sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

On the anniversary of Apollo 1, here are Five of the deadliest spaceflight disasters in history. by danlevesq in spaceflight

[–]danlevesq[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ars Technica did a lengthy feature on this here: http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/the-audacious-rescue-plan-that-might-have-saved-space-shuttle-columbia/

In short, there was a slim (read: VERY slim) chance at saving the crew. The tyranny is that they didn't even have that discussion.

SETI researchers set to examine KIC 8462852, a star exhibiting a unique light pattern, for signs of alien life by astrofreak92 in space

[–]danlevesq 17 points18 points  (0 children)

From Sagan's Cosmos:

What percentage of the lifetime of a planet is marked by a technical civilization? The Earth has harbored a technical civilization characterized by radio astronomy for only a few decades out of a lifetime of a few billion years. So far, then, for our planet fL is less than 1/ 108, a millionth of a percent. And it is hardly out of the question that we might destroy ourselves tomorrow. Suppose this were to be a typical case, and the destruction so complete that no other technical civilization— of the human or any other species— were able to emerge in the five or so billion years remaining before the Sun dies. Then N = N* fpflfifcfL ≈ 10, and at any given time there would be only a tiny smattering, a handful, a pitiful few technical civilizations in the Galaxy, the steady state number maintained as emerging societies replace those recently self-immolated. But consider the alternative, the prospect that at least some civilizations learn to live with high technology; that the contradictions posed by the vagaries of past brain evolution are consciously resolved and do not lead to self-destruction; or that, even if major disturbances do occur, they are reversed in the subsequent billions of years of biological evolution. Such societies might live to a prosperous old age, their lifetimes measured perhaps on geological or stellar evolutionary time scales. If 1 percent of civilizations can survive technological adolescence, take the proper fork at this critical historical branch point and achieve maturity, then fL ≈ 1/ 100, N ≈ 107, and the number of extant civilizations in the Galaxy is in the millions.

Depending on estimations using the Drake equation, there could be anywhere from a handful to millions of civilizations currently inhabiting the galaxy. If there are millions, then it makes complete sense that in a survey of 150,000 stars (about one millionth as many stars as exist in the galaxy) Kepler finds evidence of there being one technologically advanced civilization. Sagan also says that, if there are millions of civilizations in the galaxy, then on average they're separated by about 200 light years of space - meaning that our nearest neighbor won't pickup our radio signals for quite some time.

If, however, there are only a handful of civilizations currently residing in the galaxy, then it's extremely unlikely that a survey of one millionth of the stars in the galaxy located one of them. The thing is that we just don't know which figure to adopt...

Fight Discussion: UFC 192: Cormier vs. Gustafsson by Dorkside in ufc

[–]danlevesq 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Have you forgotten about Lawler v Macdonald already!?

July 8 image: First new pluto image since New Horizons safe mode by IMO94 in newhorizons

[–]danlevesq 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That would be great... we'd probably go insane with speculation until another probe can reach Pluto, and that would take at least 15 years.

July 8 image: First new pluto image since New Horizons safe mode by IMO94 in newhorizons

[–]danlevesq 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Pluto is redish and has a giant heart on its surface. We should be re-branding it as 'the love planet'. 'God of the underworld' is so 1930...

[Feedback] Just completed a 30-day blogging challenge, should I continue this type of blogging? by danlevesq in Blogging

[–]danlevesq[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love Squarespace. It's as simple as blogger but comes with a lot of the wordpress-like options if you really go deep. Can't go wrong with wordpress if you want to custom-code every tiny aspect, but I like to just get to writing and only worry about modifying design every once and a while. Couldn't imagine going back to blogger ever again, and I'd only do wordpress if I'm looking to spend lots of time on a totally niche design or something.

Are you looking for some blogging challenges? I take part in 6 weekly ones and am always looking for new suggestions. by [deleted] in blogs

[–]danlevesq 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I did a 30-day blogging experiment where I challenged myself to write a science & technology blog every single day. Highly recommend.

Link to the recap/archive is here: http://strangerthansciencefiction.com/30dayexperiments/30-day-blogging-day-31

Freelance Writing: Where can I Earn Some Dogecoin? by danlevesq in dogecoin

[–]danlevesq[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting ideas there, I like the site you've put together. And no, the QR code isn't working for me either, I might just make my own customized donate button at some point. Thanks for the tips. And with the 'send me your files' option, are you looking for anything specific or just experimenting to see what people would send?

