John Cuthber

Once you chill the ceiling below about 80K it will start to rain liquid air. That will cool you in a hurry. GX seems to have missed my point. People are not hot enough to radiate much.

Apart from anything else the cold ceiling would cool the air near it which would become denser and fall. This would set up a convection current which would do a much better job of taking heat from the person than radiation will. People are just not hot enough to radiate much.

I'm sure we all look forward to Starseedleo's return with some evidence.

The SI unit of temperature is the Kelvin and it's not defined in terms of the normal freezing point of water (which varies with pressure) but the tipple point of water 273.16K (about 0.01C) where the pressure is also fixed. Vigorous mixing would locally heat the mixture. The uniformity of temperature is ensured by making sure the system is well lagged. Incidentally, water is perfectly capable of existing between 0 and 4 C. This statement "BTW if I remember correctly water freezes at about 4oC, melts at 0oC and doesn't exist between 0-4oC this is due to the energy used or released during the phase transition between solid-liquid and liquid-solid. A mixture of ice and water will give an average temperature of 2oC (for instance) " is wrong in every major respect. Any mixture of ice and water will be very close to 0C.

" if it is true that ancient peoples like the Greeks thought in a way that was incommensurably odd " And if not?

What's the difference between a duck? "Everyone know this phenomena well." But please don't use the answer that "its leg are both the same". OK, That's probably enough piss taking. Alpha, it is clear that you did not express the question clearly. What did you mean?

Thanks for that clarification. It suggests to me that the people who vote don't like or don't understand drug use.

I thought it over. I waved. Some kid who was passing waved back, which was nice. What were you hoping to achieve from this thread?

Sorry to interrupt the argument, but I wonder if someone can tell me if the votes referred to in DJBruce's post were actually referenda (i.e. votes by the people ) or votes cast in some sort of senate/ parliament (i.e. votes by political representatives)? If it's the latter then I think we might be seeing the politicians preference not to be seen as "soft on drugs" rather than any manifestation of the real will of the people.

Unless there is something to do the conceiving, no concept can exist. As far as I know, mankind is the only thing with a conception of negative numbers. If that's right then the concept of negative numbers is man-made.

Yes. Both the pain and the upset will cause adrenalin release. In this case, it won't help her at all.

Go into your local electronics supply store and, in a loud clear voice, ask the sales staff "Do you have sticky rubber feet?". Even if you don't get something to hold your laptop clear of the table, you should get a laugh.

It's a scaling problem. Fusion reactors the size of stars are easy. Fusion reactors (of any decent output) the size of cathedrals a re just about possible and you want one that's too small to see? Good luck.

I suspect you are right about the "drive-by trolling". Of course, since all our laws are now perfect, we can disband parliament/ congress/ whatever. That will probably save enough money to rehabilitate the poor souls who get into difficulties with their drug use.

It is , of course, true that archaeology might get things totally wrong. So can the rest of science. It's what happens when they find the bit of evidence that makes them shift their ideas that matters. As long as they say "Oops! we were wrong; here's our new theory" then they are doing science.

Not that it matters, I suspect the OP wrote "turbine" where he meant "dynamo". In any event, buying the system will almost certainly get a better result than trying to build one.

"Are there any possibility about molecular attraction force is reduced?" Yes, that's why blacksmiths heat iron bars before hammering them into shape. "Is the vibration important role on the solid state energy storage at high temperature?" Yes "Which percentage does the vibration energy contribute to? " It depends on the system and the maths is pretty horrible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_model

The thing I don't understand about US politics is that you think that you have a left wing party.

I explain it as a heat engine using electrons as the working fluid. Much the same as a steam engine is a heat engine using water as the working fluid. If I wanted to be more detailed I would talk about the contact potentials, how they vary with temperature and how there is no reason to expect the contact potentials of two different metals to vary in the same way as the temperature changes. BTW, this has bugger all to do with the original question.

I am in favour of both legalising dope and of public healthcare. What's the contradiction? Most of the damage to society that is attributed to drugs is actually a consequence of their illegality. Both publicly funded healthcare and legalising (most) drugs would improve the health of the nation. If we stopped police wasting time chasing drug dealers we could get by with fewer cops (and save money) or we might reasonably expect them to do a better job of the other aspects of their work, for example we might improve the clear up rate for murder (it's not bad but there's always room for improvement). That's a choice of ways we win in addition to the fact that a lot of crime is drug related and would go away anyway. On a not entirely unrelated note, would someone like to explain this "No intelligent individual supports and/or endorses an illegal activity" to Nelson Mandela?

"the trade-offs that governments make is that they typically only increase the likelihood that people will die " Odd that, because people are living longer than ever. The government here, not so long ago, banned smoking in public places in spite of the reduction in tax revenue that it would bring and the current government pledged to maintain spending on healthcare, even while it was cutting all other expenditure. Perhaps you need to tell them they are getting it wrong; they keep doing things that will keep people alive.

So far, I have seen reasonable arguments put forward for wearing bump cap, earplugs, safety glasses, gloves, and metatarsal steel toed boots. It has been pointed out that police , who need to be recognisable to the public, wear uniforms and that the military do the same for that and other reasons. It's perfectly sensible that Construction workers usually require safety footwear and hardhats. This has little to do with school uniforms. Surely schools now require pupils to wear safety gear in science and metalwork classes? The School football team is likely to have a uniform that permits them to recognise one another rapidly on the field. It has been pointed out that a uniform permits children from a particular school to be recognised; this is particularly helpful to the bullies from other schools. The peculiar argument has been made that poorer parents are better off paying for a school uniform in addition to the fashionable clothes that their children will wish to wear when away from school. It has been put forward that "by requiring everyone to wear the same uniform, the issue of personal appearance is necessarily thrust into the background, so that more important and interesting issues such as personal opinions, behavior, and knowledge can be foregrounded." and this idea has been challenged by Marat's observation that "Rebellious types could insist on their idiosyncracy by wearing their tie in the form of a noose, wearing the same suit and tie every day for a month, sleeping in their clothes in order to cultivate an informal, rumpled look, etc." My experience was similar. Some lad actually read that the rules said "Boys must wear a maroon tie" and got himself a maroon bow tie. They had to rewrite the rules. I think Destiny's assertion that "But if they ever hit public schools, there will be an open rebellion against the federal government of United States. A rebellion that will result in massive loss of life" is gloriously absurd, but I still haven't seen a good argument in favour of uniforms.

There is a difference between someone with the misfortune to have a heritable disease and someone who chooses to screw their sister. "Unfortunately, most people with polycystic renal disease decide to have children because of the same murderously idiotic cruelty, " Or possibly because the child will be no worse off than they are. Since they don't commit suicide they cant be that unhappy with their lot.

"What types of trade-offs would you make if you were the head of a family with one member needing dialysis? " It wouldn't matter a damn because I couldn't afford one. That's the sort of thing that governments do. By the way, Marat, why do you want to put helicopter manufacturers out of business? (Or did you not realise that there's a downside to your suggestion too?)

Genghis Khan is reputed to have claimed that a girl carrying a bag of gold could cross his lands unmolested. He probably exaggerated a bit but he may have had a point. "Which civilization killed 80.000 people in one day? " We did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki But it may have reduced the net death toll of the war.