This is very true. Also, what about people who simply wear thick leather jackets? If the scanner doesn't penetrate skin, presumably it doesn't penetrate cowhide. What about a thin layer of alfoil? (Yeah I know LOL TINFOIL HAT IRL but it should work.)
One guy with a plate in his shoulder showed up as a huge yellow dot and got felt up a bunch. Another guy had some pins in his ankle, just showed the guy his scars.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if I were going to kill myself and everyone around me anyway, I wouldn't have too much problem with having a bomb implanted somewhere. I remember some talk a while ago about a plot where women were having 'breast enhancements' made out of plastic explosives...
I don't mind the more invasive pat-down because when it's done professionally, it's really not uncomfortable.
The real problem is that the time to get a pat-down will about an order of magnitude longer than the time walking through the machine.
Not if there's a line a million miles long for the machine, and no line for the rub-and-tug.
In a sense, yes. There may not be a single gene that makes you good at rocket surgery (or any other thing), and I'm not denying that environment also has a strong influence, but there's certainly a significant genetic component in aptitude. To perform any task exceptionally, and to perform some tasks at all, you must have both in some degree. Read up on twin studies if you're interested in learning more.
How about some bitter substance that you can carry in a vial, and breathe in if you ever lack oxygen? For instance, if you're wearing a tight corset, you might feel faint due to your compressed lungs, and use this to help recover.
Not if they don't have the innate capacity to be a rocket surgeon. And even if they could be a competent rocket surgeon, they'd never be a great rocket surgeon. It's like saying "take a guy who's absolutely hopeless at driving, and train him for his entire life to be a racing driver." He might eventually have some measure of success but he'll never be a Schumacher or a Loeb.
I really hope people actually read your post instead of simply responding superficially to your slightly superior tone.
- signed, the guy who didn't understand why the other kids in primary school DIDN'T get 100%
Our society has near-universal reading and writing skills, true. For anything more advanced, though, I think we're starting to see the limits of 'the average' human's capability. Consider that despite decades of widespread attempts to teach scientific method and basic mathematics in schools, we still have almost universal scientific and mathematical illiteracy.
Thoughts:
1. I think you mean straw man. I presume a sand man argument is one that puts your opponents to sleep?;)
2. While education certainly plays a part, and learning to think is a part of that education, I can't see how you can support the statement "all working non defective brains start off equal".
3. I'm curious as to your definition of 'defective'. You seem to think that there's some factory spec. for brains, and that most of them conform to this spec whereas some don't properly implement it.
4. While not 'definitive research', consider that there's often less intellectual variation between siblings (who generally share both upbringings and genetic makeup) compared with friends of similar socioeconomic status (who share similar upbringing but are genetically unrelated).
5. If 4. didn't convince you, try this paper and its references for information establishing "a significant and substantial genetic influence on cognition."
Let me try that again: Some people don't really give a shit about how much money, power, knowledge or fame they get. If someone finds physics interesting, that doesn't mean they're going to become a rocket scientist, or have any desire to do so.
The GGP was stating that there are distinct physiological differences between people, which result in profound differences in ability. You seem to be supporting the GP's assertion that a person's intellectual ability is purely a product of their environment, and also claiming that people who don't achieve much fail to do so because of lack of motivation, not because of lack of intelligence.
If you've ever tried to teach a complex skill (programming, mathematics, music) to a group of people, you'll know that intrinsic human aptitude for a given task varies dramatically from person to person. Some people understand intricate systems effortlessly, while others will never 'get' systems above a certain level of complexity. All of us hit the wall somewhere, but that 'somewhere' ranges from 'ability to understand why maxing out your credit card is bad' to 'some of the finer points of quantum physics'.
Not a troll, IMO. I presume Rival is reading the story with an interest in understanding the fundamental functioning of the brain, and if so, the visible, physical features of the brain only tell a quarter or less of the full story, which is a complex interplay of electrical and chemical signals.
