Yes, he can be arrested. This is a case of how much public opinion can be swayed, not only in the USA, but all over the world.
The most profound video you will watch today. One man can really make a difference to change the world. This video has already been viewed over 2.5 million times in just one day
Little green and grey E.T. could be sending messages into space without us having noticed. We could be blind to their messages because they encode it differently than we have imagined. After many years of listening to Dolphins, we still have no idea what they are saying, so we can’t expect to have imagined the right tool for communication with an E.T. civilization!
Hold on, but last I checked, there are no E.T… What we do know, is that there are habitable worlds outthere. The NASA has confirmed that very clearly. Here’s a chart of exoplanets with the lowest SEC (Similar to Earth Criteria):
Click on the image to go to the offical Habitable Exoplanets Catalog
Do these Earth twins harbor intelligent life? Do they harbor life at all?
Thinking that life is unique, is not unlike thinking the earth is the center of the solar system… Let me explain:
The similarity lies in that both ideas place the Earth in a special position. Considering that, given similar conditions, life would only arise on Earth, is like saying life on Earth is magic!
As much as I don’t believe in magic, I don’t believe life is Unique to the blue planet, I believe that given similar conditions, life would indeed arise.
It is but a question of technological progress when we get tools good enough for extraterrestrial observation.
My prospective answer, is that we will find a way to identify the signature of life on exoplanets before 2025, that is to say that we are standing on the brink of a major scientific and phylosophical shift. Here’s how, courtesy of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
But it is far harder to put a date on an actual encounter of the third type, let alone a reciprocate communication. when it comes to propulsion technologies, distances of even just a few light years seem impossible to travel. However there’s still hope inside the solar system as several moons are thought to have liquid oceans under a sheet of Ice.
These places are not so far, that we could never send robots to investigate, and maybe, bring back to earth one day, a specimen from Titan or Europa. That would be our best shot! And wouldn’t it be swell that the first ET be a European?
This question was asked one year ago to the then French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde, who went on later as the head of the IMF.
Christine Lagarde was asked if the Euro would collapse in 2011, or whether the Eurozone would lose a member in 2011. I’m no fan of hers, but her prospective answer was right: the Euro did not collapsed in 2011 and the Eurozone hasn’t lost any member in 2011.
The BBC interview was posted on the Youtube channel “liarpolitician” who’s lying now?
It seems there is a strong resentment in the UK towards the Euro, from UKIP to the BBC, many in Great Britain call the end of a Euro they never accepted. But the UK doesn’t have the Euro, and it has the same crisis with high unemployment. Logic would dictate to look elsewhere for efficient action.
When the Euro was created 10 years ago, I asked the director of a global corporation, about the viability of the Euro. His guess was that the Euro would be accused to be responsible of a crisis, if there were to be one, and that it couldn’t survive it. That was an outstanding guess that really could be made from day one.
Keeping this in mind, I refuse to accuse the common currency for the crisis.
I mean seriously? Is it that simple to turn away the attention from citybank and the 2008 crisis? Is there anyone in the UK that can see what needs to be changed is not the currencies but the banking system? How long can the UK economy continue depending more then any other EU member on speculation, and why is this not addressed?
The Euro serves as a short-term scapegoat, which is counterproductive, because the Eurozone would precisely be capable of implementing powerful regulations on banks, and maybe impose the infamous Tobin tax on transactions, if and when members would agree to it. I am not amused nor fooled by “Standards and Poor’s” and “Moodies”… their moods are only as interesting as the mouthpiece of a sick financial system can be, a system that has no moral standard and certainly doesn’t know the meaning of poor. A speculative system disconected from the economy.
The future of the Euro may seem uncertain to some, but the propaganda that would see its collapse imminent is equally biased. I believe that, to the contrary, the Eurozone heads of States will find ways to make it work, because; face it, they really have no other options on the long-term.
The Euro is not the economy. It’s only a currency.
Baring in mind that removing the euro is not a solution to the financial crisis, and that the eurozone is a powerful tool for the EU, my prospective answer is that we will not see the end of the Euro in 2012 either.
Have you realised? The 2 latest record-breaking additions to the short list of supertall skyscraper have an elongated pyramidal shape. Beyond the technologies used for resistance against wind and earthquakes, it seems the design is forced to a high level of convergence.
This is potentially a return of the dominance of Structure on Design, not unlike that faced by early civilizations building actual pyramids all around the world.
Judging by the 2 tallest structures in the world: Burj Khalifa and the Kingom Tower, the future of supertall skyscraper could be a little less creative than star-wars anticipation.
No definitive anticipation could be made from only 2 cases, but the point of this blog is to walk on the edge and the risk of making educated guesses. I would be more than happy to be proven wrong, but I doubt there will be donut shape mile high skyscraper anytime soon. This is what our architectural technology looks like when pushed to the highest limit.
Essentially, the comparison between ancient and modern pyramids gives an sense of how far we’ve gone since we’ve started domesticating the elements.
In a few hundred years however, nanotubes will be incorporated to constructions
This means that questions of mass and gravity will be turned on their head. And that will be the very end of the ancient pyramid design.
