Invisibility isn't a power of the One Ring so much as a side-effect. It shifts mortal wearers a little into the spirit world, so they fade from view in the physical. Sauron doesn't disappear when he wears the ring because he already exists in both worlds and he can see other wearers for the same reason. It's not widely discussed, but this should also be true of other maiar; Gandalf, Saruman and Durin's Bane; and 'high' elves who've been to Valinor: Galadriel and Glorfindel would all also be unaffected by ringvisibility. It's this walking the threshold between worlds that's also responsible for the extended lifespan of mortal ringbearers and why Frodo can see the ringwraiths and they can see him.

The elemental character of the Three, I think, shouldn't be overstated. All of the rings, the One, the Three, the Seven and the Nine are very much alike. They were all made by or under the tutelage of the same creator to the same basic recipe, with independent elven flourishes rather than fundamental differences in the case of the Three. The One has to resonate (musical metaphors are always appropriate for Tolkien's magic) with the others in order to work on them, and that's Sauron's mistake: he is ultimately trapped and destroyed by his ring just as the dwarves and men were by theirs.

Well, first you must determine the average lifespan of a species...impossible until we survey the entire universe.
Then you must determine the average distance between populated planets.
Then you must determine the 'lifespan' of all possible transmission technologies (on average). (how long 'they' emit that kind of transmission)
Then you must determine the maximum range and speed of any transmissions, and what form those transmissions are in, which is what most of this video is about. Now we're looking in 2 small ranges of possible wave form communications for the first time. Subtract any with a maximum range lower than the distance from transmission to us (another unknowable).
Then you must determine how many ranges of not just wave form energy are we ignoring, but how many other forms of communication/emission/energy might there be that we aren't looking for or even conceiving their existence (another impossible question to answer)?
Only once ALL those (impossible) questions are answered (and I'm certain more that are unknown but important variables) can you do even preliminary calculations to determine how statistically likely it should really be to 'find' evidence of extra-planetary species/civilizations, and that number is almost definitely tiny by any standard.

To think they might be 'here' already, you must either assume they are a space fairing species (which would also indicate a species that 'raids' planets and moves on, not one that settles and/or trades, so lets hope not) or you must assume they have much faster than light travel, which if true, should mean one would expect to see aliens 'teleporting' everywhere, and likely some crazy looking evidence of the transportation method. If neither of these are true (space fairing or faster than light travel) you would not expect to ever hear or see them.
Since technology evolves, so do the types of transmissions that technology produces. To think that in the time frame a single type of transmission is used somewhere in the universe (+ travel time) we'll be searching for exactly that type of transmission form would be such an INSANELY unlikely coincidence that many would see it as proof of god (because it couldn't statistically happen naturally, like a babble fish).
What this means is, unless we become space fairing raiders ourselves, or find faster than light travel ourselves, we'll likely be alone forever, even if there is other intelligent life out there.
There's just too much to search in too many ways over too long a time span, like looking for a single protozoa in the entire ocean, when you don't know what it looks like or even what a protozoa is, and the protozoa only exists for one random week in your life time.
That's where I think they are....unfindable.

But we still have not the slightest idea what the average lifespan of a technological civilization might be. It's also possible that there are predators out there, and the survivors only survive by keeping mum.

Absolute BS.
Bad math, no science. He's cherry picking data and extrapolating using partial worst case scenarios rather than actual measurements...that is not science, it's misleading propaganda.
The cost of moving away from fossil fuels is easily offset completely by the savings of the new technologies used, and likely the switch would be a gain to GDP, as it makes tens of thousands of new technology jobs and billions-trillions in additional GDP selling the tech, and once built many new techs have far lower operation costs, saving money. (That's how economies work, you sell stuff and make money...right?) It sure worked for my solar system, which you, Trance, would likely still try to talk people out of, claiming it's more expensive than it's worth, while reality is it paid for itself in less than 1/3 of it's expected lifespan AND has other benefits.
The cost of 'adapting to climate change' is infinite, as it's impossible. Plants, animals, and biota can't survive it...and people like to eat. Kind of hard to adapt if there's no food, far LESS farmable land, less or no natural food sources, etc.
Also, he ignores the facts that 1) it's almost certainly going to be MORE than 3 deg. by 2100 and 2)methane hydrates are already melting, and methane is (I think) something like 100 times more damaging to the atmosphere (as far as greenhouse effects), so even "just" 3 deg. suddenly becomes 8 deg...that's often ignored.
3 deg. means on average, but also means the spread gets larger. Winters are colder, summers are even hotter. 3 deg. doesn't sound like much by itself, but it really means 15-20 deg. hotter when it's hot, and 12-17deg. colder when it's cold.

