I wonder how much smog it would take to surrounf the sun in an impenetrable black cloud.... Ooh! or we could do the 'catapult earth off its orbit and into the outer disc of the solar system' thing. That would do it.
Uh, melting point varies with pressure and a couple other factors that depend on your PVT model. You can melt pretty much any material if you set the conditions correctly, regardless of wether the decomposition temperature is below the MP at 1 atm or not. The liquid phase may not be very accessible, but it's always there.
Also, you need a better example, since Sucrose (the molecule people mean when they say 'sugar' without a qualifier) has a MP of 191 degrees centigrade at 1 atm, i.e. it has a viable liquid phase pre-decomposition. Perhaps you're thinking of Glucose or Ribose?
You could make an argument that 'frozen liquid' would refer to an amorphous (non-crystalline/glassy) structured solid only, as these result from a skipping of the phase formation bit of solidification to just lock the structure of the liquid into solid form. However, I think it's more likely that the writers of the article just skipped the materials phase of their education, locking the structure of their brains into a void-filled physics-oriented glass. Or they just, you know, made the intellectual equivalent of a typo. Whichever.
So you're saying that the presence of the man with no feet magically negates the problem of me having no shoes? What crazy bizzaro universe do you live in? If perception gradients actually affected reality, i'd be rolling arete to do my work instead of knowledge:science.
Re:Please use Kelvin to compare % temperature chan
on
Undervolting a Laptop
·
· Score: 1
Or Rankine, which also has a zero corresponding to 0 entropy.
Doh! You beat me to it... making my later post redundant... hmm, that's either an interesting coincidence or sleep deprivation is making really banal things seem totally awesome.
It's redundant? So it's so obvious that they aren't doing evil that stating it is completely pointless?
(This word, "redundant"... I do not think it means what you think it means. You're right about the constitution, though, there are several redundancies in there to keep the balance of power from tipping about too wildly.)
"what you dig up can kill you and everybody in your vicinity and make it uninhabitable for generations"
So you're assuming that people in the distant future will: (a) Have become completely incompetent regarding the identification of chemicals and radiation (b) Will have developed a habit of eating strange materials they dig out of the ground, and then feeding it to 'everybody in [their] vicinity' (c) Enjoy digging strange substances up and tilling them throroughly into the surrounding soil with no idea what their effects are
Or alternately you're assuming: (a) People of the distant future would not be able to identify radioactive material and (b) yet they'd still be able to make a fission/fusion bomb out of what is mostly low-level waste (irradiated rubber gloves, etc) anyhow (c) while not realizing that they were building a bomb.
I find either your grasp of the scale of the danger of radioactivity or your vision of the future consisting entirely of idiots with the ability to unconsciously engineer nuclear weapons frightening... I'm not sure which is more disturbing.
Why wouldn't you heat your home with nuclear power? Are electrically-driven heat pumps and heating coils dangerous in some way that setting a hydrocarbon on fire isn't?
"you might consider the American Revolution, where France rather handily pulled America's bacon out of the fire."
And we'd appreciate it a lot more if the precursors to the current french state had not, you know, chopped off the heads of all of the members of the state that provided us naval assistance.
I hear you except for the second point. What exactly makes you think that US companies would give up profitable business arrangements in France just because we didn't have troops in the same war? Hello, nation designed by businessmen calling, we'd like to leave a message for reality, tell him to call us back when he gets back in.
Yeah, I seem to recall Americans having contempt for the French [continuously over half a century] before their opposition to the invasion of Iraq, what exactly leads you to believe that we were manipulated into it in any way? I tend to think it's the natural result of them being the only nation with a higher prevalence of ignorant, arrogant jackasses than us. America's supposed to have the highest pretentious idiot population, ya silly French folk, quit showing us up!
Lazy bastards, grab some ammonia and a compression pump and do this right. (It's funny. Laugh.)
Re:Pop Quiz for Chem Geeks or Biologists
on
Chemical Words List
·
· Score: 1
Tempting to guess potassium, but that is a rare earth rather than being a true metal (/materials scientist), plus Calcium forms the bones, so, yeah, I'll go with Calcium on this one.
Going to also object on the grounds that, unless you eat quarters or something, elements in the human body don't occur in their metallic form, but their ionic form.
It would have a point as a basic computer science lesson, random assembly of syllables + searching a database of words, that pretty much covers the entirety of second semester CS if I recall correctly.
Actually, if you give one man all of the power, you have complete and exact political equality with one outlier, which can be rejected as statistically irrelevant. Do I win? Do I get a cookie?
Dude, while I laud your ability to take your fellow/.ers seriously, I'd like to point out that the Purity of Essence joke just flew right over your head. Time for you to rent "Dr. Strangelove" again, eh.
