DaveC426913

You know he's in a band right - along with Stephen King and Matt Groening? It's called The Rock Bottom Remainders

Good Question "So what're we going to name our band?" "Good question." Frozen Drool Squirming Vomit

No, this is true. Feel free to Google 'male ring finger length' etc. "In women, the index and ring finger are roughly equal in length. But in most men, the ring finger is longer. That's a result of fetal exposure to testosterone ... men with more dramatic differences tended to be more aggressive. " Which, unfortunately means you're a poofter.

It's sh*t. Oh come on! Someone had to say it! It was begging for it!

(Sorry, beckerman posted this elsewhere. I don't want to hijack this thread. Please continue.)

Oh you forum whore! If you can't get your forum needs met at home, you just go elsewhere? You could have said something. We could have sought counselling.

Web Designer? PhotoShop! What you're talking about is more Web Developer.

Brilliant idea. I would have come up with something less effective or less simple. Would you advise he attach the extra pieces on the outside, so water pressure works in its favour rather than against it?

Oh how I envy you your courage. I have always been to afraid to try. Tell me, what do you enjoy doing? I mean what do you do when you're not getting paid for it? What makes you passionate?

bigOz: Why not cut to the chase? If your principle is sound, this can be shown without concerning yourself with materials and gears (at least right away). See a patent lawyer and get an expert to look at your design without fear of spilling the beans. Hopefully, rather than finding a "classic perpetual motion error", the expert might instead be confounded. This would suggest that your idea is sound in principle, thus justifying a prototype. This is not meant to discourage you from pursuing it. Indeed, it is meant to ensure that, if you *are* serious, you use your time and resources wisely. (On the other hand, if this is more a matter of being "in love with your idea", then you'll do what you can to delay the cut to the chase - by, say, fiddling with materials and gears as long as possible, where there is no upper limit on how long it could take to convince yourself.)

Uh, so like if you swallowed a stick of dynamite?

Also, a tall glass of water before bed after a hard night of drinking will allow you to dodge the "hangover bullet" for exactly the same reason - hangover=dehydration.

It does. It takes a little while for the hydration to make its way to your brain. To speed it up, add sugar and/or salt, both of which speed up the absorption process in your GI tract. (Gatorade made a killing off this fact.)

Elsewhere I got an answer the same as Atheist: 8km/s. That's a little more reasonable than 31,000km/s, yes?

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself adequately. If you stand at the bottom of a tunnel 1000 miles deep, you will not experience a stronger force of gravity than at the surface, you will experience a weaker force - you will weigh significantly less. Why? Becasue there is a large mass of Earth overhead pulling you up that cancels out much of the downward pull. In fact, it's not very difficult to calculate how much. For the purposes of calculating gravity, you can divide the Earth into two concentric spheres: 1] below your feet, a solid sphere, 3000 miles in radius 2] above your head, a hollow sphere, inner radius 3000 miles, outer radius 4000 miles, thickness 1000 miles The gravity anywhere inside a hollow sphere is 0. The effect this has is that everything above your head (the entire 1000 mile thick hollow sphere) cancels out - you experience no net gravitational pull from it at all. Thus, the only gravity that you experience is from the 3000 mile sphere under your feet. This sphere, having a mass that is much less than that of Earth, gives you a much smaller g, which means you don't accelerate as fast. At 3,999 miles down, ALL but a 1 mile radius of Earth is cancelled out, and you only feel the pull of a sphere 1 mile in radius. So, ultimately as you fall toward the centre of the Earth, your acceleration drops steadily (thouigh not linearly) from 30ft/s^2 to 0. Don't take my word for any of this, this is all perfectly well-known.

I'm sorry, I don't believe you. If this were true: 1] an everyday object will have accelerated to 1/10th of the speed of light in less than 4,000 miles, merely due to the pull of gravity. 2] at that speed, (if it were a constant speed) it could traverse 8000 miles less than 1/2 second. Step back and use your common sense. Is that really how fast you think it's going? I'm going to bet dollars to doughnuts that this is where you made your mistake: You assumed that it would continue to accelerate at 30ft/s^2 all the way along its path to the centre. But that is not a simulation of freely falling in Earth's gravity, that is a simulation of freely falling toward a point-sized black hole that has 1 Earth mass. Inside a real, non-zero-sized body, the gravitational attraction begins decreasing immediately, as soon as you are below the Earth's surface. eg. At a 1000 mile depth, you are only being pulled by the gravity of a sphere that is 4000-1000=3000 miles in radius (which is only about half the gravity at the surface). By the time you are halfway to the centre, gravity is only 1/4 as strong. I think you'll find the passage through the core is a much more leisurely pace than you reported.

There is no such thing as negative evolution. We are always evolving toward some set of selection criteria, never away. Since the physcial "fitness" of a human is no longer critical to its survival, this is not being selected-for anymore (or much, at least). What we are doing is moving from physical evolution to social evolution. It is social traits that now determine who breeds and who does not.

"An increasingly large number of observations consistently reveal the existence of a much larger amount of intergalactic matter than presently accepted. Radio signals coming from directions between galaxies is discussed. An average density of matter in space of about 0.01 atom/cm3 is derived." http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html That's about 10 atoms per litre.

Whatever it may be on the pain factor... "...I could feel the ends of the bones sloshing around inside my leg..." ... is off the scale on the "yig" factor.

I met her in her dining room (her dining room was a long time ago in the same far, far away galaxy as IMM). Her housemate was the gf of a guy that my friends and I gamed with every Wed night. We were playing at the dining room table, and I saw this girl reading a book, minding her own biz in the living room. So I started asking about her... To make a long story short, one freezing January night, I arrived at the game to found all the windows and doors wide open and the three kids in snowsuits. My friend had started a fire in the fireplace and smoked the house out! I offered to take her and her kid(s) to McDonalds while the house aired out. I opened my door and all these kids piled in - including a ten-year-old!! Say I: "H-how ... how ... many of these are yours???" She laughs and says "Oh, just the two youngest." And the rest is eighteen years of blissful history. P.S. When we married 14 years ago, we ALL got married. The kids stood up front with us, said vows and donned rings.

You will not practically be able to place the atom in space with no motion. It will have kinetic energy while you are holding on to it. The only way you could remove the kinetic energy would be to cool it to 0K, which is impossible.

You know, you're right. It is not a given that instruction 15 overrides all rules before it.

Yeah, but what's weird is that the error isn't in the calculation 2-2=0, the error is in displaying 2 as the result of sqrt(2)^2, which is where the bug occurs. If it calced the result as 1.999999999999... why didn't it display that?

A GoogleEarth check of those coords shows it to be in a different location than the Geo cache map suggests - at least 1/2 mile West of there.