avg lifespan 25 years they claim, so maybe not so bad. I don't take meds ass, just all the ships I were on (1980's) are now decommed.

I'm not sure how much credence I can give the wiki page...I note it claims things that are obviously wrong, like "the design does not have a long lifespan when compared to other engine designs due to large numbers of moving parts" while in fact this motor has far fewer moving parts than normal motors. It did make some good points, like the first one that occurred to me about friction, but also made some bad points such as claiming 'mechanical complexity' as a drawback, while in fact it seems far more simple than normal motors.
"extra complicated machined parts" also exist in normal motors, and can be made fairly cheaply and easily in bulk.
Excess use of oil is an issue, but one they should be able to solve with proper machining and materials. Low RPM is fine for many applications, like a generator, so long as it's efficient it's fine and might even be better. Since you get high torque at low RPM with this design, low RPM seems to be ideal.
They claimed it had comparable horsepower to the same displacement normal motors in the prototype...if true, that point is moot.
Actually, there seems to be less moving mass in this motor, consider the mass of the crank shaft and counterbalances, connecting rods and pistons, the camshaft, rods, lifters, rockers, and valves. This motor only had a compact 'crank' and the connecting rods and pistons, and the output shaft. That's less actually moving to my eye.
The 'potential for explosion' was claimed on Wiki to be a design flaw of the case thickness around the 'crank', which could easily be thickened if it doesn't have to fit inside a torpedo....potential removed.
I'm not saying it's perfect, or necessarily even feasible, but it does seem to have more going for it than you give it credit for and is worth following it's progress to me.

On the other hand, apparently the US Government lost $11.2 billion on bailing out GM. They *spent* 50 billion bailing them out, the 11.2 billion is just how much dried up and blew away entirely.

Maybe if we'd have just let some of those corporate juggernauts fail, as should happen in a REAL free market, we'd actually have seen more progress. I'm thinking of, say, Tesla -- that got a $465 million loan from the gov. and paid it off in full 9 years early.

Not so long ago -- within my lifespan -- the government actually *broke up* giant corporate monopolies like Bell telecom. Now we can't throw money at them fast enough. I guess lobbying "works".

Oh, then you do believe in AGW? If not, what's the straw man?
If global warming were the reason I do the things I do, you would be correct, going vegetarian would be a reasonable next step. The thing is I've done all I have done for personal, self centered reasons that benefit me personally, it just so happens that they mostly also benefit the planet. Because I intentionally didn't have children and don't believe in reincarnation, I have little incentive to attempt to save the planet beyond my lifespan. That said, I eat little beef, which is the worst meat to eat, and mostly chicken, the best meat for ecology (except for Iguana tail, a truly sustainable meat product).
CO2 staying at current levels dooms the planet fairly quickly. Raising those levels dooms if faster and more completely. I see little chance that we might actually decrease CO2 production levels, much less turn it to a negative number, which needs to happen if there's any chance in hell of stopping the run-away greenhouse effect. I see it as an issue that's far too late to stop, and can only be minimized at best, and will likely be maximized instead.
It's more like 4 billion that need to reduce their 'footprint', and another 3-4 billion that need to not expand theirs. More to the point, it's about 5 billion that need to not reproduce, while the other 3 billion only have 2 children at most. Not a likely outcome, but what is needed to solve the most pressing issues of the day.
Government is required to incentivize industry to follow suit and reduce their emissions. Without coersion, they'll do what's cheaper every time, and not cleaning up your own mess is always cheaper.
The only 'climate scientists' that are skeptical are the deniers, all others have examined the data and come to the same conclusion, just differing in the levels of change they expect. From what I see, they all underestimate the changes to come and ignore compounding features of the systems.
I'm not sure why you don't see this as a serious conversation, but that's on you.
I have given a scientific commentary. you ignored it and asked the same questions again, claiming they had been ignored. I'll try again....

