I note how carefully the definition does not mention "evolve" or "evolution". It simply says "adaptation to environment".
There's nothing to note and nothing evil here. A single individual can adapt to the environment without ever evolving. If it is hot, you will sweat. That is an adaptation (reaction) to the environment, not evolution (however, the development of sweat glands is another matter entirely). You might also look for a shady spot. Or you can influence your environment to suit your needs.
Firearms allow the weak to stand up to the strong;
No, they merely redefine "strong" from "having bigger muscles and the bigger club" to "having the longer-ranged gun and being a better shot".
by making use of force less practical, they encourage discussion and peaceful behavior.
No, since firearms (unlike nuclear weapons) do not produce mutually-assured-destruction scenarios. If you shoot first and do it right, you have eliminated the other side without pesty discussions.
Otherwise it is moot point to lock the cockpit door. The terrorist will start to behead the hostages one-by-one until you let them into the cockpit.
The pilot still has control of the plane, and can probably shake things up a little. Especially when the innocent passengers are wearing their seat belts, and the terrorist isn't.
If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
No. Photons are genuinely unaffected by magnetic fields, and charged particles (which are what Earth's magnetic field protects us from) do not have any effect on the temperature. If they did, then global warming would be the least of our worries, as the radiation would kill everything on the sunlit side of planets surface within a few seconds.
As they climb out of that hole in the next century, their contribution to CO2 is going to drawf whatever cutbacks we would make.
If they'll still be able to afford fossil fuels in the next century.
IF CO2 turns out to be the hazard some would have you believe it is it makes more sense to figure out how to get it out of the atmosphere
Oh, that's not a real problem. CO2 can be extracted from the atmosphere with technical means. However:
* The atmosphere is big. How do you process millions of cubic kilometers of air ? * The process, of course, requires energy. Lots of energy. Probably a _lot_ more energy than just avoiding putting all the CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place. And how do you get all the energy without putting more CO2 in the atmosphere ?
That's exactly the type of "magic science" certain politicians are looking for. And guess what: It ain't gonna happen. Even science cannot fool basic thermodynamics.
Can it tell whether infrared radiation is coming from above or below?
Nope.
Please explain to me why, if CO2 is reflective in the infrared, an even larger amount of infrared energy is not reflected back into space before ever reaching the surface in the first place.
Simple: The energy _input_ from the sun comes in a wide spectrum of wavelengths (... sunlight), many of which are unaffected by CO2. However, once the energy arrives at the surface of the planet, the major way to get rid of is by sending it off into space as (far) infrared radiation only (no visible light, no UV, etc).
It's very much the same way by which an actual greenhouse works. Glass is pretty much opaque to medium and far infrared, but lets near infrared and visible light through. Thus, energy can enter the greenhouse through the glass in these wavelengths, but cannot be radiated off.
Averaged out, it is cooler than Venus, but the maximum temperature is much higher.
NASA doesn't think so, and I'd much rather trust them. In fact, according to them the _average_ temperature on Venus is higher than the _maximum_ surfact temperature on Mercury
On a similar vein, what would happen if the sun didn't change its actual temperature, but rather it expanded thus putting the photosphere closer to the earth. What would be the effect for every X miles increase in photosphere size?
Actually, if the sun increases its size, then the effects on earth are not as much due to the closer photosphere than to an increased luminosity due to the larger size of the sun.
And by the time that happens, we should look for a way to relocate really quick, preferably to some place much farther out than the orbit of Mars.
WTF? It's practically the only thing heating up these planets in the first place. What could possibly have more of an impact on global temperatures than the sun?
Guess why it's hotter on Venus than on Mercury.
(And no, the answer does not involve women in any way)
And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.'
While it may be tempting to draw parallels to what is happening to the climate on earth, keep in mind that:
* Correlation does not equal causation.
* Data from Mars is only available for three years, while data from Earth is available for thousands of years.
* Climate dynamics on Mars might be completely different from Earth.
Now, if you have only 10 meters of visibility, what is the smarter thing to do - drive 10 meters behind the car in front of you, so you can see the instant it starts to brake, or drive further back, so that when you see the car braking, the difference in your speeds is already great ?
The short answer is simple: Drive at a speed that allows you to stop within the distance you can see. If people tail-end you, it's their friggin' problem.
If you drive 10m behind the car in front of you, at 80 km/h, then you're utterly stupid, irresponsible and reckless. If the car in front of you starts to brake, you'll run into it simply because of your reaction time. Simple physics will tell you that you're going to hit the other car about 2 to 3 seconds after it started decelerating, unless you have big-time better brakes.
