Yes, but the GGP had it in reverse. There are not many places in the world, where the males outnumber the females 50:1, and your hint to Africa would mean the reverse, females outnumber the males.
Yes. But for some reason, there are not 50 men per woman in the world, the actual ratio is quite close to 1:1. So why do you ignore the 49 other women? Do you have an axe to grind with that one?
It's a mathematical necessity. Thus cultural influences don't affect the averages.
What can happen is that the balance between males and females itself is disturbed, for instance because of a war, where many males fighting as soldiers or warriors died, or because of a famines which seem to affect male children more than female children, or because you have a very troubled neighborhood with many males being prisoners and thus without any contact to women. And it can happen that there are a few entitled alpha males (lets call them aristocracy) who have numerous sexual contacts with many women, while there is also a large group of males without any sexual contacts to women, or with contacts to only one or two of them. But in general, every man who has a sexual contact to a new woman means that at the same time there is a woman which at the moment has her first sexual contact to this man.
And the general rule remains the same: In any group of people with about the same amount of sexually active males and females, the average number of heterosexual partners has to be the same for males and females. There is simply no point to play the blame game here.
Actually, it's about 111 km or 60 nautic miles between two degrees. The meter originally was defined to be the 10 millionth of the distance between north pole and equator. Later it proved to be about 2 mm short, but still, the length of the nautic mile is defined to be 01' (1/60 degree) of latitude.
You could imagine a coupled-cylinder version of the Newcomen engine. Wait until the first cylinder boils and lifts the piston, use the additional pressure coming from the cylinder after the piston reaches its upper dead center to lift a second cylinder, and if necessary, a third one. Start cooling the first, the second and third cylinder to complete the cycle. And now we have a coupled cylinder Newcomen engine.
So the coupled cylinder idea is independent of James Watt's type of a steam engine, as the principle would also work with Thomas Newcomen's invention.
It appears often so in retrospective, because all the other inventions of the same tend to be less well documented. In reality, it's much more complicated. To build a cell phone today, you have to license about 12,000 patents (or use third party parts from people who have them licensed). If you ask who invented the cell phone as we know it today, you would have to list 12,000 inventors (ok, that's a simplification, as a single inventor can have several patents to his name, and patents can have several inventors listed together). Who of them actually invented the cell phone? In a certain way, you have to say: The cell phone has 12,000 inventors.
Even if we go back to the age of the steam engine. Who invented it? The first known patent of something we would today call a steam engine was Thomas Savery. That was at the end of the 17th. century. But Thomas Savery's invention was a special typ of water pump, not just an engine. The first one who actually build an universal steam engine was Thomas Newcomen around 1710. His machine could be connected to many different types of consumer load. James Watt is said to have grown up with a Newcomen engine in the neighborhood, which he was watching for hours as a child. So what did James Watt actually invent? Differently than Thomas Newcomen's machine, his machine relied solely of the pressure of the steam boiler, while the Newcomen machine also needed the atmospheric pressure to work. James Watt's engines were faster running, could be built smaller and took less fuel than the engines before. Newcomen's machines were still running, his first one even survived James Watt, before it was decommissioned in the 1830ies. The company Boulton&Watt, which sold James Watt's machines, achieved 80% market share, so most steam engines sold for the next time were actually Watt's steam engines. But James Watt didn't invent the steam engine. He invented one type of steam engines. A pretty good and successful one. At the same time. James Watt's patents hindered any real progress, because engines with several coupled cylinders to make better usage of the boiler pressure could not be built as they all were found to be in violation. And James Watt fiercely fought anyone trying to improve the steam engine.
I think, the sole inventor who disrupts how the world does things is more of a romantic story then a real thing. Sometimes, a single inventor invents exactly that item at the tipping point which turns lots of loosely connected ideas how to do things into a workable and reliable product. But the product consists of so much more than that single item. And maybe it's another iteration of inventions, which renders the original invention of that crucial item obsolete, but the inventor of the item still gets remembered as the inventor, because he got some publicity for successfully selling the product, before better versions ate into his market share. Or he was late to the party, but because his version had some real advantage, he gets hailed for inventing the whole thing while all he did was some improvement.
Out of curiosity, once I tried to find out who actually invented the mixing valve. After digging up more than 2500 patents dating back to the 1920ies, I gave up. I couldn't even be sure what the first mixing valve was actually called. Probably not "mixing valve". But we have at least 2500 inventions which improved upon the mixing valve, so today, we just pull that single lever at the faucet not even thinking about how many people were involved in actually figuring out how to built it.
Apparently, the American public can't handle the truth, that we had no extraterrestrial visitors up to now. So they always cook up some new story how we were visited, and whenever there is a real or perceived dark corner in the sequence of news reporting and press releases, a large part of the American public tries to squeeze some "E.T. is among us" in between.
