Mr Skeptic

Bad idea, it is very important that he understand unit conversion. He should then be able to convert any types of units, and to derive formulas like the one you posted for doing more than one conversion at once. Oh, and technically you are multiplying by 3.6 s/m km/h, and you don't replace any units later And it should also be pointed out that unit conversion is a special case of multiplying by 1.

So then the area of the pool&decks is A = (6 + length + 6)(8 + width + 8) = (length + 12)(width +16), where width*length = 2500. So you replace either length or width with a function of the other, and optimize by whatever means you can. One way to optimize is to find where the derivative is zero, or you could do a graph.

Since Norman Albers doesn't seem to want to answer, I will answer on his behalf. If he feels I have misrepresented him, he is of course free to actually answer. Cause he hates China. Huh? There's athletes?

Guilty as charged. I'm still pissed that I missed April Fool's Day (I was busy writing an essay).

They can't always do that. People would get bored with some of the proper controls, which would be worse than a little inaccuracy.

Not directly related to Bigfoot, but this picture is of a recently discovered species of sea dog. It was only recently discovered because it lives in an area where people seldom live. However, no samples were taken so most scientists doubt that it exists. This despite the clear photo.

In all fairness, the two colliding beams is a difference from cosmic rays, but not in any way related to energy. You are not dealing with Newtonian physics here, you need to use relativity. The speeds don't add up as [math]v = v_1 + v_2[/math] but rather as [math]v = \frac{v_1 + v_2}{1 + v_1v_2/c^2}[/math]. Note that this means that at speeds near c adding two speeds together makes only a tiny change in speed. Yet again, the masses of the particles are irrelevant, only the energy counts. So even though the cosmic rays are mostly light particles and the LHC heavy particles, the cosmic rays have more energy because they are going that little bit faster. The total energy of the particles is [math]E = \sqrt{m_0^2c^4 + p^2c^2}[/math], where [math]p = \frac{m_0v}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}[/math]. Obviously, then, the mass starts to lose relevance when the speeds are higher than 0.9c when the momentum contribution to energy is double the mass contribution to energy, and at much higher speeds the momentum becomes completely dominant. That's some standard relativity for you. But then again, I doubt that more than 1% of the people "concerned" about the possibility of black holes are able to understand any of the relevant theory (which is far more complex than the stuff here), nor willing to spend the time to learn about it. It is very hard to explain these things clearly to people who don't even understand the basics. Also, a large number of the "concerned" are unable to understand that a good scientist will never say that something is impossible. I have raised a legitimate concern that there is a non-zero possibility that someone's fart will destroy civilization, but everybody laughed at that. Why? Because the possibility is so small. But, I still think it is likelier that a fart will destroy civilization than the LHC. Anyhow, the only reason that I see that the collisions at the LHC would be any different than those of cosmic rays is because they would happen in the rest frame of the earth rather than at a very rapid velocity, so if a black hole formed it might stay while cosmic ray black holes go through. However, the universe is a large place and one would very much expect that if high-energy particle collisions at energies of the LHC could form black holes, than not only our planet but several other planets and stars would be black holes. Considering then the number of collisions of particles throughout the universe, and the fact that there are no small black holes found, and comparing to the number of collisions in the LHC, you can calculate a maximum probability that a collision can create a black hole, regardless of any other theories. This is also why some people say that impossible should mean "less than [math]10-^{-50}[/math] probability rather than "zero probability". Because people don't understand small numbers.

To Mr. Skeptic It has been said that sarcasm is the last resort of the incompetent. I am sure you are not incompetent or at your last resort, so the sarcasm is not appropriate. Who said it was sarcasm? A fart has noxious chemicals and bacteria. Bacteria are capable of decimating entire species, and have certainly done so in the past. Also, bacteria are real and have been shown to exist. Compare this to the possibility of a theoretical black hole that might not follow the other theory and somehow gets formed in the LHC despite the much higher likelihood that it would have formed due to a much more powerful natural source of very highly energetic charged particles. So I think it is perfectly valid to say that a fart is more likely to destroy civilization than the LHC.

What if next time you fart, you destroy the world? If you or anyone else knew all the answers related to farts, you could give a definite risk probability. But you don't know, nor does anyone else, which is why the risk is non zero. The risk may be very low. Just not zero. However, I feel that not enough people are concerned about the (non zero) risk that someone's fart will destroy the world.

You would have better luck turning Jupiter into a sun, but I think even that is too small. A more realistic method would be to use large mirrors to focus sunlight onto a planet.

That's what we're trying to tell you. They're not the same; the cosmic rays are more powerful. Unless you're saying that cosmic rays are not highly accelerated ions, then I would have to disagree that they're not the same in that sense.

Bilateral symmetry.

Yes, for some materials regular light can drive reactions. Particularly in the higher energy portions of the spectrum. However, UV would definitely be far more damaging to far more materials.

You mean the mammal that is a "fish"? According to the Pope, that is.

You mean that it would have simulated self-awareness. But how would you (objectively) tell the difference?

I like sushi and plant gelatin is OK

It also shows that you are 100% biased against pit bulls. The problem is not deaths caused by pit bulls, it is death casued by dogs. Unless you are saying that deaths casued by dogs are OK so long as they are not pit bulls? If you don't want to get roasted, I suggest a good dose of reality. It is simply laughable that pit bulls would make up 30-40% of the population. Even with your reduction, that would necessarily place them among the top ten most popular breeds. I won't argue that as someone else will shortly. I am mostly on your side, but so far the evidence I've seen suggests that pit bulls have caused a disproportionate number of deaths. However, I have seen no evidence yet that that is a genetic factor (save for size/strength) rather than an owner problem, or that a ban would reduce dog related deaths, or that the number of deaths is enough to warrent a ban if it would work.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/156576 It seems that many shelters simply refuse to take in pit bulls, so that a disproportionate number of them end up at those that do. This would make shelter statistics extremely variable. The 30-40% estimate would belong to shelters that take in pit bulls. Also, shelters are a place for unwanted dogs, and that may increase the estimate of the pit bull population. On the other hand, unwanted dogs are more dangerous regardless of breed.

To iNow: could you share the source(s) for your estimate of the pit bull population? The data I've seen so far (but I think it is for purebreds only) seems to imply that pit bulls are a miniscule portion of the population.

Real consciousness, simulated consciousness. What's the difference?

Um, there does not seem to be a correlation between troop numbers and deaths. Not that we shouldn't follow a general's advice on how to withdraw, though I agree with iNow that repeatedly missing deadlines to withdraw makes us look silly. However, it may be more clever to help the Iraqi army indirectly via equipment and training, for both practical reasons and social/political ones. Keeping permanent bases in Iraq seems like a wise (re oil) if unethical idea.

Don't forget that photons have momentum p = hf/c, and can have any energy E = hf. Both momentum and energy must be conserved. Photons can also lose energy if they are red-shifted... how might this play out with the box?

Momentum = Mass X Velocity (compare to Kinetic Energy = 1/2 X Mass X Velocity2) The overall momentum of a system is conserved due to the nature of forces.

About 100 of them for the voltage, more if you want enough amps to power a hair dryer. I'd suggest a light bulb or an LED.

If you use lithium walls, you can get the neutrons to cause it to decay to get tritium, which is the hydrogen ion in shortest supply that might be used in fusion reactors. So the stray neutron can be used to make more fuel. There are different fusion reactions that are possible, and some IIRC don't release neutrons. However, before worrying about any of that too much, we need working fusion reactors.