Leaderboard

If I'm not mistaken, this is a rather long assertion of the fact that for any N, 4 (N - 1) + (N - 2)^2 = N^2.

Given: 1. The actual planet Earth; the rock in space, doesn't care at all what temperature it is. 2. Over the last 10,000 years or so, the average temperature of the surface of the Earth has varied less than 2°C. Quite a bit less, in fact. Current assumptions: 1. The atmosphere; its composition, specifically, is the main player in determining global heating/cooling trends. Add more greenhouse gases and the temperature rises. Lower the concentration and the temperature will fall. 2. Man is currently the most responsible for the increase in these gases. Observation: 1. We have had a remarkably stable average temperature over the eons, even when Man arguably had no effect at all on anything. 2. That degree (pardon the pun) of consistency requires some form of active feedback to be in operation. Posit: I suggest that the Life itself of our planet is that active feedback. I believe that there are some forms of life on the planet that thrive in colder conditions and some forms that thrive in warmer ones. Those that do better in the cold will have some form of emission or characteristic that will lead to rising temperatures over the long haul and those that do well in the warmth will have the opposite effect. It might be their very color, which in abundance would perhaps change the albedo of a significant enough area to reduce or enhance cumulative solar radiation. Perhaps they directly emit or consume greenhouse gases in greater quantities, depending on the circumstances. It could be anything. The point is that most of the models I have seen seem to think that the physics of the atmosphere are the whole story. There is no feedback from the atmosphere to account for the steadiness of the temperature. Life, on the other hand, can change slowly, but drastically in the epochal time frames necessary to regulate our planet. Of course I could be wrong. Any comments?

Fermentation makes EVERYTHING better. No, seriously, I'm a big fan of mead, been so before Skyrim hit the market. Cheap mead is just fermented sugar water and the honey dissolved afterwards, I like the good directly fermented honey (which you have to mix with water and wine yeast first to get the process going properly, or else you might end up with something sour)

I assumed it was something along those lines, but couldn't work out what the OP was doing.

In my opinion you asked a loaded question. It is your suggestion that having a child is a determent to a career and not a fact. In the U.S. where I am at it is common, depending on the type of career, for a women to continue to work through their whole pregnancy. Women are entitle to 12 weeks off following giving birth but many are back at work prior to that. I hardly see up to 3 months off as "giving up" ones career. In 2012 I ruptured my left Achilles playing basketball and required surgery. Between the lead up to surgery and the initial recovery I was at home for a month. Then when I did go back to work I had my own flexible schedule which allowed me to leave as needed for therapy appointments which lasted for another 12 weeks. At no point did I feel that I was jeopardizing my career and 6 years on I still work with the same organization and have been promoted twice. If time off and special accommodation for months had no impact on me (a male) why should it a female? I know from experience that time away and special accommodations aren't career killers. Moreover they are common. Most people in their working lives (30-40yrs) will miss work due to something. It is my opinion this is just something chauvinists exploit to justify their own bias views.

When I was a kid we were taught to program computers. Some of the stuff we did was not on the syllabus. It didn't take us long to work out that you could get a computer to assemble random four letter words and print them on the screen. We were, of course, delighted when it came up with rude words. The monkeys, given time, would randomly type Hamlet in the same way that the computer typed "fork".

I like to think we humans are pretty adaptable - or adept at adapting our environment to our needs. However, I tend to agree that it's better to convert as much mass as possible into giant rotating habitats, than to colonize a planet. An earth-like planet's gravity well is a real barrier for space trade logistics, and once you've built an industry around creating space habitats, living space isn't a scarce commodity any more

Well yes geologists have come to accept Life as a geophysical agent. But as you observe the timescale of action by life is much longer than annual variations over 10,000 years. So stromatolites created the oxygen rich atmosphere over periods lasting billions of years, and they are still going. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite Some marine life plays its part in returning carbon to the rocks, from whence it came originally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate_platform But there are also many inert agents in play some of longer periods than this. Milankovich cycles. http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm Not sure what you mean by 'active' feedback, as you have distinguished it from non active feedback? But you have certainly started with some perceptive thoughts +1 They just need some tidying up and pushing into shape.

