Sisyphus

The square of a distance is an area, and the cube of a distance is a volume. Liters are also a measure of volume. So cubic meters and liters are measures of the same thing: volume. So you can convert directly between them in a fixed ratio. The metric system is set up so that one milliliter is exactly equal to one cubic centimeter. And yes, units in the metric system relate to one another in simple ways like that, on purpose. You'll see this a lot more when you study more science, especially physics.

Also: It's more about helping your genes than helping you, meaning sacrificing yourself for the good of your relatives makes sense. (Or whoever takes the emotional place of "your relatives") A behavior doesn't have to work out for the "best" in every instance to be selected for. A fight or flight response can get you killed, sometimes, but it's still useful over all. Similarly, helping out the group is usually a net benefit, even if that tendency occasionally makes you jump on the grenade, so to speak.

I know I'm coming late to this, but that all sounds pretty much fine to me, though it might not be quite as clear cut as that. You would have to be sure it doesn't support the process in any way, even if it does not cost you anything personally, as with things like ad revenue, publicity, accepting it as a gift (that was paid for at some point) or even encouraging the actual producers non-monetarily. The problem, it seems, is that it is so hard to trace and determine whether any of this is taking place, that it's probably easier and safer to simply outlaw possession of CP depicting real acts. Pure animation would be fine. Maybe even encouraged, if it offers a harmless outlet. (I don't enough about the psychology of pedophilia to offer a firmer opinion.)

Because some people have decided that that would mean 2 months of legal murder, and others have decided that would mean 7 months of loss of fundamental rights over one's own body. Exactly. Life began ~3.5 billion years ago, and even that wasn't a clearly defined line. Yet some parts of that life are considered "persons" in a moral and ethical sense (as they must be, for societies to exist). However, despite these parts being easy to recognize in their mature form (by the fact that they think and will, mostly), it turns out they emerge gradually! Stupid science! More than that, what about a sperm cell and an egg cell, considered together. If nature does its thing, they'll become a person eventually! But not if the two bodies housing them never get it on, in which case they are murderers! But then, what about all the other sperm? Each, paired with each egg, is a "potential person," and millions must "die" for each that lives! What a holocaust!

I think the "life begins at conception" people and the "no abortion has any moral implications" people suffer from the same fallacy, which is assuming that their definitions of when personhood begins are not arbitrary. Of course, there are a hell of a lot more of the former than the latter, which is why it's called "pro-choice." For most of us it's about acknowledging the ambiguity, and letting people decide for themselves.

Yeah, I know. I was giving another reason why increasing the frequency won't just speed up the same effects.

X-rays, with their smaller wavelength, slip right through a lot of stuff that would absorb UV. Hence, X-ray machines.

Only a moron would not worry about contraception because they can "just get a free abortion." That doesn't seem realistic to me. Unless, I guess, they've had no sex ed whatsoever (or "abstinence education," which is the same thing). It's also hard to imagine someone who would only get an abortion if it was free, unless they're both desperately poor and seriously crazy, in which case they really shouldn't have unwanted children...

Are you maybe talking about a siphon?

This seems to be the main problem, here. Logic and intuition are not opposite ends on some scale. Having an intuitive grasp of something just means understanding it on a level wherein implications are evident without the need to explicitly state reasoning. People with highly rational, logical minds (like Einstein) have an easier time grasping scientific concepts "intuitively," and clearly the firmer your understanding of, say, physics, the more intelligently you'll be able to speculate about further implications and problems.

Gases also exert pressure due to their weight, it just usually isn't significant in confined spaces. This does matter in the Earth's atmosphere, however, where you've got a miles-high air column over your head. The weight of the column is about the same as a 33-odd inch column of mercury, which is how barometers work. Also, liquid pressure doesn't have to only come from weight, but just the amount of force with which it is being compressed, e.g. pushing with more or less force on the plunger on a syringe full of water will change the pressure, too. Actually, a syringe is a good example, I think. Assuming the needle is sealed off, the pressure in a syringe filled with air will (more or less) depend on the tempurature, volume, and quantity of air. The pressure in a syringe filled with water will (more or less) depend on the force currently being exerted on the plunger. (I say more or less because we're ignoring gravity, pretending they are an ideal gas and incompressible fluid, respectively, etc.)

You should let James Randi know, too. Then you'll be rich! What does "close enough to know it's possible" mean? Daydreaming?

"Dimension" does not mean some place. Dimensions are things like length, width, and depth. What we call the "mind" appears to just be a property of the body, specifically the brain. So saying the mind is somewhere else is a bit like saying the molecules of this thing I'm sitting on are in one "dimension," but it's "chairness" is in another. Who says that? Astral projection "is?" So you've witnessed this? I don't know what this means. "Moving" and "going" are concepts of space and time. Again, disconnecting the chairness of my chair from the molecules that make it up? And if I do it will stop being a chair, while being physically unchanged? Supposed by who? Methinks there are simpler explanations for supposed occult practices. I don't know what you mean by "entanglement theory."

