StringJunky

No prob.

An individual adaptation starts with a mutation, If that mutation is beneficial i.e. enhances the probability of reproduction, that adaptation will be passed on. Think of vocal acquisition as a series of steps that happen over a long time. Because each step is beneficial, it provides the breeding ground for the next step because it's selected for. Simplistically, the more vocally-able individual can chat up more girls! The other advantage with complex language is that one develops a more sophisticated 'inner voice' which allows a better ability to model things mentally, sequentially and be more abstract. That's besides being able to share those ideas with others; individual and collective intelligence increases.

A few million... peanuts. Big Pharma spends hundreds of millions on one drug that may take a minimum of 12 years, and only about 1 in a 1000 exploratory drugs get there on the chemist's shelf. Once the essential technological pathway for artificial wombs has been successfully worked out, billions will be invested.

Yes. I think scientists, currently, can measure time down to an altitude difference of 30cm. There are experimental devices in progress which can work, theoretically, work to 2cm altitude difference.

Yes,that's a nice quote.

OK Galileo.

The pursuit of perpetual motion is equivalent to dreaming about an everlasting tin of beer.

In fact, the patent people won't accept any proposal for a PMM unless you can produce a fully working model.

I think the intact experiment will remain bacteria-free for the length of time it takes for the other one to grow a colony, which I think would be sufficient to illustrate Pasteur's point; indeed it was

The definition, creation and interpretation of law, above all things, should be federal business, not state. I am bemused by the degree of autonomy states have on critical stuff that really requires harmonisation across the whole country.

Picture a colony of bacteria on a tiny bit of dust being blown around in the air. What will be its general direction in the absence of airflow? What causes it to go in that direction? Look which way the tube is pointing in the complete setup.

Yes, when thinking about future society, one must be careful not to judge its potential behaviour and practices, by our contemporary ethical standards. You've only got to cast your own mind back a couple of generations - assuming one is old enough - to see clear disparities in generational aspirations.and expectations.

Fair enough, my source is from memory really, going back to female Soviet Bloc Olympians in the early to mid-seventies when it was mentioned quite often.

Back pressure to take out any possible slack in local pressure along the feed-line, which could cause air pockets, and result in flow anomalies.

Not by our current measures of what constitutes good care, but societal expectations and standards change over ensuing decades. Given that a not negligible number of women avoid breastfeeding and have Caeserean sections in order to preserve their bodies, I think other, possibly artificial, methodologies will be found to meet the needs of a developing foetus that are found wanting in an artificial womb. I can just picture a device, say the size and look of a water cooler/dispenser in the corner of a typical home; "Darling, can you get some more Baby-Gro tablets from Walmart on your way back?". Think of the photo opportunities: it'll bring a whole new phase of child development into constant view.

It would sell by the million; no more stretch marks.

In a male, the genitals are at full expression with those particular hormones, so adding more won't make a significant difference in a matured man. In females that undertake activity to induce or add those hormones their genitals, and other parts, will undergo masculinisation and that means enlargement in some cases but only to a certain potential.

It becomes apparent when you compare directly. The Powerbrick is the Li-ion. Click to enlarge. http://www.powertechsystems.eu/en/technics/lithium-ion-vs-lead-acid-battery/ Peukert's Losses

I'm impressed. I never realised, 'til now, the level of finesse that current physics is at with regards to GR/SR and their applications. Einstein's legacy is going to be around a very long time.

Wow! I never saw it like that; the dimensions of the device limit its accuracy. So, if you wanted to go more accurate, further miniaturisation is what's needed?

Whatever your eyes see, your brain will try to turn it into something that makes sense or familiar.

I read recently the possible accuracy of the latest clocks will allow altimeters of 1cm accuracy to be made. I could be wrong, but I think it's at 20cm at the moment. Even at 20cm increments, I think that's a stunning vindication of Relativity. Edit: Found the article. I was a bit off with the accuracy: 2cm

How many places of accuracy do you need for a standard? That number I pulled out was by the USGS. If you look at the table, it seems pretty fine to me. I'm not disagreeing with you really, I'll have to look into what goes into a deriving a standard. Using Litres as Kilos is how I check my fishing scales. Don't you have lots of variables to account for when measuring/standardising the second?

Is volume not standardised?