Considering that you get a good 1- or 2-A current in tornados, through several million volts, they should also add in that mix that they announce a tornado when they see a large magnetic change near the storm.
Where lightning is an AC speaker system (resulting in thunder -- the cloud surface bouncing up and down), the tornado is a large DC motor.
That also has an effect, because you *can* do something about tornados. At least the smaller ones, you can discharge them.
10kV power lines do a pretty good job of it.
I saw where they turned and stopped a tornado near the Coliseum Mall in Hampton VA, back around '98.
It seems to me that the wheel-in-a-box would work as I indicated, though, because there'd be a bicycle-style gearshift. That requires a sprung tensioner gear, which would in turn also allow the motor to be decoupled from the wheel.
I didn't mention it at the time, but for aerodynamic purposes, you would also want the motor to be set behind (not above) the wheel.
The three big advantages of wheel-in-a-box are (1) unitary design, making development, maintainance, and replacement easier... (2) an elimination of long and heavy transmissions (3) a separation of the electromechanical units from the rider. Basically, in a bad accident you'd want the wheels and motor to shear off, carrying energy away and reducing the severity of the accident.
I also didn't mention it, but if the wheels are out on struts, I wouldn't leave the struts uncovered. I'd rather fair it with a low-speed airfoil to generate downward lift, and direct downwash (in this case upwash) upwards around the body. That would reduce undercarriage drag significantly.
Lithium-ion phosphate is not a bomb. Try a123 's batteries, now used in DeWalt batteries. Or Try Valence.com 's batteries getting set to be used to power electric-only Toyota Prius' in CA.
That said, I'd still worry about DeWalt batteries blowing up. They're made in China, and China is the king of fake. DeWalt, if you're listening, kindly take your business elsewhere. I don't trust Chinese-manufactured stuff. They've committed murder for profit too many times, with only the most nominal penalties *after the fact*.
FWIW, the way I'd like to see an EV constructed, build a wheel in a box, with an electric motor. Make that work well, maybe with bicycle chain/gears. Then set the wheel boxes as paired front wheels on pivots, controlled by ackerman steering.
Now, set those two powered wheel boxes up front, and give the rider a normal recliner bicycle chain to the back. Let the midpoint chain tensioner be toothed and on a spring, and let a combination of the compression of the spring, plus direction of pedalling, plus braking and hand throttle, determine how much electricity to give to the motors (and which direction).
Now throw a fairing over everything. Build the fairing out of bicycle helmet foam, and fiberglass the entire thing.
So now you have your crumple zones, your 3 wheel stability (tadpole configuration), a convenient throttle/braking system, and a relaxed driving position. As long as you keep the power less than 3/4 hp and electronically limit zero-pedal speeds to 25 mph, you also have legal bicycle status.
I couldn't imagine anything much better than that.
Now, let me preface this by saying to the OP that considering the levels of arrogance, I think we are due for another worldwide level genocide. I don't want it to happen, but I think it likely. Genocide is a bad thing.
Now, to the point of the post above: Actually, I think that you are still only scratching the surface.
Protecting the institution of marriage *does* make sense for protecting society and maximizing the rights of all involved (including the children). Without it, you will have murder -- both through jealousy and abortion -- needless confusion of property ownership, children growing up unraised, and therefore committing all sorts of crimes due to their neglect, and so on.
Like you, I just don't think that protecting the institution of marriage necessarily works from the governmental standpoint.
In the same way, I'd say that homosexuality *does* undermine a stable society. But no, the Taliban's way of dealing with accused homosexuals is *not* a good way of addressing those needs.
What is a good way? I'm not sure. In the end, if you have people who are determined that their wills, their honor, their pride (and so on) are more important than good for others (or others' rights), then eventually you are going to have a breakdown of society. That breakdown can and will eventually lead to the arrogance and theft and murder and wars and genocide that develops every 50-100 years or so.
If you can convince people to conquer in themselves the desire to be gods over their neighbors, then you can have peace. You will have peace in no other way. (Of course, there is the idiot's way of doing this. All he really needs to do is to become a god over his neighbors and *force* them not to... aaahh.)
Allright, my point is that the fortune-1000 companies are typically in a continuous state of failure. They never disappear, because they merge (Compaq and HP, for example).
And yes, a small country and IBM and a monastery and a family, are all economies, none of them self-sufficient, and all of them planned... so I'd say that it is valid to compare them all. The only difference is scale (though scale does have an effect on the time of survival of the economy).