CO2 saturation and temperature are linked, and have been proven to be so. Human production of CO2 is larger and faster than any natural CO2 rise in known climate history, well over 200000 years and up to hundreds of millions of years depending on what data you consider reasonable and reliable, and it's not only the amount but the rate of change that is greater than any natural climate change ever seen in the data. It's that faster rate of change that's the most dangerous, but the amount that determines the change to come. The system is slow to react, and is only now reacting to last centuries atmospheric changes. That means that even if we stopped CO2 production completely today, the effects will still be felt for centuries to come, and we aren't even slowing the rate at which we raise the amount of CO2 we produce, it's going up faster by the day thanks to those that either deny the problem or ignore it in favor of profit or simplicity. That's why estimates of the future are all lacking in my eyes, they all assume either static or reduced CO2 production, which is not reality.
We're hosed. The only option I see is to become self sufficient and die before the planet does. One more reason to not have children and instead be self sufficient as much as possible and enjoy what's left while you can.

Personally I feel that they system should be that you get 10 years of pension time. Use it for retirement or a year when you are 30 having a kid, which would leave you 9. Or some other issue like loosing your job.
But this off time should be roughly equal to you current pay. Retirement should be looked at a little differently because you are looking at a lifespan of work. But if you are 20 and want to go to school for 2 years and you quit your minimum wage job then you get subsidized 2 years at minimum wage.

You will look at entitlements a lot differently and also will look at how others squander theirs and run out early.

I don't care if you are 20 and suck 5years of minimum wage to buy dope, drink and other stupid stuff. When your 10 years are burned through then you are cut off.

Never underestimate the value of tough love.

Conversely, you would greatly consider when you retire. If I burned up 3 years of entitlements and only have 7 left then I'd better keep on working into the 70's.

Granted this is a grand pie in the sky idea but I do think it is some what workable.
And yes there should be a cap of say $100k.

To address you point about general Right leaning ideas:
Us on the Right don't hate poor people. We just don't want to continually hand out a free lunch. We do want all to have the same opportunity in life, a level playing field.

However corporations and government slice and dice the rules knowing that Americans have no clue of the intent of the Founders, or the Constitution. When the Right brings up the Constitution the Left points the finger and says that the Right wants to bring back slavery. No we don't. WE want all to have a level playing field. We don't hate Obama for being "black" we hate him for the policies and decisions that he puts forth. No more, no less.

Also the Right has no problems for a black man in a leadership role. But when we ( the Right) hold a man of color in high esteem ( Ben Carson) the Left cuts them down as an Uncle Tom and quickly dismiss any positive values that the man brings forth.

Finally there should be no sacred cows when it comes to cutting spending. Cut Military spending, Redo social security, entitlements. put everything on the table.
We are going broke point fingers at each other and not getting anything done.


Have a good day Newtboy

Please show proof, URL?
This is the exact same line that people against solar tried to sell us 10 years ago...it was BS then, so I'm guessing it's the same today.

Lets see....How much taxpayer money, exactly, per KWH or per turbine (specify size in KWH and type), is being "wasted"? From your certitude I assume you must have a number. If you don't know that number, you can't possibly know if the money is 'wasted' or if it was a great deal for the amount of energy produced, and I'll believe you are simply stating opinion, not fact.

Over what time period are turbines "not paying for their investment"? Are you claiming that, over the full expected lifespan of an average turbine it costs more than making the same amount of electricity with coal? Or Natural gas? Do you include the cost of climate change in that calculation? Didn't think so.

