ewmon

I say, technically, it's "center of mass", but the other term is more common, unfortunately. You can determine it's CoM by a couple of methods that I just thought of, depending on its shape. Sounds like it's an irregular shape, so the suspension method sounds best (and it's easiest to implement too). SUSPENSION METHOD. This method works well for most 3D shapes. You can suspend the rock by a string glued to it at a few selected locations. The string will hang vertical, and the rock will flex about the attachment point so its CoM hangs in line with the attachment point/string. By taking a few photos along horizontal axes of the rock and string, you can then extrapolate the strings into the rock through their respective attachment points, and where they intersect is the CoM. SUPPORT METHOD. This method works with fewer 3D shapes, typically smooth, box-like or flat tile-like shapes, but it also helps with toroidal and U-like shapes. Obtain a stiff, strong, fine rod (usually of metal), and mount it in two bearings near each end and have some ability to spin the rod about it's axis (typically a dial or knob). Place the rock on the rod, and turn the rod to find the place where the rock balances like a seesaw. It can be difficult. You might need to be constantly adjusting the dial/knob to maintain this balance. Take a photo from above of the rock and rod. By interpolating the rod through the rock, the CoM lies somewhere along that line. Turn the rock about the vertical axis by 90°, re-balance it, take another photo from above, and interpolate the rod. The CoM lies where the two interpolated lines intersect, although the depth is undetermined. This lack of a third dimension might be relatively trivial, as with a tile-like rock such as a piece of flagstone. Or, if needed, you might try suspending the flagstone by a string attached to the edge, then taking an edge-on photo, and then extrapolating the the string into the rock to give you a better idea of the CoM's position.

Chickadees have a sophisticated alarm system. They emit a high-pitched "seet" for dangerous predators flying nearby, and birds hearing this signal (not just other chickadees, but also other species such as titmice and nuthatches) recognize this signal and hunker down until the "all's well" signal is given. A more sophisticated signal is their seemingly casual "chick-a-dee-dee" trademark call. Part of the information in it that we can recognize is the number of "dee" notes that designate the level of danger of flying predators that are perching or ground-based predators, such as weasels and house cats. One or two "dee" notes means all's well; more than that means danger. Other birds (nuthatches and titmice as well as other chickadees) will recognize the warning, fly toward the caller, and help to mob the predator and drive it away. Note the chart on this webpage. Chickadees literally size-up their predators, and know that they can probably out-maneuver the big ones, such as the great horned owl, and have more concern for the smaller ones, such as the northern pygmy owl, that can press home the pursuit of small birds. During the research on this, one apparently terrified chickadee's alarm call contained 23 dee notes when caged with a tethered northwern pygmy owl. On the other hand, the rough-legged hawk elicits an average of only 1¼ dee notes (lower than the "all's well call). Apparently the chickadee knows (or learns) that this hawk feeds exclusively on small mammals and other land animals, and not small songbirds. Notice also in the chart that chickadees distinguish between predators and non-predators, such as a bobwhite, which although small, is not a predator and elicits the average "all's well" signal of 1½ dee notes.

Yes, the lifeguard's actions in question seem as much as, if not more than, the company's responsibility because it told the city that it knew all about lifeguarding and would hire, train and provide lifeguards for the city. It's called vicarious liability.

A recent article on the world's largest impact crater led me to read about Nuuk, Greenland. As the Greenland's capital and largest city (pop 16,000), Nuuk seems to have everything modern: cars, buses, hotel(s?), wireless internet, restaurants, shops, ferries, cruises, institutes of higher learning, hospital, harbor, international airport, multi-purpose stadium, museum, cultural center, tourism center, etc. The city/town seems to specialize in singular nouns . The people seem mostly Inuit and/or Danish in origin, and folks there are bound to speak English. It averages 38 to 50°F in July, although it's been known to hit a blistering 75 and a chilly 28. There is plenty of tourism in Greenland, although I'd draw the line at scuba diving next to icebergs.