I think part of Hayak's point would also be that for countries, it is a matter of time before the planned economies fail, but they are driven to that point. His point was not for companies, but from my experience it is still generally applicable: it is just a matter of time, and the companies are necessarily driven to failure.
I disagree that the fortune-1000 companies are successful planned economies.
I work for one of those fortune-1000 (actually fortune-500) companies. They are (a) the compost heap of successful corporations that are now dying, and (b) clients kings of the planned economies.
They are continually failing businesses that continually destroy wealth, but through mergers with other failing businesses remain at the fortune-1000 level. Secondly, most of them take most of their revenues from taxation. Therefore, they would not be a good example of what you say.
That said, I do nominally support your basic idea that smaller economies can be planned and survive for a time. Likewise, there are monasteries that are basically communistic, that are small enough to survive for a time under the burden of communism. But in general, I stand by my original statement: Hayak was right, in that planned economies do fail.
I'd go a step further, and say that the government did not fail, because this financial crisis is inevitable. You'd have to read Hayak's "Road to Serfdom" to understand what I'm talking about, though. Or go to dollarcollapse.org, and read why every fiat currency must collapse.
Planned economies -- and our economy was as planned or more planned than Russia's, or pre-Nazi Germany's -- do fail like this.
I think that the next one will fail much worse, though. Which one? The one under the single-world-currency that China and Russia are going to push us towards. (Stratfor: a single-world currency requires a single-world government, which will attract vast power struggles, and ensure its spectacular failure, following spectacular human-rights catastrophes).
That said, we've already fallen off the cliff. No change in power is going to change the fact that we're going to impact, HARD. Bonhoffer assassinating Hitler, for example, would've just made Nazi Germany worse. The best I can offer, is that people should start looking to their maker, and acting in good faith with their neighbor, whomever he is, and whatever his temporary legal status.
Take a fair coin. The probability of getting heads is 1/2 always. If I got heads the last 100 flips, one's the chances of getting heads again?
I'd say, a percentage better than 100*(1-(1/2)^50). Closer to 100(1-(1/2)^99). Why? Because rather than assume that such an improbable event would have occurred, I would assume a much greater probability of experimental error, or error in definitions.
In which case, I'd have to go with the statistical probability, as opposed to the faith-based probability.
Understand that, and you'll understand why highly improbable events increase my faith.
I don't confuse reason and dogma. By keeping them separate, I do better with both. Most atheistic scientists do confuse them, and do worse with both.
Actually, I'd be more inclined to say that the original sin is also what the Bible seems to mean by "wickedness", specifically, trying to be a little god.
So that includes trying to be worshipped by your neighbors (Lucifer's sin, as well as the Egyptian view of Pharaoah as a god, as well as keeping up with the Joneses... ) defending yourself (see the story of David and Naboth and Abigail), pride and ego -- worshipping yourself -- and many other things, all of which lead a person to hurt others.
The opposite is to "love mercy, do justice, and walk humbly with your God". Now, humility is seeing things as they are. So that means to let God be God and yourself be a creation.
Now, as to the original topic: I suspect that they could have divided it further: those who say "let God decide if I live or die", including Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses and some 7th day adventists. These don't go for extraordinary measures. Then many of the others, who view physicians as one of Gods tools (in Catholic Bible, read Ecclesiasticus for this viewpoint). Those therefore want to give God full opportunity to let them serve another day (old spiritual song: I'm glad to be in your service one more time).
Of course, Slashdotters excoriate the first group as being heartless and evil, whenever a child dies of natural causes for which a doctor *could* have help. Slashdotters excoriate the 2nd group for being hypocrites, as seen in this story's comments. So you can't win, because they already intend to excoriate anyone who believes in God, since belief in God makes it impossible to believe in self as god. Such an idea, naturally, is an extremely offensive heresy to any little god.
You don't understand. If I pay the $99, I pay the $99. If I don't pay the $99, then Verizon sells my "account" to a debt collector (or several, repeatedly), harrasses me, ruins my credit, and so on.
I say this on the accounts of others, such as the one who posted the $.002 +1 -1 photo.
In other words, Verizon appears to me to be a legally criminally minded organization (that is, the company violates thou shalt not steal through means that are barely legal, but designed to be illegal) that very much should be subject to RICO, and should be destroyed. But in our society, they thrive. So the proper response is just to pay, and then have nothing to do with them, except to warn others.