Then again, physical features are still important for gross scale understanding of the brain's structures, especially when cross-referenced among thousands of samples. If you want to know how Alzheimers, or Parkinsons, or whatever other disease work, you could at the very least find common features between afflicted brains to suggest a direction for further research.
Okay, so I've driven a bunch of cars and trucks, diesel and gas. And what I have observed is that it most certainly does matter. See, a given diesel engine doesn't necessarily have more torque than a given gasser. What it necessarily has more of is compression, which means that it can make more torque at low RPMs. This makes a dramatic difference in driving...
Believe it or not, what you're saying doesn't contradict what I'm saying. I'm saying "torque at the engine is irrelevant because you have a gearbox, but torque curve affects ease of driving". You're saying "an engine with higher torque lower in the RPM range provides more accessible power". I don't disagree.
While you can convert HP to Torque and vice versa pretty readily, in practice it leads to a lot of shifting and an unacceptable top speed.
As long as the power band is wide enough, the torque is irrelevant. Of course, most engines (especially lower tech ones) come with wide (albeit not overly high) power band, so you can get near-best-case performance from them without much work. If you're comparing good engines with well matched gearboxes, the driving experience is very similar. For every V8 or diesel that can pull easily from 1500rpm "to redline" (at 5000rpm) there's a smaller, free breathing, rev-happy engine that hits its straps at 3000rpm and even at 7000rpm just wants to keep revving higher and higher.
18 wheelers don't (most often) have diesels because they put out more horsepower, because they don't. They have diesels because diesels have more torque, and that's what you need to pull stuff.
Actually this is a different issue. 18 wheelers have diesels because they have better part-load efficiency, and because diesel costs 10-20% more than petrol but has 30% more stored energy. If you could go more kilometers per dollar on petrol then big rigs would run petrol.
At some point you run out of gears. Try dropping two gears from second sometime... that's why we still have diesels. Being more efficient in all conditions doesn't hurt either.
If you need to drop two gears from second then your gearbox is wrong. And diesel isn't more efficient "in all conditions" - but as I said its part-load efficiency is better than petrol so for vehicles that spend a lot of time cruising (such as trucks) it's a superior choice, plus the energy per dollar is better.
I've always said that if you want best fuel economy, forget getting a non-plug-in hybrid, just get a *good* diesel hatch.
With respect to first base it makes no sense to run anything other than in a straight line to first base as any other distance would be longer and hence for a runner's greatest speed would be slower increasing the probability he would be called out as it gives fielders more time to throw the ball to the first baseman tor the force out.
1) Have a comma or four, old chap: ",,,,"
2) If you know you're not stopping at first (which I believe is the assumption here), then it seems it's quicker to swing wide early so you can round off the corner and get to 2nd and beyond quicker.
With the advantage of having no ignition system to go wrong and lots of torque, horse power is a misleading gauge of power, torque is what turns the wheels.
People say this so often, which is really annoying because it's flat-out wrong. Torque at the wheels is what turns the wheels. Torque at the crankshaft is what a diesel engine has more of than a petrol engine. Between the two is a gearbox that makes your argument invalid. At any given speed, it is the power that the engine is producing that determines the torque at the wheels.
What you really mean when you say "torque is what turns wheels" is just that an engine with a torque band centered around cruising RPMs (as diesel engines tend to do) feels good and responsive when you're cruising along and you boot the accelerator. An engine with peak torque at much higher than typical cruising RPMs may potentially have much higher performance but it will still feel sluggish if you refuse to drop a gear or two to reach the power band.
Slashdot Mirror
This is very true. Also, what about people who simply wear thick leather jackets? If the scanner doesn't penetrate skin, presumably it doesn't penetrate cowhide. What about a thin layer of alfoil? (Yeah I know LOL TINFOIL HAT IRL but it should work.)
One guy with a plate in his shoulder showed up as a huge yellow dot and got felt up a bunch. Another guy had some pins in his ankle, just showed the guy his scars.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if I were going to kill myself and everyone around me anyway, I wouldn't have too much problem with having a bomb implanted somewhere. I remember some talk a while ago about a plot where women were having 'breast enhancements' made out of plastic explosives...
