What all can a movie show in 2 hours 30 minutes? It is already so long. Just to be unbiased it cannot bore its viewers with irrelevant details, can it?
BTW: your post is biased because it doesn't talk about global warming.
Force wins. Then it is transferred. Then the transferred force wins. So, force is still winning, isn't it? Only the person wielding it has changed. This is consistent with the idea that force wins. Not just in the short term, but always.
In the movie too, force won. The human army was routed by force. This may be unexpected, but that does not mean force does not win.
Dude, everything we have is from nature. Our food, our clothing, our oil, our raw materials, our bodies and minds are nature. "Nature" is us and we are it.
Only in the sense that we have the same atoms. Of course thinking in terms of atoms would mean you're essentially the same as adolf hitler, or horseshit, no ?
You seem to have a different definition of "nature". In fact a different definition of horseshit too, but I digress.
The animals didn't fix any of that nitrogen. It has all come from nitrogen fixing bacteria -> plants -> animals. With artificial fertilizers, it is fertilizers -> plants -> animals.
So be mindful of the direction of dependency in your graph.
First the animals (including humans) eat the plants. This is itself nitrogen theft from plants. Then if they return the nitrogen by shitting on plants, you can't say "crop agriculture is largely dependent on animal agriculture". If they didn't, crop agriculture was doing fine on its own.Why did "animal agriculture" eat the "crop agriculture" in the first place? If they didn't, crop agriculture was doing fine on its own. Since plants are the only source of most nutrients (directly or indirectly) for most animals, why don't you say "animal agriculture" is dependent on "crop agriculture", instead of the other way round?
So on the one hand, animals cannot do without plants at all. On the other hand, animals after eating plants shit on plants giving a slightly more concentrated manure. And you say it is plants that are dependent on animals? Weird logic if ever there was one.
According to thermodynamics, a system can go from disorder to order if it makes sure to absorb some heat. For details and the equation, see my other comment in this article: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490090&cid=30582804/
For a guy in cold temperature, surviving nights is more difficult. If he can survive night, he can surely survive the day (at least as far as body heat retention goes).
At night, there is not much radiation to absorb and heat oneself. But body is at a non-zero kelvin temperature (quite a bit above it, in fact around 310 kelvin). So, like any object, it radiates its heat as electromagnetic radiation (proportional to sigma*(T**4)). White objects radiate less than black objects. So fair skinned people find it easier to maintain body heat during cold nights.
It makes no difference what energy is applied to a system, the end result is the same. order->disorder.
Thermodynamics 101:
For any activity to be possible thermodynamically, its delta(H)-T*delta(S) should be negative.
delta(H) is the energy absorbed by the activity. T is the absolute temperature (kelvin) delta(S) is the increase in entropy as a result of the activity.
For a closed system, delta(H) is zero. There, your assertion of order->disorder holds good.
But energy absorbing activities can be possible even though they decrease entropy. Now, major portion of energy for activities that we are discussing (i.e. life) is being supplied by the Sun. Let us include the Sun also in our "system". Let us assume that absolutely no other energy is being supplied to "life" other than Sun's radiation. Now, the system as a whole is no more energy absorbing. Sun releases energy, "life" absorbs the same energy. Hence, for "Sun+Earth", given our assumptions, entropy will always increase. I.e. order -> disorder. But not for "life" alone.
crop agriculture is largely dependent on animal agriculture for that single most limiting factor: nitrogen
What is that supposed to mean? Nitrogen is fixed by bacteria (bacteria are not animals, they even come under flora category). This fixed nitrogen is then used by plants. How is crop agriculture dependent on animal agriculture?
Animal faeces/dead bodies in soil can be used by plants as a source of fixed nitrogen. But nitrogen containing dead plants can also be similarly used by growing plants as nitrogen source. Even those animals came to contain nitrogen by eating fixed nitrogen containing plants.
What you just said is that even the poorest person in the US is richer than almost anyone else in the world
This conclusion cannot be drawn from GP's assertion. A guy with working stiff, back-office job in the US can be said to be quite a bit richer than the poorest person in the US; for the some valid definitions of "working stiff" and "back-office".
Your non-sense conclusion can be easily debunked with 10 seconds of rubbing together 2 neurons if you have got them.
