The explanation was extremely poor. Hopefully this is less poor.
Start with this factor: eggs have to be small. If they are too large, the short of it is, the oxygen/volume ratio in the egg will get too low. Now, consider that all of the large species started as eggs. Therefore their young start small.
Now, they have to compete with the smaller and medium sized creatures to become large. To reduce the time-frame of this competition, they have to grow fast, to grow fast they have to use a lot of resources. Result - a brief period of extreme competition instead of a longer period of light competition.
This could also increase the final adult size if growth 'ramps down' rather than just 'shuts off'.
Honestly, such a tax is retarded, especially with the way storage increases (~1000x every 10-12 years?), you'd have to readjust the rates almost yearly. Anyway, you typically tax based on the prices of what is charged for purchasing/selling something - so, why not just put a % tax on storage devices, rather than a tax on the absolute amount of space.
There's no proof that there is anything out there, but there's no proof their isn't either, and there's a lot of space for something else to develop. The idea that sentient life only developed on Earth in such a large universe requires belief in a spectacularly low-power god, IMO.
Of course, we'd have to transfer entangled nodes to these other civilizations, or have them transferred to us, which may not be feasible, ever, especially if sentience happens once or twice (or less) per galaxy.
However, if we manage, even by slowships, to colonize other star systems (not solar systems, there's only one solar system), then we'll be out there to communicate with.
My boycott started when I had a notebook from them with a finicky touch pad and a power button that slid under the case occasionally, causing it to power cycle until you unwedged it.
I sent it in, they told me it was water damage on the motherboard, and it would cost $1350 to replace it (it was a $1200 notebook). I was very careful to avoid water on that thing.
I said no, they sent it back, and it wouldn't even power on, and the indicator lights didn't light up when I plugged it in. I'm guessing they just didn't bother reconnecting anything after disassembly, but the way the case was set up, even after unscrewing it, you still needed some special tool to open it up, which I couldn't find.
Turns out I wasn't the only one I knew with a similar story... I too look forward to their demise from the world of electronics, and their war on the people who pay them money for their goods and supposedly "services" but in practice "disservices".
"Familiar Unix-based Kernel with guaranteed fewer security measures than Windows or many Linux distros"
Uhhhh. what? Fewer than Windows?
Don't get me wrong, I use Windows a lot, and almost never use MacOS... but I'm not sure that is accurate (Mac having fewer security measures in the kernel than Windows.) Mind you, the most important security measure are done via the gray matter between your ears in how you set up and use your environment, but I don't think that necessarily affects either platform particularly. Both have a shitload of lemming users who just expect things to work, and assume that some technical panacea (firewall/router, AV program, chosen OS/browser, etc.) will keep them safe.
Republicans distrust any science that disagrees with what they believe, and then call it politicized. Democrats do the same damn thing.
That being said, it seems a lot more disagrees with the republicans than democrats, and the republicans do seem to extrapolate to a lot of 'neutral' science in their mistrust.
And neither side is against big government. Disagreement only seems to be as to which part of the government should be bigger.
Regardless, having WP7 - it does feel more secure, mostly because looking at the developer stuff for it makes you realize there is a lot that is just plain prohibited...
Depends on your frame of reference. Something that happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away may not have happened here yet. If it happened 5m years ago (their time) in a galaxy 5.1m lightyears away then it's still 100,000 years in our future.
The first (bold) part indicates that the individual is trying to talk about relativity (not necessarily, but in the context of the entire post, it is strongly indicated, and it is a common misconception that is being presented). The second part reads like the individual is trying to state the the distance and time of observation determine when something has happened, which is incorrect.
And this scares other companies, because they'll have to do the same to remain competitive, but they don't want to, because it interrupts the status quo, and their ability to put decent chunks of that money spent on "wasted R&D" into their pockets.
Googles MO it a risk, but, I suspect so long as too many others aren't taking the same risk, it's pretty likely to pay off well.
I think it may be more of a case of: "These people are doing something new, and it scares us, with our conservative, slow progress, get money now priorities!"
The post I was trying to make was incorrect in it's statement and lacked the information to make the proper statement.
My post ignored away certain things, but left the salient features of the problem at hand. This is the way a lot of physics problems are set up to educate people.
or... Both posts were about relativity...... S/he was stating that it hasn't happened if it hasn't been observed. This is false.... I ignored atmospheric effects, gravitational effects, material physics, etc. as they are not useful for the purpose of describing relativity in a convenient/simple problem that is easy to understand by someone with minimal knowledge in physics. In fact, these details would be counterproductive. I could have made the problem take place at two arbitrary locations in space, but then the level of abstraction would have lost interest in the reader. Using the Earth and moon puts something concrete in there to hold focus. Yes, I made a big goof (which unfortunately canceled itself out, so I didn't notice it), but you didn't even comment on that.
