They have no Internet, cellphones, hardly any lights at night. All those "modern" conveniences are important to science and engineering, especially science and engineering culture. Yet N Korea has apparently have nuclear bombs, one of the heights of tech achievement for any society.
How much internet and cellphones did the US have in the 1940s ?
Heck. The people who designed and built the first bomb didn't even have pocket calculators.
It's clear that they got the bomb tech from elsewhere.
Hm, well yeah. The knowledge that you can build these things has been around for over hald a century. The basic principles can now be found in pretty much any physics textbook, as opposed to _nowhere_ in the 1940s. Unemployed bomb-builders could be found in Russia.
It's nowhere near as hard to build a bomb now than it was 60-something years ago.
That just isn't true of any journalling flash-file system that is worth its salt. The journal isn't in a single location in the flash - it is interwoven with the data on the flash. Flash use is bananced over the entire flash.
Also, the flash medium itself might perform some sort of wear-levelling.
Politicians shouldn't be let near anything closely technical.
The GEZ fee was introduced because the actual recipient of TV broadcasts cannot be determined, because of obvious technical reasons. With the internet, it would be trivial to set up some sort of billing scheme for people wanting to receive public TV/Radio broadcasts.
But try telling that to politicians. I wonder when someone's going to mention tubes over here.
After all, business assets can easily be seized or destroyed.
Next step: Nuclear armament for corporations (hey, corporations are business, and business is good, right) ? That should stop anyone from messing with their assets.
It is even more true with space colonies. For example it would take at least 15 minutes to relay an instruction to Mars from an earth-bound home base.
It takes even longer for the supply crafts to arrive. And Earth still controls when and if they do.
Also, if the colonies don't have any nukes, and Earth still has plenty of them... well... do you think the US would have been able to declare independence if England could just have nukes the shit out their rebellious colonies ?
I think a country has the right to tell other countries to stay out of its airspace to. I think most countries would be very annoyed if someone else put a satallite in geosync orbit over their land.
Reality check: How much air do you find in a geosync orbit ? None.. Airspace ends where the air ends. At least, right now.
Also, geosync orbits are pretty much in the same plane as the equator. Guess why all those satellite dishes are pointed towards that plane (south if you're in the northern hemisphere) ? So, most countries (and pretty much all countries with the means to put stuff in orbit) wouldn't have any rights to put satellites into geosync orbits ? Or only over international waters (which is where most of the equator lies) ? Should Mr. Chavez be able to demand that the US remove all of their geosync satellites from his "orbit-space" ?
Thats total and complete nonsense, if we hadn't learned to pass on knowledge from one generation to another then we would still be living in the stone age, the fact that we're not is directly due to the fact that we are in fact excellent at passing knowledge, experience, wisdom etc etc etc down hundreds of thousands generations.
We're quite good at passing knowledge down generations.
We're somewhat successful at passing experience down generations.
We utterly fail to pass wisdom down generations. That's why there's still plenty of fools who have to learn from their own experience, instead of someone elses.
I'd imagine the temperature of Venus has a little to do with being dramatically closer to that big flaming ball in the center of our solar system as well...
"Dramatically" is a bit dramatical for 0.723 AU vs. 1 AU, don't you think ?
Apart from that, you're right. The distance thingie has a little to do with the temperature on Venus - it would make Venus a scorched desert with maybe some fairly pleasant spots somewhere close to its poles.
However, it does not explain why Venus is, in fact, a place that makes the inside of a pressure cooker seem like a very hospitable place in comparison. Heck. The coolest spots on Venus are hotter than the hottest spots on frickin Mercury, which receives four times the solar irradiance that Venus does. How's that for dramatic ?
If everyone *reproduces*, then evolution stops. Or if there is nothing to determine whether one is more likely to reproduce, then evolution stops.
You fail to take into account that reproduction isn't digital, but comes in varying grades of success (i.e. number of offspring). Evolution will take place as long as there are genetics-related differences in that number.
According to an article at the BBC, an evolutionary theorist in London suggests that humanity may split into two sub-species within the next 100,000 years.
According to me, this has already happened before. The super-humans quickly became extinct, however.
Everybody building up his own little electricity depot can never be as efficient as a large-scale approach.
Ultimately, this depends on population density and the efficiency advantage of the large-scale approach.
For any generation method limited by Carnot cycle efficiency, this is true. But fuel cells do not have this limit, and their efficiency does not increase very much with their size. Also, given that most homes already have some sort of chemical energy (natural gas or oil) delivered for heating, they could use the same stuff, reform it and generate their own electricity, which would eliminate line losses.
- as soon as we get all the intricacies of fusion reactors (hot, cold, or on the rocks) figured out. (there is a big jackpot to be won here by the first nation (or group of nations) to work this out)
Until then, it is just a problematic way of storing energy. If we're going to synthesize it as fuel for cars and planes, we might as well look into synthesizing something that is easier to store (preferably liquid at room temperature and atmospheric pressure, but if it doesn't diffuse through almost any material, that would be a start). Yes, this might mean that there is carbon in our synthesized fuel, but if we take it out of the atmosphere (technically or biologically) instead out of underground deposits, it is just as CO2 neutral as hydrogen.
