Sisyphus

Why would a nanomachine have an easier time doing this than any other machine?

"Advances that can solve the energy crisis, the third world crisis, aids,cancer and many many more problems that we have today!"

What? Anyway, it's disappointing, but not really that surprising. Support for decriminalization comes from all over, but no traditional voting blocs support it strongly, and a lot of people are very much against. I think it's going to happen eventually (I give it 50/50 odds within the next 20 years), but only when either a majority of the total population or a strong majority of either Democrats or Republicans is in favor.

I have a thermos that can keep coffee hot for 24 hours. If you consider the Earth's properties as a thermos, it doesn't seem all that surprising. A vast nuclear reactor surrounded by molten and compressed solid rock twenty times as hot as my coffee, with a volume to surface area ratio millions of times as high (volume increases with cube of radius, surface area with square), surrounded by 20 mile thick skin of solid rock, surrounded by a solar-heated atmosphere, surrounded by vacuum. Not really surprising that we're talking about a timeline of billions of years.

Why not? I didn't say it was proportional to velocity, I said it was proportional to the tension. Which it is.

Why would the flow lag behind? The force of the flow will be directly proportional to the tension on the rope. No, the situation would be the same. If you increase the gravity, then the pendulum swings faster, and the centrifugal effect increases.

, thoughtless and not even researched. Plus, they already have fuel economy standards. What would this ridiculous law even add? If you force them to follow through on this dubious fuel-saving method and it actually works, that just means they can be less efficient in other areas and still meet the minimum. Whose idea was this?

Standing on a rotating body like the Earth means that you're continually accelerating as you move in a circle. So moving in two different directions with equal velocity relative to that spinning surface means you won't have equal accelerations over all.

I don't think that's right. I'm thinking the tension would be greatest at the bottom of the swing, and so would the flow. If you think about it, if the pendulum swung up to a full 90 degrees, the tension (and flow) would be zero at that point, as both bucket and water would be in freefall.

Well, if you call it energy, it has to be measured in joules, and it has to come from somewhere. So the chemical energy in food (sugars, etc.) is an obvious source, which the brain could somehow [insert black box technobabble] convert into work at a distance, which could still could still obey the laws of motion, thermodynamics, etc.

I find it fascinating that Tesla, an electrical engineer and inventor, single-handedly cured AIDS, a biological disorder that would not appear until decades after his death, and which the full weight of modern medicine has been unable to conquer, but his cure was successfully suppressed by an oil company. Really, really fascinating.

The first WTC attack was what I meant by 1993, in response to Jackson's claim that "law enforcement after the first WTC attack..." etc. Oklahoma City counts as terrorism, I suppose, but I always thought of it as a distinctly different beast from our conflict with Al Qaeda. So basically my point was that the eight years before 9/11 had the same number of successful attacks on American soil as the eight years after: zero. Which is why the "suspending civil liberties saved our asses" talk doesn't get much traction with me. It's not like 9/11 was a declaration of war. They were trying to kill us before, and they are trying still. They're just not terribly good at it.

How many terrorist attacks happened on American soil between 1993 and 2001?

I can't watch that right now, but I wouldn't say that 2D is "equally abstract." Anything that has three spatial dimensions also has two, so visualizing it really isn't that difficult. You can even approximate the visualization in a 3D physical model, by simply making one dimension too narrow to see.

This thread has been dead for three years, so the original participants aren’t going to answer you. But no, the square root of 0.9 is not 0.3. It is [math]\frac{3}{sqrt(10)}[/math]. And no, the square root of 10 is not 1. 1^2 = 1. The square root of ten is roughly 3.16.

Now, hold on. We just had a major breakthrough, and I'm not ready to move on yet. You admitted that you still beat your wife, and we need to explore that. So, how would you describe the state of your marriage?

THANK YOU. That's all I was looking for.

Sorry, I don't speak your brainwashed gibberish language. You're going to have to translate that into a "yes" or a "no."

Whoa whoa whoa, don't start bringing in math. Math has nothing to do with reality. All I'm seeing is a failure to answer a simple yes or no question. One word is all I'm looking for, here.

So you instananeously beat your wife with a torque wrench?

I ask a simple, yes or no question, and you give me word games?

I'll ask again. Have you stopped beating your wife? It's a simple question, Duration. Just say yes or no.

Hey Duration, have you stopped beating your wife?

What sort of evidence should we be looking for?

I would use torque.