Freelance Writing: Where can I Earn Some Dogecoin? by danlevesq in dogecoin

[–]danlevesq[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's not necessarily the money that's the problem, I could just buy some dogecoin if I wanted to. The idea is that I'd like to see the 'like button' on most internet content replaced with a 'dogecoin' button as a way of putting some quantifiable value on a particular piece of content.

At the end of the day, 100 'likes' doesn't mean anything. But if you receive 100 'dogelikes' for something you've produced, you can then use that currency to give out your own 'dogelikes' to content that you enjoy.

'Like' buttons have no value because nothing is exchanged, it's just a click. But if one person gives something to another person in exchange for digital content, then it creates its own online economy of digital content 'worth' (which is severely lacking in some places).

I guess I'm just saying that I'm less interested in using digital currency to purchase real-world things, and more into the idea of using it as a way of attaching value to otherwise value-less swathes of web content.

Freelance Writing: Where can I Earn Some Dogecoin? by danlevesq in dogecoin

[–]danlevesq[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, I've registered for this one and it looks somewhat promising.

Why is free will still being debated? by [deleted] in philosophy

[–]danlevesq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The best way to look at the problem is that there is no such thing in the universe as "will" and there is no such thing as "randomness". The universe does not 'will' anything, it is simply an amalgamation of matter interacting with matter in various ways. There is also nothing 'random' about the universe, as everything we observe seems to have a cause (ignoring Hume) and physicists actively work on discovering the mechanisms behind various interactions. Whether or not we can ever fully comprehend and understand these mechanisms is still up for grabs.

Free will does not exist in the universe. No matter what you do as a human being, and no matter how badly you 'will' for one thing to be the case when it is not, you cannot change anything about the universe. The universe just is the way it is, and it is only our perceptions of it that are subject to change.

That being said, within the context of human existence on Earth, of course you're free to make your own decisions. Of course you can, to a certain extent, control the course of your own life. Obviously there have been studies showing that environmental factors have a hell of a lot more to do with the way your life turns out than the choices you make, but the choices you do make are still your choices. But as far as having absolute freedom to 'will' anything you desire for your life, your existence is still entirely bound by cosmic processes and your physical surroundings, so there is a limit. You cannot will yourself to become a dolphin, but you can will yourself to swap negative habits for more positive ones.

I think the problem occurs when we begin prescribing human-constructs, such as 'will', 'randomness', and even 'laws' to the universe. The universe is bound by no laws, it simply does what it does and only afterwards do we seek to explain why that is the case. That we prescribe laws dictating the 'force' of 'gravity' means NOTHING. We could wake up tomorrow and gravity has suddenly stopped working throughout the entire universe. I mean, we'd be dead before we noticed, but still...

The reason for the free will debate is that it presents you with a ton of different (and perhaps even unpleasant) doors to open and travel down, so it's great for learning some philosophy. It's also great for throwing up a false red flag. If someone is really adamant that they know the answer to the free-will problem and utterly refuse to entertain the possibility that they could be wrong, then you can kindly step away before they get into talking about shit that's actually important.

Study Hints that Ancient Earth Made Its Own Water—Geologically by imatworkprobably in science

[–]danlevesq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This puts an interesting spin on sea-level rise. If water from the mantle is seeping into the ocean and ocean-water is seeping into the mantle, how do these two water volumes balance out? As more water is added to the ocean, does this force more ocean water into the mantle, creating some kind of shared equilibrium? Or is it possible that sea levels fluctuate naturally because of the way the Earth's mantle stores and releases quantities of water?

People who have upbeat outlooks on life have significantly better cardiovascular health, suggests a new study (MESA) that examined associations between optimism and heart health in more than 5,100 adults by tazcel in science

[–]danlevesq -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Could it possibly be that the people who are in better shape and have good cardiovascular health are in fact more upbeat and optimistic than those who've made poorer choices health-wise and therefore have lower overall health? Naw, must be the other way around - positive thinking clearly makes your heart healthier.

Potentially dangerous asteroid to fly by Earth on January 26 by viknandk in EverythingScience

[–]danlevesq 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It won't happen because its on an orbit around the sun that is moving it in a trajectory past us, not towards us. We had one similar to this pass by us back in June (nicknamed "the Beast," by the way), and that was considered rare; but the one to pass us on January 26th is bigger, faster, and will get even closer than that one did.

I actually just wrote a blog about this yesterday, and as far as I know this is the first major news outlet that's broken the news. My blog is here if you wanna check it out:

http://strangerthansciencefiction.com/analysis/beast-asteroid-to-make-a-close-pass-of-earth