1) I was talking about the observer from the moon, the observation of the person travelling at 0.9c is irrelevant. Anyway, in no perspective will he (or the earth, or the moon) be moving at faster than the speed of light. It's also not terribly relevant to the thread of discussion leading up to this point.
2) The 0.01 seconds is irrelevant, it's the mass of the object that is important. Anyway, it's a physics problem, physicists like dealing with frictionless, massless, spherical things that are completely elastic (like cows!)... You abstract the problem to make it simple and make the point, it doesn't have to be feasible, just poss8ble. A better argument would be what someone already said - namely my screwup on the time it would take light to travel from here to the moon - and even then it would have only changed the times by reducing all of them to 1/10th their values.
gravity is roughly 9.8m / s^2..9c = 270 m m/s That's around 2.75 b times earth's gravity.
That's high enough the molecules in your body would engage in atomic fusion, the whole ship you included would turn into a giant clump of superheated iron.
Where to start here? Are you a troll, or just retarded? (1) you compared an acceleration to a velocity without a correlating factor - that's not valid. (2) you compared acceleration to energy, that's even worse. (3) 2.70 * 10^8 / 9.8 = 2.75 * 10^9? Horrible math. (3) The fusion comment is batshit senseless. If the object is accelerated uniformly, fusion will not be induced (except, possibly with the atmosphere).
Have you ever done a kinematic problem in your life?
The energy required is [mass * (270m/s)^2]/2, where mass is the mass of the object. For a 100kg person, that's 2.7 * 10^10 joules. This is enough to move 6.4 * 10^6 liters of water from just on the liquid side of solid/liquid coexistence to just on the liquid side of liquid/vapor coexistence. For a proton that's 1.6 * 10^-17 joules - that's not enough to appreciably warm a teaspoon.
Slashdot Mirror
The explanation was extremely poor. Hopefully this is less poor.
Start with this factor: eggs have to be small. If they are too large, the short of it is, the oxygen/volume ratio in the egg will get too low.
Now, consider that all of the large species started as eggs. Therefore their young start small.
Now, they have to compete with the smaller and medium sized creatures to become large. To reduce the time-frame of this competition, they have to grow fast, to grow fast they have to use a lot of resources. Result - a brief period of extreme competition instead of a longer period of light competition.
This could also increase the final adult size if growth 'ramps down' rather than just 'shuts off'.
Sadly, it's more like they would switch your TV to a cycle of shock images such as goatse, tubgirl and lemonparty.
I'd care. Huge improvement. Have you seen the shit they throw out on Disney? You can at least expect a tolerable plot from Playboy.
Heh, the predictability of this is why I've avoided them.
The US doesn't have a storage quantity tax.
Honestly, such a tax is retarded, especially with the way storage increases (~1000x every 10-12 years?), you'd have to readjust the rates almost yearly. Anyway, you typically tax based on the prices of what is charged for purchasing/selling something - so, why not just put a % tax on storage devices, rather than a tax on the absolute amount of space.
There's no proof that there is anything out there, but there's no proof their isn't either, and there's a lot of space for something else to develop. The idea that sentient life only developed on Earth in such a large universe requires belief in a spectacularly low-power god, IMO.
Of course, we'd have to transfer entangled nodes to these other civilizations, or have them transferred to us, which may not be feasible, ever, especially if sentience happens once or twice (or less) per galaxy.
However, if we manage, even by slowships, to colonize other star systems (not solar systems, there's only one solar system), then we'll be out there to communicate with.
So...
Even faster troll first pots?
Nuts to that!
My boycott started when I had a notebook from them with a finicky touch pad and a power button that slid under the case occasionally, causing it to power cycle until you unwedged it.
I sent it in, they told me it was water damage on the motherboard, and it would cost $1350 to replace it (it was a $1200 notebook). I was very careful to avoid water on that thing.
I said no, they sent it back, and it wouldn't even power on, and the indicator lights didn't light up when I plugged it in. I'm guessing they just didn't bother reconnecting anything after disassembly, but the way the case was set up, even after unscrewing it, you still needed some special tool to open it up, which I couldn't find.
Turns out I wasn't the only one I knew with a similar story... I too look forward to their demise from the world of electronics, and their war on the people who pay them money for their goods and supposedly "services" but in practice "disservices".
You installed your games wrong, there's a directory under users that you can install them to, to prevent this.
Didn't know that. I think I'll have to look up how to get it to ask for a password. That makes me a bit happier.
Apple has something similar, except it requires a password (a bit more secure than UAC then), but like UAC, it can be turned off...
