The problem is that what you *feel* is very different from what is responsible for the problem. What you feel is the effects AFTER your body has kicked-in it's heat-redistribution technique. Even if your extremities are not where you are leaking heat from, and it's actually coming out somewhere else, they will still be where you *feel* like you are leaking heat from, because your body will pull the heat out of them and move it where it is more needed (where the leak is), because, to put it bluntly, evolution doesn't mind if you lose a few fingers or toes but it kind of likes to keep your brain and vital organs around.
1. This probably isn't a matter of circulation. It's a matter of wind chill. Your fingers are exposed to more air circulation than your torso when you ride a bike.
2. Any time you are losing heat from *anywhere*, you will feel it first in your fingers and toes, even if they aren't the actual culprit. If you keep your fingers warm, and let everything else be cold, your body will *steal* the heat from your fingers and send it to your torso, and your fingers will still "feel" cold.
The way to make your hands warmer is to insulate your entire body better. When your body is cold, your body prioritizes your heat energy - using most of it on the vital areas in your torso and your head. Fingers and toes are less vital, and so they get robbed of heat in order to use it elsewhere. That's what leads to the strange condition where if you don't have a warm hat, your fingers will get cold. (Your body is desperately shunting heat energy up to your head to keep your brain alive, even though it's really inefficient to be moving the heat to the location that's leaking such a large amount of heat.) So if you don't have a warm hat, your head will actually still feel okay, but at the expense of the rest of your body, starting with the fingers and toes.
This product just tries to ignore evolution and do things backward. There's a *reason* your body tends to sacrifice fingers and toes when you are dying of cold. If you are cold enough that your fingers and toes are starting to feel painfully cold, then you've got a warmth problem *overall* across your whole body that can't be fixed by just moving the heat around.
Everything Rick Berman has touched about Star Trek has sucked. The problem is that every single episode ends up being about why inaction is ethically better than action. And that really starts to get BORING fast. "Hey, I have a cool idea for a show - let's make all sorts of plot threads in which interesting things *could* happen, and then pull a "ha-ha" on the audience and make them *not* happen. Won't that be cool? Won't they like that?
No. No, they won't.
If you want to save Star Trek, try actually having something *happen* for once. Something that lasts longer than one episode. And to do that, you need to ditch Rick Bermans' moral lessons and replace them with ones that actually cause things to occur. (The only part of the newer star trek serieses (not counting the old 60's show here) that was good was the part near the end of the run for DS9 where they tried having a continuing plotline about the station's trials and tribulations while under occupation. That bit worked very well while it lasted.)
I was referring to the comment attempting (lamely) to make an analogy from a one-way mars trip to the one-way trips of the early European travellers to the New World. In crossing the Atlantic, basic life support existed *already* at the destination, and there were even already other PEOPLE able to survive just fine there. With crossing to Mars, all life support has to be sent or manufactured on-site. That's a HUGE difference that makes the analogy rather silly.
Ads on television are time consuming, but we put up with them. Ads on the internet are annoying. Why the difference? I think it's NOT because of anything inherent in the 'net itself, but because of the device they are being delivered to - your computer. A television is a passive device. You sit and watch it without taking action. A computer is *not* like that. You *DO* things with it. You write letters, you read mail, you work on things for your job, you play a game. Having *that* device get taken over out of your control feels more intrusive than having a device like a TV, which is dedicated to doing nothing but passive entertainment, get taken over in the same way. With the computer, it feels more like the advertisement has taken over more aspects of your life. It's like a TV ad that shows up on not only the TV, but also the kitchen table, the cieling, the floor, the closet, and the desk, where you do things other than just watch TV.
a. print your code and mail it to yourself, do NOT ever open it. This sealed envelope containing your code with the US postal stamp on it is admisable as court evidence (again, provided it is not opened) - cost 37
Uhhh - since when have you ever been worried on the copyright on a piece of code less than a few hundred lines? (37 cents is the cost of sending a very LIGHT piece of mail - not a typical printout of code.)
Wouldn't that require that the thing be even stronger, though, and it would have to be anchored *to* the earth pretty strongly? It would get rid of some of the danger of sabatoge, though (sever the elevator, and the part in space is flung away from earth instead of falling.)
I was going to bring up how using the earth's spin to fling mass into space will reduce the rotational momentum of earth and increase the length of an earth day (which could have disasterous environmental impact), but on second thought, I suppose the earth is massive enough compared to payloads we send that it would take a *lot* of launches before the change in the length of a day would be measurable. I don't feel like doing the math, but it would probably not be enough of a difference to matter.