And as a cover up story for any aircraft and rocket experiments that happened at Area 51 and wherever else, it worked fine. If I as an official who was tasked with finding something that keeps the eyes off the real thing, I would have been amazed how well the most outlandish, actually most extraterrestrial story has worked.
Yes, gas cars will be sold. But only in homeopathic doses. Introducing electric cars comes partly in parallel with some other introductions, like self driving cars. Self driving cars make it less economic to own a car yourself, as 95% of the time, any private car sits idling in some garage or parking lot. So in general it makes no sense to own a car, if there was a way to reuse a car simply and without to many waiting and transferring times. With self driving cars, this will be easy. Whenever you need one, you phone/text/web-order your car provider, and it comes to you like a cab, but without any driver. And whenever you don't need it anymore, you just leave it, and it will drive automaticly to the next parking lot or the next customer. And those ad hoc rental cars will be mostly electric, because electric cars require much less maintenance due to less mechanics (no gear boxes, no cludges...), and automatic charging is easier than automatic fuelling. And charging can be done whenever the electric power is cheap, because the windmills are running, the solar panels are shined on or whatever power source is currently working.
Why it should? We are talking about stable orbits of celestial bodies around a gravitational center. Slingshoting a spacecraft definitely does not fall into the "stable orbit" category.
You don't need to simulate all bodies in a galaxy to determine an orbit close enough to see some aberrations. For simple calculations, you could just imagine all mass within an orbit to be concentrated in the central point of that orbit, the gravitational center. Isaac Newton already proved that every homogenous hollow sphere has the same gravitational properties to a body outside the sphere as if all mass of that hollow sphere was concentrated in the gravitational center. The gravitational effect of a homogenous hollow sphere to a body inside of it on the other hand is zero.
To calculate the time a celestial body needs to orbit a galaxy, you thus calculate it as if the whole mass inside the orbit was concentrated at the center of the galaxy, and you just ignore all mass that is outside of the orbit. Thus, the distance to the center and the rotational speed of any given star in a galaxy gives you an estimation of the mass of the galaxy until the star's orbit, if you know the mass of the star itself. If you do this for several stars at different orbits, you get an idea how the mass in the galaxy is distributed. Of course, this calculation is just a rough approximation, as you have to account for General Relativity effects for better results.
But still, this rough approximation already shows, that especially for the stars in the outer regions of a galaxy, the mass of the galaxy part within their orbit has to be about five times more heavy than what the estimation from the emitted light would indicate.
They have to be within the galaxies to explain their movement. The outer parts of a galaxy rotate with a speed that is only explainable if the part of the galaxy that is within the orbit of the outer parts is much heavier than just the mass we can detect by the emitted light. And it has to be distributed througout the galaxy as the effect is larger, if we go more far away from the center.
So neither supermassive black holes in the galaxy's center nor ejected supermassive black holes can explain the effect.
That's quite not the case. The Dark Matter affects how galaxies rotate.The movement of the outer parts of a large galaxy are in a way as if the galaxy was much heavier than we would expect just from the radiation coming from that galaxy. So we already know that galaxies contain more (gravitationally detectable) matter than we see (elektromagnetically detectable), and that additional matter doesn't emit any light, hence we call it Dark Matter. A supermassive black hole in a small galaxy will not too much affect the rotation of a large galaxy nearby. Thus supermassive black holes in small galaxies won't explain the effects that forced us to postulate the existence of Dark Matter.
For some reason, that Icelandic guy wasn't premier minister, wenn Iceland defaulted. He only became premier minister in 2013, while the Icelandic banking crisis was in 2009. That punches some little, very little hole in your theory.
No, the whole point of having so many checks and balances is to stop bad decisions of one branch of government makes before they create havoc. Small government has nothing to do with it.
But Slashdot actually stores the articles and postings for eternity and displays them on request, and they don't delete them afterwards. So Slashdot actually needs an irrevocalble, perpetual license to do so.
If it was boilerplate, why do the need a "irrevocal, perpetual" license? Once Oculus has transmitted the User Content, they don't need the license anymore. And the license on anything including the caches should expire anyway the moment I stop using my Oculus Rift gear or sell it to someone else.
The pill does not stop menstruation. For seven days in a cycle, the pill does not contain estradiol (or any other hormon that causes the estradiol level to heighten), and thus menstruation starts. The endometrium can only grow for so long, then it has to be removed from the uterus. If there was no menstruation, the endometrium would die in the uterus, causing blood poisoning.