What type of turbine are you talking about...or are you unaware that there are dozens of different designs, some which are not ugly, noisy, or harming any wildlife at all?

The rather rude BS thinking about solar energy is the same kind of rude BS thinking you are displaying, making claims that all turbines suck and should be abolished (paraphrasing you) without any science or math to back you up. On the other hand, just slight investigation shows at least some of your claims are outright wrong. It was about the BS, not the solar energy...understand now?

That doesn't mean that there are not some instances of the problems you describe, but most of them are problems from well over 10 years ago that have been solved. Just painting regular 3 prop turbines with ultraviolet paint reduces bird and bat strikes considerably...making a turbine that doesn't have props worked even better, and they work better at low and high speed wind.

You do know that the government pays the same kind of people to have electric lines on their property, and phone lines, and road ways, train lines, etc...whether they're being used or not, right? They're paying for the use of the land. This is not a new process in any way, or one used only for turbines by a long shot.

I have also never seen this 'data' about how windmills are frivolous, and I've looked. All I can ever find are individuals that have no personal knowledge of the systems making unfounded claims. Certainly there are instances of poorly planned 'windfarms' that, because of lack/over abundance of wind don't work properly, or because of regulation and electric company resistance are cost prohibitive. Personal/home units (where they can be erected, and have proper wind conditions) can be great, especially for off grid living. It magnifies the possibilities of a solar system because it generates when the sun isn't out (like when there's a storm) using the same battery system and inverter/converter system the solar uses, so there's little added cost. If you got into solar early enough, the rebates available made the systems a great deal (in some cases, nearly free after the rebate). My system, which cost me a ton of cash, has paid for itself in under 8 years (if you don't consider that electricity rates have gone up considerably since I bought it, if you do count that it was closer to a 6.5 years for full payback, with a minimum 20+ year system lifespan) thanks to rebates and tax breaks...and the systems are far cheaper today than when I bought mine. I've also not lost hundreds (or thousands) of dollars worth of food due to numerous week long power outages, like my neighbors have.
I often consider adding a smallish wind turbine so I have more generation power, especially needed when the power goes out during a storm, which is exactly when a turbine could shine. My issue is jackhole neighbors that would likely not give 'permission' to erect the mast, or would complain about the turbine noise (reasonably or not).
So, in my semi-educated opinion, turbines CAN be a great solution when done right, and can also be economical, especially when compared to the electric company. Of course you can find instances of poor planning making them poor performers, but that's not the norm.

I'm with Jinx. Plus, in my experience any animal with enough brain cells to actually contemplate its own situation like that (say, dogs or cats) will refuse to eat if it feels that its time has come and it is physically unable or not allowed to wander off and die in peace.

In other words, while I'm surprised that the bee is physically capable of that lifespan, I don't think it is capable of feeling that it is being cruelly held in some sort of "Johnny Got His Gun" nightmare life. And if it was, it would also be capable of refusing the food offered to it.

The universe is "just right"? Instead of too hot or too cold? Your tiny lifespan in this tiny fragment of the cosmos is only possible because the local conditions happen to be just right to sustain human life for the time being. That's easier to believe than some all-powerful sky-wizard waving a wand and creating stuff.

Turtles do have ears, just not external ones, and they can hear.
The 200 year lifespan is absurd any species that the TMNT's might conceivably be derived from.
Only a few turtle species have worm-like portions of their tongues (used to lure prey).
Rats and turtles are vectors of disease. So are humans.
Transmission of bubonic plague from rat to turtle is not going to happen.
It's "salmonella" no "samonella".
Turtle penises don't really look like that, nor will they reach the same animal's mouth (they are impressive though).

There is more incorrect than correct about this video. It's like they googled "turtle fun facts" and decided to call that "scientifically accurate".
These animals are amazing!.. Stop being lazy; you don't need to make stuff up.

Throwing anything into the sun that isnt hydrogen or helium is a bad idea, it would reduce its lifespan, hastening its eventual morph into a red giant, and swallowing earth whole!!