So when are you planning on designing the superstrong material needed to build the elevator? It's got to hold tens of thousands of miles of length under forces that approach 1 G at both ends. Basically, you need some kind of cable that doesn't become too heavy to hold it's own weight when it's tens of thousands of miles long, AND has plenty of strength to spare so you can lift payloads with it.
And, space elevators are NOT safe. If someone can sabatoge the elevator by severing it *anywhere* along it's length, everything above that point will be flung "up", and everything below that point will fall to earth. A structure tens of thousands of miles long falling to the planet and laying itself along the surface east-west will do a lot of damage. Even a small fraction of the length of it, such as would fall if the sever point was in very low orbit, would still be a disaster for people living near the ground access point. (And before you say the area would be a deserted where they build it - think of the economic impact of having the elevator there. Wherever it is built, a population would move there becasue it would become a trade nexus.)
What I would have liked back in the day when I had lego, though, would have been *some* of the special parts - not for specific one-use models, but for more generic problems that the standard bricks didn't handle - like making strong rotating joints, axles, and joints to "turn the corner" and make bricks attach 90 degrees to other bricks. (So that some bricks in the object can have bumps pointing left, others pointing up, and others pointing right.) Back when I was using them as a kid, none of that was standard, and you needed to raid into the specialty kits just to get these kinds of joiners. And they solve problems that no amount of ceativity can solve using the standard bricks.
That's hardly the only thing interesting that goes on in the sky. And it's a MINOR thing because it's so rare. In a primative state people are likely to chalk it up to a miracle and not investigate it. The recurring things are what matters.
Astronomy started from two roots: 1 - Trying to make a calendar, and 2 - Trying to navigate outside at night.
Yes they are. The reason I fall for trolls often is that the trollers are imitating people I have no respect for, and I think are really REALLY dumb - therefore I can't assume the poster is kidding just based on the fact that the content of the post is really dumb. No matter how hard someone may try to satire a position held by real idiots, the satire will fall short of the real thing in how silly it seems to me. (For example, you could try to troll me by imitating a fundamentalist. But no matter how hard you try to make it look over-the-top and fake, nothing can match the actual stupidity exhibited by the real fundamentalists - therefore I can't tell it's satire unless I also know the person in some other context to realize they wouldn't really say something like that and mean it.)
Well, any game in which the odds of winning increase the more money you are willing to spend on the game components *is* going to turn into a wasteful compulsive habit for some. Magic: The Gathering and all collectable card games that followed suit are evil - but not because of the "occult" - It's because of the fact that the more money you burn, the better your odds. As soon as I heard of the game back in the day it first appeared at GenCon, I asked people how it worked and never touched the damn thing, seeing it for the scam it was. Years later, having spent zero dollars on it, I can't help but guffaw an "I told you so" when friends felt the need to sell off their card collections in order to get out and stop playing the game.
While I agree that the original post is mumbo-jumbo, I take a little exception to the notion that you can tell what the color on mars would look like based on looking at it from here in a telescope. Consider what earth looked like from the photos taken on the apollo missions. The oceans are the right color - blue, but the landmasses come out a lot darker and uniform in color than they really appear on the surface. I suspect this is because from that far away, the large variety in the landscape gets "mushed" together and the colors tend to blend together like the color dots on a printer printout. So what you see from far away is brownish because brown is what you get when you mix together the different colors you see in variety here on the surface.
Yes, earth-moon is unique because of the large size of the moon (which is why, unlike the other moons, it is likely a foriegn body rather than something that formed at the same time as earth out of the same cloud.) But, why would an eclipse be needed for astronomy? Any stars in the sky that it shows that would otherwise have been invisible during the day are stars that would have just appeared anyway six months later when the earth is on the other side of the sun.
It's not a matter of the cleanliness of the panels, but of the damage the dust causes them. IF it was merely about the presence of the dust, then the first gust of wind would fix the problem. The problem is that the dust scratches the panels when it blows across them.
but it is perfectly correct to say the average family simply "has children".
Of course. Because the average family (which means the mode, not the mean) *does* actually have children. (in fact, it has to, by definition, or it's not a family.).
That is different than saying, for example, that the average student got 18.4 points, on a test which only gives scores as integers.
And, Yes this is the same as my complaint about the driving tests. If the average driver does really well, but the ones that do poorly end up doing VERY porly, then the mean will be somewhere in between them where no such member of the population actually exists, and so it's wrong to phrase the result as if it was a mode (which is what "the average driver is like such-and-such" means.)
