But did snakes specifically evolve to lie in wait for primates and their delicious x-factor blood? Snakes as we know them would not have evolved without delicious primate blood. Which also explains vampires.
Yes, and that vestigial webbing we have between our fingers is some sort of genetic holdover from a batlike ancestor.
ALL land predators have binocular vision - we have binocular vision, thus derived from a predator.
The primates that humans evolved from where primarily frugivore yet had binocular vision, thus our binocular vision did not come from preying on other animals.
The primates that we evolved from may have themselves evolved from predators, possibly mouse-sized insectivores.
No, Bakunin was either ill-informed, or deliberately misguiding. It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil that was forbidden, not knowledge in general (oh, and touching it wasn't forbidden, just eating the fruit. [Genesis 2:16-17). Why was it forbidden? Perhaps because without that knowledge we wouldn't experience guilt, or shame, or fear. Without that knowledge we wouldn't be held accountable for our sins.
Binocular vision developed way before "primate-ness". Just because our primate ancestors weren't predators, doesn't mean that we don't have predators as our ancestors.
English != Math. "Factor" in this case means "component of" or "contributor to" rather than the more rigorous definition it has in mathematics. Think term in a polynomial rather than overall multiplicand.
But according to the article there were no injuries. So the pilot would have walked away except for what? That the pilot is a paraplegic?
For you, the only reason for not walking away is being a paraplegic? What about "The pilot would have walked away, but he was carried on the shoulders of the grateful passengers to a waiting limousine. 'All through the ordeal, all I could think about was that scene at the beginning of The Six Million Dollar Man where a similar craft crashes' said one of the survivors. 'The fact that our pilot was able to hold it together, and get us safely down... well, he's a hero in my eyes.'"?
An autonomous car will be even better than you in that situation, *if* it's programmed for it.
One of the beauties of autonomous cars is that they can be programmed from simulations. Not only that, if these auto-cars have black boxes, then data from accidents can be analyzed and used to update other cars.
Windows has always been free. It is preloaded on practically every (non-Apple) machine you can buy. You have to go significantly out of your way to get a PC without Windows, and even if you can find one, it won't cost any less than one with Windows pre-loaded.
Sorry, but that's not a good enough explanation, for a number of reasons: First, the acceleration events can be eliminated by doing flyby events and simply transferring the clock readings of events; Second, the accelerations would be the same for a short trip and for a long trip, however the dilation effects are more pronounced on a longer journey; Third, from the "travelling" twin's point of view it is the "stationary" twin that experiences the acceleration, just like from the raindrop's point of view it is the ground that is accelerating up to meet it.
So, it is not the acceleration. Something else is in play here.
So, Larry says Ralph aged less, and Ralph says Larry aged less. Both are right. This is the paradox.
But it is just an apparent paradox, isn't it? If Larry and Ralph then turn around and both head back to the station for a space beer, they'll find their clocks are in agreement. If on the other hand only Ralph turns around and catches up with Larry, their differing frames will account for any differences in their clocks once they meet up.
Well, that's the big question, and I haven't seen anyone really address it. It's always stated that the travelling twin winds up aging less, but they never seem to get to the next stage of the paradox, which is, from the "travelling" twin's point of view, he is the one that is stationary and the other twin is the one that is moving.
While they're spatially separated simultaneity goes out of the window a bit, doesn't it?
No, it's not the separation that messes with simultaneity, but relative motion.
Godlike observation - to observe things exactly as they are without interfering in the outcome - is the goal of all science.
Also, according to the Heisenberg Uncertaintly Priciple, an impossibility.
The Uncertainty Principle comes about because we DO interfere with the outcome when we observe things. Godlike observation would not suffer that weakness.
I never really understood why they explain the twin paradox the way they do, since it doesn't present any paradox at all, just one twin aging more slowly than the other. The real paradox comes in when you can't tell which twin was stationary and which was moving, because in that case each twin will see themselves aging differently than the other.
Suppose Larry and Ralph both get into spaceships. Being adventurous rocketeers, they decide to buzz Midway station in opposite directions but at the same speed, Larry travelling to the left, and Ralph to the right. Furthermore, they decide that once they get all lined up and underway, they aren't going to use their rocket motors any more. Since neither Larry, Ralph, nor Midway Station are experiencing any acceleration, each will be in an inertial reference frame.
Larry sees both Midway and Ralph moving to the right, with Ralph travelling twice as fast as Midway Station. So Larry sees the clock on Ralph's ship ticking slower than that of Midway Station, and both clocks ticking slower than his own. Similarly, Ralph sees both Midway and Larry moving to the left with Larry travelling twice as fast as Midway Station. Ralph sees Larry's clock ticking slower than that of Midway Station, and both of those clocks ticking more slowly than his own. Meanwhile Midway station sees both Larry and Ralph's clocks ticking equally slowly.
So, Larry says Ralph aged less, and Ralph says Larry aged less. Both are right. This is the paradox.
Yet there's no reason to think things can exist independently.