John Cuthber, did you read this part of my last post? You unnecessarily harp about evolving toward/into humans, when I stated evolving as humans. You unnecessarily harp about evolution toward/into humans not depending on reading, when I stated that reading merely helped humans to evolve as humans. You unnecessarily harp about "books", which obviously did not exist 3 MYA, even though you as much as admit that "to read" simply means to understand symbols/symbolism, whether they are words in a books, cuneiform in clay, tokens in a bulla, notches on a tally stick, symbols in an electronic schematic, etc. From Themes in the history of bookkeeping by Oldroyd and Dobie, Wikipedia states: This is the understanding of abstract symbols/symbolism employed in all sorts of "reading", and it happened before books, and it was "a huge cognitive leap for mankind". This is what I'm talking about. I'll go one further and use a modern situation day example that I think almost everyone has encountered from one side of or the other. Someone needs to know how to drive somewhere, and someone else pulls out a street map, or draws one, etc. The person who wanted the directions then says that s/he has a hard time understanding maps. They apparently have difficulty understanding the situation from a bird's eye view, which is abstract/symbolic, yet they seem to do well with following directions that involve landmarks (traffic lights, gas stations, bridges, etc), which are not abstract. People who can "read" a street map, can find their way to any part of the city by themselves, even if they become lost, but people who need directions everywhere they go, must be spoon-fed the directions, especially if they become lost. Clearly, the advantage is with the map "readers". This is what I'm talking about.

Back tracking? Furiously? Au contraire, mon frere. In fact, I'll repeat myself with even more emphasis and elucidation for your own benefit — Humans can read and talk, which has helped us to evolve. Let me make it simple for you. I said, "Humans can read and talk". I didn't say primordial slime, or single-celled animals, or multi-cellular lifeforms, or complex animals, or fish, or amphibians, or even mammals. I said "humans". Then I said, "which has helped us to evolve." Evolution based on this human ability to read and talk obviously refers to the continuing/ongoing evolution of humans, and not the evolution toward/into humans. I asked you for your definition of "read" and you deferred to my definition, but now it seems you have regressed back to books. So, understanding mission markings on military aircraft (shown below) is not reading? Understanding the meaning of an object jammed into a cut in a tree stump is not reading? Understanding cuneiform pressed into clay tablets is not reading? Understanding clay accounting tokens enclosed in hollow clay bullae is not reading? Understanding the notches cut into paleolithic tally sticks is not reading?

Take your pick. Okay, I pick sense 1a, and then some (keep reading). ... a bacterium reading ... blue green algae. You're still taking it to the extreme where I only went as far back as pre-humans. The essence of reading and talking involves consciously dealing with the abstract, which is one of the major characteristics of being human, or nearly human ... that we can "read" meaning into something that is not obvious. We would actually need the ability to create those abstract symbols — to write — in order to read words on paper. ... show me an example of a bacterium reading. Because bacterium contain ribosomes, "Ribosomes read the nucleotide sequence" technically qualifies as bacteria reading ; however, I do admit that bacteria do not do so consciously. Almost all of ... evolution ... has had nothing to do with any ability to read .... Au contraire, mon frere. The chimp, who learned to prank the others with his leopard alarm call, has learned to "write" a leopard into the situation, knowing how others would "read" it, to distract them from the food they just discovered — consciously manipulating the abstract. This cheating, like murder, has it's evolutionary advantages. did you think that picture served ... to distract attention from the fact that you lied about what I said earlier. You're "reading" too much into the situation. The Helen Keller photo was just another visual example, as with Kanzi the ape reading, of "reading" without necessarily using words on paper. You and I are suffering from the ambiguity of language. Your words "our origins" could refer to our evolution: 1) within the human species, 2) from pre-humans onward (that is, since we split from other simians, including extinct species such as the Neanderthals), or 3) the evolutionary path from abiogenesis onward unique to the ultimate production of the human species. I now realize that you meant "our origins" in the third sense (from abiogenesis onward), whereas I had understood it to be in the first sense because you have consistently claimed that the human ability to read occurred only very recently within the human species (for example, you had previously said, "For most of human history [...], we couldn't read").

Again, John Cuthber, what do you mean by "read"? I gave you 25 bona fide choices, or you can use your own words. I use sense 1a, which is the original meaning and a currently valid one. For example, the blind who use Braille can "read", the prehistoric American Indians who could interpret the meaning of the deer hide wedged into a cut in a tree stump pointing in a particular compass direction could "read", deaf people can "read" lips, and Helen Keller could "read" through touching people's lips, face and voice box (she put her thumb on their voice box to distinguish voiced/unvoiced phonemes). This photo shows Helen Keller reading what President Eisenhower is saying.

I didn't redefine the definition of the word "read", sense 1a (to understand the meaning) is the original sense and a currently valid sense. Do you read me? Can you tell me why it's the original sense and a currently valid one? So, what do you mean by "read"? Use an alphabet? Then the Chinese can't read. You keep saying: "All I have to do is trace our origins back to a point where they didn't have the ability to read." So now, do it. John Cuthber, everyone knows what brackets means: I further defined your meaning as I understood it. When you said "our origins" — as in the origins of "you and me" — I interpreted you as saying that "you and me" are humans. So now, please fill in the blank: You and I are ______. You think I should be banned? I will call you on this. After I'm done with this post, I will try to report my own post for banning (which I don't think I can do), or failing that, I will "report" your post with the intent of interesting a moderator in your claim that I should be banned. If I'm guilty as charged, then I'll be banned. Let's see ... Done. I reported myself. You can do it on this forum! Please read the entirety of the report below.