If I give a test with only one question on it, and half the people get it right and half get it wrong, it would be true to report that as "the scores averaged to 50%". But it is a lie to say that the average person scored 50% on the test.
And if some drivers are distracted by something that others are not, it is wrong to say the average driver is somewhat distracted by it.
I "can" move my mouth, but it doesn't look like a smile, partly because the corners of my mouth don't end up curling "up", but rather they curl "in".
With the eyes, one thing I have noticed is that I have problems trying to see things through a screen window if I'm standing within about half a meter of the window. When I'm that close, my eyes notice the wire mesh and keep trying to focus on *it* instead of what's past it. The only way I can fix that is to nod my head back a forth a little bit, which gives some motion blur to the wire mesh. Then my eyes will ignore it and focus past it to the outside (because then each part of the image is only covered up by a piece of wire mesh for an instant and then the mesh is "moved" to the next part of the image, and my brain complelete ignores the wire mesh. I can't even see it anymore - my brain just assumes it's getting a flickery image, like when watching a TV or computer screen.)
Go into everything with the attitude that you are the best and you'll never notice the difference between when you are right about that and when you are not - and your arrogance will piss off everyone else.
Partly my problem is I cannot willinging fail to focus on that which is right in front of me. If my eyes notice an object about a foot away from my face, something in my subconsious automatically moves my eyes to narrow on it and focus at that length - and it's reflexive. I can no more avoid that than I can willingly leave my hand on a hot stove. It's hard to describe to someone who hasn't experienced it, but a lot of my muscle motions are not under conscious control. Apparently as a baby, my brain learned to think of body movement as something for the subconscious to deal with, and all my learned motions are based on higher-level tasks. For example, I cannot deliberately smile for a picture. If I feel genuine mirth, then I smile. If I don't, I can't fake it no matter how hard I try. The mental pathway that leads to "make corners of mouth curl up" is "wired" to run through the emotions. I can't make the movement without first feeling the associated emotion to go with it.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that what you *feel* is very different from what is responsible for the problem. What you feel is the effects AFTER your body has kicked-in it's heat-redistribution technique. Even if your extremities are not where you are leaking heat from, and it's actually coming out somewhere else, they will still be where you *feel* like you are leaking heat from, because your body will pull the heat out of them and move it where it is more needed (where the leak is), because, to put it bluntly, evolution doesn't mind if you lose a few fingers or toes but it kind of likes to keep your brain and vital organs around.
1. This probably isn't a matter of circulation. It's a matter of wind chill. Your fingers are exposed to more air circulation than your torso when you ride a bike.
2. Any time you are losing heat from *anywhere*, you will feel it first in your fingers and toes, even if they aren't the actual culprit. If you keep your fingers warm, and let everything else be cold, your body will *steal* the heat from your fingers and send it to your torso, and your fingers will still "feel" cold.
The way to make your hands warmer is to insulate your entire body better. When your body is cold, your body prioritizes your heat energy - using most of it on the vital areas in your torso and your head. Fingers and toes are less vital, and so they get robbed of heat in order to use it elsewhere. That's what leads to the strange condition where if you don't have a warm hat, your fingers will get cold. (Your body is desperately shunting heat energy up to your head to keep your brain alive, even though it's really inefficient to be moving the heat to the location that's leaking such a large amount of heat.) So if you don't have a warm hat, your head will actually still feel okay, but at the expense of the rest of your body, starting with the fingers and toes.
This product just tries to ignore evolution and do things backward. There's a *reason* your body tends to sacrifice fingers and toes when you are dying of cold. If you are cold enough that your fingers and toes are starting to feel painfully cold, then you've got a warmth problem *overall* across your whole body that can't be fixed by just moving the heat around.
Everything Rick Berman has touched about Star Trek has sucked. The problem is that every single episode ends up being about why inaction is ethically better than action. And that really starts to get BORING fast. "Hey, I have a cool idea for a show - let's make all sorts of plot threads in which interesting things *could* happen, and then pull a "ha-ha" on the audience and make them *not* happen. Won't that be cool? Won't they like that?
No. No, they won't.
If you want to save Star Trek, try actually having something *happen* for once. Something that lasts longer than one episode. And to do that, you need to ditch Rick Bermans' moral lessons and replace them with ones that actually cause things to occur. (The only part of the newer star trek serieses (not counting the old 60's show here) that was good was the part near the end of the run for DS9 where they tried having a continuing plotline about the station's trials and tribulations while under occupation. That bit worked very well while it lasted.)
