Green Baron

Before this is locked: i do not understand how anyone can assume that such actions will fight terrorism.

Alright. But you must really throw away all that you've learned from late childhood on and give in to the simple way of believing a single thought. Also, calling for a proof of an obviously silly claim (and that's what it is to assume the world created this morning) is bad conduit and manipulative. Usually the claimer must make plausible what sprung off his mind, that is what modern philosophy demands. Read Karl Popper for example. Natural science is even more strict, it needs a hypothesis that has a reasonable base and can be verified or negated, maybe not right away but in the future. Ok, and now, sir, woud you expand a little on the claim of the op and formulate a hypothesis that we can discuss about ? Or will the Langoliers come and eat it all up ;-) Edit: not attacking you personally, OP, trying to give some "ammo" to people caught in such "discussions".

To say it clear: This is a typical creationist tactic you show here, to call for a proof to a thing that cannot be proved, and it is as old as religion. No scientist can disprove creation at whatever time, but that is not a scientists task. Working with data at hand, building hypothesis that can be proved or disproved, making theories describing part of natural processes is harder work than just believing in creation. The good thing is that you have demonstrated well this creationist tactic today and maybe a few honest forum users are better aware now. If that was your intention then well done. But somehow i have a bad feeling about this ...

The universe was sneezed out and we all live in fear of the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief (Douglas Adams) The world was not created this morning but during 6 days ~4500 yrs ago (Bishop Usher) ... the list is long ..., as is the list of mythologies, be it historical or popular culture. No. The other way round. You are not willing to accept scientific findings, such simple things as physical dating of rocks. I CAN prove you wrong if go accompany me to a laboratory for rock dating. You can take the sample here from the ocean floor, you pay the accelerator time on tenerife in the volcanologic institute (a few hundred bucks) and you get your date and was not "this morning". The problem is your will to accept science.

7 o'clock where ? *sigh*, children aged 7 usually ask these questions. What has this to do with Science or Spaceflight ? You deny all that natural science found out. If you are not willing to accept the work of honest people of hundreds thousands of years then why ask ? I strongly assume political / religious reasons ? Edit: Let go of the idea that the universe was "created" and you will understand a lot more.

Hmm, just to add to the speculation, free hydrogen in the plumes could as well mean that it is produced - i don't mind if at hydrothermal vents - but not consumed. Apparently microbes do not react hydrogen(*) with CO2 to methane as is case on earth. Keep in mind that hydrogen is very reactive, and apparently set free without a speculative metabolism using it up. So, yeah, do send a probe (hail !) but be prepared for frustration. (*)Edit: it's discussed in the article and if you follow the links via the science front-page you get the full article without having to become a member. Though they have a special offer of 40/y ... ;-)

Seems like the software forgot to de-bayer, hence the squares ?

Funds, i would guess the same, is the reason. Smells like they played a role in the presentation today :-) And maybe technology / instrumentation of the craft. And maybe thoughts like "let's wait ten years then it will cost half of what it costs today or we get double precision". I mean, nobody should be in a hurry :-) A hypothetical ocean and a hypothetical energy source for plumes and temperature anomalies are in discussion since the first cassini pictures, maybe earlier. Let's say 2006. I am not worried about cultural implications, i leave that to ones who feel entitled. Of course i will chew my fingernails to the bones if a mission to detect the traces of metabolisms would be sent but i have no problem with positive discoveries in that direction, if i live up to see it happen.

Breathing, a commonplace. But water ?

Hmm, i followed the papers on this subject during the last years and i must say i am not surprised. I would even say i miss the breaking news. Do they need another reason for the Europa Clipper (imagine kerbal devil emoticon here) ? Paper: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6334/132

Loosing the sense of thirst can happen. People first get a headache, then get dizzy and finally start to fantasize. For example students on excavation in arid areas usually grossly underestimate the risks of dehydration and frequently must be urged to drink enough. I am not sure whether "professionals" really can acclimatise or train the body to use less water. I would never recommend such a thing. "Drink enough, 3* pee a day are the minimum". Not my idea ... :-)

Oranges are 75 eurocent a kilo here on La Palma island ... so in the end i pay just the double compared to bottled filtered juice. Really fresh juices ? Depending on where you live, how about a small press and squeeze out the poor apples later in the year ? Make your own apple juice and maybe even wine ... ? Edit: cancel the wine. Counterproductive for your goal ...

Less water in hot places only works for a few days. Sorry if that sounds like a correction, but the real professionals take a lot of water in dry places, because after a longer stay they would return with kidney stones. Very painful that. It is true that the urge to drink might sink in a desert climate, but this is indeed dangerous for the health of the affected person. Some people must be forced to drink water in the desert, when they start to fantasize. Amount of water can rise to 4 or more liters a day in hot and dry climate, or when working hard in the sun. Btw., there is already of course a correlation between warmer climate and rising kidney stone risk.