I don't know what your issue is with the pill. Everybody who has even the slightest idea about birth control knows that the pill works by disrupting the natural hormone cycling. Heightened estradiol-levels in the blood caused by the pill affect the pituitary gland not to produce follicle-stimulating hormone, and thus, no follicle lets an egg cell ripe. That's why it causes women not to become pregnant. And hey, that's the whole concept behind the pill in the first place!
Somehow you sound like someone who tries to sell us the fact, that cooking food denaturates protein as if that somehow was a really hidden secret some sinister society in the background does not want us to know.
The only gear drives the Teslas have are the differential gears at the axles. They don't have traditional shift or automatic gear boxes as a internal combustion engine needs it.
With "Nobody" you mean the about 33% electric energy, that comes from renewables for instance in Germany, the 80% in Austria and Switzerland and the 90% in Norway?
Cologne was founded by the Romans under the name of Colonia Agrippina. That was later germanized to Koeln and francified to Cologne. Munich and München come both from the original name forum apud Munichen. At least that's the name the town has in the oldest remaining documents. Apparently, the French and English omitted the -en, and the Germans the -i- from the name.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but the GGP had it in reverse. There are not many places in the world, where the males outnumber the females 50:1, and your hint to Africa would mean the reverse, females outnumber the males.
Yes. But for some reason, there are not 50 men per woman in the world, the actual ratio is quite close to 1:1. So why do you ignore the 49 other women? Do you have an axe to grind with that one?
What can happen is that the balance between males and females itself is disturbed, for instance because of a war, where many males fighting as soldiers or warriors died, or because of a famines which seem to affect male children more than female children, or because you have a very troubled neighborhood with many males being prisoners and thus without any contact to women. And it can happen that there are a few entitled alpha males (lets call them aristocracy) who have numerous sexual contacts with many women, while there is also a large group of males without any sexual contacts to women, or with contacts to only one or two of them. But in general, every man who has a sexual contact to a new woman means that at the same time there is a woman which at the moment has her first sexual contact to this man.
And the general rule remains the same: In any group of people with about the same amount of sexually active males and females, the average number of heterosexual partners has to be the same for males and females. There is simply no point to play the blame game here.
Actually, it's about 111 km or 60 nautic miles between two degrees. The meter originally was defined to be the 10 millionth of the distance between north pole and equator. Later it proved to be about 2 mm short, but still, the length of the nautic mile is defined to be 01' (1/60 degree) of latitude.
So the coupled cylinder idea is independent of James Watt's type of a steam engine, as the principle would also work with Thomas Newcomen's invention.
Even if we go back to the age of the steam engine. Who invented it? The first known patent of something we would today call a steam engine was Thomas Savery. That was at the end of the 17th. century. But Thomas Savery's invention was a special typ of water pump, not just an engine. The first one who actually build an universal steam engine was Thomas Newcomen around 1710. His machine could be connected to many different types of consumer load. James Watt is said to have grown up with a Newcomen engine in the neighborhood, which he was watching for hours as a child. So what did James Watt actually invent? Differently than Thomas Newcomen's machine, his machine relied solely of the pressure of the steam boiler, while the Newcomen machine also needed the atmospheric pressure to work. James Watt's engines were faster running, could be built smaller and took less fuel than the engines before. Newcomen's machines were still running, his first one even survived James Watt, before it was decommissioned in the 1830ies. The company Boulton&Watt, which sold James Watt's machines, achieved 80% market share, so most steam engines sold for the next time were actually Watt's steam engines. But James Watt didn't invent the steam engine. He invented one type of steam engines. A pretty good and successful one. At the same time. James Watt's patents hindered any real progress, because engines with several coupled cylinders to make better usage of the boiler pressure could not be built as they all were found to be in violation. And James Watt fiercely fought anyone trying to improve the steam engine.
I think, the sole inventor who disrupts how the world does things is more of a romantic story then a real thing. Sometimes, a single inventor invents exactly that item at the tipping point which turns lots of loosely connected ideas how to do things into a workable and reliable product. But the product consists of so much more than that single item. And maybe it's another iteration of inventions, which renders the original invention of that crucial item obsolete, but the inventor of the item still gets remembered as the inventor, because he got some publicity for successfully selling the product, before better versions ate into his market share. Or he was late to the party, but because his version had some real advantage, he gets hailed for inventing the whole thing while all he did was some improvement.
Out of curiosity, once I tried to find out who actually invented the mixing valve. After digging up more than 2500 patents dating back to the 1920ies, I gave up. I couldn't even be sure what the first mixing valve was actually called. Probably not "mixing valve". But we have at least 2500 inventions which improved upon the mixing valve, so today, we just pull that single lever at the faucet not even thinking about how many people were involved in actually figuring out how to built it.