I'm still not sure how this little piece of bull became such a popular meme. Probably because bisexual people are confused, and thus can't tell the difference between a sexual attraction and a nonsexual one. As a result, they think that every time a guy passes another guy a beer, there's lurking sexual tension. This 'psychological explanation' of why deluded bisexuals grab onto this stupid meme is a piece of nonsense I pulled out of my ass, but then so is yours, so at least I've one-upped you by admitting it./insert taunting tongue extrusion here/
I'd say that the dangerous idea there is in thinking that violence caused by culture, poverty, pathology, or exposure to media violence (sic on the triple redundance) is for some reason not punishable. Knowing what causes crime is really an advantage when you think about it, it's the leap where we go from "we know why this crime was committed" to "well, i guess it's not really so bad then" that I get confused and society fails.
Bhuddism is considered a religion now? When did that happen? Did they revoke the 'worship something'/'mythology about the origin of the universe' requirement while I wasn't looking?
Aye, religion is thinking in advance about what's moral and what isn't, so you're prepared when the time comes. Knowing god is making the wrong descision based on an arbitrary gut feeling, and being a self-righteous prick to cover up the fact that your philosophy and actions are not internally consistent.
Actually, they did. Brought back valuable fragments of preserved greek culture from the Arabs, pushed the study of mathematics and engineering to new levels (had to keep up with those clever Caliphate siege engineers), and kept restless and heavily-armed feudal chiefs from creating the wars that kept them in business within the borders of the kingdom of Christianity. The crusades were one of the best things that ever happened to Europe. I'd hardly call them 'bad', except maybe on the individual level of the people that died, and if you use that scale, then pretty much everything you can think of is 'bad'. The advent of modern farming allowed overpopulation, which led to poor people! Farming is bad! Let's complain about farming!
None of your statements has anything to do with creation at all. That we're all created equal is pretty much correct, as any given clump of cells resulting from a fusion of male and female genetic material is roughly identical to any other such clump so far as practical abilities go. Just because factors from a bit before birth onward shape us into beings which are eventually unequal does not negate the common thread of our origin.
The philosophical bit of "All men are created equal" is the implication that this common origin should tie us together, not that we continue to be equal during the entire period following creation. The former is a nice thought, and a wish shared by a lot of philosophers. The latter is a rather obviously stupid idea which I'm pretty sure no one could think about for more than a minute without rejecting.
That said, the 'inherent rights' stuff is bullshit, though it would almost work if you replaced 'should not' with 'cannot'. Actually, wait, no, the idea is still bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
Wanna make a bet?
I wonder how much smog it would take to surrounf the sun in an impenetrable black cloud.... Ooh! or we could do the 'catapult earth off its orbit and into the outer disc of the solar system' thing. That would do it.
Uh, melting point varies with pressure and a couple other factors that depend on your PVT model. You can melt pretty much any material if you set the conditions correctly, regardless of wether the decomposition temperature is below the MP at 1 atm or not. The liquid phase may not be very accessible, but it's always there.
Also, you need a better example, since Sucrose (the molecule people mean when they say 'sugar' without a qualifier) has a MP of 191 degrees centigrade at 1 atm, i.e. it has a viable liquid phase pre-decomposition. Perhaps you're thinking of Glucose or Ribose?
You could make an argument that 'frozen liquid' would refer to an amorphous (non-crystalline/glassy) structured solid only, as these result from a skipping of the phase formation bit of solidification to just lock the structure of the liquid into solid form. However, I think it's more likely that the writers of the article just skipped the materials phase of their education, locking the structure of their brains into a void-filled physics-oriented glass. Or they just, you know, made the intellectual equivalent of a typo. Whichever.
So you're saying that the presence of the man with no feet magically negates the problem of me having no shoes? What crazy bizzaro universe do you live in? If perception gradients actually affected reality, i'd be rolling arete to do my work instead of knowledge:science.
Or Rankine, which also has a zero corresponding to 0 entropy.
Doh! You beat me to it... making my later post redundant... hmm, that's either an interesting coincidence or sleep deprivation is making really banal things seem totally awesome.
It's redundant? So it's so obvious that they aren't doing evil that stating it is completely pointless?
(This word, "redundant"... I do not think it means what you think it means. You're right about the constitution, though, there are several redundancies in there to keep the balance of power from tipping about too wildly.)
"what you dig up can kill you and everybody in your vicinity and make it uninhabitable for generations"
So you're assuming that people in the distant future will:
(a) Have become completely incompetent regarding the identification of chemicals and radiation
(b) Will have developed a habit of eating strange materials they dig out of the ground, and then feeding it to 'everybody in [their] vicinity'
(c) Enjoy digging strange substances up and tilling them throroughly into the surrounding soil with no idea what their effects are
Or alternately you're assuming:
(a) People of the distant future would not be able to identify radioactive material and
(b) yet they'd still be able to make a fission/fusion bomb out of what is mostly low-level waste (irradiated rubber gloves, etc) anyhow
(c) while not realizing that they were building a bomb.