Slashdot Mirror
"Sir, please step through the metal detector and roll one d20 ..."
Your refrigerator (and pretty much any other machine) does that, too.
There's nothing to note and nothing evil here. A single individual can adapt to the environment without ever evolving. If it is hot, you will sweat. That is an adaptation (reaction) to the environment, not evolution (however, the development of sweat glands is another matter entirely). You might also look for a shady spot. Or you can influence your environment to suit your needs.
No, they merely redefine "strong" from "having bigger muscles and the bigger club" to "having the longer-ranged gun and being a better shot". by making use of force less practical, they encourage discussion and peaceful behavior.
No, since firearms (unlike nuclear weapons) do not produce mutually-assured-destruction scenarios. If you shoot first and do it right, you have eliminated the other side without pesty discussions.
Not if you're not landing on a Cuban airport.
Eight rounds. Not counting the three that missed.
Be glad you didn't get shot eight times.
Why
Did they tell that to the insurgents in Iraq ?
The pilot still has control of the plane, and can probably shake things up a little. Especially when the innocent passengers are wearing their seat belts, and the terrorist isn't.
No. Photons are genuinely unaffected by magnetic fields, and charged particles (which are what Earth's magnetic field protects us from) do not have any effect on the temperature. If they did, then global warming would be the least of our worries, as the radiation would kill everything on the sunlit side of planets surface within a few seconds.
One hydrogen bomb wouldn't do anything. How about fifty ?
If they'll still be able to afford fossil fuels in the next century.
IF CO2 turns out to be the hazard some would have you believe it is it makes more sense to figure out how to get it out of the atmosphere
Oh, that's not a real problem. CO2 can be extracted from the atmosphere with technical means. However:
* The atmosphere is big. How do you process millions of cubic kilometers of air ?
* The process, of course, requires energy. Lots of energy. Probably a _lot_ more energy than just avoiding putting all the CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place. And how do you get all the energy without putting more CO2 in the atmosphere ?
That's exactly the type of "magic science" certain politicians are looking for. And guess what: It ain't gonna happen. Even science cannot fool basic thermodynamics.
No.
Can it tell whether infrared radiation is coming from above or below?
Nope.
Please explain to me why, if CO2 is reflective in the infrared, an even larger amount of infrared energy is not reflected back into space before ever reaching the surface in the first place.
Simple: The energy _input_ from the sun comes in a wide spectrum of wavelengths (... sunlight), many of which are unaffected by CO2. However, once the energy arrives at the surface of the planet, the major way to get rid of is by sending it off into space as (far) infrared radiation only (no visible light, no UV, etc).
It's very much the same way by which an actual greenhouse works. Glass is pretty much opaque to medium and far infrared, but lets near infrared and visible light through. Thus, energy can enter the greenhouse through the glass in these wavelengths, but cannot be radiated off.
Last time I heard that it was "500 times as much carbon dioxide as one metropolis produces per year".
NASA doesn't think so, and I'd much rather trust them. In fact, according to them the _average_ temperature on Venus is higher than the _maximum_ surfact temperature on Mercury
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.ht ml
Actually, if the sun increases its size, then the effects on earth are not as much due to the closer photosphere than to an increased luminosity due to the larger size of the sun.
And by the time that happens, we should look for a way to relocate really quick, preferably to some place much farther out than the orbit of Mars.
Only if it is used in a fallacy ("Correlation does not equal causation, therefore correlation never means causation").
Guess why it's hotter on Venus than on Mercury.
(And no, the answer does not involve women in any way)
While it may be tempting to draw parallels to what is happening to the climate on earth, keep in mind that:
* Correlation does not equal causation.
* Data from Mars is only available for three years, while data from Earth is available for thousands of years.
* Climate dynamics on Mars might be completely different from Earth.
That is, unless your target architecture supports weirdo things like zero-overhead-looping or conditional execution. TI DSPs, anyone ?
The short answer is simple: Drive at a speed that allows you to stop within the distance you can see. If people tail-end you, it's their friggin' problem.
If you drive 10m behind the car in front of you, at 80 km/h, then you're utterly stupid, irresponsible and reckless. If the car in front of you starts to brake, you'll run into it simply because of your reaction time. Simple physics will tell you that you're going to hit the other car about 2 to 3 seconds after it started decelerating, unless you have big-time better brakes.
Actually, they have lasers designed to permanently blind you.
Pure BS. UV will fry your retina just fine, despite your rods and cones not picking it up. Same goes for IR in specific wavelengths.