And as a cover up story for any aircraft and rocket experiments that happened at Area 51 and wherever else, it worked fine. If I as an official who was tasked with finding something that keeps the eyes off the real thing, I would have been amazed how well the most outlandish, actually most extraterrestrial story has worked.
Yes, gas cars will be sold. But only in homeopathic doses. Introducing electric cars comes partly in parallel with some other introductions, like self driving cars. Self driving cars make it less economic to own a car yourself, as 95% of the time, any private car sits idling in some garage or parking lot. So in general it makes no sense to own a car, if there was a way to reuse a car simply and without to many waiting and transferring times. With self driving cars, this will be easy. Whenever you need one, you phone/text/web-order your car provider, and it comes to you like a cab, but without any driver. And whenever you don't need it anymore, you just leave it, and it will drive automaticly to the next parking lot or the next customer. And those ad hoc rental cars will be mostly electric, because electric cars require much less maintenance due to less mechanics (no gear boxes, no cludges...), and automatic charging is easier than automatic fuelling. And charging can be done whenever the electric power is cheap, because the windmills are running, the solar panels are shined on or whatever power source is currently working.
Why it should? We are talking about stable orbits of celestial bodies around a gravitational center. Slingshoting a spacecraft definitely does not fall into the "stable orbit" category.
To calculate the time a celestial body needs to orbit a galaxy, you thus calculate it as if the whole mass inside the orbit was concentrated at the center of the galaxy, and you just ignore all mass that is outside of the orbit. Thus, the distance to the center and the rotational speed of any given star in a galaxy gives you an estimation of the mass of the galaxy until the star's orbit, if you know the mass of the star itself. If you do this for several stars at different orbits, you get an idea how the mass in the galaxy is distributed. Of course, this calculation is just a rough approximation, as you have to account for General Relativity effects for better results.
But still, this rough approximation already shows, that especially for the stars in the outer regions of a galaxy, the mass of the galaxy part within their orbit has to be about five times more heavy than what the estimation from the emitted light would indicate.
So neither supermassive black holes in the galaxy's center nor ejected supermassive black holes can explain the effect.
That's quite not the case. The Dark Matter affects how galaxies rotate.The movement of the outer parts of a large galaxy are in a way as if the galaxy was much heavier than we would expect just from the radiation coming from that galaxy. So we already know that galaxies contain more (gravitationally detectable) matter than we see (elektromagnetically detectable), and that additional matter doesn't emit any light, hence we call it Dark Matter. A supermassive black hole in a small galaxy will not too much affect the rotation of a large galaxy nearby. Thus supermassive black holes in small galaxies won't explain the effects that forced us to postulate the existence of Dark Matter.
For some reason, that Icelandic guy wasn't premier minister, wenn Iceland defaulted. He only became premier minister in 2013, while the Icelandic banking crisis was in 2009. That punches some little, very little hole in your theory.
No, the whole point of having so many checks and balances is to stop bad decisions of one branch of government makes before they create havoc. Small government has nothing to do with it.
But Slashdot actually stores the articles and postings for eternity and displays them on request, and they don't delete them afterwards. So Slashdot actually needs an irrevocalble, perpetual license to do so.
If it was boilerplate, why do the need a "irrevocal, perpetual" license? Once Oculus has transmitted the User Content, they don't need the license anymore. And the license on anything including the caches should expire anyway the moment I stop using my Oculus Rift gear or sell it to someone else.
Actually, it's Mr. Joseph-Ignace Guillotin. He recommended the Scottish Maiden as a human way of executing people during the French Revolution.
The pill does not stop menstruation. For seven days in a cycle, the pill does not contain estradiol (or any other hormon that causes the estradiol level to heighten), and thus menstruation starts. The endometrium can only grow for so long, then it has to be removed from the uterus. If there was no menstruation, the endometrium would die in the uterus, causing blood poisoning.
Somehow you sound like someone who tries to sell us the fact, that cooking food denaturates protein as if that somehow was a really hidden secret some sinister society in the background does not want us to know.
The only gear drives the Teslas have are the differential gears at the axles. They don't have traditional shift or automatic gear boxes as a internal combustion engine needs it.
11111111 is just -1 for a "signed byte" or a signed integer of 8bit.
With "Nobody" you mean the about 33% electric energy, that comes from renewables for instance in Germany, the 80% in Austria and Switzerland and the 90% in Norway?
Cologne was founded by the Romans under the name of Colonia Agrippina. That was later germanized to Koeln and francified to Cologne. Munich and München come both from the original name forum apud Munichen. At least that's the name the town has in the oldest remaining documents. Apparently, the French and English omitted the -en, and the Germans the -i- from the name.
If you follow that argumentation, we are back to a cable subscription model, where you have to pay for any additional channel.