I was referring to the comment attempting (lamely) to make an analogy from a one-way mars trip to the one-way trips of the early European travellers to the New World. In crossing the Atlantic, basic life support existed *already* at the destination, and there were even already other PEOPLE able to survive just fine there. With crossing to Mars, all life support has to be sent or manufactured on-site. That's a HUGE difference that makes the analogy rather silly.
Ads on television are time consuming, but we put up with them. Ads on the internet are annoying. Why the difference? I think it's NOT because of anything inherent in the 'net itself, but because of the device they are being delivered to - your computer. A television is a passive device. You sit and watch it without taking action. A computer is *not* like that. You *DO* things with it. You write letters, you read mail, you work on things for your job, you play a game. Having *that* device get taken over out of your control feels more intrusive than having a device like a TV, which is dedicated to doing nothing but passive entertainment, get taken over in the same way. With the computer, it feels more like the advertisement has taken over more aspects of your life. It's like a TV ad that shows up on not only the TV, but also the kitchen table, the cieling, the floor, the closet, and the desk, where you do things other than just watch TV.
The one way trip works better when the place you are going has food, water, and air.
a. print your code and mail it to yourself, do NOT ever open it. This sealed envelope containing your code with the US postal stamp on it is admisable as court evidence (again, provided it is not opened) - cost 37
Uhhh - since when have you ever been worried on the copyright on a piece of code less than a few hundred lines? (37 cents is the cost of sending a very LIGHT piece of mail - not a typical printout of code.)
Wouldn't that require that the thing be even stronger, though, and it would have to be anchored *to* the earth pretty strongly? It would get rid of some of the danger of sabatoge, though (sever the elevator, and the part in space is flung away from earth instead of falling.)
I was going to bring up how using the earth's spin to fling mass into space will reduce the rotational momentum of earth and increase the length of an earth day (which could have disasterous environmental impact), but on second thought, I suppose the earth is massive enough compared to payloads we send that it would take a *lot* of launches before the change in the length of a day would be measurable. I don't feel like doing the math, but it would probably not be enough of a difference to matter.
So when are you planning on designing the superstrong material needed to build the elevator? It's got to hold tens of thousands of miles of length under forces that approach 1 G at both ends. Basically, you need some kind of cable that doesn't become too heavy to hold it's own weight when it's tens of thousands of miles long, AND has plenty of strength to spare so you can lift payloads with it.
And, space elevators are NOT safe. If someone can sabatoge the elevator by severing it *anywhere* along it's length, everything above that point will be flung "up", and everything below that point will fall to earth. A structure tens of thousands of miles long falling to the planet and laying itself along the surface east-west will do a lot of damage. Even a small fraction of the length of it, such as would fall if the sever point was in very low orbit, would still be a disaster for people living near the ground access point. (And before you say the area would be a deserted where they build it - think of the economic impact of having the elevator there. Wherever it is built, a population would move there becasue it would become a trade nexus.)
What I would have liked back in the day when I had lego, though, would have been *some* of the special parts - not for specific one-use models, but for more generic problems that the standard bricks didn't handle - like making strong rotating joints, axles, and joints to "turn the corner" and make bricks attach 90 degrees to other bricks. (So that some bricks in the object can have bumps pointing left, others pointing up, and others pointing right.) Back when I was using them as a kid, none of that was standard, and you needed to raid into the specialty kits just to get these kinds of joiners. And they solve problems that no amount of ceativity can solve using the standard bricks.
Take off the tin foil hat. The fire started from the inside, when the BATF agents and their vehicles weren't even touching the building.
That's hardly the only thing interesting that goes on in the sky. And it's a MINOR thing because it's so rare. In a primative state people are likely to chalk it up to a miracle and not investigate it. The recurring things are what matters.
Astronomy started from two roots: 1 - Trying to make a calendar, and 2 - Trying to navigate outside at night.
Nobody's that dumb
Yes they are. The reason I fall for trolls often is that the trollers are imitating people I have no respect for, and I think are really REALLY dumb - therefore I can't assume the poster is kidding just based on the fact that the content of the post is really dumb. No matter how hard someone may try to satire a position held by real idiots, the satire will fall short of the real thing in how silly it seems to me. (For example, you could try to troll me by imitating a fundamentalist. But no matter how hard you try to make it look over-the-top and fake, nothing can match the actual stupidity exhibited by the real fundamentalists - therefore I can't tell it's satire unless I also know the person in some other context to realize they wouldn't really say something like that and mean it.)