You say, temperature of a specific area of earth's surface is too chaotic to predict. OK, agreed. But this temperature affects the whole earth's energy output in various chaotic ways. E.g. an area of earth's surface being covered by ice makes it reflect a lot more of Sun's radiation than if it were covered with rocks/sand/water/vegetation etc. It is a coincidence that ice reflects most radiation much better than most non-ice stuff on earth's surface.
Now, an area that is currently at 280 kelvin temperature, some more coldness due to the "chaotic and unpredictable" local climate can result in ice cover. But the same amount of coldness in an area that is currently at temperature 300 kelvin may not result in ice cover. So in spite of the same difference in total input/output of heat from earth, further input/output of heat from earth changes differently depending upon local chaotic and unpredictable climate.
If (too chaotic to predict) has an effect on (very simple to predict), then the (very simple to predict) cannot be said to be simple any more, can it?
Both are easy to verify by satellite imaging.
We are not talking about verifying energy input and output. We are talking about predicting it. Big difference. An 8 year old child can easily verify the temperature of my house, let alone an environment scientist. Verifiability was never in doubt, no idea why you chose to bring it into discussion. As I noted above, input/output of heat from earth as a whole depends upon input/output of heat from particular parts of earth's surface. So prediction of total input/output of heat from earth cannot be accurately done until prediction of input/output of heat from a particular part of earth's surface is done reliably.
On the other hand, global temperature is simply a function of the amount of energy going in and energy going out.
Simply? Sure. Except that no-one knows how to calculate the amount of energy going in and energy going out, right?
Son: How to succeed in life, father? Father: Simple. Do everything, and never fail. Son: Wow! That sure sounds simple!
The temperature of the atmosphere surrounding 100 metres around my house is also simply a function of energy going in and energy going out, right? How come the environment scientists are unable to predict this simple thing more than 10 minutes in advance?
as we don't have any rockets that could reach it in time
Remember, the asteroid is approaching the earth. Rocket would be launched from the earth. Whatever technical limitations of the rocket might be, inability to reach the asteroid will surely not be one of them. If the rocket cannot reach the asteroid, the asteroid will reach the rocket! This is, of course, assuming that we have at least a few days from observation of the asteroid. If the asteroid hits us before we know it (or too less a time to prepare), still it is not the problem of the rocket being unable to reach the asteroid anyway.
the number of people who in the world who are actively searching for asteroids is fewer than the staff of a typical McDonalds
While this might look scandalous to an idiot, it is none of the sort. In a ship carrying a few thousand people, number of people actively watching for icebergs might fewer than the staff of the ship's liquor bar. But the few people, armed with technology, are more than enough to prevent more ship-sinks due to icebergs.
If something needs to be found, it will be searched for, most likely using google
Not always. Many people don't know that they need something. E.g. size does matter. No idea about whether products so advertized work or not, but this is not something a common person can imagine to be possible. So there is no way they will search for it.
Another example is adblocker itself. Most common people have no idea that obnoxious advertisements can be blocked. Even my somewhat technically inclined friends did not know about it till I told them about Adblock. Why & how will they search for something they don't/can't even imagine? And I knew about Adblock by browsing each and every add-on on mozilla.com.
In general, any new revolutionary product/service will not be known to people fast until advertisement. Now that LCD screens are common, if a new company comes up to make better LCD screens, they will be found by, as you rightly point out, by searching on Google. An unimaginable product/service cannot be found in a similar manner.
Longer legs => more distance per step. If step frequency is constant, this means power output is higher with longer legs. If energy supply to legs is the bottleneck for speed in ants, step frequency would automatically decrease. Whether the ants want it or are even aware of it. Ants having the understanding of elementary Neutonian dynamics doesn't even come into picture.
