sexy feminine walk, tight pants. Old Starbuck: Long blonde hair, sexy femin-- uh, what was the question again? 2 If the old Starbuck had gone after the Arrow of Apollo we would have had to endure 10,000 Brokeback Battlestar jokes. and the Number 1 Reason New Starbuck Is Better Than Old Starbuck... 1 Old Starbuck: Nose crinkles when winning at cards. New Starbuck: Headlights come on when winning at cards. [ Copyright 2006 by Chris White] [ http://www.topfive.com ] == Selected from 47 submissions from 14 contributors. This week's list authors are: -- Barry Wallace, Knoxville, TN -- 1, 7 Eric Akawie, Annandale, VA -- 2, 4 Chris von Seggern, Cibolo, TX-- 3, 6 James Knowles, Bellingham, WA-- 5 RW Lipp, Lenexa, KS -- 8 Donald Johnson, Cincinnati, OH -- 9 Dan Thompson, Austin, TX -- 10 Peter Heltzer, Buffalo Grove, IL -- Topic Dave Oberhart, Durham, NC-- SF List Moderator == [ TOPFIVE.COM'S LITTLE FIVERS ] [Top 10 lists on a variety of subjects ] [ http://www.littlefivers.com ] == [ Copyright 2006 by Chris White All rights reserved. ] [ Do not forward, publish, broadcast, or use ] [ in any manner without crediting TopFive.com ] == [ To complain to the moderator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [ Have friends who might like to subscribe to this list? ] [Send them to: http://www.littlefivers.com/subscribe.html] == ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Planet No More
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it won't - it would be _wrong_ to call it a planet! It should be called by something else, to stress the fact that it does not orbit a star. That is exactly what I think is ridiculous. That orbits are more important to the definition of planet than the properties of the body itself are. I don't know about that. For one thing, if one wanted to define planet simply on the basis of the properties of the body, I would think that one would develop separate terms for what are currently called terrestrial planets and jovian planets. Meanwhile, there is a word for gravitationally-round objects, they are called planemos. Planets are simply a usefull subset of planemos.I see no reason to objecting with the creation of a word that defines a usefull set of objects, simply because that subset is based in part upon that objects interaction with others. It seems like objecting between the difference between a lake and a bay, because a bay is simply a lake next to an ocean. JDG P.S. Another object defined by location is asteroid, meteor, and meteorite. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Planet No More
Likewise, in my house I have two mutant dwarf mountain lions. G http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ From: jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Planet No More Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:05:24 - --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it won't - it would be _wrong_ to call it a planet! It should be called by something else, to stress the fact that it does not orbit a star. That is exactly what I think is ridiculous. That orbits are more important to the definition of planet than the properties of the body itself are. I don't know about that. For one thing, if one wanted to define planet simply on the basis of the properties of the body, I would think that one would develop separate terms for what are currently called terrestrial planets and jovian planets. Meanwhile, there is a word for gravitationally-round objects, they are called planemos. Planets are simply a usefull subset of planemos.I see no reason to objecting with the creation of a word that defines a usefull set of objects, simply because that subset is based in part upon that objects interaction with others. It seems like objecting between the difference between a lake and a bay, because a bay is simply a lake next to an ocean. JDG P.S. Another object defined by location is asteroid, meteor, and meteorite. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did they know what they were doing to their island? Did they try to do anything about it? I can just imagine an Island conference to discuss the preservation of the trees. Would the attendees have come to the conclusion that it was not economically feasible to curtail the logging? Was there a faction of ecologically oriented islanders that fought for preservation? The question has been asked what the islanders think as they were cutting down the last tree?Of course, we now know that the Easter Islanders need not have cut down the last tree. Once the tree population's genetic diversity was reduced below a certain trheshhold, the remaining trees would have died naturally. What led them to build the moai? Was their religious fanaticism integral to their collapse? I can see no obvious correlation between civilizations that collapse and civilizations that are highly religious. One could just as easily ask Was their Polynesianness integral to their collapse? (You may be offended, but is it any more offensive than asking if religion was integral to their collapse?) Another, much more logical question, would be: was memorial building integral to their collapse?In this case, one might connect America's penchant for Memorial building to the Easter Islanders' proclivity for the same. Diamond sees the Island as a metaphor for our modern planet and indeed, I find the metaphor compelling. We know that we are pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and that Antarctic ice cores show that they are at a much higher level now than at any time in the last 420,000 years*, but we hesitate to act because of the short term economic impact that may result as a result of our attempts to slow the warming. My worry has always been not that