Mr Skeptic

One type of Tolkein's trolls will turn to stone upon exposure to sunlight. Hence, sunrise and sunset are very important for them.

Seems plausible. We'll find out for sure soon enough.

Since the box has no mass (nor momentum, I assume) but the photon has momentum, conservation of momentum would require that a single photon would push the box out of the way at the speed of light. This may result in your trapped photon interacting with cosmic background radiation. Anyhow, a very odd and non-physical result.

I've heard a theory that viruses can increase our genetic variability. Retroviruses can insert a copy of themselves into our DNA. In fact, I believe most of our DNA is retroviral in origin. In this way, they can add genetic variability of a different sort than regular mutation. I think this is how genes from snakes ended up in some mammals. Whether the overall benefit of this has been more important than the cost of disease I cannot say. In any case, now that we can do genetic engineering we have no need for the retrovirus' crude tinkering.

Using used oil makes it economical, but dirty. Not necessarily a happy thing to put in your engine. Anyhow, I doubt you have a diesel engine.

New observations with his telescope were quite important. Observing phases of planets in accordance with Copernicus' theory. Michael Faraday was the only great scientist I have ever heard of that was mathematically challenged. I believe he was considered the greatest experimentalist of his time. Needless to say, theory was not his strong suit.

Yes, I'd say it is because caffeine is a diuretic. Giving the kidneys more fluid means that they don't have to conserve as much water so they don't need to fight as much osmosis and can concentrate (ha, ha) on excreting toxins (and medicines). More urine also means more chance to remove the toxins (and medicines). I'm also guessing a bit. If this is accurate, then drinking lots of water would have a similar effect.

I'm aiming wide, but I think the signal would have to originate from a living thing to count as song, and having neurons might also be a prerequisite. Rhythmic chemical secretions might count and are probably the only way microbes could be involved. (This seems very unlikely.)

It's almost certain that there were multiple reasons for our upright posture. I'll throw out a few potential ones: Efficient walking. Most primates walk rather awkwardly and inefficiently. Carrying. It's much easier to carry stuff, be it food, tools, or weapons. Reaching. It's easier to reach upwards if you are upright. Sometimes useful in trees, but mostly for reaching from the ground. Would be the ideal position in an environment with low fruit trees spread out enough that monkeys can't jump from one to the other. Tool Use. An upright position gives you two free hands to use for tools. You might think that four hands is better than two for tool use, but consider: 1) If you also use hands for support, those hands are unavailable for using tools anyways. Quadrupeds would have only one free hand if they are not sitting, and using it would severely compromise their gait. 2) Hands are complicated things; a huge portion of our brain is dedicated to ours. Two more dexterous hands are more important than four hands. Consider how clumsy you can be if you use your left hand for a task you usually do with your right. Throwing. When throwing from an upright position, you can use all the large muscles in your body to throw. More sensitive hands. Less wear and tear and stepping on sharp things could mean the hands can be more sensitive. Not having to bear the weight of the body might also mean they can sacrifice strength for dexterity. This would apply to the wrists as especially -- consider how many skills are "all in the wrists". Kicking. A kick is far more powerful than a punch precisely because the leg is heavier and stronger due to carrying all our weight. Also has the advantage of keeping your head and neck far from the enemy. Weapon use. Two free hands means you can carry a weapon and use it more effectively. Swimming. I'd think that would be a minor side effect, but it could have contributed. I'd need to see a comparison of swimming speed and energy efficiency for several primates to be convinced though (with adjustments for webbed hands/feet). Extra visibility. We can see better, especially in tall grass. Even on flatish land, being higher off the ground gives us a more bird's eye view of a larger area. Also, we could see predators from farther away, but they could see us too. Overall, it would seem like the predators would get the better end of the bargain for that aspect, but then again we don't have that many predators. Looking bigger. Young kids overestimate the size of a tall object. It would seem reasonable that animals do too considering how some of them stand up to try to intimidate other animals. This would only matter when already being upright would prevent a confrontation though. That's all I can think of for now. Most of these points are about tool use, walking, and walking with tools.