Less body movement results in a lower oxygen rate in your blood, which results in a less active brain.
Ehhh.. no. If you're breathing normally, your blood oxygen saturation will always reach somewhere close to 100% in your lungs, regardless of your physical activity. In times of exercise, your body gets more oxygen into your muscles by increasing blood flow, not blood oxygen saturation.
However, at a certain level obesity will start to restrict your airways. Breathing becomes more difficult, and the alveoli deep in the lungs aren't ventilated properly. The CO2 level in the blood rises, and the oxygen saturation drops slightly.
No, you're not. With your impressive physical prowess, you're way above average. Maybe somewhere below Arnie in his prime, but still way above average.
From 218 to 254 pounds on a 6'5" frame with no change in belt size.
Wow, eh, do you do steroids or something ?
Muscle mass gain is usually measured in X * (100 grams) per month, if you're working out once in a while. Only by working out almost constantly you can build up a kilogram of muscle mass per month, but that's hard, painful work. You're certainly not building up 16 kg of muscle mass in one year, unless you have some sort of genetic mutation or do steroids.
So, in conclusion, we have two somewhat inexact sciences put together and some french scientist thinks that their might be a correlation between the two.
Actually, they're just stating the obvious. Obesity is a major risk factor (read that as: causes) several breathing and sleep related disorders. If the brain doesn't get enough sleep and O2, and too much CO2, is doesn't work as well as it could.
It doesn't really take a genius to figure that if you have two large enough groups of people, the one with the higher BMI will perform worse at cognitive function tests.
Once you're obese enough to develop the various obesity-related breathing disorders, your IQ will go down just because your brain isn't getting enough sleep and too much CO2. That's a fairly simple causation.
Although you make fun of the "strange contradiction" of applying the Constitution only to citizens, I think that's a more popular interpretation than you think. In fact, I'm not entirely convinced that it's not the correct one; I think the Constitution is pretty clear in outlining a relationship between citizens of the United States and their government.
Oddly enough, the whole citizenship thing wasn't defined until much later. If the constitution says "No person...", it doesn't mean "No citizen...", and if it says "The accused...", it does not imply "but only if citizen".
Do you think the US would have been such a popular target for immigrants in the 19th century if the word had been "Hey, you have no rights there ('cause you're no citizen), just like you have no rights here ('cause the Prince says so)." ?
Also, how about the possibility of revoking someone's citizenship (the fourteenth Amendment put a stop to that, but for how long ?) ? "Hey, you might have certain rights, but keeping your citizenship isn't one of them. *poof* it goes. Ooops. *poof* go your rights. Muahah".
Luckily, I live in a place where the constitution means "everyone" when is says "everyone", and "every citizen" when it says "every citizen".
In my experience, fats and oils absorb microwave energy more effectively than water, so if an item has both kinds of ingredients, the oil heats up much faster.
Eh. Any physicist will disagree with you. Water is by far one of the most effective substances at absorbing microwave radiation because of its high dipole moment. Oils and fats are weak dipoles, if at all.
However, oils and fats have a lower heat capacity than water, which means they need to absorb less energy to raise their temperature by a given number of degrees. Also, most of them don't turn to steam before water does.
Slashdot Mirror
How much internet and cellphones did the US have in the 1940s ?
Heck. The people who designed and built the first bomb didn't even have pocket calculators.
It's clear that they got the bomb tech from elsewhere.
Hm, well yeah. The knowledge that you can build these things has been around for over hald a century. The basic principles can now be found in pretty much any physics textbook, as opposed to _nowhere_ in the 1940s. Unemployed bomb-builders could be found in Russia.
It's nowhere near as hard to build a bomb now than it was 60-something years ago.
Also, the flash medium itself might perform some sort of wear-levelling.
The GEZ fee was introduced because the actual recipient of TV broadcasts cannot be determined, because of obvious technical reasons. With the internet, it would be trivial to set up some sort of billing scheme for people wanting to receive public TV/Radio broadcasts.
But try telling that to politicians. I wonder when someone's going to mention tubes over here.
Next step: Nuclear armament for corporations (hey, corporations are business, and business is good, right) ? That should stop anyone from messing with their assets.
It takes even longer for the supply crafts to arrive. And Earth still controls when and if they do.
Also, if the colonies don't have any nukes, and Earth still has plenty of them ... well ... do you think the US would have been able to declare independence if England could just have nukes the shit out their rebellious colonies ?
Actually, that other country was already pretty much levelled by the time the ground troops got there.
Reality check: How much air do you find in a geosync orbit ? None.. Airspace ends where the air ends. At least, right now. Also, geosync orbits are pretty much in the same plane as the equator. Guess why all those satellite dishes are pointed towards that plane (south if you're in the northern hemisphere) ? So, most countries (and pretty much all countries with the means to put stuff in orbit) wouldn't have any rights to put satellites into geosync orbits ? Or only over international waters (which is where most of the equator lies) ? Should Mr. Chavez be able to demand that the US remove all of their geosync satellites from his "orbit-space" ?