the experts on warming are alarmist, but that they are too conservative in their estimates. If we acted quickly and an economic disaster followed, the world would be impacted for a generation or less. If, however, we triggered an ecological disaster, the repercussions could potentially be far worse. I don't think this is a useful course of thought. You always have to make decisions based upon the best information you have available. First, your theory presumes that manking is capable of having an effect upon the climate. Yet, you also seem to assume that whatever intentional effects we have on the conflict will always benign. There is, of course, the risk that in attempting to tinker with a process we hardly understand that we might end up causing even more damage to our welfare. This would be particularly ironic if we were in fact making serious sacrfices in order to effect these changes. Thus, it is not sufficient to simply say because the risks are high, we must take action whatever the cost. These risks must always be balanced against other risks. As another example, you seem to indicate that we should be sparing no cost in order to combat global warming. Should we not also be sparing no cost to develop an asteroid detection and deterrance system? Or perhaps sparing no cost to research the development of a shield for gamma ray bursts? And finally, once one decides to spare no cost in an endeavor, one must consider just how palatable those sacrifices really are. There are many causes which seem worthy - for instance medical research, AIDS treatment, preserving wild places, breeding endangered species, disaster relief, etc. The are many other priorities which need to be considered. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], pencimen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's certainly hard to convince people without food that the red- footed gnatcatcher's needs are greater than their own. Even if you can convince them in the abstract that the extinction of another species is a Bad Thing (tm), convincing them in the real when their priorities are more along the line of survival is something else entirely, I'll warrant. That may be true but how many low income people in New Orleans do you think need convincing that there _might_ be a problem? Well, the problems in New Orleans were not unpredictable. Indeed, as Alberto noted here, I told him about the dangers to New Orleans from a hurricane just a month and a half before Katrina. In fact, New Orleans was and is the only major American City without an office of the American Red Cross - the Red Cross has judged it just too unsafe. And is it any surprise? Most people have forgotten that Katrina *missed* New Orleans, and that it weakened just before landfall - and that in fact, the story in the many hours immediately following Katrina was that New Orleans had been spared. So, just imagine what a direct hit would have been like. What's amazing, is that despite all the warnings, the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisianna simply did not have adequate plans for evacuation, let alone for emergency response.Its as if the officials of New Orleans and Louisianna believe that because all the middle class people with cars could get out of the City that somehow all the poor people without cars who could not or did not leave simply didn't matter. If there is a lesson here, it is that humans seem bad at dealing with asymetric risks. We ar every bad at coping appropriately with risks that have high cost and long time horizons. We are particular bad at dealing with risks that have long-time horizons when facing risks with short time horizons. As for the connection of Katrina to global warming, I think that advocates of doing something about global warming do themselves no favors by making such arguments. After all, these arguments connecting specific weather incidents to climate change are very vulnerable to being counterpointed by the next unseasonable cold snap or snowstorm. For example, we're having a very quiet hurricane season so far this year - if this trend holds up, will that be any sort of argument that global warming is under control? And if not, then the same must be said for Katrina JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: To the Back of the Bus!
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: COUSHATTA -- Nine black children attending Red River Elementary School were directed last week to the back of the school bus by a white driver who designated the front seats for white children... Isn't this exactly what the right-wing wants? A return to the 1950s? Troll! JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: BSG
Oh, cool! Dan told me about it but I hadn't seen it yet. (And for the record, I didn't have a crush on the old Starbuck.) Julia Ronn!Blankenship wrote: == TOPFIVE.COM'S LITTLE FIVERS -- SCIENCE FICTION http://www.littlefivers.com/scifi == August 25, 2006 NOTE FROM DAVE: In the latest incarnation of Battlestar Galactica on the Sci-Fi Channel, there have been some major character changes. Some might even say improvements. The Top 10 Reasons New Starbuck Is Better Than Old Starbuck 10 Then: Your girlfriend had a crush on Starbuck, and you were jealous. Now: Your girlfriend has a crush on Starbuck, and you want to hear more. 9 The sexual tension between Apollo and Starbuck no longer creeps you out. 8 New Starbuck appears 73% less likely to be stopped by a chipped nail. 7 Viper-pilot shower scenes improve 300%. 6 In the unrated version, Starbuck finds out why Cylons' helmets are shaped like that. 5 One word: Hooters. 4 She's at least a Grande. In the right top, she's a Venti. 