Fruits and veggies are the right way, bought from the farmers market. Beverages indeed are almost always sugared, often heavily. In Europe they must be labeled so that customers can tell natural juices, juices from concentrate and artificial stuff. The latter is labeled Nectar, but often from the color one can tell that there is only "plastic" in there :-) Water is a good tip, depends on the quality. It is not dangerous at all if you don't drink like 10l in a short time. Water is what keeps animals alive all over the world. I think 2-3l over the day is what is recommended. In Germany the quality of public water supply is superb, contaminations way below what the eu standard specify. Usually there is too much chloride in the public water (i remember this was the case in the US), you'll smell it. Then use a filter or let it rest half an hour or boil it. Yeah, thats it. Water, no artificial nectar, little juices, nothing of the obvious sugar things, avoid industrial style muesli, ketchup, yogurt if it contains "fruits" (but read the ingredients, some may be ok) ... happy low sugar feast :-) I would say you don't need a diet, just avoid the industrial stuff and eat fresh things from the farmers market. That includes cooking yourself, which is fun ! btw.: low sugar doesn't mean untasty, that's propaganda :-) Yeah, but she drank like 15l right away. Who has such idiotic ideas ?

Yeah, well, let's forget about probabilities, they aren't applicable and not in favour of my argumentation anyway. If conditions are right (don't ask me because i will start to write a book then :-)) like for example on earth then an ongoing evolution will start quite automatically (it has startet with the microbes) and might lead to species filling niches, adapting to (slowly) changing environments and so on. And eventually, after 700 million years, someone with a brain and the abilities for more than nutrition and recreation might evolve. And if that happens somewhere near on a subgalactic scale and in the same timeframe of let's say several thousand years between stepping forward and perishing like all the other species, then will it not turn out then that a creator is a man-made concept with a strong cultural aspect ? ?? :-) Just looked him up because never heard of him before. Having a geoscience background i feel unable to comment in a reasonable way :-)

Why should it ? As long as i don't feel being converted :-) Concerning the concept of a creator i hold myself back because it's not my field of expertise (i am not into believing) and it is a cultural / personal thing :-) But i am curious, don't you fear the danger that your view of the world crumbles if you live up to see evidence of life elsewhere ? I mean microbes might be "no big deal" ... Peace, love & understanding :-)

No. Si-Fi isn't reality. It's not like someone goes there with a barrel of water and a bottle of oxygen. Study geoscience (i recommend this to everyone :-)), you'll be fascinated by the complexity and interactions of the earth's dynamics. We have only a slight idea of how complex the biosphere on earth is and how it built up and how it maintains the stability and flexibility (though we are eagerly destroying the latter). I cannot imagine any artificial processes that where able to copy this, let alone install new ones elsewhere. The processes are incredibly complex and interdependent, from short-lived and local weathering to global plate tectonics, necessary for the long term exchange of climate relevant elements on earth. It's not only the skin .... I claim that no artificial process, if left unattended, can do this faster and more flexible as on earth. But if you start now and have 2 billion years the sun will help you and mars will move in the habitable zone(tm). Maybe a visitor is one day able to build a little garden in or around a pressure yurt for space potatoes and void tomatoes :-) Hehe, that's the star trek generation :-)) It is not a scientific opinion and they can model anything with the right parameters ... A biosphere is not a cooking recipe :-))

Always a pleasure arguing :-)

The guiding cam will surely be in the primary focus of your scope/viewfinder/whatever you use, so magnification doesn't apply. Depending on the tinyness of the chip of the guiding cam you want a focal length that still shows you enough (>=1 :-)) reasonable stars to choose from for guiding, that means not too faint and not too bright. For the beginning and if you have a mechanism to fix the guiding cam, use your viewfinder. A viewfinder with a 1/4" connection is fine thing :-) The only thing i would not recommend is an off axis guider.

Exactly my feelings. Last time (Trappist-1) it wasn't even their work ...

(ninja'd) Rule #10 of Armadillos: The banded armor fits well. prickly pears

Rule #3 of KSP: Relax, everything will be fine Dinosaurs

Blowing the same horn. Install Linux and all of a sudden you are the master of your computer again. You can actually go where you want, if you want. And you get help for everything at no cost at all, not even your privacy. Microsoft: "Where do you want to go today ?" User: "Where you won't let me !" Especially for KSP, there is no reason to install it on windows ... Peace, love & understanding :-)

lol ! Now, when did this happen the last time to one of us ?

This was probably meant to be a neural net ? Autocorrection .... :-)