So, the question of whether a tree falling in the woods makes a sound if there is nobody there to hear it is moot, because without anyone there to hear it, the tree wouldn't exist at all? Schroedinger's cat isn't both alive and dead, it isn't even in the box?
A god-like observer can observe without interacting. Back in reality every observation is an interaction.
OK... then what the heck is scientific about speculating about something that by definition either doesn't exist or can't practically participate in the experiment?
Are you kidding? Godlike observation - to observe things exactly as they are without interfering in the outcome - is the goal of all science.
Sadly, it's becoming well nigh impossible to find a decent chemistry set, electronics kit, meccano set, or even a generic Lego set. Everything is either excessively "safened" or themed to the point of monotony.
How do you calculate a Mach number when there's no atmosphere ? You don't.
True, you don't. However, what does "no atmosphere" have to do with the ISS's speed? Do you think that there is no atmosphere where the ISS orbits? As for escape velocity, that's measured from the surface of the planet, so plenty of atmosphere there.
... in space you shouldn't be able to generate surface lift.
Why not? Space is not a perfect vacuum. Even deep in the intergalactic void there are hydrogen atoms and a gravitational field. So, with a large enough wing, moving at a large enough velocity you can still generate lift.
I've always wondered why, if we can send balloons to the upper reaches of our atmosphere why we don't use ballooning as a 1st stage launch platform for reaching space?
This balloon lifted a 3000 pound capsule. To do that required the balloon to be 55 storeys tall and have a surface area of 40 acres. A loaded SpaceX Dragon capsule weighs over eight tons, so you're going to need a balloon at least five times as large.
For practical purposes, however, reaching space means getting into orbit. Getting into orbit isn't about the altitude. It is about the velocity. The ISS orbits at approximately Mach 17. Earth's escape velocity (to reach the Moon, and other planets) is about Mach 37. Top speed for a balloon is Mach 0.4 on a generous day. In other words, not much help.
For sounding rockets, and small suborbital payloads, balloons might work. However, beyond that, balloons are quite impractical.
Slashdot Mirror
But did snakes specifically evolve to lie in wait for primates and their delicious x-factor blood? Snakes as we know them would not have evolved without delicious primate blood. Which also explains vampires.
Yes, and that vestigial webbing we have between our fingers is some sort of genetic holdover from a batlike ancestor.
Talking about "just false",
ALL land predators have binocular vision - we have binocular vision, thus derived from a predator.
The primates that humans evolved from where primarily frugivore yet had binocular vision, thus our binocular vision did not come from preying on other animals.
The primates that we evolved from may have themselves evolved from predators, possibly mouse-sized insectivores.
just making sure, tears like in fabric right? not sad emo tears?
Either one could be bad.
Bakunin was right after all...
No, Bakunin was either ill-informed, or deliberately misguiding. It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil that was forbidden, not knowledge in general (oh, and touching it wasn't forbidden, just eating the fruit. [Genesis 2:16-17). Why was it forbidden? Perhaps because without that knowledge we wouldn't experience guilt, or shame, or fear. Without that knowledge we wouldn't be held accountable for our sins.
Binocular vision developed way before "primate-ness". Just because our primate ancestors weren't predators, doesn't mean that we don't have predators as our ancestors.
English != Math. "Factor" in this case means "component of" or "contributor to" rather than the more rigorous definition it has in mathematics. Think term in a polynomial rather than overall multiplicand.
Well if it's a spiky ice hell, then no wonder they told them not to attempt landing as that would only end in tears.
Yes, and the last thing you want in your suit is tears.
But according to the article there were no injuries. So the pilot would have walked away except for what? That the pilot is a paraplegic?
For you, the only reason for not walking away is being a paraplegic? What about "The pilot would have walked away, but he was carried on the shoulders of the grateful passengers to a waiting limousine. 'All through the ordeal, all I could think about was that scene at the beginning of The Six Million Dollar Man where a similar craft crashes' said one of the survivors. 'The fact that our pilot was able to hold it together, and get us safely down... well, he's a hero in my eyes.'"?
I agree TFA has it wrong - there is a lot of competition going on all the time and the large amount of services that exists are good for most of us.
Plenty of competition in marginal profit realms leads to a string of failed startups. How do you know the provider you choose is going to last?
An autonomous car will be even better than you in that situation, *if* it's programmed for it.
One of the beauties of autonomous cars is that they can be programmed from simulations. Not only that, if these auto-cars have black boxes, then data from accidents can be analyzed and used to update other cars.
Windows has always been free. It is preloaded on practically every (non-Apple) machine you can buy. You have to go significantly out of your way to get a PC without Windows, and even if you can find one, it won't cost any less than one with Windows pre-loaded.
Skydiving is even safer, every person who has fallen to their death while skydiving has only ever done so on a single occasion.
Speaking of which, my neighbour (a recent widow) has a parachute for sale... worn once, never used.