Really? Read on. Some ape geneses have the ability to read (see photo below, captioned "Reading Together", showing an ape named Kanzi reading symbolic lexigrams). Kanzi has a vocabulary of several thousand words, and can both read and create sentences using lexigrams. Apparently the ability to read and write is part of a section of the great ape gene pool, and thus, pretty convincing evidence that pre-humans also had the ability to read and write. So, humans evolved from a human precursor (from ~5 MYA) who had the ability to read and write. Will apes suffice in lieu of blue-green algae, or are you sticking to your facetiousness? source

Please forgive me. When I used the word “read”, I meant it in a general sense of understanding symbols, and I did not necessarily mean that the objects being read were sentences composed of words composed of letters. That is, I used read in the sense of 1a below, and not necessarily in the sense of 4 below. For example, with some prehistoric American Indians, if one Indian was alone in camp and decided to go in a certain direction to hunt deer, he would make a cut in a tree or stump designated for this purpose, where the cut would show the direction he took, and then he would stuff into the cut something related to a deer, such as a bit of deer hide. When the other Indians returned to camp, they would read/understand the cut, the direction it pointed toward, and the bit of deer hide, and know that the Indian had gone in that direction to hunt deer. Furthermore, I stated that reading helped humans to evolve, and I did not mean that reading helped pre-humans to evolve into humans (in the sense of macro-evolution), although this can neither be proved nor disproved, rather that reading helped humans to evolve as humans (in the sense of micro-evolution). This is why I questioned how the ability to read halted our as-human evolution. No one has given proof that humans have stopped evolving; therefore, we continue to evolve. read vt. 1. a) to get the meaning of (something written, printed, embossed, etc.) by using the eyes, or for Braille, the finger tips, to interpret its characters or signs b) short for proofread 2. to utter aloud (printed or written matter) 3. to interpret movements of (the lips of a person speaking) 4. to know (a language) well enough to interpret its written form 5. a) to understand the nature, significance, or thinking of as if by reading [to read a person’s character in her face, to read someone’s mind] b) to ascribe (an underlying meaning or significance) to: with into [don’t read anything into his straightforward reply] 6. a) to interpret (signals, etc.) b) to interpret (dreams, omens, tea leaves, lines in the palm of a hand, etc.) 7. to foretell (the future) 8. to interpret or understand (a printed passage) as having a particular meaning 9. to interpret (a musical composition) in a particular way, as in conducting 10. to have or give as a reading in a certain passage 11. Brit. to study, as at a university; esp., to major in [to read law] 12. to record and show; register [the thermometer reads 80° 13. to put into a (specified) state by reading [to read a child to sleep] 14. Slang to hear and understand [i read you loud and clear] 15. Comput. to access (data or a file) from (a disk, tape, etc.) vi. 1. to read something written, printed, etc., as words, music, books, etc. 2. to utter or repeat aloud the words of written or printed matter 3. to learn by reading: with about or of 4. to study 5. to have or give a particular meaning when read [a poem that reads several ways] 6. to contain, or be drawn up in, certain words [the sentence reads as follows] 7. to admit of being read as specified [a story that reads well] n. 1. an act of reading [a quick read of the headlines] 2. something for reading [a novel that’s a good read] 3. Chiefly Brit. a period of time spent reading

I'm not a medical professional, but this reminds me of the two major types of pneumonia, viral and bacterial, where the infection by one can weaken the lungs and lead to the opportunistic infection by the other. Eyes, like lungs, are very exposed to the environment. A patient could be infected by one, and be diagnosed as such and likewise treated, and then develop the opportunistic infection by the other, which is then transmitted to another patient. So, I'm supposing that someone diagnosed with bacterial pink eye could transmit viral pink eye to you (because they ended up with both, with the one beaten down with medication, but not the other). Make sense?