This guy is from Newport News? Less than 30 miles away from me.
I can affirm that I first had trouble with Verizon, when I found that 7-11s had payphones that used Verizon, which in turn blocked the 7-11 calling cards.
But what really got me was when I moved, and signed up for Verizon service -- with some misgivings.
They charged a $99 connect fee. After 4 days with no service, I called back. They said "well, our records show that you are connected. But for another $120 we'll send someone out to make sure that you're physically connected."
I pointed out that $99 is an exorbitant charge for pressing a computer button -- it was billed as a connect fee, and should involve *connecting* me.
They said no, I'd have to pay the $120.
I said, Just cancel the service.
They said "well, you still owe us the $99." I agreed, as part of getting rid of them, but made sure to let them know that all my acquaintances would know of it.
Suffice it to say, many others also get such service.
I can see this guy's frustration. I'm sure it's valid.
Do I believe the Noah's Flood had to do with the flooding of the Black Sea? No. I believe that this particular meteor strike, though, could have produced such a flood.
I guess you'd also add as another obvious example, Genetic Modified Foods.
Obvious example: "intelligent design"
Hmmm... let me rant in my turn. The "intelligent design" science nonsense is a reaction to others who use the name of "science" to naysay the Bible. But science has no ability to naysay the Bible. The Bible records historical events which did or did not happen, depending on the opinion of various historians and Biblical scholars. Based on my own experiences and understanding of other archeological and geological records, I am inclined to think that basically, they did happen.
Further, the Bible records communications between intelligent beings that did or did not happen. Based upon my own experiences of such communications, I am again extremely inclined to think that they did happen.
Now, science has no way of naysaying that a communication did or did not happen between me and my wife. Does somebody think that science has a way of naysaying a communication between two intelligent beings, 5000 years ago?!?
That, too, is nonsense science.
Rather, you have people who dogmatically disbelieve the Bible, dogmatically believe certain claims made by certain people in the false name of science, and then claim that science disproves the Bible. Then, you have others who dogmatically believe the Bible, and not understanding science any better (thank you, Dewey, for your wonderful education system) than the first group, come up with intelligent design. They'd be better served by just ignoring the idiot naysayer pseudoscientists. But they don't know any better.
Enough of my rant.
I say that such intelligent communications did occur, and science has nothing on them.
Same goes for bank card pin numbers. Don't memorize the number. Type the number out on a keypad, and memorize the hand motion. It's tons easier. If you need to, make a little story. Not any of my pins, but 6841 could be "fish jumps out of the water, and then swims straight to the bottom."
Just a note: Knowing how much of the planet is covered in water is *not* scientific literacy. That is trivia knowledge. If I need to know how much of the planet is covered in water (I'd guess 80%), I look it up, and decide if the definition matches my needs.
Scientific literacy would be understanding (1) how to research science you need (2) how to conduct a proper experiment (3) how to evaluate claims for obvious falsehood (4) how to check out non-obvious claims for falsehood, which is related to #1, (5) how to identify whether you are yourself competent in an area of science, or not, and (6) how to find someone who *is* competent, if necessary.
I hate it when people mistake factoids for science.
I hate it when people mistake popular blurbs for reason.
You design a probe to split into two equal sections on a very long tether.
Now, you set them in orbit, and get them spinning on the long tether.
When an asteroid flies by, the one nearest the asteroid matches speed, and anchors onto the asteroid.
Now, the other probe detatches as the velocity vector swings around perpendicular to the path of the asteroid. Because of conservation of momentum, the second is going to obtain a velocity that is proportional to the asteroid velocity, times the ratios of the asteroid to spacecraft.
(1) Set automated computer/video aboard the asteroid, and search out other asteroids. Plot trajectories, and relay info back to earth.
(2) Use asteroid mounted telescopes to take photos of (and out of) the solar system at different times and angles. These are occasional, but are all preset according to time, date, and direction, and match from one asteroid to another. Transmit data to other asteroid riding probes, and any time a probe comes close to earth, transmit that info back to earth. Build a giant parallax multocular telescope network. With the multiple images, we should be able to spot many other in-system asteroids, moons, planetoidal asteroids, and whatnot. With the greater distance between viewing points, we should also be able to get more detail of the extra-solar systems.
That's why Microsoft never ships a device in the nnn stage, but instead waits until they can deliver a product with device zzz. At least via web submission, fewer complaints are registered when a device is in the zzz state, and nobody assumes it's the fault of the vendor.