3 New Starbuck: Long blonde hair, sexy feminine walk, tight pants. Old Starbuck: Long blonde hair, sexy femin-- uh, what was the question again? 2 If the old Starbuck had gone after the Arrow of Apollo we would have had to endure 10,000 Brokeback Battlestar jokes. and the Number 1 Reason New Starbuck Is Better Than Old Starbuck... 1 Old Starbuck: Nose crinkles when winning at cards. New Starbuck: Headlights come on when winning at cards. [ Copyright 2006 by Chris White] [ http://www.topfive.com ] == Selected from 47 submissions from 14 contributors. This week's list authors are: -- Barry Wallace, Knoxville, TN -- 1, 7 Eric Akawie, Annandale, VA -- 2, 4 Chris von Seggern, Cibolo, TX-- 3, 6 James Knowles, Bellingham, WA-- 5 RW Lipp, Lenexa, KS -- 8 Donald Johnson, Cincinnati, OH -- 9 Dan Thompson, Austin, TX -- 10 Peter Heltzer, Buffalo Grove, IL -- Topic Dave Oberhart, Durham, NC-- SF List Moderator == [ TOPFIVE.COM'S LITTLE FIVERS ] [Top 10 lists on a variety of subjects ] [ http://www.littlefivers.com ] == [ Copyright 2006 by Chris White All rights reserved. ] [ Do not forward, publish, broadcast, or use ] [ in any manner without crediting TopFive.com ] == [ To complain to the moderator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [ Have friends who might like to subscribe to this list? ] [Send them to: http://www.littlefivers.com/subscribe.html] == ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Planet No More
jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it won't - it would be _wrong_ to call it a planet! It should be called by something else, to stress the fact that it does not orbit a star. That is exactly what I think is ridiculous. That orbits are more important to the definition of planet than the properties of the body itself are. I don't know about that. For one thing, if one wanted to define planet simply on the basis of the properties of the body, I would think that one would develop separate terms for what are currently called terrestrial planets and jovian planets. Heh! Those are exactly the terms used. Where you been dude? Meanwhile, there is a word for gravitationally-round objects, they are called planemos. Planets are simply a usefull subset of planemos. The term Planemo is only 3 years old and is a bit of cruft that does not simplify anything. It is just a measure taken to allow people to think in the same old lazy ways. Consider: If you were to visit the only other terrestrial planet with moons you would not be very impressed with them, tiny dots moving across the sky. Our moon dominates our sky in large part because it is another planet. We are a double planet system. Consider: How is our Moon different than all the other satellites in the Sol System? I see no reason to objecting with the creation of a word that defines a usefull set of objects, simply because that subset is based in part upon that objects interaction with others. With Pluto in mind, if some disaster were to occur changing Mars' orbit so that it flew inside Earths orbit and/or outside Jupiters orbit for a portion of its year, would it cease to be a planet? (Only if it falls into the Sun, Ronn! G) It seems like objecting between the difference between a lake and a bay, because a bay is simply a lake next to an ocean. If you think about it, that is my argument!G To make a similarly silly analogy, Rhode Island is a state just as much as Texas or Alaska. JDG P.S. Another object defined by location is asteroid, meteor, and meteorite. WellI live on Clear Lake, part of Galveston Bay, part of the Gulf Of Mexico, part of the Altantic, part of the oceans. It is all a body of salty water. But you wouldn't say that a meteorite killed the dinosaurs, now would you? xponent Planetex Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
http://tinyurl.com/kdzyn John Hooper in Rome Monday August 28, 2006 Guardian Philosophers, scientists and other intellectuals close to Pope Benedict will gather at his summer palace outside Rome this week for intensive discussions that could herald a fundamental shift in the Vatican's view of evolution. There have been growing signs the Pope is considering aligning his church more closely with the theory of intelligent design taught in some US states. Advocates of the theory argue that some features of the universe and nature are so complex that they must have been designed by a higher intelligence. Critics say it is a disguise for creationism. A prominent anti-evolutionist and Roman Catholic scientist, Dominique Tassot, told the US National Catholic Reporter that this week's meeting was to give a broader extension to the debate. Even if [the Pope] knows where he wants to go, and I believe he does, it will take time. Most Catholic intellectuals today are convinced that evolution is obviously true because most scientists say so. In 1996, in what was seen as a capitulation to scientific orthodoxy, John Paul II said Darwin's theories were more than a hypothesis. Last week, at a conference in Rimini, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Austria revealed that evolution and creation had been chosen as the subjects for this year's meeting of the Pope's Schülerkreis - a group consisting mainly of his former doctoral students that has been gathering annually since the late 1970s. Apart from Cardinal Schönborn, participants at the closed-door meeting will include the president of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Peter Schuster; the conservative ethical philosopher Robert Spaemann; and Paul Elbrich, professor of philosophy at Munich University. Last December, a US court sparked controversy when it ruled that intelligent design should not be taught alongside evolution theory. Cardinal Schönborn said: The debate of recent months has undoubtedly motivated the Holy Father's choice. But he added that in the 1960s the then Joseph Ratzinger had underlined emphatically the need to return to the topic of creation. The Pope also raised the issue in the inaugural sermon of his pontificate, saying: We are not the accidental product, without meaning, of evolution. A few months later, Cardinal Schönborn, who is regarded as being close to Benedict, wrote an article for the New York Times backing moves to teach ID. He was attacked by Father George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory. On August 19, Fr Coyne was replaced without explanation. Vatican sources said the Pope's former astronomer, who has cancer, had asked to be replaced. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ And yes, OSX is marvelous. Its merest bootlace, Windows is not worthy to kiss. - David Brin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
JDG wrote: Thanks for keeping this alive John. I have been exceptionally busy for the last few weeks, but I have read beyond the next chapter. Is anyone up for kicking off the discussion on Chapter 3? If not, I'll have something by Wednesday evening. I know JDG was interested in Chapter four, perhaps you would like to do that one John? The question has been asked what the islanders think as they were cutting down the last tree?Of course, we now know that the Easter Islanders need not have cut down the last tree. Once the tree population's genetic diversity was reduced below a certain trheshhold, the remaining trees would have died naturally. But look at it this way. There were 20+ species of trees. They weren't all wiped out at once and the loss of the most useful ones most likely preceded those that were less useful. The islanders had to have some inkling of what they were doing to themselves. I can see no obvious correlation between civilizations that collapse and civilizations that are highly religious. One could just as easily ask Was their Polynesianness integral to their collapse? (You may be offended, but is it any more offensive than asking if religion was integral to their collapse?) Another, much more logical question, would be: was memorial building integral to their collapse?In this case, one might connect America's penchant for Memorial building to the Easter Islanders' proclivity for the same. But the Moai are essentially religious icons, are they not? The question points the the fact that precious resources were funneled in to the building of these statues at a time when it was critical that they conserve those resources. First, your theory presumes that manking is capable of having an effect upon the climate. Yet, you also seem to assume that whatever intentional effects we have on the conflict will always benign. There is, of course, the risk that in attempting to tinker with a process we hardly understand that we might end up causing even more damage to our welfare. This would be particularly ironic if we were in fact making serious sacrfices in order to effect these changes. Thus, it is not sufficient to simply say because the risks are high, we must take action whatever the cost. These risks must always be balanced against other risks. Do you have a credible source that doesn't believe we can have an effect on the climate via greenhouse gasses? How would it be tinkering if we reduced our production of these gasses? This is like saying we're not sure crapping in the river has an ill effect on our health so we'll continue to crap in the river until we have verified that that is the problem because if tinker with our crapping habits we may cause more damage to our welfare. As another example, you seem to indicate that we should be sparing no cost in order to combat global warming. No. I'm saying we should make it a top priority. Should we not also be sparing no cost to develop an asteroid detection and deterrance system? Or perhaps sparing no cost to research the development of a shield for gamma ray bursts? We have little or no control over these phenomenon, and there is little likelihood that even if we did spare no expense that we would be able to do anything about them. And finally, once one decides to spare no cost in an endeavor, one must consider just how palatable those sacrifices really are. There are many causes which seem worthy - for instance medical research, AIDS treatment, preserving wild places, breeding endangered species, disaster relief, etc. The are many other priorities which need to be considered. None of which have anywhere near the potential for disaster that warming does. In fact, warming has the potential to exacerbate the problems you mention. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:51:06 -, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the connection of Katrina to global warming, I think that advocates of doing something about global warming do themselves no favors by making such arguments. After all, these arguments connecting specific weather incidents to climate change are very vulnerable to being counterpointed by the next unseasonable cold snap or snowstorm. For example, we're having a very quiet hurricane season so far this year - if this trend holds up, will that be any sort of argument that global warming is under control? And if not, then the same must be said for Katrina The effect warming has is on the intensity of the storms, not their frequency. While it can be argued that the recent pattern of intense storms is not a result of warming; that it is part of a natural cycle, the facts are that 1) warming increases ocean temperatures and 2) hurricanes are fueled by warm water. It really isn't much of a stretch to assume that warming _will_ cause higher intensity storms. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