I can only but wonder what then would be the limits to construction? Given unlimited finances, structures could be built so large, that they could displace significantly the center of gravity of the earth. That, in turn, would justify space mining and the construction of vaissals the size of planets, even generating their own gravity. And then a limit would finally arise in relation to the resistance of nanotubes. Just how big it could get, I have no way of calculating, but maybe we should ask
If all this could happen fast enough, then maybe we have a shot at saving humans after a runaway global warming effect!
The fate of our specie hangs by a thread. The thread of cupidity.
We have failed in the past, as in the case of the Easter Island, to grasp the value of our environment to ourselves. And we failed it all the way to extinction.
As we gradually move from a type zero civilisation (burning fuel) to a type 1 civilisation (harnessing the elements) the question of wether humans have in themselve what it takes to survive this leap forward is unanswered, and the prospect is rather bleak.
One of the saddest examples of destructive corruption, is the consistant failure of the WWF to distribute meaningful green labels. Thorough investigation by Germany’s first TV-channel about actual consequence of the WWF actions, shows it is not about protecting the environment, but about selling green credentials for money, which allows wealthy corporations to increase their destructive actions
If you understand german, watch it for yourself:
I would like to say that I am optimistic about the chances of survival for the humans…
But who believes that we won’t burn all fossile fuels? While the Kyoto protocole was ratified, carbon emmissions continued increasing… faster! There is no treaty able to win such a fight, because it makes money. Tonns of it… and humans cannot resist it.
I believe that even if some wealthy countries might manage to switch entirely to renewables (Germany, Japan), poorer countries will more than compensate…
The question is, what will happen once we’ve burnt it all? I am not sure how reliable are the results from a simple google.com search with these keywords :
how much will the temperature rise if we burn all fossile fuels?
But the numbers popping up seem to indicate a figure of between 13 and 16 degrees.
Geologist may note that a lesser increase of only 10 degrees has produced in the past, a mass extinction of almost all life on earth. This has a name:
The Permian–Triassic (P–Tr) extinction event, informally known as the Great Dying
If your lazy you can watch this video by the Smithsonian youtube channel:
The question becomes now: can we avoid reaching a Tipping point from which a runaway global warming would be irreversible? The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report answers with the negative.
My prospection here, we are going to make the Earth a desert, in the decades/centuries to come. I donnot believe the human race has what it takes: humility and respect of all forms of life to reverse global warming before the tipping point is reached.
On the burning issue of nuclear energy, it is now clear there is a before and an after the Fukushima nuclear catastrophy. The long lasting impact will continue to occupy a large part in the media for the decades to come, as victims of radiations will seek compensation for their cancers.
We can no longer ignore that nuclear energy is too unreliable.
But this may not quite be the end of nuclear energy, as nuclear fusion (instead of fission) is currently understudy, and carries the hope of an almost waste free (yes almost) and safe type of nuclear energy.
Nuclear fission, however, could be swiftly dealt with in very wealthy countries where it doesn’t provide much of the total electricity production, while it could only dwindle slowly in France.
In the decades to come, Nuclear Energy will remain consistently unpopular, and will survive as well as coal, because of its apparent low investment cost and ability to provide cheap energy, and because of the immensely powerful lobby behind it.
What is the future of nuclear energy?
On the long run, nuclear energy relies on a finite ressource. It is a question of a few hundred years before we run out entirely, at the pace we consume it, according to Nuclear Engineer James Hopf “The source with the largest overall quantity of uranium is the granite in the earth’s crust. This actually has a much higher concentration than seawater (sea water does have a low concentration of Uranium), and has tens or hundreds of thousands of years worth of uranium”. While this estimate doesn’t explain how one would extract Uranium deep into the earth’s crust, and at what cost, it does suggest that given the means, Uranium is not about to run out in the foreseeable future.
The decades to come may actually see an increase in the use of nuclear energy, as China and India increase drastically their production. With the added pressure of Global warming, nuclear power has still a bright future ahead.
Fukushima is neither the first, nor the last nuclear catastrophe. There is a clear pattern now emerging, that on the medium to long term, nuclear catastrophies are not avoidable, however well prepared a country might be.
The question maybe, that we should reconsider the price we pay for energy. It will continue to rise, which will make renewable energy more competitive, while ever increasing the profit and lobby power derived.
I do see the end of Nuclear fission coming, when the death tolls reach number in millions. My prospection here, is that then and only then, the UN will initiate a program to denuclearise the world.
Considering the future is the most exciting exercice of thought. I love making predicitions and educated guesses. One thing I could never have predicted, was that the President of France would end up supporting the people of Lybia, almost alone in the face of the world. London mildly agreed and Germany opposed this step. India and China initially opposed this step too.
The present, with its load of revolutions across the Arab world, could not have been easily anticipated, but suggests numerous potentials for North-Africa. It is one of this time in the tree of history when new branches germinate.
This part of the world is changing fast, and the most burning issue right Now is Lybia.
Either the UN manages to destroy the Lybian army, faithful to their Despot, or Gaddafi wins, at the cost of thousands, maybe tens of thousands of lives.
Who would you put your money on?
I put my money on the free forces of the Rebels, because they have successfully achieved global recognition in just a few days.
My prediction here, is that Gaddafi will secure what he can and the country will be partitionned.