Just a thought... if this is a sign that the debris field is increasing, then maybe we ought to be getting our astronauts down from the ISS. We may not be able to, later, if the debris field gets large enough.
I dunno. I'm religious, but I use Darwinism to apply to the religion (like that which was a part of Naziism) so as not to discredit Darwin's theory, which is a reasonably good start for how species develop.
In other words, the term Darwinism is used by the religious pro-evolution, anti-sharkfest politics side. Or, if you want, the religious pro-evolution pro-life side.
I thought that "Darwinism" was a term thought up by the religious anti-evolution side.
P.S. Personally, I think that though a good start, Darwin's origin of the species left a lot to be desired. I tend to lean more toward the viral-DNA exchange branch of genetics, myself. But I am no expert.
4 slow USB ports, 2 cheap ($2) microcontrollers, 1 IR port, 2 swappable 32k rams, hardwired. Reused small display, and 4 piezo sensors on a card to act as keyboard/mouse.
You buy thumbdrives to act as your disk storage. You communicate with USB and IR. The piezo sensors interpret your typing on the card. You want better, you buy a USB keyboard.
The two microcontrollers act as an I/O controller (one), and full-time processor (two). The I/O controller swaps out data to the thumbdrive disks, allowing full multitasking.
You want to add a monitor? Use USB. You want to add ports? USB. You want to add a keyboard? USB. You want a printer? USB.
Technically, yes, it's slower. But the paired processors will minimize the slowness.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that you get a good 1- or 2-A current in tornados, through several million volts, they should also add in that mix that they announce a tornado when they see a large magnetic change near the storm.
Where lightning is an AC speaker system (resulting in thunder -- the cloud surface bouncing up and down), the tornado is a large DC motor.
That also has an effect, because you *can* do something about tornados. At least the smaller ones, you can discharge them.
10kV power lines do a pretty good job of it.
I saw where they turned and stopped a tornado near the Coliseum Mall in Hampton VA, back around '98.
It seems to me that the wheel-in-a-box would work as I indicated, though, because there'd be a bicycle-style gearshift. That requires a sprung tensioner gear, which would in turn also allow the motor to be decoupled from the wheel.
I didn't mention it at the time, but for aerodynamic purposes, you would also want the motor to be set behind (not above) the wheel.
The three big advantages of wheel-in-a-box are (1) unitary design, making development, maintainance, and replacement easier... (2) an elimination of long and heavy transmissions (3) a separation of the electromechanical units from the rider. Basically, in a bad accident you'd want the wheels and motor to shear off, carrying energy away and reducing the severity of the accident.
I also didn't mention it, but if the wheels are out on struts, I wouldn't leave the struts uncovered. I'd rather fair it with a low-speed airfoil to generate downward lift, and direct downwash (in this case upwash) upwards around the body. That would reduce undercarriage drag significantly.
Lithium-ion phosphate is not a bomb. Try a123 's batteries, now used in DeWalt batteries. Or Try Valence.com 's batteries getting set to be used to power electric-only Toyota Prius' in CA.
Aside from that, there is a woman up at MIT who is using viruses to build Li-ion-phosphate batteries.. So those may have even better lifetimes, and be cheaper yet while being stable.
That said, I'd still worry about DeWalt batteries blowing up. They're made in China, and China is the king of fake. DeWalt, if you're listening, kindly take your business elsewhere. I don't trust Chinese-manufactured stuff. They've committed murder for profit too many times, with only the most nominal penalties *after the fact*.
So use the two steering wheels up front.
FWIW, the way I'd like to see an EV constructed, build a wheel in a box, with an electric motor. Make that work well, maybe with bicycle chain/gears. Then set the wheel boxes as paired front wheels on pivots, controlled by ackerman steering.
Now, set those two powered wheel boxes up front, and give the rider a normal recliner bicycle chain to the back. Let the midpoint chain tensioner be toothed and on a spring, and let a combination of the compression of the spring, plus direction of pedalling, plus braking and hand throttle, determine how much electricity to give to the motors (and which direction).
Now throw a fairing over everything. Build the fairing out of bicycle helmet foam, and fiberglass the entire thing.
So now you have your crumple zones, your 3 wheel stability (tadpole configuration), a convenient throttle/braking system, and a relaxed driving position. As long as you keep the power less than 3/4 hp and electronically limit zero-pedal speeds to 25 mph, you also have legal bicycle status.