I got one of those iBrators, but my Mac is still sad. My GF however, seems to have cheered up a bit... I wonder why?
"Familiar Unix-based Kernel with guaranteed fewer security measures than Windows or many Linux distros"
Uhhhh. what? Fewer than Windows?
Don't get me wrong, I use Windows a lot, and almost never use MacOS... but I'm not sure that is accurate (Mac having fewer security measures in the kernel than Windows.) Mind you, the most important security measure are done via the gray matter between your ears in how you set up and use your environment, but I don't think that necessarily affects either platform particularly. Both have a shitload of lemming users who just expect things to work, and assume that some technical panacea (firewall/router, AV program, chosen OS/browser, etc.) will keep them safe.
... I tried to find where I should insert the Prozac. I tried the optical disc tray, but that didn't fix it. How do I unsad my Mac?
Which is why your economy is in the shitter and ours...
Oh, wait so is ours. There goes that line of conservative "logic".
Republicans distrust any science that disagrees with what they believe, and then call it politicized. Democrats do the same damn thing.
That being said, it seems a lot more disagrees with the republicans than democrats, and the republicans do seem to extrapolate to a lot of 'neutral' science in their mistrust.
And neither side is against big government. Disagreement only seems to be as to which part of the government should be bigger.
I think both are important.
If you have the time to test now, it will save you the hassle of swapping it out later.
The facebook app on Android is awful too...
Regardless, having WP7 - it does feel more secure, mostly because looking at the developer stuff for it makes you realize there is a lot that is just plain prohibited...
The problem with the generalization game is like the problem with chemical/nuclear warfare - you hit a lot more than your designated targets.
The first (bold) part indicates that the individual is trying to talk about relativity (not necessarily, but in the context of the entire post, it is strongly indicated, and it is a common misconception that is being presented). The second part reads like the individual is trying to state the the distance and time of observation determine when something has happened, which is incorrect.
And this scares other companies, because they'll have to do the same to remain competitive, but they don't want to, because it interrupts the status quo, and their ability to put decent chunks of that money spent on "wasted R&D" into their pockets.
Googles MO it a risk, but, I suspect so long as too many others aren't taking the same risk, it's pretty likely to pay off well.
I think it may be more of a case of:
"These people are doing something new, and it scares us, with our conservative, slow progress, get money now priorities!"
The post I was trying to make was incorrect in it's statement and lacked the information to make the proper statement.
My post ignored away certain things, but left the salient features of the problem at hand. This is the way a lot of physics problems are set up to educate people.
or... ... S/he was stating that it hasn't happened if it hasn't been observed. This is false. ... I ignored atmospheric effects, gravitational effects, material physics, etc. as they are not useful for the purpose of describing relativity in a convenient/simple problem that is easy to understand by someone with minimal knowledge in physics. In fact, these details would be counterproductive. I could have made the problem take place at two arbitrary locations in space, but then the level of abstraction would have lost interest in the reader. Using the Earth and moon puts something concrete in there to hold focus. Yes, I made a big goof (which unfortunately canceled itself out, so I didn't notice it), but you didn't even comment on that.
Both posts were about relativity...
You are right. Most of my stuff would still be correct, just multiply all the times by 10^-1...
1) I was talking about the observer from the moon, the observation of the person travelling at 0.9c is irrelevant. Anyway, in no perspective will he (or the earth, or the moon) be moving at faster than the speed of light. It's also not terribly relevant to the thread of discussion leading up to this point.
2) The 0.01 seconds is irrelevant, it's the mass of the object that is important. Anyway, it's a physics problem, physicists like dealing with frictionless, massless, spherical things that are completely elastic (like cows!)... You abstract the problem to make it simple and make the point, it doesn't have to be feasible, just poss8ble. A better argument would be what someone already said - namely my screwup on the time it would take light to travel from here to the moon - and even then it would have only changed the times by reducing all of them to 1/10th their values.
Where to start here? Are you a troll, or just retarded?
(1) you compared an acceleration to a velocity without a correlating factor - that's not valid.
(2) you compared acceleration to energy, that's even worse.
(3) 2.70 * 10^8 / 9.8 = 2.75 * 10^9? Horrible math.
(3) The fusion comment is batshit senseless. If the object is accelerated uniformly, fusion will not be induced (except, possibly with the atmosphere).
Have you ever done a kinematic problem in your life?
The energy required is [mass * (270m/s)^2]/2, where mass is the mass of the object.
For a 100kg person, that's 2.7 * 10^10 joules. This is enough to move 6.4 * 10^6 liters of water from just on the liquid side of solid/liquid coexistence to just on the liquid side of liquid/vapor coexistence.
For a proton that's 1.6 * 10^-17 joules - that's not enough to appreciably warm a teaspoon.