I find either your grasp of the scale of the danger of radioactivity or your vision of the future consisting entirely of idiots with the ability to unconsciously engineer nuclear weapons frightening... I'm not sure which is more disturbing.
Why wouldn't you heat your home with nuclear power? Are electrically-driven heat pumps and heating coils dangerous in some way that setting a hydrocarbon on fire isn't?
"you might consider the American Revolution, where France rather handily pulled America's bacon out of the fire."
And we'd appreciate it a lot more if the precursors to the current french state had not, you know, chopped off the heads of all of the members of the state that provided us naval assistance.
I hear you except for the second point. What exactly makes you think that US companies would give up profitable business arrangements in France just because we didn't have troops in the same war? Hello, nation designed by businessmen calling, we'd like to leave a message for reality, tell him to call us back when he gets back in.
Yeah, I seem to recall Americans having contempt for the French [continuously over half a century] before their opposition to the invasion of Iraq, what exactly leads you to believe that we were manipulated into it in any way? I tend to think it's the natural result of them being the only nation with a higher prevalence of ignorant, arrogant jackasses than us. America's supposed to have the highest pretentious idiot population, ya silly French folk, quit showing us up!
Lazy bastards, grab some ammonia and a compression pump and do this right. (It's funny. Laugh.)
Tempting to guess potassium, but that is a rare earth rather than being a true metal (/materials scientist), plus Calcium forms the bones, so, yeah, I'll go with Calcium on this one.
Going to also object on the grounds that, unless you eat quarters or something, elements in the human body don't occur in their metallic form, but their ionic form.
For the record, there is not a T on the periodic table. There is, however, a Th, so ThC would work.
It would have a point as a basic computer science lesson, random assembly of syllables + searching a database of words, that pretty much covers the entirety of second semester CS if I recall correctly.
Actually, if you give one man all of the power, you have complete and exact political equality with one outlier, which can be rejected as statistically irrelevant. Do I win? Do I get a cookie?
Dude, while I laud your ability to take your fellow /.ers seriously, I'd like to point out that the Purity of Essence joke just flew right over your head. Time for you to rent "Dr. Strangelove" again, eh.
You, sir, are my hero.
I'm still not sure how this little piece of bull became such a popular meme. Probably because bisexual people are confused, and thus can't tell the difference between a sexual attraction and a nonsexual one. As a result, they think that every time a guy passes another guy a beer, there's lurking sexual tension. This 'psychological explanation' of why deluded bisexuals grab onto this stupid meme is a piece of nonsense I pulled out of my ass, but then so is yours, so at least I've one-upped you by admitting it. /insert taunting tongue extrusion here/
I'd say that the dangerous idea there is in thinking that violence caused by culture, poverty, pathology, or exposure to media violence (sic on the triple redundance) is for some reason not punishable. Knowing what causes crime is really an advantage when you think about it, it's the leap where we go from "we know why this crime was committed" to "well, i guess it's not really so bad then" that I get confused and society fails.
Bhuddism is considered a religion now? When did that happen? Did they revoke the 'worship something'/'mythology about the origin of the universe' requirement while I wasn't looking?
Aye, religion is thinking in advance about what's moral and what isn't, so you're prepared when the time comes. Knowing god is making the wrong descision based on an arbitrary gut feeling, and being a self-righteous prick to cover up the fact that your philosophy and actions are not internally consistent.
(/grew up in baptist land, i know this one)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist
i c, definition 1.b.
Sorry, fella. I think you lose this one. Better look for the real word that describes your position... ah, there it is.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnost
Man, language references sure are handy.
Actually, they did. Brought back valuable fragments of preserved greek culture from the Arabs, pushed the study of mathematics and engineering to new levels (had to keep up with those clever Caliphate siege engineers), and kept restless and heavily-armed feudal chiefs from creating the wars that kept them in business within the borders of the kingdom of Christianity. The crusades were one of the best things that ever happened to Europe. I'd hardly call them 'bad', except maybe on the individual level of the people that died, and if you use that scale, then pretty much everything you can think of is 'bad'. The advent of modern farming allowed overpopulation, which led to poor people! Farming is bad! Let's complain about farming!
None of your statements has anything to do with creation at all. That we're all created equal is pretty much correct, as any given clump of cells resulting from a fusion of male and female genetic material is roughly identical to any other such clump so far as practical abilities go. Just because factors from a bit before birth onward shape us into beings which are eventually unequal does not negate the common thread of our origin.
The philosophical bit of "All men are created equal" is the implication that this common origin should tie us together, not that we continue to be equal during the entire period following creation. The former is a nice thought, and a wish shared by a lot of philosophers. The latter is a rather obviously stupid idea which I'm pretty sure no one could think about for more than a minute without rejecting.
That said, the 'inherent rights' stuff is bullshit, though it would almost work if you replaced 'should not' with 'cannot'. Actually, wait, no, the idea is still bullshit.