Beautifully said, esteemed brother!
I don't mind the more invasive pat-down because when it's done professionally, it's really not uncomfortable. The real problem is that the time to get a pat-down will about an order of magnitude longer than the time walking through the machine.
Not if there's a line a million miles long for the machine, and no line for the rub-and-tug.
It's wonderful to see these new claimed technologies, I just wish they'd actually make some of them available to the public sometimes.
In a sense, yes. There may not be a single gene that makes you good at rocket surgery (or any other thing), and I'm not denying that environment also has a strong influence, but there's certainly a significant genetic component in aptitude. To perform any task exceptionally, and to perform some tasks at all, you must have both in some degree. Read up on twin studies if you're interested in learning more.
Let's see what they come up with from this.
How about some bitter substance that you can carry in a vial, and breathe in if you ever lack oxygen? For instance, if you're wearing a tight corset, you might feel faint due to your compressed lungs, and use this to help recover.
I'm gonna call it "Smelling Salts".
effect v. To make or bring about; to implement.
Not if they don't have the innate capacity to be a rocket surgeon. And even if they could be a competent rocket surgeon, they'd never be a great rocket surgeon. It's like saying "take a guy who's absolutely hopeless at driving, and train him for his entire life to be a racing driver." He might eventually have some measure of success but he'll never be a Schumacher or a Loeb.
I really hope people actually read your post instead of simply responding superficially to your slightly superior tone.
- signed, the guy who didn't understand why the other kids in primary school DIDN'T get 100%
Our society has near-universal reading and writing skills, true. For anything more advanced, though, I think we're starting to see the limits of 'the average' human's capability. Consider that despite decades of widespread attempts to teach scientific method and basic mathematics in schools, we still have almost universal scientific and mathematical illiteracy.
Thoughts: ;)
1. I think you mean straw man. I presume a sand man argument is one that puts your opponents to sleep?
2. While education certainly plays a part, and learning to think is a part of that education, I can't see how you can support the statement "all working non defective brains start off equal".
3. I'm curious as to your definition of 'defective'. You seem to think that there's some factory spec. for brains, and that most of them conform to this spec whereas some don't properly implement it.
4. While not 'definitive research', consider that there's often less intellectual variation between siblings (who generally share both upbringings and genetic makeup) compared with friends of similar socioeconomic status (who share similar upbringing but are genetically unrelated).
5. If 4. didn't convince you, try this paper and its references for information establishing "a significant and substantial genetic influence on cognition."
Let me try that again: Some people don't really give a shit about how much money, power, knowledge or fame they get. If someone finds physics interesting, that doesn't mean they're going to become a rocket scientist, or have any desire to do so.
The GGP was stating that there are distinct physiological differences between people, which result in profound differences in ability. You seem to be supporting the GP's assertion that a person's intellectual ability is purely a product of their environment, and also claiming that people who don't achieve much fail to do so because of lack of motivation, not because of lack of intelligence.
If you've ever tried to teach a complex skill (programming, mathematics, music) to a group of people, you'll know that intrinsic human aptitude for a given task varies dramatically from person to person. Some people understand intricate systems effortlessly, while others will never 'get' systems above a certain level of complexity. All of us hit the wall somewhere, but that 'somewhere' ranges from 'ability to understand why maxing out your credit card is bad' to 'some of the finer points of quantum physics'.
Not a troll, IMO. I presume Rival is reading the story with an interest in understanding the fundamental functioning of the brain, and if so, the visible, physical features of the brain only tell a quarter or less of the full story, which is a complex interplay of electrical and chemical signals.
Then again, physical features are still important for gross scale understanding of the brain's structures, especially when cross-referenced among thousands of samples. If you want to know how Alzheimers, or Parkinsons, or whatever other disease work, you could at the very least find common features between afflicted brains to suggest a direction for further research.
No, that'd be Hive. ;)
Oh, beehave.
Wow, thanks for the informative post!