Look at the other possible bottlenecks for ant walking speeds I listed in my earlier post. Your hypothesis holds true only if leg-length is the biggest bottleneck. Which looks pretty unlikely, as I argued in my earlier post. Do you have arguments to prove:
1. Your hypothesis holds true even if leg-length is not the bottleneck 2. Leg-length as speed bottleneck is likely ?
ants take a fixed number of steps per minute, whether their legs have been lengthened, shortened or left alone
Do you have any links to prove this? This could be one possibility but seems unlikely. If this were true, slightly longer legged ants would get an evolutionary advantage. Legs would slowly get lengthened until legs are no more an exclusive bottleneck in their speeds. The other bottlenecks could be :
1. Energy supply to legs. 2. Traffic: Ants move in neat lines and have to deal with both co-directional traffic and oncoming traffic. 3. Cognition: Smell/step-count might take some time to get processed in their brain. If they don't take any step without knowing for sure, their tiny brain could slow them down. 4. Pain later: If I walk too fast, I have pain in my legs later, at night. It could be a similar situation for them. Maybe they have learnt to not walk so fast as to cause pain later. This will also enable them to move much faster than regular when beset with a grave danger. 5. Etc.
Interesting. So bursting a balloon (also clicking a mouse) now constitutes an agreement. Let us follow the thought train for a while, please point out where I go wrong:
1. A non-lawyer user maybe unaware of this. 2. Being a civil matter, ignorance of the law should be considered a valid excuse for not following it. 3. Where do we stop? What if television advertisements start having a EULA displayed at the end: "by watching this advertisement, you agree to buy the product this week" ? Will you agree to it?
3a. If yes, wouldn't life become inconvenient? 3b. If not, what is the logical (not legal) excuse for not following in advertisement what must be followed in product usage?
So you bought the car, and it is delivered to your doorstep. As soon as you open its door, a large balloon pops up preventing your entry. The following message is written on the balloon: Only certified Ford tiers are allowed to be used on this car.
The balloon has 2 rectangles on it: one saying "I agree", the other saying "I disagree". Using your car key, if you burst the balloon at the "I agree" rectangle: you can continue to drive the car. But if you burst it at the "I disagree" rectangle, the car stops working.
Slashdot Mirror
What all can a movie show in 2 hours 30 minutes? It is already so long. Just to be unbiased it cannot bore its viewers with irrelevant details, can it?
BTW: your post is biased because it doesn't talk about global warming.
You are the only one that mentioned American Indians in this thread. So you are comparing apples with oranges.
Your comment is nonsense.
Force wins. Then it is transferred. Then the transferred force wins. So, force is still winning, isn't it? Only the person wielding it has changed. This is consistent with the idea that force wins. Not just in the short term, but always.
In the movie too, force won. The human army was routed by force. This may be unexpected, but that does not mean force does not win.
Dude, everything we have is from nature. Our food, our clothing, our oil, our raw materials, our bodies and minds are nature. "Nature" is us and we are it.
Only in the sense that we have the same atoms. Of course thinking in terms of atoms would mean you're essentially the same as adolf hitler, or horseshit, no ?
You seem to have a different definition of "nature". In fact a different definition of horseshit too, but I digress.
Define nature.
ok, but that doesn't mean you will falsely accuse plants of being dependent on animals for nitrogen.
From what part of my posts do you conclude that I "plan to feed humanity with the plants" ?
I just corrected the dependency direction in your post. Animals depend on plants, not the other way round.
The animals didn't fix any of that nitrogen. It has all come from nitrogen fixing bacteria -> plants -> animals. With artificial fertilizers, it is fertilizers -> plants -> animals.
So be mindful of the direction of dependency in your graph.
First the animals (including humans) eat the plants. This is itself nitrogen theft from plants. Then if they return the nitrogen by shitting on plants, you can't say "crop agriculture is largely dependent on animal agriculture". If they didn't, crop agriculture was doing fine on its own.Why did "animal agriculture" eat the "crop agriculture" in the first place? If they didn't, crop agriculture was doing fine on its own. Since plants are the only source of most nutrients (directly or indirectly) for most animals, why don't you say "animal agriculture" is dependent on "crop agriculture", instead of the other way round?
So on the one hand, animals cannot do without plants at all. On the other hand, animals after eating plants shit on plants giving a slightly more concentrated manure. And you say it is plants that are dependent on animals? Weird logic if ever there was one.
According to thermodynamics, a system can go from disorder to order if it makes sure to absorb some heat. For details and the equation, see my other comment in this article: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490090&cid=30582804/
For a guy in cold temperature, surviving nights is more difficult. If he can survive night, he can surely survive the day (at least as far as body heat retention goes).
