their called plants and they cover almost all of the earths surface. We do have a net gain in energy but the plants store a lot of it.
Now you write:
Plants use that energy to grow and live. In turn animals use that energy to grow and live as well. We're all children of the sun. We use the suns energy. And it disapates as energy uses to sustain us.
FYI it's dissipates. And if it dissipates, it isn't stored. Certainly not on an ongoing basis to constantly absorb a net energy gain.
And FYI, it's "they're called", not "their called".
We do have a net gain in energy but the plants store a lot of it.
For that to be true, the plants would either have to find ever more concentrated ways to store it, or the amount of plants would have to constantly increase. I see no evidence that either is happening on a significant scale.
Don't listen to him! Invest in companies that are going to sue him for violations of all the patents that have been issued for perpetual-motion machines!
No! Invest in the companies that are going to sue those companies for violations of their patents on the method of patenting perpetual-motion machines.
Buildings do not move at all and therefore do not absorb any of the wind's energy.
Note: if they do not absorb any, that implies that all (you know, like 100%) of it remains.
Then you wrote:
since the buildings do not move (much) the energy remains, some is expended by causing slight sway and sound, but indeed most of the energy remains in the wind.
I'm sure fluid mechanics isn't on the syllabus, but don't they even teach the difference between "most" and "all" at the 'tard school?
I know what it means. However phaggood's comment "... they could only focus on the car far up ahead" implies that he thinks it means something like presbyopia. ATROSTO, judging distance is not the same as being able to focus at a particular distance.
Consider a massively pungent environment, where all smells are rendered undetectable against the background within a metre or so. [...]
Consider the opposite - a constantly foggy environment.
And consider a landscape with foggy highlands and smelly valleys. Two quite distinct subspecies could evolve. Even a third - with mediocre smell & sight could exist, working the seam between the others. Sometimes "good enough" is, well, good enough.
If you've noticed, as the eyesight gets better, the nose gets smaller (as stands to reason using Darwin's theory, since there would be less reliance on smell and more on sight).
Rubbish. You don't have a 'budget' to spend on senses, so that spending more on smell means you have worse eyes like when your creating an RPG character or something. Does sticking your fingers in your ears make you see better?
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good thing? It means the guys in NYC don't earn in enough to live on and the business in Des Moines is uncompetitive.
And FYI, it's "they're called", not "their called".
Then you wrote:
I'm sure fluid mechanics isn't on the syllabus, but don't they even teach the difference between "most" and "all" at the 'tard school?He's a christyern, that's why ah voted fer him and so did my wife and sister. Yup, both of us.
I know what it means. However phaggood's comment "... they could only focus on the car far up ahead" implies that he thinks it means something like presbyopia. ATROSTO, judging distance is not the same as being able to focus at a particular distance.
Just like all great programmers cut and paste code from one project to the nextNo they don't, crap programmers do that. Good ones create libraries.
You don't know what binocular vision means, do you, idiot?