pwagen

Haha - "furlong". That's brilliant! Anyway, the Schwarzchild radius of a black hole acts as its event horizon. You get the Schwarzchild radius of an object from [latex]r_s=2Gm/c^2[/latex], where G is the gravitational constant, m is its mass and c is, of course, the speed of light. For Earth, the Schwarzchild radius is about 9 mm, so I'm guessing Phobos' would be smaller. So, inserting what we know about this little moon into the equation, we get something like [latex]1.6*10^-11[/latex] meters, or 0.016 nanometers. As for how close you'd be able to get to it, that's for someone else to answer. The Wikipedia page seems to suggest it will simply pass straight through without interacting with other matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon#Event_horizon_of_a_black_hole

Naturally, I wouldn't expect fluency. Especially not the oral part. I would expect, should it even be possible, a superficial understanding enough to at least understand the language in its written form.

Right now, there are quite a number of new threads by bots. All of them seem to have signed up at the same time, 10:26 PM (my local time). However, they're posting some time apart. Would it be possible to detect bots from them mass-joining at certain times? For example, I'm not sure how often you get (arbitrary number) 20 new members within one minute. Are they using the same IP? As for the previous discussion in the thread (as well as this post), I'm not sure how much you're able to do with IPB. Don't you get it as a package, which you're not supposed to make changes to?

Here's a really stupid question, I know that already. But still; Hypothetically, let's say I want to learn to read French. Would it be even realistically possible to simply buy something like Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables and dig in? For a few chapters, I imagine you'd need a dictionary, but would you get the hang of it after a while? Regardless of the answer above, would it be any different depending on what language I feel like learning, and what languages you already know? I can imagine knowing, for example, Dutch would make it easier to learn Afrikaans, but would probably be quite useless if you're aiming to be fluent in Japanese.

They'd blame it all on evolution being taught in schools.

There seems to still be a problem though.

From the link I gave you: It doesn't say anything about a possible rerouting of the comet's path. Probably because there is none. We know how orbits work.

Here are a few. Or maybe just one, I didn't read it too closely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox#Proposed_answers But then again, as EdEarl said, there's an even simpler answer.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/18jan_cometison/ Let's not go overboard. Not only are comets "unpredictable" (as that NASA link says), using words like "shocking" is sensationalism. Especially since it won't come anywhere near Earth.

I'm not sure this is on-topic, or even what the topic is. But as far as AI and consciousness goes, this is a very important point. As you say, even if you simulate a brain perfectly, it'll be an "empty" brain. It won't have the connections that we humans grow over time. An AI won't be human-like, unless it's human-like in it's construction, as well as trained in human-like conditions.

"Safe to assume" means something along the lines of "we can assume this, based on our current understanding of that". "Not safe to assume" means the opposite, that we shouldn't jump to conclusions and assume something, because it might very well turn out to be wrong later on. No threats involved, let's get back to the topic.

Well... Not sure why you're talking so much about Hitler. Maybe this would be a better suited fallacy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum Edit: Which it actually is, if you read the topic title?

Are a car's wheels parts of the vehicle itself?

But if we start silencing people for their opinion... where would it end?

This is a common likening between a soul and computer software. However, it's not accurate. A soul, in most cultures I'm aware of, is a non-physical thing. However, even the software in a computer exists as a physical thing in the forms of ones and zeros (not actual ones and zeros, mind you) on a hard drive or in a memory. Software does not exist as a non-physical thing. Believe what you will, but this hypothesis doesn't answer a single question. If we're made by super-advanced creatures, who or what created them? Who or what created the creators of the super-advanced creatures? Who or what made the creators of the creators of the super-advanced creatures? Where does it end? So since we'll be able to create life that's more advanced than us, we might have been created by life less advanced than us? How can he be testing us if he's dead?

Whether you want class A or class C would depend on what you need for your particular construction. A has a lower efficiency but is simpler and has (I think) less distortion. C, on the other hand, has high distortion but a very high efficiency. From the sounds of it, distortion is less important, so you'd go for efficiency, which means a class C amplifier. As for diagrams, look here: http://www.electroschematics.com/tag/rf-amplifier-circuits/ Edit: I take that back. Look here instead: http://www.angelfire.com/planet/sft_accommodation/rf_amp.htm

If we find a dark body, the size of Earth, rushing past at 50 light years away, do you think it would be visible due to its gravity? Is a black hole visible due to its gravity? If you stand at the bottom of a well, and cover the entrance to block out light, can you see the bottom of the well due to Earth's gravity?

Are you suggesting that if the Sun went dark, we'd be able to see the Moon due to its gravitational influence on us?

You're misinterpreting Occam's Razor. It doesn't say the simplest idea is true, so you can't use it the way you do, as a way of confirming your hypothesis. It says that "among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected". And to me, your ideas seem to include the assumption of an aether, which the current theories lack. Therefor, since you're not changing the math, as you say, doesn't that mean you're adding an assumption, thus making your hypothesis the less desirable one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor Explaining your hypothesis the way you do is all well and good, but unless you either have maths to support it, or experimental evidence of its validness, it'll remain in the realms of speculation.

Like what? Personally, I think it's a bad idea to mix a study which gives answers based upon evidence, with one that doesn't require evidence and one which says it has all the answers. I have a hunch swansont was talking about this. No amount of technological advancement will change that.

As not all components are used all of the time, if you want to calculate it, you'll need to know (on average, I guess) how much each component is used. Then use that value with how much power each component uses. Then add all the values from all the components together, and that could be quite tedious. However, it's very much simplified if you've got the specs for each individual part (like the motors, or the sensors). You'll drastically reduce the number of components you need to include in the calculations. Another way is to attach an ampere-meter to the robot and check how much it uses up when idle, and when using all the functions, then use some median value. This would be pretty inaccurate. But the simplest way is probably trial and error. Use the robot with a fully loaded battery, again and again, with different load and idle time, to get an average time the battery will last. If the robot is to do a specific, automated task, fire it up to do that, and just see how long it lasts. Edit: For the calculations, add them up as thus (arbitrary values): motor A x 2: 30 mA motor B x 2: 40 mA sensor: 5 mA Total: 75 mA 1600 mAh / 75 = 21.3 hours worth of battery life (neglecting other variables which might be important to include, but you get the idea)

Stop it already. Nobody will do your homework for you. You haven't bothered showing you have at least tried solving any of the assignments you've posted. So why do you expect anyone to bother doing all the work for you? And how much would you learn from someone else doing it?

You can't be serious. How does someone in the 21st century perform a televised illusion trick? Very well, I'll bite. http://kudlit.hubpages.com/hub/Criss-Angel-Magic-Tricks-Revealed

http://support.photobucket.com/entries/21113677-Link-Codes-Embedding-or-Linking-Photos-and-Videos

Pictures?