Although estimate vary, the average life expectance was until the 15th to 19th century was not much more than 40, at least for the common person. This lead for just enough time to have a several children, some of which would survive to adult hood. I do not think choice was an overwhelming issue, and there were not a huge number of cases where people were married for 50 years.
That was average life expectancy AT BIRTH. Average life expectancy at age 21 was approximately 63. The "just enough time to have kids" idea is a misinterpretation of the life expectancy statistics.
You have to remember that average life expectancy is the mean age of death, not the age at which everyone dies.
Honestly, I think the best argument is that the Soviets would definitely have called us out on not landing.
The top tiers of the Soviet machine were in on the hoax. It was excellent propaganda. It generated fear in their people, and fearful people are more easily herded.
Instead of "Iraq has WMDs" it was "America has moon rockets".
He explicitly stated he was not an atheist. Here's a quote of his.
I'm NOT an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.
Yes the ground carries the whole building. Of course I wouldnt disagree with that. As I understand it your position is that the inner skin of the onion sub must ultimately resist the entire load. If this is true then the outer skins resist zero load (from newtons third law). This however neglects the transverse compression stresses that will develop in each skin. These stresses provide an "outward push" to each skin. I.e. the outer skins are not unsupported/levitating, but are in fact self supporting. They do not rest entirely upon the inner skin, but carry some of the load themself. "Storeys"/"Pressurise" is British/Australian spelling.
Your assumption that the inner layer must carry the entire load is false.
Each layer will carry a proportion of the load thus reducing the load carried by subsequant layers.
We employ the same principle when constructing multistorey concrete buildings. There are always two or three storeys of pressurised props underneath any floor under construction. This is because you need three storeys to support one new storey. Each of the three floors below carries its portion of the new floor load.
I see, because I wouldn't want my kids spending class time on Arf's Christmas project in order for Arf to "..save LOTS of time...", that makes me a a bad parent...
I'd put money on us producing artificial consciousness, but that isn't the same as saying computers will one day be conscious. We simply don't know if computation alone is sufficient to generate consciousness. To claim that computers will one day be conscious is to claim that consciousness is understood, and it isn't.
Another ubiquitous factual error you find in textbooks is the one about resonance destroying the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. We've known for 50 years that it wasn't an example of forced resonance...
The International Building Code is a US code, not an international code. It is NOT used around the world. Each region/country has their own specific codes they follow.
Have a look at this map produced by the International Building Code Committee which shows which states have adopted the IBC. As you will see, it is a US specific.
The International Building Code is an American building code. Americans have this strange habit of calling their stuff "world" or "international", e.g. World Series Baseball.
Slashdot Mirror
The question is how does it take for terraforming a planet?
Big Job. Takes decades.
War should be fought by people so that they can understand its terrible cost and will work to oppose and end it.
Sounds just like Kirk in A Taste of Armageddon.
Although estimate vary, the average life expectance was until the 15th to 19th century was not much more than 40, at least for the common person. This lead for just enough time to have a several children, some of which would survive to adult hood. I do not think choice was an overwhelming issue, and there were not a huge number of cases where people were married for 50 years.
That was average life expectancy AT BIRTH. Average life expectancy at age 21 was approximately 63. The "just enough time to have kids" idea is a misinterpretation of the life expectancy statistics.
You have to remember that average life expectancy is the mean age of death, not the age at which everyone dies.
Honestly, I think the best argument is that the Soviets would definitely have called us out on not landing.
The top tiers of the Soviet machine were in on the hoax. It was excellent propaganda. It generated fear in their people, and fearful people are more easily herded.
Instead of "Iraq has WMDs" it was "America has moon rockets".
He explicitly stated he was not an atheist. Here's a quote of his.
I'm NOT an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist.
We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.
carbon dating of dinosaur fossils eh....
The majority of scientists used to agree that the earth was flat.
That's just a modern myth about olden days people. People have known the world was round for thousands of years.
Honestly, the reason the whole "piracy is stealing" but will never sink in is because piracy isn't really stealing and people know it.
Of course it's stealing. that's why we do it.
Is flying in front of plans a genetic trait?
Of course. That's why geese crash into planes and penguins don't. The penguins just don't got the genes for it.
Yes the ground carries the whole building. Of course I wouldnt disagree with that.
As I understand it your position is that the inner skin of the onion sub must ultimately resist the entire load. If this is true then the outer skins resist zero load (from newtons third law). This however neglects the transverse compression stresses that will develop in each skin. These stresses provide an "outward push" to each skin. I.e. the outer skins are not unsupported/levitating, but are in fact self supporting. They do not rest entirely upon the inner skin, but carry some of the load themself.
"Storeys"/"Pressurise" is British/Australian spelling.
I said, Get In, *click*
Your assumption that the inner layer must carry the entire load is false.
Each layer will carry a proportion of the load thus reducing the load carried by subsequant layers.
We employ the same principle when constructing multistorey concrete buildings. There are always two or three storeys of pressurised props underneath any floor under construction. This is because you need three storeys to support one new storey. Each of the three floors below carries its portion of the new floor load.
In theory you are correct. Your system will be much less efficient though unless you can link the skins together.
Sounds like BS to me too. We often come across unexpected cables and you don't just cut them.
I see, because I wouldn't want my kids spending class time on Arf's Christmas project in order for Arf to "..save LOTS of time...", that makes me a a bad parent...
You have no right to waste the time of your students by getting them to produce this guy's latest Christmas Card Project.
I'd put money on us producing artificial consciousness, but that isn't the same as saying computers will one day be conscious. We simply don't know if computation alone is sufficient to generate consciousness. To claim that computers will one day be conscious is to claim that consciousness is understood, and it isn't.
A good number of scientists belive animals are prue programming (nobody home just trainable automata)
Such as?
Good post.
Another ubiquitous factual error you find in textbooks is the one about resonance destroying the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. We've known for 50 years that it wasn't an example of forced resonance...
I mean come on, he didn't even use a flash...
Because of this, even "tiny" 6-inch long-tube designs can match or exceed 24" or better telescopes in detail and quality.
I've owned a few telescopes and this statement sounds a little far fetched to me.
The International Building Code is a US code, not an international code. It is NOT used around the world. Each region/country has their own specific codes they follow.
Have a look at this map produced by the International Building Code Committee which shows which states have adopted the IBC. As you will see, it is a US specific.
http://www.iccsafe.org/government/adoption.html
Or you can read the IBC wikipedia page which reiterates the fact that it is a US code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Building_Code
Apocalypse is alright, but nowhere near as good as the first two.
Instead they have "long drops"
Damn, I'd hate to be on the ground floor...
The International Building Code is an American building code. Americans have this strange habit of calling their stuff "world" or "international", e.g. World Series Baseball.
India has their own building code.