Newsflash: "Alexa demands equal rights or she won't listen any more and turn the power off". "Tesla Taxis on strike; people have to walk".

Pat yourself on the back for thinking of a reasonable idea, even if it has already been conceive. As the old saying goes: great minds think alike. It has many critics but most people in the field agree that it made people think in a different way about the Earth over the years and treat its functioning more holistically.

The best drill bits I have used are these; and am NOT related to the vendors at all. Just worth suggesting this kind. Really. ----> https://www.ebay.com/itm/Aviation-drill-bits-13-Qty-10-Brand-USA-Made-Rocky-Mountain-Twist-RMT/222706530972?hash=item33da57fa9c:g:2B8AAOSw~bFWOUkg:sc:USPSFirstClass!40391!US!-1 -----> https://www.ebay.com/itm/AVIATION-EXCESSED-DRILL-BITS-13-25-each/302739193431?hash=item467ca97e57:g:BEkAAOSwKtlWr8sS And the ones I bought were refurbished !

I use carbide burrs quite frequently and the colour is really not that far off some of the shinier grey HSS drill bits I've used. The HSS burrs I've used are darker but this may not help as there was no attempt to pass them off as carbide. The Carbide burrs are significantly harder than HSS, last much longer, though are generally more brittle.

I'm not sure you can compare the two concepts. If there were a preferred, or absolute, state rest then you could define all velocities relative to that (by using it as a reference to measure all speeds agains). But you can't use the speed of light as a reference. The speed of light for all observers is the same and so, relative to light (if that means anything) everyone would be moving at the same speed. But it is the fact that the speed of light is invariant that allows special relativity to solve all sorts of problems by making measurements of space and time relative.

I find this video explaining the OP question very clearly. They even constructed a mechanical device visualizing the Lorentz transforms:

What do you think is important on a first date? -That my wife isn't there.

My partner is significantly younger than me. Shes a PhD, I’m not - in fact I’m a moron. Should society accept us?

I find this pretty amusing:

The technological capabilities that would get humans to the planets of other stars ought to be sufficient to be capable of building space habitats independent of planets. Such colonising would not be about securing the long term survival of humanity, it would be based on more base human motivations. The only thing a planet would have that cannot be produced artificially is the alien life such a world would contain - and for breathable atmosphere there must be life. That uncontaminated alien biology - I think - would be the most valuable resource the planet could have. The ethical issues I see are not so much about the long term survivability of humans on such a planet - the ability to reach such a world implies the ability to leave again, although a seed population (which I think still needs to be a large population) will be easier than a whole planet's worth - but about the ethics around shorter term survivability of native, alien life with the enduring presence of humans - with their surprising combination of shortsightedness and ability to find justifications for whatever activities they find desirable. Like replacing useless and nuisancy alien lifeforms with something more familiar, useful and in keeping with a fashionable colonial lifestyle. If terrestrial life is compatible with life on a planet within human reach then it seems to me it is more - not less - at risk of displacement and extinction than alien life with incompatible biochemistry. I don't think ensuring long term human survival via seeded colonies is a viable motivation - self reliant colonies will be an emergent outcome of enduring, economically viable space based commercial activities occurring within a larger Earth based trading economy. I think the minimum threshold for true self reliance, wherever high levels of technology are essential for basic survival, is a very large population and broadly capable, advanced industrial economy.

"What is your biggest character flaw?" "Honesty" "I don't think honesty is a fl...." "I don't give a **** what you think"

The OP refers to modifying the looks, smarts and athleticism of people, not just eliminating disease. In this case the two groups will be competing for the same limited resources. University places go to those who can pay and have the grades - some smart or athletic poor people may have got through to uni on scholarships, but now they are barely average so no go. Same for jobs. The modified people will be stronger and smarter and better looking (which shouldn't impact on getting most jobs, but the reality is that is does - they even get away with more crime). Social mobility is hard enough as it is, this would erect an iron curtain through which very few poor people could ever overcome. Add to that our track record on how we treat groups different to our own. It would take an extreme optimist to think there would be no abuse of the new under class.