I couldn't imagine anything much better than that.
Now, let me preface this by saying to the OP that considering the levels of arrogance, I think we are due for another worldwide level genocide. I don't want it to happen, but I think it likely. Genocide is a bad thing.
Now, to the point of the post above: Actually, I think that you are still only scratching the surface.
Protecting the institution of marriage *does* make sense for protecting society and maximizing the rights of all involved (including the children). Without it, you will have murder -- both through jealousy and abortion -- needless confusion of property ownership, children growing up unraised, and therefore committing all sorts of crimes due to their neglect, and so on.
Like you, I just don't think that protecting the institution of marriage necessarily works from the governmental standpoint.
In the same way, I'd say that homosexuality *does* undermine a stable society. But no, the Taliban's way of dealing with accused homosexuals is *not* a good way of addressing those needs.
What is a good way? I'm not sure. In the end, if you have people who are determined that their wills, their honor, their pride (and so on) are more important than good for others (or others' rights), then eventually you are going to have a breakdown of society. That breakdown can and will eventually lead to the arrogance and theft and murder and wars and genocide that develops every 50-100 years or so.
If you can convince people to conquer in themselves the desire to be gods over their neighbors, then you can have peace. You will have peace in no other way. (Of course, there is the idiot's way of doing this. All he really needs to do is to become a god over his neighbors and *force* them not to... aaahh.)
Allright, my point is that the fortune-1000 companies are typically in a continuous state of failure. They never disappear, because they merge (Compaq and HP, for example).
And yes, a small country and IBM and a monastery and a family, are all economies, none of them self-sufficient, and all of them planned... so I'd say that it is valid to compare them all. The only difference is scale (though scale does have an effect on the time of survival of the economy).
I think part of Hayak's point would also be that for countries, it is a matter of time before the planned economies fail, but they are driven to that point. His point was not for companies, but from my experience it is still generally applicable: it is just a matter of time, and the companies are necessarily driven to failure.
I disagree that the fortune-1000 companies are successful planned economies.
I work for one of those fortune-1000 (actually fortune-500) companies. They are (a) the compost heap of successful corporations that are now dying, and (b) clients kings of the planned economies.
They are continually failing businesses that continually destroy wealth, but through mergers with other failing businesses remain at the fortune-1000 level. Secondly, most of them take most of their revenues from taxation. Therefore, they would not be a good example of what you say.
That said, I do nominally support your basic idea that smaller economies can be planned and survive for a time. Likewise, there are monasteries that are basically communistic, that are small enough to survive for a time under the burden of communism. But in general, I stand by my original statement: Hayak was right, in that planned economies do fail.
I'd go a step further, and say that the government did not fail, because this financial crisis is inevitable. You'd have to read Hayak's "Road to Serfdom" to understand what I'm talking about, though. Or go to dollarcollapse.org, and read why every fiat currency must collapse.
Planned economies -- and our economy was as planned or more planned than Russia's, or pre-Nazi Germany's -- do fail like this.
I think that the next one will fail much worse, though. Which one? The one under the single-world-currency that China and Russia are going to push us towards. (Stratfor: a single-world currency requires a single-world government, which will attract vast power struggles, and ensure its spectacular failure, following spectacular human-rights catastrophes).
That said, we've already fallen off the cliff. No change in power is going to change the fact that we're going to impact, HARD. Bonhoffer assassinating Hitler, for example, would've just made Nazi Germany worse. The best I can offer, is that people should start looking to their maker, and acting in good faith with their neighbor, whomever he is, and whatever his temporary legal status.
Take a fair coin. The probability of getting heads is 1/2 always. If I got heads the last 100 flips, one's the chances of getting heads again?
I'd say, a percentage better than 100*(1-(1/2)^50). Closer to 100(1-(1/2)^99). Why? Because rather than assume that such an improbable event would have occurred, I would assume a much greater probability of experimental error, or error in definitions.
In which case, I'd have to go with the statistical probability, as opposed to the faith-based probability.
Understand that, and you'll understand why highly improbable events increase my faith.
I don't confuse reason and dogma. By keeping them separate, I do better with both. Most atheistic scientists do confuse them, and do worse with both.
might I suggest a visit to gamingmuseum.com ?
You can play Galactic Trader online there. An old favorite of mine, regardless of the fact that I haven't been there for quite some time...
