pavelcherepan

From a personal fairness and justice perspective this is totally justified, since the need for survival tops anything else. On the other hand, it's an interesting question whether justice can even be defined from a single person's perspective or it can only be applied to a larger group of people.

Given his current approval ratings, that second part is good enough. Nowadays it's practically a foll-proof strategy, since there is little support for Palestinians or any Middle-Eastern Muslim states for that matter so siding with Israel brings in votes without any serious downsides. Oh, wake up! Like any of the previous presidents cared about destabilising the region? Thanks for the info. Anyway, Trump wouldn't be able to get lower support ratings from Jewish community that it was, right? So he stands to lose little by siding with Israel on this matter. He might get increased support or he might stay more or less the same.

Allowing neurotransmitter pathways to work as intended without interference from caffeine would be the best option. Besides, just being well rested will reduce the need for drinking too much coffee and the problem will sort itself.

Indeed, but let's look the definition of justice then: "Justice is the legal or philosophical theory by which fairness is administered". But then if what we feel like being fair differs between cultures, definition of what is "just" would differ as well. There are other definitions, but it's hard to find one where justice and fairness are unrelated qualities.

Firstly, US has a very strong Jewish lobby, secondly, Jerusalem de facto completely belongs to Israel. It would only take time for it to be established de jure.

It depends on the perspective. Definitions of what is "just" or "fair" differ between cultures and, therefore, justice is only ever justified in particular setting from a particular view point.

Dang! Thanks for correction.

Which part? That it will cost lives or that it was inevitable?

Why stop at Hitler? We can also lay blame on, say, Stalin, Catholic Church, Spanish Inquisition and Roman Empire. And this is just to start. BTW, It's capital, not capitol. This is going to cause a ton of lives, but it was somewhat inevitable.

This would be a minority of people, usually those who are experienced with being in such dangerous situations. But majority would trigger the "fight or flight" mechanism and the hormonal cascade it entails tends to have some rather negative effects on cognitive abilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response

A lot of it, but as far as I remember on more than a few occasions explanations given for some science phenomena made me cringe.

I don't think this is the real-colour image. A lot of images from Mars get automatically adjusted for white balance to resemble the same illumination as on the Earth. This makes it easier among other things for geologists to identify rocks from images since rocks can look very differently under different lighting. Normally sky on Mars has yellow-orange tint and it usually only looks blue during sunset/sunrise IIRC.

Well, I just took the initial assumption for it's face value. And even then it's really hard to make a case that a psychological trauma can be as bad as... well... dying. And I wouldn't completely write off the possibility of someone actually getting psychological trauma from the news, but once again it completely fades in comparison to the other possibility.

Awesome! Thanks!

Let's see. On one hand we have a potential for psychological trauma, and on the other - a deadly condition if left untreated. How does this kind of question even come up?

Thanks Mordred, really loved your explanation. +1 I would like some more context on this, though: What becomes squiggly lines?

Well, this is a rather unlikely scenario. Basically, that asteroid would have to appear out of thin air because there's no way it can exist in such an orbital configuration in the present day Solar System. Such density is also very unlikely to exist given it's size. Anyway, simple answer to your question is that it will result in a change in eccentricity of Earth's orbit. The "asteroid" itself would quickly end up on a highly eccentric orbit which would be in some form of resonance with Earth. The mass of this asteroid is still ~10 times less than that of the Earth so while the change in orbit will be noticeable, it won't be enough to completely de-stabilize our orbit. With tidal movements - we'll experience some quite catastrophic tidal effects. Given the object is around 16 times more massive than the Moon and will pass at half the distance from us, the force exerted should be around 64 times greater than that of the Moon gravity influence. So, it might actually result in some enormous tidal wave, but it won't last for an awfully long time. On the other hand since you specified that it should happen over the North hemisphere, it's also very likely that during the closest approach it will be over land most of the time and then tidal effects will be much less destructive.

There could be a negative feedback mechanism to come out of global warming, when global increase of temperature causes the increased evaporation and increased cloud cover, which, in turn, would increase the albedo of the planet, which is about 0.3 at the moment, so there is plenty of way up. On the other hand, melting of ice caps due to increasing temperature would lower the overall albedo. Not sure which one of these effects would win. Also important to note that high albedo doesn't always translate to lower temperature as we can see in the case of Venus. Same as clouds reflect sunlight back into the space, reducing overall energy influx, they also are quite good at doing the same with radiation coming from the Earth's surface, thus decreasing heat loss. P.S. Apparently NASA does some work on measuring planet's albedo and you can read what they came up with so far in the link below. Overall, there is no apparent global change in albedo, but there are definitely areas that have seen significant increase or decrease over the 12-year period. Areas, where albedo increased seem to be around tropical and equatorial regions over ocean most likely due to increased cloud cover and major decrease is observed around North pole, due to melting of the ice cap. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=84499