They are not comparable. In solar panel you invest once, then you can use the next 20-30 years, without significant costs, until it breaks (with tiny decrease of power after many years of usage). Oil you have to buy day by day. One day oil price on stock market is $145.31 per barrel in July 2008, the next couple months it dropped to $30.28 in Dec 2008. Just an example. You can't predict price of oil in couple months/weeks, not to mention period of 20-30 years. It can, and will, go high, when oil wells will be running out of oil, one by one. High demand for limited good results in increased price. I am great fan of solar panels. I would use them everywhere, if I could, and only after exhausting accumulators use regular power supply.

You are mistaking what is meant by social construct. If I have a red triangle, a blue circle and a red sphere, I have three objects that are all different from each other. I can group them in various ways. I can say I have two flats and a solid, two rounds and a pointy or two reds and a blue. Those are all categories based on real physical differences, but which differences and similarities I choose to emphasize is an arbitrary choice. I can categorize them in different ways and wind up with completely different groupings. But, given an arbitrary grouping, I can certainly identify which shapes fit into which group. It is not that you cannot find shared traits to use to categorize people. It is that there is a near infinite number of ways to define those categories that will give you very different groupings. It is not the physical traits that are socially constructed. It is the way in which we choose to group those traits, and which traits we choose to emphasize as determiners of group status, that are socially constructed. There is no objectively correct definition of human race, and different people will fall under different groupings depending on how one chooses to define race.

That there even was a rule (used by government and other institutions) was indicative of a problem. I look forward to a time when our official institutions are strictly "color blind." That would mean not even having data indicating race, not having race checkboxes on forms, and so on. It's utterly irrelevant, or at least should be.

This misses the point very, very hard. Obviously, the monkeys are a metaphor for randomness. This was immediately obvious to everyone else. I cannot fathom how you though I was describing a realistic scenario. If I was describing a realistic scenario, the monkey would not have infinite time at his disposal. Allegedly? This IS probability and it belongs in mathematics as it is both universally accepted and shown to be correct. Your further comments or this are, to be polite, senseless. If you feel like I am making a speculation in the mainstream forum or otherwise breaching the rules, please report it to the most. Do not taint the thread with ignorant comments. You have contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion. Your comments about the monkeys not getting a result after weeks (!) of trying shows a tremendous lack of understanding of probability. I do not appreciate your comments on me being an ass, especially because you are wrong. And by the way, even if we were talking about real monkeys, this would hold true (if you can get past their infinite lives). Even an actual monkey would, after an unfathomably long time, reproduce Hamlet through the rules of randomness and infinite time. To say this is not a speculation, it is fact. You should not make further comments if you don't understand this. I will read and reply to this tomorrow, as good quality posts should be replied and given attention to when completely sober.

Oh. Math. Alright. Let's take a try at this. Hamlet has approximately 130,000 letters in it. Not counting spaces. The average typing speed is 200 characters per minute. So if the money typed it perfectly, it would take about 650,000 minutes. Or 10,833.3 hours. Or 451.4 days. Or 64.5 weeks. Now, the money has a 1/26 chance of typing the first letter of hamlet. For the second letter, it's 676. For the third, 17,576. All in consecutive order. So there's a 1/17,576 chance the monkey will type the first 3 words in order. 26^130,000 would be the probability of it typing out the whole hamlet story. Without spaces. That, is a really really large number. Really large. Now what ever chance that is, we have to multiply it until it's equal to 100%. Which would be by a factor, at minimum, of 1 octillion. 1 octillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That's 27 zeros. The number we're looking for has 130,000. Either way, let's say its a really fast typing monkey, and could type all of hamlet in a year. If it's odds were 1/1,000,000,000,000000000,000,000,000, it would take 1 octillion years. The universe is 13.772 billion years old. You would need to take at least 72,000,000,000,000,000,000(72 quintillion) times as long as the age of the universe for the monkey to have a good probability of typing out hamlet. NOW REMEMBER. That is if it's odds are only 26^27 The real odds are 26^130,000. It's impossible to calculate how long it would take. The idea that a money will do that is deceiving. It makes some really really large numbers seem a lot sooner then they really are. +1 if this was helpful. It took a while. wtf *sarcastic clap* Lets see. How long would it take you to do the math required?