The first thing I would ask is, why do you believe any of that? That's not all, but it's a good place to start.

Einstein understood current theories of physics.

Blue! Wait... damnit!

The lung doesn't have to do anything for this to happen. If you take a balloon filled with air and push it under water, the pressure outside will be greater than the pressure inside, causing it to shrink until the pressures are equal. It's unequal pressures that have to be actively maintained with force, and your muscles simply can't support a very big differential between your lungs and ambient pressure. There's a reason snorkels aren't several feet long - you just can't force unpressurized air into your lungs against more than a small water pressure.

It's not "atmospheric pressure," it's water pressure. But that doesn't really change anything. The general term is ambient pressure, and it doesn't really matter what material is surrounding the pressurized object. I have no diving experience, but I assume the gases in the oxygen tank must be at ambient pressure, not at 1 atmosphere, otherwise divers wouldn't be able to inflate their lungs.

Technically it was more of a suggestion than a claim. "I don't know if this is true, but..." Which is actually the sort of thing that FOX talking heads say all the time, followed by some slanderous insinuation. So they're not technically lying, but still deliberately trying to get their viewers to believe something false. Another favorite is "some people say that..." And thus FOX News fails to live up to basic Wikipedia standards. BTW, not trying to gang up on you syntho-sis. I think it's fine to say "I heard this on Fox News," as long as that isn't implied to mean it's trustworthy information.

If you start your timer when the first water leaves the tap, they will both take exactly the same time. If you start your time when the first water hits the bucket, the one that started a zillion miles away will fill faster, not slower. Imagine one minute's worth of water is needed to fill the bucket. Imagine the bucket is a zillion miles away when the faucet turns on, and stays there for the next 59 seconds. Since water can't fall a zillion miles in 59 seconds, no water has reached the bucket yet. In the next second, it flys at a zillion miles per second and moves right up against the tap, thereby gathering all the water in midair as it moves. As measured from first-water-in-bucket to full, the zillion miles away bucket fills in one second. As measured from tap on to full, it fills in one minute, just like the bucket that was against the tap the whole time. Of course, if the bucket stays a zillion miles away, then it will take exactly one minute from first water in bucket to full. As measured from tap on to full, it will take 1 minute + however long it takes water to fall a zillion miles.

Where it is on average doesn't matter. One that starts right at the tap and then moves down to a zillion miles away will take exactly as fast to fill as one that stays a zillion miles away the whole time. One that starts a zillion miles away and moves to right under the tap won't take longer to fill than one that stays right under the tap the whole time.

"Any kind of sci fi trait" is too general. That could mean literally anything. Do I think it would be a good thing if we could genetically modify ourselves for the "better," as subjectively defined by us? I think it could be. I don't have any fundamental moral or ethical objection to the idea itself. I don't think running 80mph is in the cards, though, at least not purely through genetic manipulation that ends up with something remotely resembling a human. And taking energy from sunlight would be cool, but you're not going to get much from the surface area of skin. Trees spread out enormous amounts of surface area in the form of leaves to get what they need, and they don't even need energy to move around... let alone run at 80mph...

I don't think it's parody, unless the Daily Mail itself is a long-running parody. The whole thing is basically one giant, self-righteous straw man (that is, "science is infallible"), with several gratuituous appeals to emotion thrown in. Godwinning is pretty standard, though it's particularly funny in this case, as a better Godwin could be made on the subject of challenging foregone conclusions...

Well ok. Let's say the faucet releases 100 units of water per minute, and the bucket has a capacity of 100 units. To fill the bucket, you need the faucet on for at least 1 minute. And to avoid spilling, you cannot have it on for more than 1 minute, as you will have released more water than the bucket can hold. So: no matter what, the faucet is running for exactly 1 minute. Keeping that in mind: First scenario: When you turn the faucet on, the bucket is 1 mile below the faucet. Some time in the next minute, you move it up to 1 foot below the faucet, taking whatever course you want (as long as its directly below the faucet, so you don't miss any). At the 1 minute mark, the faucet turns off, and you have gathered everything that came out of it, with the exception of that 1 foot of falling water. The total time is 1 minute + time for the last drop of water to fall 1 foot. Second scenario: When you turn the faucet on, the bucket is 1 inch below the faucet. Over the course of the next minute, you move it down to 1 foot below the faucet, taking whatever course you want. At the one minute mark, you have gathered everything that came out of the faucet, with the exception of that last 1 foot of falling water. The total time is 1 minute + time for the last drop of water to fall 1 foot. You see?

Yes and no. The orientation of the Earth's axis is nearly constant with respect to the fixed stars. Polaris is always in the same spot in the sky, day and night, summer and winter, and all stars (except the sun, of course) follow the same path across the sky (that is, concentric circles around Polaris) every sidereal day. What you actually get to see with the naked eye depends on the presence or absence of the sun, but that is affected by the Earth's tilt.