Actually, I'd be more inclined to say that the original sin is also what the Bible seems to mean by "wickedness", specifically, trying to be a little god.
So that includes trying to be worshipped by your neighbors (Lucifer's sin, as well as the Egyptian view of Pharaoah as a god, as well as keeping up with the Joneses... ) defending yourself (see the story of David and Naboth and Abigail), pride and ego -- worshipping yourself -- and many other things, all of which lead a person to hurt others.
The opposite is to "love mercy, do justice, and walk humbly with your God". Now, humility is seeing things as they are. So that means to let God be God and yourself be a creation.
Now, as to the original topic: I suspect that they could have divided it further: those who say "let God decide if I live or die", including Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses and some 7th day adventists. These don't go for extraordinary measures. Then many of the others, who view physicians as one of Gods tools (in Catholic Bible, read Ecclesiasticus for this viewpoint). Those therefore want to give God full opportunity to let them serve another day (old spiritual song: I'm glad to be in your service one more time).
Of course, Slashdotters excoriate the first group as being heartless and evil, whenever a child dies of natural causes for which a doctor *could* have help. Slashdotters excoriate the 2nd group for being hypocrites, as seen in this story's comments. So you can't win, because they already intend to excoriate anyone who believes in God, since belief in God makes it impossible to believe in self as god. Such an idea, naturally, is an extremely offensive heresy to any little god.
That's it!!! We have all the excuse we need to nationalize La-Z-Boy. Osama, you hear that? We're going after your Comfy Chair!
You don't understand. If I pay the $99, I pay the $99. If I don't pay the $99, then Verizon sells my "account" to a debt collector (or several, repeatedly), harrasses me, ruins my credit, and so on.
I say this on the accounts of others, such as the one who posted the $.002 +1 -1 photo.
In other words, Verizon appears to me to be a legally criminally minded organization (that is, the company violates thou shalt not steal through means that are barely legal, but designed to be illegal) that very much should be subject to RICO, and should be destroyed. But in our society, they thrive. So the proper response is just to pay, and then have nothing to do with them, except to warn others.
This guy is from Newport News? Less than 30 miles away from me.
I can affirm that I first had trouble with Verizon, when I found that 7-11s had payphones that used Verizon, which in turn blocked the 7-11 calling cards.
But what really got me was when I moved, and signed up for Verizon service -- with some misgivings.
They charged a $99 connect fee. After 4 days with no service, I called back. They said "well, our records show that you are connected. But for another $120 we'll send someone out to make sure that you're physically connected."
I pointed out that $99 is an exorbitant charge for pressing a computer button -- it was billed as a connect fee, and should involve *connecting* me.
They said no, I'd have to pay the $120.
I said, Just cancel the service.
They said "well, you still owe us the $99." I agreed, as part of getting rid of them, but made sure to let them know that all my acquaintances would know of it.
Suffice it to say, many others also get such service.
I can see this guy's frustration. I'm sure it's valid.
Does that mean you disbelieve in Noah's Flood? Are you sure?
Have you read the Epic of Gilgamesh, and it's description of Noah's flood?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenambosy_Chevron
http://geology.com/news/2006/11/chevron-structures-evidence-of-frequent.html
Do I believe the Noah's Flood had to do with the flooding of the Black Sea? No.
I believe that this particular meteor strike, though, could have produced such a flood.
Those 500 foot high chevrons are impressive.
I guess you'd also add as another obvious example, Genetic Modified Foods.
Obvious example: "intelligent design"
Hmmm... let me rant in my turn. The "intelligent design" science nonsense is a reaction to others who use the name of "science" to naysay the Bible. But science has no ability to naysay the Bible. The Bible records historical events which did or did not happen, depending on the opinion of various historians and Biblical scholars. Based on my own experiences and understanding of other archeological and geological records, I am inclined to think that basically, they did happen.
Further, the Bible records communications between intelligent beings that did or did not happen. Based upon my own experiences of such communications, I am again extremely inclined to think that they did happen.
Now, science has no way of naysaying that a communication did or did not happen between me and my wife. Does somebody think that science has a way of naysaying a communication between two intelligent beings, 5000 years ago?!?
That, too, is nonsense science.
Rather, you have people who dogmatically disbelieve the Bible, dogmatically believe certain claims made by certain people in the false name of science, and then claim that science disproves the Bible. Then, you have others who dogmatically believe the Bible, and not understanding science any better (thank you, Dewey, for your wonderful education system) than the first group, come up with intelligent design. They'd be better served by just ignoring the idiot naysayer pseudoscientists. But they don't know any better.
