swansont

The goal is not to be scientifically accurate. Artists are going to employ artistic license, and are also limited by the medium. Rendering water as blue (or sulfuric acid as green), for example, is likely because it's far easier (and less expensive) to do that than be realistic about it. Some big-budget efforts do a better job of such things. The radioactive rod that sticks to Homer's back in the intro of the Simpsons isn't realistic. It glows green because that's a particular trope that they are leveraging, and in the vast majority of cases you can't tell by sight that something is radioactive. Or poison. Or has a high or low pH. The purpose of these cartoons is to entertain, not to educate, unless an accurate portrayal is entertaining. "We do teach it in school. You're too busy eating sugar snacks and horsing around!"

It's not this - it changes the address to where it doesn't include the original. e.g. tinyurl.com/ye29ahp7 will take you to this thread. But how would you know that without clicking on the link? (I've omitted the https:// so it's not a clickable link) There's no indication of the actual site's name. with www.scienceforums.net/topic/126922 you know where you are going, and can make an informed decision about whether to click. Such a service has its utility, but it's inappropriate to use here.

If you are getting the link from the site, and not using a URL shortener service (e.g. bitly or tinyurl, etc.) then you are fine. IOW, if you can read the site's name in the URL and that's where it's taking you, there is no problem.

We've been having some discussions and have concluded that URL shorteners aren't consistent with a good user experience; too often they mask a spammer's attempt to get you to visit a (possibly malicious) site that you wouldn't be inclined to visit if you could see the actual link. So: don't use them here. We have no post-length limits that might justify them. We will assume that new people using them are spammers and react accordingly. If you have a track record, we'll delete the link and give you a chance to modify your habits.

"Life appearing" does not require those things, though. That's more "life as we know it" and of course, the vast majority of species do not use tools, so that's a non-starter.

Are you under the impression that people didn't sleep before beds were invented? That people don't sleep on a floor or the ground?

It might be interesting to see how these odds were calculated. Or perhaps not, because there are a number of sources for these odds (from creationists) that use "analyses" that are mind-numbingly naive.

Is there a point for looking for realism in cartoons, which exist without having to conform to real-world limitations (other than financial), and looking for realism in parody?

You can cite all you want, but that does not change the fact that courts have made horrendous decisions over the years. Were any of these a case in which a local court ruled that a law violated the federal constitution? I had asked you for such an example. (a peace treaty is not the constitution)

No, it’s not. m/s^2 is “meters per second, per second” because acceleration is a rate of change of speed. s^2 is in the denominator, which is crucial. Seconds per second is s/s, which would cancel

Do you have a citation of any local judge ruling a law unconstitutional (not in reference to a state constitution)? And yet the 14th amendment was deemed necessary

No guarantee that life that might have existed there is the kind that would leave a corpse.

That’s working so well with abortion rights.

There's no salt water in the sun, much less being used as fuel.

I think perhaps that a RTS game won't incorporate the phenomenon of "poorly-maintained equipment because the system has been looted by corrupt higher-ups and widespread incompetence/apathy" along with scores of other impacts that can't be programmed in to a simulation. So even if logistics matters it's unlikely that it goes into the level of detail that real people encounter in real situations There are computer games where you just happen to find ammo and 'health' hidden behind odd-looking bricks in a wall, which is great for game play but not realistic at all, though the phenomenon of finding enemy equipment abandoned might be under-represented. Douglas Bader, WWII RAF pilot, gave a talk to a prestigious girls’ school, and was describing the German planes attacking him: "I had two f*ckers to the left of me, two f*ckers to the right" The horrified schoolmistress interrupted with, “Ladies, the Fokker was a type of German aircraft,” to which Bader replied: “That’s as may be, Madam, but these f*ckers were in Messerschmitts.” (Paraphrased. there are various versions of this all over the internet)

! Moderator Note This has gotten very old. Demonstrate it with actual data, rather than assertion and anecdote.

Which was what I was trying to point out when I said “There is no moral factor in blowing up images on a computer screen” In a simulation, if there are points for blowing up a school or hospital, you blow it up. That’s not reality, though. IOW, simulations don’t model things completely. It omits aspects of reality. You’re moving the goalposts here. You had made claims that a 15-17 year-old could make better decisions because they had more experience than a “true general” by playing RTS games. Do you think that actual military people don’t do simulations? aka war games? They do. In addition to training that you don’t get with computer games.

I've had difficulty explaining to some family members that e.g. a water molecule doesn't know if it was released in a "natural" or a synthetic process. It's just a water molecule.

I don't think I did, or perhaps the point was made badly. You're talking about propaganda, which was in the latter half of the post, and has nothing to do with playing the computer games in question, AFAIK. Two distinct topics, and I wasn't talking about the second one.

Please let's not pretend that a RTS game has any valid relevance to this. There is no moral factor in blowing up images on a computer screen, and no risk to your person for doing anything. If you mess up you might not win the game. That really doesn't merit any discussion whatsoever. I've played a turn-based (rather than real-time) strategy game and the decision to go to war and the details of how you go about that has is in no way preparation for the real thing for any rational adult. I'm really disappointed this has to be explained to anyone. And points to the earlier comment about how nobody would waste ammo blowing up a kindergarten. It is barbaric and demoralizing. There are reasons why the Russians are engaging in such tactics, but it's also one reason why (most of) the rest of the world is united against them. In WWII you didn't have the ability to do precision bombing and avoid hitting civilian targets. Everybody was doing it. That's not the case today.

I'm not sure "they are committing war crimes so we should, too" is a good strategy. I think you lose support for your cause if there is credible evidence that you're doing that. I think you might stop getting military aid. Do they even have that kind of weaponry (missiles that can travel hundreds of km)? I would be a little surprised if other countries were selling/sending them what would clearly be offensive weaponry.

In addition to exchemist's observations, you'd be in a situation like the old steam locomotives you mentioned - an engine but also a place to store the fuel, which you have to lug around with you. Along with the storage container and the fuel delivery system, which are likely to be more massive than a fuel tank and piping. That's an additional drain on your efficiency. That worked for trains, but not so much for other applications.

The first stumbling block, I would think, is not having a theory. I’m not sure the SSC was going to test quantum gravity

I don’t think so. It’s a matter of basing it in QM vs extrapolating from classical physics, as they currently do Also nobody observes gravitational effects at the Planck scale.

It depends. If you are just making hot water it’s 60-70%. If you are generating electricity it’s significantly lower.