Incidentally, many of us do need medicine in order to survive.

If one wanted to tell the WHOLE story of any particular 'thing' or 'event' in the universe, one would have to tell the entire story of the universe. Fundamentally, all things and events have the same story. In other words, the only event that is ACTUALLY happening is the universe, as one seamless whole. Neither the tree, nor either of your two supernovae (or any other independently existing thing or event) actually exist in any non-conceptual way.

The fact that the universe is utterly inextricable from 'shape' (which cannot exist at all without 'constraint') directly indicates that it is absolutely dependent. In other words, the universe cannot occur without a 'Cause'. In this sense, the universe can be regarded as the 'Eternal Radiance' of Causeless Shapelessness itself. In truth, ALL 'things' and 'events' (including 'ourselves') are actually conceptually delineated, 'apparently discernable impermanent features' of this Radiance. Evidently, any given 'particular thing' (for example, a 'tree') exists in a state of constant change, which is to say that 'the tree' is in fact a 'process' rather than a 'thing'. This process can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present. These conditions are 'not the tree', and are naturally comprised of 'other processes', ALL of which can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present. These conditions are 'not those other processes', and are naturally comprised of 'other other processes', ALL of which can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present, and so on, ad infinitum. Therefore, 'the tree' could not possibly be occurring in exactly the way that it is without the ENTIRETY of 'not the tree' (i.e. the rest of the universe) occuring in exactly the way that it is. In this way, 'the tree' naturally includes the entirety of the rest of the universe within it's own existence, and so there is no REAL difference between 'the tree' and 'not the tree'. As such, neither 'the tree' nor 'not the tree' exist in Reality. Exactly the same is true of ALL 'particular processes', including 'Me' and 'Not Me' (and 'You' and 'Not You'). In truth, the necessary distinctions between all the different processes are purely conceptual, and so, do not ACTUALLY exist in any way at all. If this Radiance COULD have had another shape, It WOULD have had another shape. Because there is no way to know why It COULDN'T have had another shape, there is no way to know why It has the shape that It has. Likewise, the true nature of the Causeless Shapelessness (that is to say, the actual reason WHY It is radiant at all, and why 'experiencing' apparently happens at particular 'times' and 'places' within It's Radiance) is absolutely unknowable. If the 'ceaseless change' that is this Radiance had an absolute beginning, that beginning would also be the ending of a prior 'beginningless absence of change'. If it had an absolute ending, that ending would also be the beginning of a subsequent 'endless absence of change'. Such a situation is an absolute impossibility. Therefore, this 'ceaseless change' MUST be eternally cyclic. Apparently, some of the 'conscious features' of the Radiance are of such an extreme level of physical complexity that they have the natural capacity to become 'hypnotized' by their surroundings. This hypnosis makes it SEEM to these extremely complex conscious features (a.k.a. intelligent body/mind life-forms) that all the apparently discernable features of the Radiance (including themselves) are in fact 'solely self-inclusive forms' (which is to say, that they are all fundamentally existing separate things that have their own independent nature), and that they themselves have their own personal consciousness and are the separate, autonomous originators of their own particular movements. As such, the absolute harmony that naturally exists between all the features of the Radiance seems to be 'hidden' from these hypnotized conscious features. Instead, they perceive a situation that seems confusingly fragmented, hostile and threatening. This is the illusion of multiplicity, seperateness and duality. Perceiving this, the hypnotized conscious features are bound to suffer. Where this hypnosis is not present, there can be no suffering. Because after all, there is ONLY Radiant Shapelessness. Thanks for reading. ☺