Okay, so I've driven a bunch of cars and trucks, diesel and gas. And what I have observed is that it most certainly does matter. See, a given diesel engine doesn't necessarily have more torque than a given gasser. What it necessarily has more of is compression, which means that it can make more torque at low RPMs. This makes a dramatic difference in driving...
Believe it or not, what you're saying doesn't contradict what I'm saying. I'm saying "torque at the engine is irrelevant because you have a gearbox, but torque curve affects ease of driving". You're saying "an engine with higher torque lower in the RPM range provides more accessible power". I don't disagree.
While you can convert HP to Torque and vice versa pretty readily, in practice it leads to a lot of shifting and an unacceptable top speed.
As long as the power band is wide enough, the torque is irrelevant. Of course, most engines (especially lower tech ones) come with wide (albeit not overly high) power band, so you can get near-best-case performance from them without much work. If you're comparing good engines with well matched gearboxes, the driving experience is very similar. For every V8 or diesel that can pull easily from 1500rpm "to redline" (at 5000rpm) there's a smaller, free breathing, rev-happy engine that hits its straps at 3000rpm and even at 7000rpm just wants to keep revving higher and higher.
18 wheelers don't (most often) have diesels because they put out more horsepower, because they don't. They have diesels because diesels have more torque, and that's what you need to pull stuff.
Actually this is a different issue. 18 wheelers have diesels because they have better part-load efficiency, and because diesel costs 10-20% more than petrol but has 30% more stored energy. If you could go more kilometers per dollar on petrol then big rigs would run petrol.
At some point you run out of gears. Try dropping two gears from second sometime... that's why we still have diesels. Being more efficient in all conditions doesn't hurt either.
If you need to drop two gears from second then your gearbox is wrong. And diesel isn't more efficient "in all conditions" - but as I said its part-load efficiency is better than petrol so for vehicles that spend a lot of time cruising (such as trucks) it's a superior choice, plus the energy per dollar is better.
I've always said that if you want best fuel economy, forget getting a non-plug-in hybrid, just get a *good* diesel hatch.
With respect to first base it makes no sense to run anything other than in a straight line to first base as any other distance would be longer and hence for a runner's greatest speed would be slower increasing the probability he would be called out as it gives fielders more time to throw the ball to the first baseman tor the force out.
1) Have a comma or four, old chap: ",,,,"
2) If you know you're not stopping at first (which I believe is the assumption here), then it seems it's quicker to swing wide early so you can round off the corner and get to 2nd and beyond quicker.
Wankel just sort of slipped quietly away in the night. Nobody knew how to fix them, and they always needed fixing.
Oh, Wankel engines are alive and well. These days they seem to have most of the early problems sorted.
With the advantage of having no ignition system to go wrong and lots of torque, horse power is a misleading gauge of power, torque is what turns the wheels.
People say this so often, which is really annoying because it's flat-out wrong. Torque at the wheels is what turns the wheels. Torque at the crankshaft is what a diesel engine has more of than a petrol engine. Between the two is a gearbox that makes your argument invalid. At any given speed, it is the power that the engine is producing that determines the torque at the wheels.
What you really mean when you say "torque is what turns wheels" is just that an engine with a torque band centered around cruising RPMs (as diesel engines tend to do) feels good and responsive when you're cruising along and you boot the accelerator. An engine with peak torque at much higher than typical cruising RPMs may potentially have much higher performance but it will still feel sluggish if you refuse to drop a gear or two to reach the power band.
Rule number 2: Clicking an ad sends information you didn't know was on your facebook to your parents and your boss.
Rule number 3: Your parents and your boss are advertising for gay nurses?
We should come to some arrangement whereby I tell him to keep off my lawn while you tell me to keep off your lawn.
That's the Big Bang Burger Bar to you.
The discipline that applies into everything, but in itself is about nothing (real).
It's kind of like C++ in that regard. It can do anything, but without the appropriate libraries (application knowledge) it can do nothing.
No that's not what he was trying to say. He was trying to say, my shit is better than yours.
Wait, so Steve Jobs knows the quality of your shit?
...WAIT, he knows the quality of MY shit too? Goddamn macbook is spying on me...