Ditto. Out of incarceration's three objectives to: 1) protect society, 2) punish the criminal, and 3) rehabilitate the criminal, the rehabilitation takes a very distant third place. This happened roughly during the 1970s to 1980s when the crime rate skyrocketed and the public clamored for a response by the authorities. For example, in Massachusetts, double bunking (two men in a 6 by 8 cell) went, from an emergency "warehousing" response to overcrowding, to the norm in most jails and prisons, which added to the punishment aspect. Educational programs were reduced or eliminated. Lifers and long-termers who had accepted and settled into their prison life, and thus were allowed to live in the relaxed conditions of lower security institutions, were punished by bringing them "back behind the wall", that is, returned to higher security prisons. Prisoners also became a whipping boy for those criminals who were unknown to authorities, and thus, beyond the reach of the law. For example, at the end of the 20th Century, unknown, young, black, urban teens were committing black-on-black drive-by shootings in Boston, where both intended victims and innocent bystanders were being injured or killed. In response to the public outcry that authorities do something, they turned around and made life more miserable for those criminals already incarcerated to try to frighten the would-be drive-by shooters from committing these crimes. The result was that, not only did this whipping-boy style of deterrence not work, but the authorities were helpless in other ways (more patrols, outreach, rewards, etc) in curbing this brand of violence. Drive-by shootings came to an end only after community and religious "leaders" spoke up and took the issue to the community itself. Sadly, incarceration remains a seriously under-rehabilitating experience for those who cannot follow society's rules, and simply gives them more years under harsher conditions to try to rehabilitate themselves. Even among prison staff, there are those with a strong protect-and-punish-only mentality who make work difficult for those employees, such as principals, teachers and librarians, who attempt to bring any sort of rehabilitation to the prisoners.

The term is called "marginalization". It happens to RSO's as stated, and it happens with many more people returned to society if their crime is one of the severe ones (murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, etc). In addition to having done their time, the situation is compounded. It involves seeking living arrangements, employment, transportation, and even education ("going back to school"). Someone guilty of a serious crime spends serious time in prison. Even if they were only 18 when they committed the crime, they might be getting out when they're 38, with no real work experience for 20 years and no real work skills to offer. Add to that the fact that prison makes it difficult to maintain relationships, and family and friends tend to fall by the wayside and/or move away by the time 20-plus years rolls around. Mom & Dad might be living in an over-55 community, or they may have retired to a trailer in Florida. Siblings are married with kids, and they'd rather not take in Uncle Joey ... you know, for the kids' sake, and all that.

In addition to a couple of things already mentioned ...a modular electronics set, where the blocks had images of the component on their upper surface with conducting plates on their sides connected to the component, behind which were magnets that would make them stick to other blocks (and conduct through the plates), to make all sorts of circuits. Can't remember the name.

In addition to a couple of things already mentioned ...a modular electronics set, where the blocks had images of the component on their upper surface with conducting plates on their sides connected to the component, behind which were magnets that would make them stick to other blocks (and conduct through the plates), to make all sorts of circuits. Can't remember the name.

1. Then learn to use it. 2. They were being honest? 3. I gave you the entire timeline. Yeah, two scientific works ... one's called Google, and the other's called Wikipedia.

You let it all hang out, so now I know you better. Thank God we have separation of church and state.

Almost all solar system theories before Copernicus were non-heliocentric.

No, I use my brains. I also don't reject the Declaration of Independence because it doesn't address slavery. Ancient history ... again. I also don't seek the downfall of the United States because it once allowed slavery. Then you'll have a one-sided conversation with me. I'm not proselytizing.

I congratulate you on reading the bible cover-to-cover many times. If I insulted you by implying that you had never read it cover-to-cover, then you insulted me by implying that I hadn't read it. I only gave back to you what you gave me. And now I'll give it back to you again. So, you know about "most believers" how? Have you surveyed them? Taken a poll? (And, by the way, the part you found chilling was about Abram, not Job, and it bothers me too. I don't drink the Kool-Aid.) Moontanman, I know one thing: religion typically provokes endless debate. But I can agree to disagree. How about you?

I have read the entire Bible at least twice. Has anyone else here read the entire Bible? I would say that the vast majority of detractors of the Bible have not read it in its entirety. If you want to understand what the Bible really says, then you should read it too. It's a joke to think that Martin Sheen or Hollywood is an authority on the Bible.

As to a world tour, I was never one to enjoy slogging around due to constant jet lag, unless you do it in baby steps. The non-electrified (as far as I know) and non-vehicular Supai, Arizona (in the Grand Canyon) is the most remote community in the lower 48 states, and one of only two places that has its mail brought/sent by mule train (as popularized by its postmark, below). Tourism is a key industry there. You could travel around the world by tramp freighter.

The last part of the video is most telling: "If you're going to use the Holy Bible to condemn others..." Jews don't care what others do because their laws are only for them, Christians "condemn" only each other but not non-believers (except for a few loud-mouth idiots who do), and the Christian faith nullifies those kinds of Old Testament laws.

So, the fourth column should read: "Urea concentration (high)" instead of "... (low)"? But no formula or model. That's odd. I think you're stuck.