There's a term for people who behave that way. Err. Two terms. "Insurgent" or "terrorist".
*nitpick*
They're irradiated wastelands. They're not very radioactive themselves.
We're quite good at passing knowledge down generations.
We're somewhat successful at passing experience down generations.
We utterly fail to pass wisdom down generations. That's why there's still plenty of fools who have to learn from their own experience, instead of someone elses.
"Dramatically" is a bit dramatical for 0.723 AU vs. 1 AU, don't you think ?
Apart from that, you're right. The distance thingie has a little to do with the temperature on Venus - it would make Venus a scorched desert with maybe some fairly pleasant spots somewhere close to its poles.
However, it does not explain why Venus is, in fact, a place that makes the inside of a pressure cooker seem like a very hospitable place in comparison. Heck. The coolest spots on Venus are hotter than the hottest spots on frickin Mercury, which receives four times the solar irradiance that Venus does. How's that for dramatic ?
You fail to take into account that reproduction isn't digital, but comes in varying grades of success (i.e. number of offspring). Evolution will take place as long as there are genetics-related differences in that number.
According to me, this has already happened before. The super-humans quickly became extinct, however.
Ultimately, this depends on population density and the efficiency advantage of the large-scale approach.
For any generation method limited by Carnot cycle efficiency, this is true. But fuel cells do not have this limit, and their efficiency does not increase very much with their size. Also, given that most homes already have some sort of chemical energy (natural gas or oil) delivered for heating, they could use the same stuff, reform it and generate their own electricity, which would eliminate line losses.
Until then, it is just a problematic way of storing energy. If we're going to synthesize it as fuel for cars and planes, we might as well look into synthesizing something that is easier to store (preferably liquid at room temperature and atmospheric pressure, but if it doesn't diffuse through almost any material, that would be a start). Yes, this might mean that there is carbon in our synthesized fuel, but if we take it out of the atmosphere (technically or biologically) instead out of underground deposits, it is just as CO2 neutral as hydrogen.
Ehhh .. no. If you're breathing normally, your blood oxygen saturation will always reach somewhere close to 100% in your lungs, regardless of your physical activity. In times of exercise, your body gets more oxygen into your muscles by increasing blood flow, not blood oxygen saturation.
However, at a certain level obesity will start to restrict your airways. Breathing becomes more difficult, and the alveoli deep in the lungs aren't ventilated properly. The CO2 level in the blood rises, and the oxygen saturation drops slightly.
No, you're not. With your impressive physical prowess, you're way above average. Maybe somewhere below Arnie in his prime, but still way above average.
Last I heard they regained the lead in performance/price in the low-end segment with their latest price cuts.
It might not be where the glory is, but it certainly is where the (OEM) money is.
Wow, eh, do you do steroids or something ?
Muscle mass gain is usually measured in X * (100 grams) per month, if you're working out once in a while. Only by working out almost constantly you can build up a kilogram of muscle mass per month, but that's hard, painful work. You're certainly not building up 16 kg of muscle mass in one year, unless you have some sort of genetic mutation or do steroids.
Being overweight is a strong risk factor for developing various sleep and breathing related disorders.
Depriving your brain of sleep and O2 makes you stupid.
It's a very simple causality.
Actually, they're just stating the obvious. Obesity is a major risk factor (read that as: causes) several breathing and sleep related disorders. If the brain doesn't get enough sleep and O2, and too much CO2, is doesn't work as well as it could.
It doesn't really take a genius to figure that if you have two large enough groups of people, the one with the higher BMI will perform worse at cognitive function tests.
Once you're obese enough to develop the various obesity-related breathing disorders, your IQ will go down just because your brain isn't getting enough sleep and too much CO2. That's a fairly simple causation.
Let's see: Obesity causes several health conditions, two of them being http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickwickian_syndrome
Frankly, what these French guys found out counts as "stating the obvious" to me.
Oddly enough, the whole citizenship thing wasn't defined until much later. If the constitution says "No person
Do you think the US would have been such a popular target for immigrants in the 19th century if the word had been "Hey, you have no rights there ('cause you're no citizen), just like you have no rights here ('cause the Prince says so)." ?
Also, how about the possibility of revoking someone's citizenship (the fourteenth Amendment put a stop to that, but for how long ?) ? "Hey, you might have certain rights, but keeping your citizenship isn't one of them. *poof* it goes. Ooops. *poof* go your rights. Muahah".
Luckily, I live in a place where the constitution means "everyone" when is says "everyone", and "every citizen" when it says "every citizen".
Eh. Any physicist will disagree with you. Water is by far one of the most effective substances at absorbing microwave radiation because of its high dipole moment. Oils and fats are weak dipoles, if at all.
However, oils and fats have a lower heat capacity than water, which means they need to absorb less energy to raise their temperature by a given number of degrees. Also, most of them don't turn to steam before water does.