In astrobiology (and I think also in biology and most of chemistry) it means any molecules that contain carbon, with a few exceptions (exceptions include carbon dioxide and diamond - they don't count as organic). Strange definition, perhaps, but I'm certain that's what it means in astrobiology.
Organic molecules are not necessarily in living things and, indeed, interstellar dust clouds contain huge quantities of amino acids and other organic molecules which most astronomers believe have never been near a living thing.
Be grateful these astronomers even made that distinction. They might have just said this stuff (or at least the parts of it that aren’t Hydrogen) was ‘metallic’ and left it at that.
Happily, it's become okay for them to talk about astrobiology. It was mostly taboo until a few years ago. (Just speculating here, but I think it was the discovery of lots of exoplanets that caused astrobiology to become permissible.)
There's no terribly good definition of organic molecules in chemistry. The traditional definition is something that required a living organism to produce it, until inorganic synthesis of organic urea ruined that idea. The typical rule of thumb is an organic compound contains C-C and C-H bonds, but there's a whole host of exceptions to that rule (including urea, which lacks both C-C and C-H bonds).
The best I can come up with is that organic chemistry is the study of the interactions of a set of common structural motifs (called functional groups), and an organic molecule is something that contains those functional groups.
Unspecified in this article, but organics we've found in meteorites (fallen asteroids and comets, mostly) include the same carbohydrates, fatty acids, nucleic acids, and amino acids that all known life is built from.
In the broadest sense, organics could refer to any molecule of carbon and hydrogen, however I don't think that's how it's used here.
Edit: didn't see any academic paper linked in the article (assume they're still working on it all) but the following is mentioned
> In a preliminary analysis of some of the dust, Lauretta said scientists hit the jackpot with a sample that is nearly 5 percent carbon by mass and has abundant water in the form of hydrated clay minerals.
> Organic chemistry is a subdiscipline within chemistry involving the scientific study of the structure, properties, and reactions of organic compounds and organic materials, i.e., matter in its various forms that contain carbon atoms.
> In chemistry, many authors consider an organic compound to be any chemical compound that contains carbon-hydrogen or carbon-carbon bonds, however, some authors consider an organic compound to be any chemical compound that contains carbon.
From what I've looked up It seems like BLM land is cheaper than private land. The current fee of $1.35 per animal unit month for 2021 is the minimum that was set in 1981. So to me it looks like we are giving the farmers cheap land. [1] [2]
However, I also read an article [3] that seems to indicate that the complete opposite was true as farmers who use BLM land have to maintain it which made public land cost $1.20 more than private (2011). However, I don't really trust this that much as the guy who wrote it was a farmer and on the "Public Lands Council" which is a pro ranching organization. [4]
Sorry I don't really understand what your saying. I simply found some interesting links that I thought people would find useful. The first two links are trying to show that the farmers are getting really cheap land (AKA government giving subsidies to them) as the current price is the minimum set in 1981.
The third link is just a counter argument to that says although the land looks cheap in reality its more expensive because of land maintenance.
However, I don't trust that article a lot as it was written by a rancher that is in a pro ranching organization so there is a big bias.
I guess my confusion was - the original post was about farm subsidies for the beef industry. I do not believe BLM price reductions count toward that, as a vast, vast minority of beef ever interacts with those properties.
While they are a subsidy, I do not believe they are relevant at all to the argument. That's my point, I guess.
Corn, bean, and other row crop subsidies, sure. But BLM is just a distraction, I think.
But isn’t that exactly what we are? Complex biological machines designed by the group through natural selection manufactured in volume in a distributed factory with the express and only purpose to serve our creator - since we were made in its image. (I’m atheist but that fit so well)
No we are not machines. You can tell a computer to try and solve a problem for years on end without a problem. Try and get a person to spend their entire lives trying to "improve" the world without any diversions or fun in the slightest and they'll burn out within a week.
I mean he enjoyed making it! Not only is he increasing his skills making his next project better he is also sharing it with others potentially getting more people interested in that field both of which are helping the "community"!
Really whats the point in living if all you do is work for the "grater good" without ever having fun? I got into programing purely because I wanted to create something for a video game that was missing. In zero way was this productive for society! I'm 99% sure that Doug got into programing for a similar reason: because it was fun for him!
If you like the idea of FW but can't get around the interface try Rimworld! Easily one of my favorite games of all time! Its like DF but with a Firefly theme and actual graphics.
First if you enjoy learning new languages and you find it useful thats great! Not trying to put you down in any way. However, you say:
> it's probably the closest thing I waste my time on that's like a video game these days yet 100x more productive
This makes it sound like video games are useless and learning a new language is super useful. In your situation this could totally be true but for some people (like me!) learning a new language isn't super useful! If your a video game dev playing games would be 100x more productive than learning a new language and if you travel around the world then learning a language would be 100x better than a video game! I feel like its almost impossible to know whats more "productive" in general.
I find that using another search engine in that kind of situation is extremely useful! If I'm searching for more mainstream stuff google usually is great but when I'm going for more specialized topics duck duck go will usually bring up some different links!
True. If they all quit I'm most could find jobs relatively quickly. However, that isn't true for everyone. Is it really worth the risk of not being able to find a job and or getting worse pay?