At night, there is not much radiation to absorb and heat oneself. But body is at a non-zero kelvin temperature (quite a bit above it, in fact around 310 kelvin). So, like any object, it radiates its heat as electromagnetic radiation (proportional to sigma*(T**4)). White objects radiate less than black objects. So fair skinned people find it easier to maintain body heat during cold nights.
It makes no difference what energy is applied to a system, the end result is the same. order->disorder.
Thermodynamics 101:
For any activity to be possible thermodynamically, its delta(H)-T*delta(S) should be negative.
delta(H) is the energy absorbed by the activity.
T is the absolute temperature (kelvin)
delta(S) is the increase in entropy as a result of the activity.
For a closed system, delta(H) is zero. There, your assertion of order->disorder holds good.
But energy absorbing activities can be possible even though they decrease entropy. Now, major portion of energy for activities that we are discussing (i.e. life) is being supplied by the Sun. Let us include the Sun also in our "system". Let us assume that absolutely no other energy is being supplied to "life" other than Sun's radiation. Now, the system as a whole is no more energy absorbing. Sun releases energy, "life" absorbs the same energy. Hence, for "Sun+Earth", given our assumptions, entropy will always increase. I.e. order -> disorder. But not for "life" alone.
crop agriculture is largely dependent on animal agriculture for that single most limiting factor: nitrogen
What is that supposed to mean? Nitrogen is fixed by bacteria (bacteria are not animals, they even come under flora category). This fixed nitrogen is then used by plants. How is crop agriculture dependent on animal agriculture?
Animal faeces/dead bodies in soil can be used by plants as a source of fixed nitrogen. But nitrogen containing dead plants can also be similarly used by growing plants as nitrogen source. Even those animals came to contain nitrogen by eating fixed nitrogen containing plants.
What you just said is that even the poorest person in the US is richer than almost anyone else in the world
This conclusion cannot be drawn from GP's assertion. A guy with working stiff, back-office job in the US can be said to be quite a bit richer than the poorest person in the US; for the some valid definitions of "working stiff" and "back-office".
Your non-sense conclusion can be easily debunked with 10 seconds of rubbing together 2 neurons if you have got them.
Do you understand Jainism/Buddhism? Care to explain why would the world be a better place without these religions?
Other religions, while worshipping someone, are also fundamentally/fanatically against some other things. Not so Jainism/Buddhism.
You say, temperature of a specific area of earth's surface is too chaotic to predict. OK, agreed. But this temperature affects the whole earth's energy output in various chaotic ways. E.g. an area of earth's surface being covered by ice makes it reflect a lot more of Sun's radiation than if it were covered with rocks/sand/water/vegetation etc. It is a coincidence that ice reflects most radiation much better than most non-ice stuff on earth's surface.
Now, an area that is currently at 280 kelvin temperature, some more coldness due to the "chaotic and unpredictable" local climate can result in ice cover. But the same amount of coldness in an area that is currently at temperature 300 kelvin may not result in ice cover. So in spite of the same difference in total input/output of heat from earth, further input/output of heat from earth changes differently depending upon local chaotic and unpredictable climate.
If (too chaotic to predict) has an effect on (very simple to predict), then the (very simple to predict) cannot be said to be simple any more, can it?
Both are easy to verify by satellite imaging.
We are not talking about verifying energy input and output. We are talking about predicting it. Big difference. An 8 year old child can easily verify the temperature of my house, let alone an environment scientist. Verifiability was never in doubt, no idea why you chose to bring it into discussion. As I noted above, input/output of heat from earth as a whole depends upon input/output of heat from particular parts of earth's surface. So prediction of total input/output of heat from earth cannot be accurately done until prediction of input/output of heat from a particular part of earth's surface is done reliably.
One major thing, no snapshots in the player. Showstopper for me.
Define supernatural.
On the other hand, global temperature is simply a function of the amount of energy going in and energy going out.
Simply? Sure. Except that no-one knows how to calculate the amount of energy going in and energy going out, right?
Son: How to succeed in life, father?
Father: Simple. Do everything, and never fail.
Son: Wow! That sure sounds simple!
