leicsmac

Not only that, but also make sure those responsible are recorded, for the sake of those future generations that are left to make sure they not only not repeat the errors, but also remember those names in the utmost infamy for eternity.

Tune.

I think on this one the flexibility to change depending on circumstances, rather than nailing colours to one particular mast, is the key thing here. One thing I will say is that the current US administration represents a majority of values that really should be anathema to any civilised nation and the continuity of civilisation, so if the UK chooses to associate with them in any close way, then like it or not those values will likewise be associated with the UK too.

For the moment, certainly. But hopefully, in this case, nothing is inexorable.

Wouldn't be the first time a legal entity has chosen not to fully engage with the full intricacies of a scientific matter for the sake of convenience, tbh. I guess, as per earlier discussion, we'll see where we are in roughly ten years. I just hope it isn't where I think it might be. (Though this is only one of a very great number of matters where that's accurate imo.)

Exactly. Complex and nuanced issues involving scientific matters and people really should be reduced to simple soundbites for the purpose of legislation and subsequent feelgood headlines and Tweets. One size fits all. ... ... ...... right?

Some of the stuff that DOGE have been getting up to is, quite frankly, blatant violation of quite a few different laws.

OK then...for the interest of @foxile5 and anyone else who wants to know - how can we tell that an object 124 light years away has chemical compounds that may have been produced by microbial life? Here's a breakdown of the idea of astronomical spectroscopy. Spectroscopy is the study of electromagnetic spectra - radio waves, visible light, microwaves, X-rays and all the other kinds that come from many different sources. One of the uses of this applies here. For as long as we've had telescopes powerful enough to do it, we've been able to observe the light coming from distant stars all over the night sky. These stars throw out light and other EM radiation at a massive variety of wavelengths - ranging from radio waves at the longest to gamma-rays at the shortest. And here's the kicker - as that light passes through gases that surround a star, or a planet or other object that has an atmosphere or emits such gases, some of that light is absorbed and some of it goes right through and comes to us - or when a particular star burning particular gas produces heat and light, it does it in particular wavelengths. That produces what is called an emission line spectrum - a pattern of EM wavelengths that is as unique to each element or compound as a fingerprint. For instance, the emission wavelengths of hydrogen - the most common element in the Universe - are 410 nm (violet), 434 nm (blue), 486 nm (blue-green), and 656 nm (red). If we see a star emitting light at those wavelengths in particular, then we know it's burning hydrogen. We know the wavelengths, we know exactly what element or compound is out there. In the case of K2-18b, the James Webb Space Telescope noticed light of a particular wavelength passing through it on the way from its companion star. The emission line spectrum indicated the presence of two compounds - dimethyl sulphide (DMS) and dimethyl disulphide (DMDS) - on that planet. The only method - or by far the most common method - of producing either of those two gases is through bacterial or plankton activity - in other words, life. And that's how we think we can tell there might be life on a planet over 120 light years away. I think that about covers it in brief. Would be happy to answer any other questions on the matter.

Freedom to abuse power over minority groups, but not to call the Gulf of Mexico by its internationally agreed name. The hypocrisy is just one part of how loathsome this administration is, however.

Bloody difficult to pick. In terms of legacy and unprecedented, I think it has to be between the CWC 2019 and Murray winning Wimbledon. Chose the latter but I'd happily pick both. Edit: to be honest, the entire 2012 Olympics could be considered a great moment in of itself.

Come on over to the sci thread and sometime soon I'll make a post on spectroscopy and how it can identify emitted gases by electromagnetic spectra alone.

Part ego at having lost to him, part easy scapegoating for the results of his own self interested and sociopathic decisions.

Always found it fascinating. Necessary, too. Out there lies the keys to the future of our biosphere and everything on it, including ourselves.

Speaking personally, I don't disagree with you because you're dumb or immoral, Mr Vance. I disagree with you because your entire apparent ethos and worldview when applied to policy is going to get a huge amount of people, if not civilisation itself, fvcking killed.

... or, judging by the quality of discourse that then often turns into conflict, as seen on here and out in the wider world, they'll simply watch us squander our gift of intelligence, destroy ourselves and then shrug at yet another species not making it through the Great Filter.

... is eugenics (by demographics other than the poor, that's been going on for a while) going to be standard US administration policy now, then?

A similar response to the one given to the President in Mars Attacks is forthcoming then (hopefully).

And yet there are other countries where Trump-style nationalism is going full speed ahead. And given the way Reform continues to poll in the UK, I'm not sure they're anywhere near away from that particular outcome either. Here's hoping that our species can, if slowly, move away from that precipice.

Perhaps so. Hopefully (or not so hopefully) one day we'll find out.

I would hope so too, which is why I would hope that their view would be either dispassionate or at least the "roll eyes, 'look at those backward primates but we were there once too' " kind of amused derision.

And to weave together the last few topics here once again: I reckon that if there indeed is an intelligent civilisation capable of FTL travel or observation watching us right now, their viewpoint on our actions regarding nationalism and sexual dimorphism would be patronisingly amused at best and utterly contemptuous and saying it's unbecoming of a supposedly intelligent species at worst. But who knows?

Think this one belongs here rather than the scientific thread because it's rather "human interest": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8jwj90ejno There are some scientific discoveries that do much more than advance our knowledge: they create a shift in our psyche as they show us the scale of the Universe and our place in it. One such moment was when space craft sent back images of the Earth for the first time. Another is the discovery of life on another world, a moment that has inched a little closer today with the news that signs of a gas, which on Earth is produced by simple marine organisms, has been found on a planet called K2-18b. Now, the prospect of really finding alien life - meaning we are not alone in the Universe - is not far away, according to the scientist leading the team that made the detection. "This is basically as big as it gets in terms of fundamental questions, and we may be on the verge of answering that question," says Prof Nikku Madhusudhan of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge University. But all of this prompts even more questions, including, if they do find life on another world, how will this change us as a species? Fascinating topic of discussion.

It is a distinct possibility, yes. Unfortunately we'll not be able to prove it beyond telescopic observation until we (somehow) master FTL travel.

...I guess we'll see where we are in ten years. That goes for other supposedly "developed" nations, as well as the UK.

To link the two most recent topics, an observation: I'm not sure that anyone can in good faith claim to be an advocate for women's rights and at the same time have expressed any support of the administration of Donald Trump, either in 2016 or now, given the attitude of that administration towards women's rights was as clear then as it is now.