You could say that it is because the electric field points toward an electron and away from a proton. That really doesn't say much though.

There is a large number of animals that sing: crickets, birds, whales. You might consider visual rhythms to be related as well (luminescence, dance, etc) to be related as well. I was wondering, which branches of the animal kingdom do this, especially those in our line? And how does it relate to our communication? We can communicate in song as well as in speech, and singing and speaking use different parts of the brain. Since most song is related to communication (or mating), I was wondering if song could have been what we built our language from.

There's also a difference between veggies and leaves. We can eat veggies, but not digest cellulose. Some plant matter is not too different from meat. Proteins and sugars should still be digestible. Dunno about starch, but I'd be surprised if they couldn't eat it.

Close enough that there the radiation is at about full strength. Otherwise there wouldn't be any sense in putting a photovoltaic or other direct radiation-to-electricity device.

I'd have to agree with Pangloss on most of his points about war and soldiers. As to whether or not I'd consider a soldier's life more valuable than a civilian's life, that would depend a lot on circumstances. For example, if a war is going very poorly, and we need every soldier we can get, then soldiers become relatively more valuable compared to civilians. If the soldier's mission is to protect the civilians, then the civilians become relatively more important. And, of course, I'd consider our civilians more valuable then the "enemy" civilians. Absent some unusual circumstances, I'd value our soldiers more then Iraqi/Afghan civilians. Of course, the Iraqi's might not see it that way.

The majority of life reproduces by cloning. Some organisms have the option of cloning themselves or some form of sexual reproduction. There's even some vertebrates (whiptail lizards) that reproduce by cloning. So don't go feeling all superior with your fancy shmancy sex.

Maybe or maybe not. Was anyone disputing that? What is this, politics? Did you change you mind that global warming is not proven to lead to an increase in hurricanes, or not? If not, you really should address iNow's points. But on average, the weather is the climate. It is a mistake to attribute all of the weather to either climate or randomness.

Arbitrarily, and even accidentally. Many have wished it had arbitrarily been chosen the other way around, with electrons positive and protons negative. Electric current makes more sense that way. However, all the science books with electricity would have to be renamed.

Eh. Buy cheap dog food and look at the ingredients.

It would be costly and unreliable. Photovoltaics are somewhat sensitive, and they would have to be located very near the core and subjected to heavy radiation. Even if the cell survived the radiation, it would become radioactive and contribute to the plant's radioactive waste. If the cell was damaged due to radiation, it would have to be replaced by robots because humans can't go so close to the core.

That's a good thought. I know that young children will overestimate the size of something tall and skinny compared to something short and wider. Even to the extent that they think you made more milk appear when pouring a short, wide glass of milk into a tall, skinny one. It would not surprise me if animals do that too even to adulthood. However, I doubt that would be the primary reason we became bipedal.

I thought that the earth-moon center of mass was within the earth's radius.

Well, an armed population does not need the most powerful weapons to defeat their government. The population outnumbers the government by far. Examples can be seen from peasant revolts everywhere. However, ensuring that the army remains loyal to the people rather than the government is a better idea.

I'm familiar with C, C++, Java, and Lisp, and some shell scripting. I've dabbled a bit with BASIC, Perl, Python, Rexx.

I (slightly) disapprove. Many of these distributed computing projects are quite valuable, and, as I understand it, it is overall more efficient than having dedicated computers in addition to personal computers (which might be using their CPU for a regular screensaver anyhow). Consider it a donation to science.

I've seen similar numbers. Don't know whether they are biased or not. However, the costs in specific circumstances could be far higher or lower. Solar-on-a-roof will be cheaper than a dedicated solar plant, and non-local power will be more expensive in remote areas, etc. Nuclear has research benefits. Coal has pollution and CO2. etc, etc. I too would like to know how they calculated it.