The temperature of the atmosphere surrounding 100 metres around my house is also simply a function of energy going in and energy going out, right? How come the environment scientists are unable to predict this simple thing more than 10 minutes in advance?
as we don't have any rockets that could reach it in time
Remember, the asteroid is approaching the earth. Rocket would be launched from the earth. Whatever technical limitations of the rocket might be, inability to reach the asteroid will surely not be one of them. If the rocket cannot reach the asteroid, the asteroid will reach the rocket! This is, of course, assuming that we have at least a few days from observation of the asteroid. If the asteroid hits us before we know it (or too less a time to prepare), still it is not the problem of the rocket being unable to reach the asteroid anyway.
the number of people who in the world who are actively searching for asteroids is fewer than the staff of a typical McDonalds
While this might look scandalous to an idiot, it is none of the sort. In a ship carrying a few thousand people, number of people actively watching for icebergs might fewer than the staff of the ship's liquor bar. But the few people, armed with technology, are more than enough to prevent more ship-sinks due to icebergs.
If something needs to be found, it will be searched for, most likely using google
Not always. Many people don't know that they need something. E.g. size does matter. No idea about whether products so advertized work or not, but this is not something a common person can imagine to be possible. So there is no way they will search for it.
Another example is adblocker itself. Most common people have no idea that obnoxious advertisements can be blocked. Even my somewhat technically inclined friends did not know about it till I told them about Adblock. Why & how will they search for something they don't/can't even imagine? And I knew about Adblock by browsing each and every add-on on mozilla.com.
In general, any new revolutionary product/service will not be known to people fast until advertisement. Now that LCD screens are common, if a new company comes up to make better LCD screens, they will be found by, as you rightly point out, by searching on Google. An unimaginable product/service cannot be found in a similar manner.
Longer legs => more distance per step. If step frequency is constant, this means power output is higher with longer legs. If energy supply to legs is the bottleneck for speed in ants, step frequency would automatically decrease. Whether the ants want it or are even aware of it. Ants having the understanding of elementary Neutonian dynamics doesn't even come into picture.
Look at the other possible bottlenecks for ant walking speeds I listed in my earlier post. Your hypothesis holds true only if leg-length is the biggest bottleneck. Which looks pretty unlikely, as I argued in my earlier post. Do you have arguments to prove:
1. Your hypothesis holds true even if leg-length is not the bottleneck
2. Leg-length as speed bottleneck is likely
?
ants take a fixed number of steps per minute, whether their legs have been lengthened, shortened or left alone
Do you have any links to prove this? This could be one possibility but seems unlikely. If this were true, slightly longer legged ants would get an evolutionary advantage. Legs would slowly get lengthened until legs are no more an exclusive bottleneck in their speeds. The other bottlenecks could be :
1. Energy supply to legs.
2. Traffic: Ants move in neat lines and have to deal with both co-directional traffic and oncoming traffic.
3. Cognition: Smell/step-count might take some time to get processed in their brain. If they don't take any step without knowing for sure, their tiny brain could slow them down.
4. Pain later: If I walk too fast, I have pain in my legs later, at night. It could be a similar situation for them. Maybe they have learnt to not walk so fast as to cause pain later. This will also enable them to move much faster than regular when beset with a grave danger.
5. Etc.
Interesting. So bursting a balloon (also clicking a mouse) now constitutes an agreement. Let us follow the thought train for a while, please point out where I go wrong:
1. A non-lawyer user maybe unaware of this.
2. Being a civil matter, ignorance of the law should be considered a valid excuse for not following it.
3. Where do we stop? What if television advertisements start having a EULA displayed at the end: "by watching this advertisement, you agree to buy the product this week" ? Will you agree to it?
3a. If yes, wouldn't life become inconvenient?
3b. If not, what is the logical (not legal) excuse for not following in advertisement what must be followed in product usage?
So you bought the car, and it is delivered to your doorstep. As soon as you open its door, a large balloon pops up preventing your entry. The following message is written on the balloon:
Only certified Ford tiers are allowed to be used on this car.
The balloon has 2 rectangles on it: one saying "I agree", the other saying "I disagree". Using your car key, if you burst the balloon at the "I agree" rectangle: you can continue to drive the car. But if you burst it at the "I disagree" rectangle, the car stops working.
What would you do?
This is how EULA works.
But the point was: "let's see how long you do in the market".
It does not stand. You changed the point to "how long it takes to get a call from a lawyer". Memory distortion problems?