I'm not entirely certain, but land animals should not experience any effects at all from the Coriolis force. Marine critters, might be affected, but density/temperature driven currents are generally stronger than any Coriolis effects and closer to the surface, wave activity, would be orders of magnitude stronger. So, to the lack of other options, birds, especially migrating birds and those, like a wandering albatross, who spend most of their time in the air, would be affected by air currents driven by Coriolis force. Flying critters who spend most of their life much closer to the surface, will be, once again, much more strongly affected by temperature-driven air movement. P.S. Based on Wiki, there is apparently some interesting uses of Coriolis effect by insects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#Insect_flight

Suppose we could build a ramp that starts at the event horizon of the black hole, say we use extremely powerful engines to prevent from falling in. We should still be able to ride a bicycle up from the black hole and eventually to the point where it's gravitational influence is negligible? Strange, can you please clarify what you mean by "event horizon is always ahead of you"? Why would you observe it as being smaller?

Except for the cases where you have a scientist who is very religious, like my thesis adviser in the university, who is a great scientist, was a president of International Mineralogical Association and yet he's extremely religious and has 6 or 7 kids, but that number is still growing, so I'm not 100% sure it's still the same

Thanks! I'll check it out!

Say, I was rolling a dice and need to get a 6. I know that my probability of rolling a 6 on any single throw will be 1/6. Now, let's say I'm rolling the dice every 2 seconds for 1 minute, therefore getting 30 rolls. What would be the correct way to calculate expected number of sixes I will roll? Part of me wants to simply say, that it's 5, but something tells me it might not be that simple.

I have perused your article and let's start with answering your question: So at the very basic level electrolyte is any substance that can produce electrically conductive solution. It doesn't matter, whether the original molecule were organic or inorganic - if it can dissociate in water into an anion and a cation, it's an electrolyte. As far as physiology is concerned, what little I know of it, there are several very important ions, that are required for the normal functioning of the body. Most important of those as per Wikipedia are: Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, HCO3- and HPO42-. Any water-soluble salt of these ions would be considered an electrolyte in the physiological sense and, if the original salt is organic, like in the example in your quote, then it's an organic electrolyte. Now to the other parts of the quote. 1) It's incorrect to say that drinking distilled water has no benefit at all. Water is the solvent in which all of biochemical processes take place, water is the substance greatly used in temperature regulation and for those purposes it's not important whether it does or doesn't contain ions. Obviously, distilled water in large amounts can be dangerous, with LD50 for rats usually quoted at about >90 ml/kg or slightly over 6 liters for a person with my weight. But that number is around the same for both distilled and non-distilled water. Ideally, of course, you'd want normal water full of very useful electrolytes. 2) Please define what "toxic soft drinks" refers to. It is obvious that you're using the term toxic very liberally throughout your article, so I'd suggest you refer to the definition of toxicity: In fact, not only water, but also oxygen and carbon dioxide and, in fact, most chemicals you encounter in your daily life are to some degree toxic. 3) I also noticed that in "What is tap water" section of your article you somehow forgot to mention the most toxic of the water components sometimes encountered in tap water - hydroxyl acid, often abbreviated as HDA. Unlike all others you mentioned, where their effects on health are not clearly understood, the HDA has 100% mortality rate. Just think about it - every person who'd ever taken HDA, has died or will die and it's been found in tumor cells of most cancer patients. EDIT: Joking aside, I'd also like to note, that the story in the beginning of your article about drinking 5 liters of water in an hour is not a healthy thing to do. The maximum rate of perspiration observed in adults that I managed to find was about 4 liters/hr, which is the amount of water that person would need to replace to maintain normal functioning of the body. Drinking 5 liters an hour for a prolonged period of time can lead to some severe health issues. I would not recommend anyone do it.

So I was chatting today with a colleague at work who is a it scared of radiation and scared of mobile phones since he'd read it somewhere that those can give you cancer. Obviously, I tried to explain him as well as I could that microwaves are not a type of ionising radiation and that the power output of mobile phone transmitter is not sufficient to produce damage through heating effects akin to what happens in a microwave oven. Not sure whether that helped, but then I started thinking that I might not have been 100% correct. It's a tiny issue, but nit-picking is my thing Anyway. Normally microwaves can't ionise atoms, the energy of the photon is not sufficient, but would it be possible for them on occasion to induce ionisation via quantum tunneling? I have a very vague understanding of QT and so just wanted to check whether my thinking is correct or not. Cheers!