Well, any game in which the odds of winning increase the more money you are willing to spend on the game components *is* going to turn into a wasteful compulsive habit for some. Magic: The Gathering and all collectable card games that followed suit are evil - but not because of the "occult" - It's because of the fact that the more money you burn, the better your odds. As soon as I heard of the game back in the day it first appeared at GenCon, I asked people how it worked and never touched the damn thing, seeing it for the scam it was. Years later, having spent zero dollars on it, I can't help but guffaw an "I told you so" when friends felt the need to sell off their card collections in order to get out and stop playing the game.
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions.
It amazes me that you would come to that conclusion when the majority of responses I'm seeing are not "falling" for this idiot at all.
While I agree that the original post is mumbo-jumbo, I take a little exception to the notion that you can tell what the color on mars would look like based on looking at it from here in a telescope. Consider what earth looked like from the photos taken on the apollo missions. The oceans are the right color - blue, but the landmasses come out a lot darker and uniform in color than they really appear on the surface. I suspect this is because from that far away, the large variety in the landscape gets "mushed" together and the colors tend to blend together like the color dots on a printer printout. So what you see from far away is brownish because brown is what you get when you mix together the different colors you see in variety here on the surface.
Yes, earth-moon is unique because of the large size of the moon (which is why, unlike the other moons, it is likely a foriegn body rather than something that formed at the same time as earth out of the same cloud.) But, why would an eclipse be needed for astronomy? Any stars in the sky that it shows that would otherwise have been invisible during the day are stars that would have just appeared anyway six months later when the earth is on the other side of the sun.
So, if I set fire to my house, that's the government's fault?
What about the other lander, the clone of spirit, scheduled to touch down on the opposite side of the planet soon. How close will it be?
It's not a matter of the cleanliness of the panels, but of the damage the dust causes them. IF it was merely about the presence of the dust, then the first gust of wind would fix the problem. The problem is that the dust scratches the panels when it blows across them.
but it is perfectly correct to say the average family simply "has children".
Of course. Because the average family (which means the mode, not the mean) *does* actually have children. (in fact, it has to, by definition, or it's not a family.).
That is different than saying, for example, that the average student got 18.4 points, on a test which only gives scores as integers.
And, Yes this is the same as my complaint about the driving tests. If the average driver does really well, but the ones that do poorly end up doing VERY porly, then the mean will be somewhere in between them where no such member of the population actually exists, and so it's wrong to phrase the result as if it was a mode (which is what "the average driver is like such-and-such" means.)
If I give a test with only one question on it, and half the people get it right and half get it wrong, it would be true to report that as "the scores averaged to 50%". But it is a lie to say that the average person scored 50% on the test.
And if some drivers are distracted by something that others are not, it is wrong to say the average driver is somewhat distracted by it.
I "can" move my mouth, but it doesn't look like a smile, partly because the corners of my mouth don't end up curling "up", but rather they curl "in".
With the eyes, one thing I have noticed is that I have problems trying to see things through a screen window if I'm standing within about half a meter of the window. When I'm that close, my eyes notice the wire mesh and keep trying to focus on *it* instead of what's past it. The only way I can fix that is to nod my head back a forth a little bit, which gives some motion blur to the wire mesh. Then my eyes will ignore it and focus past it to the outside (because then each part of the image is only covered up by a piece of wire mesh for an instant and then the mesh is "moved" to the next part of the image, and my brain complelete ignores the wire mesh. I can't even see it anymore - my brain just assumes it's getting a flickery image, like when watching a TV or computer screen.)
Go into everything with the attitude that you are the best and you'll never notice the difference between when you are right about that and when you are not - and your arrogance will piss off everyone else.
Partly my problem is I cannot willinging fail to focus on that which is right in front of me. If my eyes notice an object about a foot away from my face, something in my subconsious automatically moves my eyes to narrow on it and focus at that length - and it's reflexive. I can no more avoid that than I can willingly leave my hand on a hot stove. It's hard to describe to someone who hasn't experienced it, but a lot of my muscle motions are not under conscious control. Apparently as a baby, my brain learned to think of body movement as something for the subconscious to deal with, and all my learned motions are based on higher-level tasks. For example, I cannot deliberately smile for a picture. If I feel genuine mirth, then I smile. If I don't, I can't fake it no matter how hard I try. The mental pathway that leads to "make corners of mouth curl up" is "wired" to run through the emotions. I can't make the movement without first feeling the associated emotion to go with it.