Enough of my rant.
I say that such intelligent communications did occur, and science has nothing on them.
I say further, that they do still happen today.
http://media.tscnyc.org/wmedia/2010916S1.asf
http://davidwilkersontoday.blogspot.com/2009/03/urgent-message.html
PI? Yes, I want a piece. Blueberry is superb
PI ~= 3 , 1 4 1 5 9 2 6
No need to memorize any digits. Memorize a story.
Same goes for bank card pin numbers. Don't memorize the number. Type the number out on a keypad, and memorize the hand motion. It's tons easier. If you need to, make a little story. Not any of my pins, but 6841 could be "fish jumps out of the water, and then swims straight to the bottom."
Just a note: Knowing how much of the planet is covered in water is *not* scientific literacy. That is trivia knowledge. If I need to know how much of the planet is covered in water (I'd guess 80%), I look it up, and decide if the definition matches my needs.
Scientific literacy would be understanding (1) how to research science you need (2) how to conduct a proper experiment (3) how to evaluate claims for obvious falsehood (4) how to check out non-obvious claims for falsehood, which is related to #1, (5) how to identify whether you are yourself competent in an area of science, or not, and (6) how to find someone who *is* competent, if necessary.
I hate it when people mistake factoids for science.
I hate it when people mistake popular blurbs for reason.
Okay, you have a point. How about this one, then?
You design a probe to split into two equal sections on a very long tether.
Now, you set them in orbit, and get them spinning on the long tether.
When an asteroid flies by, the one nearest the asteroid matches speed, and anchors onto the asteroid.
Now, the other probe detatches as the velocity vector swings around perpendicular to the path of the asteroid. Because of conservation of momentum, the second is going to obtain a velocity that is proportional to the asteroid velocity, times the ratios of the asteroid to spacecraft.
It will crack the whip, so to speak.
Quick interstellar probe.
I can think of a few purposes.
(1) Set automated computer/video aboard the asteroid, and search out other asteroids. Plot trajectories, and relay info back to earth.
(2) Use asteroid mounted telescopes to take photos of (and out of) the solar system at different times and angles. These are occasional, but are all preset according to time, date, and direction, and match from one asteroid to another. Transmit data to other asteroid riding probes, and any time a probe comes close to earth, transmit that info back to earth. Build a giant parallax multocular telescope network. With the multiple images, we should be able to spot many other in-system asteroids, moons, planetoidal asteroids, and whatnot. With the greater distance between viewing points, we should also be able to get more detail of the extra-solar systems.
That's why Microsoft never ships a device in the nnn stage, but instead waits until they can deliver a product with device zzz. At least via web submission, fewer complaints are registered when a device is in the zzz state, and nobody assumes it's the fault of the vendor.
Just a thought... if this is a sign that the debris field is increasing, then maybe we ought to be getting our astronauts down from the ISS. We may not be able to, later, if the debris field gets large enough.
I dunno. I'm religious, but I use Darwinism to apply to the religion (like that which was a part of Naziism) so as not to discredit Darwin's theory, which is a reasonably good start for how species develop.
In other words, the term Darwinism is used by the religious pro-evolution, anti-sharkfest politics side. Or, if you want, the religious pro-evolution pro-life side.
I thought that "Darwinism" was a term thought up by the religious anti-evolution side.
P.S. Personally, I think that though a good start, Darwin's origin of the species left a lot to be desired. I tend to lean more toward the viral-DNA exchange branch of genetics, myself. But I am no expert.
http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html Currently, this is illegal but unenforced, and much decried. As I understand it, FOCA will make this legal.
4 slow USB ports, 2 cheap ($2) microcontrollers, 1 IR port, 2 swappable 32k rams, hardwired.
Reused small display, and 4 piezo sensors on a card to act as keyboard/mouse.
You buy thumbdrives to act as your disk storage.
You communicate with USB and IR.
The piezo sensors interpret your typing on the card. You want better, you buy a USB keyboard.
The two microcontrollers act as an I/O controller (one), and full-time processor (two). The I/O controller swaps out data to the thumbdrive disks, allowing full multitasking.
You want to add a monitor? Use USB. You want to add ports? USB. You want to add a keyboard? USB. You want a printer? USB.
Technically, yes, it's slower. But the paired processors will minimize the slowness.