Sorry, but that's not a good enough explanation, for a number of reasons: First, the acceleration events can be eliminated by doing flyby events and simply transferring the clock readings of events; Second, the accelerations would be the same for a short trip and for a long trip, however the dilation effects are more pronounced on a longer journey; Third, from the "travelling" twin's point of view it is the "stationary" twin that experiences the acceleration, just like from the raindrop's point of view it is the ground that is accelerating up to meet it.
So, it is not the acceleration. Something else is in play here.
So, Larry says Ralph aged less, and Ralph says Larry aged less. Both are right. This is the paradox.
But it is just an apparent paradox, isn't it? If Larry and Ralph then turn around and both head back to the station for a space beer, they'll find their clocks are in agreement. If on the other hand only Ralph turns around and catches up with Larry, their differing frames will account for any differences in their clocks once they meet up.
Well, that's the big question, and I haven't seen anyone really address it. It's always stated that the travelling twin winds up aging less, but they never seem to get to the next stage of the paradox, which is, from the "travelling" twin's point of view, he is the one that is stationary and the other twin is the one that is moving.
While they're spatially separated simultaneity goes out of the window a bit, doesn't it?
No, it's not the separation that messes with simultaneity, but relative motion.
Godlike observation - to observe things exactly as they are without interfering in the outcome - is the goal of all science.
Also, according to the Heisenberg Uncertaintly Priciple, an impossibility.
The Uncertainty Principle comes about because we DO interfere with the outcome when we observe things. Godlike observation would not suffer that weakness.
I never really understood why they explain the twin paradox the way they do, since it doesn't present any paradox at all, just one twin aging more slowly than the other. The real paradox comes in when you can't tell which twin was stationary and which was moving, because in that case each twin will see themselves aging differently than the other.
Suppose Larry and Ralph both get into spaceships. Being adventurous rocketeers, they decide to buzz Midway station in opposite directions but at the same speed, Larry travelling to the left, and Ralph to the right. Furthermore, they decide that once they get all lined up and underway, they aren't going to use their rocket motors any more. Since neither Larry, Ralph, nor Midway Station are experiencing any acceleration, each will be in an inertial reference frame.
Larry sees both Midway and Ralph moving to the right, with Ralph travelling twice as fast as Midway Station. So Larry sees the clock on Ralph's ship ticking slower than that of Midway Station, and both clocks ticking slower than his own. Similarly, Ralph sees both Midway and Larry moving to the left with Larry travelling twice as fast as Midway Station. Ralph sees Larry's clock ticking slower than that of Midway Station, and both of those clocks ticking more slowly than his own. Meanwhile Midway station sees both Larry and Ralph's clocks ticking equally slowly.
So, Larry says Ralph aged less, and Ralph says Larry aged less. Both are right. This is the paradox.
But then, something you are not allowed to look at isn't exactly great for TV. :-)
Really? It doesn't seem to be doing Chris Angel, or all those ghost hunting or conspiracy shows any harm.
Yet there's no reason to think things can exist independently.
So, the question of whether a tree falling in the woods makes a sound if there is nobody there to hear it is moot, because without anyone there to hear it, the tree wouldn't exist at all? Schroedinger's cat isn't both alive and dead, it isn't even in the box?
We don't "see time" just like we don't see as many colors as geckos.
Geckos? meh!
A god-like observer can observe without interacting. Back in reality every observation is an interaction.
OK ... then what the heck is scientific about speculating about something that by definition either doesn't exist or can't practically participate in the experiment?
Are you kidding? Godlike observation - to observe things exactly as they are without interfering in the outcome - is the goal of all science.
Sadly, it's becoming well nigh impossible to find a decent chemistry set, electronics kit, meccano set, or even a generic Lego set. Everything is either excessively "safened" or themed to the point of monotony.
How do you calculate a Mach number when there's no atmosphere ? You don't.
True, you don't. However, what does "no atmosphere" have to do with the ISS's speed? Do you think that there is no atmosphere where the ISS orbits? As for escape velocity, that's measured from the surface of the planet, so plenty of atmosphere there.
... coated in vasteline...
VAST-eline? [Yoda]Judge me by my size, do you?[/Yoda]
... in space you shouldn't be able to generate surface lift.
Why not? Space is not a perfect vacuum. Even deep in the intergalactic void there are hydrogen atoms and a gravitational field. So, with a large enough wing, moving at a large enough velocity you can still generate lift.
I've always wondered why, if we can send balloons to the upper reaches of our atmosphere why we don't use ballooning as a 1st stage launch platform for reaching space?
This balloon lifted a 3000 pound capsule. To do that required the balloon to be 55 storeys tall and have a surface area of 40 acres. A loaded SpaceX Dragon capsule weighs over eight tons, so you're going to need a balloon at least five times as large.
For practical purposes, however, reaching space means getting into orbit. Getting into orbit isn't about the altitude. It is about the velocity. The ISS orbits at approximately Mach 17. Earth's escape velocity (to reach the Moon, and other planets) is about Mach 37. Top speed for a balloon is Mach 0.4 on a generous day. In other words, not much help.
For sounding rockets, and small suborbital payloads, balloons might work. However, beyond that, balloons are quite impractical.