Mr Skeptic

If you do decide to help the new guy, make sure that the management knows about this. However, if they are unwilling to train a new employee, they are likely quite stupid so be careful with them.

As I understand it, lions and tigers aren't much for hunting humans either. I think "human" is an acquired taste. I've heard that most tigers that attack humans are maimed or sick and unable to catch other pray -- inevitably a tiger hunt ensues. Once a tiger eats a person, they are likely to be repeat offenders. It could be that sharks don't attack people because one of their main senses is smell. They can smell blood from a great distance, but maybe they don't know how to sniff out people, but can smell seals?

SkepticLance... where to begin? A square relationship is not exponential, doubling the speed of the ejected particles (at nonrelativistic speeds) will double the force, as that is based on momentum not on energy. The big savings for better fuel are that you need less fuel, so have less mass to lug around. The relation of fuel to distance is not linear due to having to lug around the extra fuel, though doubling the rate of fuel burn will double the force. The rest of your post is fairly accurate though.

There's a significant probability that alien life would be based on much the same stuff we are. After all, its the only thing we know for sure that works. I think consensus is that it would have to at the very least be carbon-based (though some think that silicon based is also possible). From the nature of proteins, they are a (NH2)(CHR)(COOH) unit where the R group is basically anything (in practice there are about 20 different ones used in life). This is a rather simple thing, and very powerful as the amino group (NH2) from one amino acid can bind to the carboxyl (COOH) of another, forming a peptide bond. Also, amino acids can form naturally under certain circumstances, so it is quite possible that alien life would use proteins, even if many of the R groups are different than terrestial proteins. As for DNA/RNA, these are larger molecules and I don't know how easy they are; also they are not as vital as proteins. But basically, that is all speculation as there is a very good chance that there are other ways to make life than we know. They can survive, at least for a time. But they won't be very happy, what with no oxygen, food, water (actually they're likelier to get freeze-dried), radiation... I don't think they will be metabolically active aka "alive and kicking". Actually, being freeze-dried can preserve them, and most bacteria can survive when frozen or dehydrated. If they are to get anywhere, they would have to survive some insane radiation, and I don't know that they can do that for long if they are not metabolically active (required for self-repair).

You may consider buying a new one -- the costs for the air conditioner will probably get far outdone by its energy usage.

Maybe there's a monster under your bed

No, only in a circular orbit is the force perpendicular to the motion. In the elliptical orbit there is a parallel portion, which changes the speed of the planet as it gets closer or farther from the sun. If the force was only perpendicular, then there could be no change in potential energy (hence, the orbit would have to be circular)

You also need to maintain a proper fuel-air mixture. If you try to make your flame to small, likely lots of the fuel will diffuse to quickly.

They could emit a different frequency. 10% getting tumors is a bit excessive. I'd be suspicious of a rat-only phenomenon.

Seems democratic to me. The majority in Kosovo wanted independence, and the majority of countries recognize their independence.

I think that I would phrase it such: "The Law of Cause and Effect isn't based on science, science is based on the Law of Cause and Effect." Because if there is no cause for an effect, then there is no explanation for it either and hence no scientific explanation. The simplest answer to every question would be, it just is.

Just remember that it is near the event horizon that time nearly stops. If you actually go through the event horizon, nobody on the outside is going to see you, and also all bets are off (or theoretical).

Agreed on that. Why is it that they had to mess everything up, and put all the useful features several clicks away? Now every Fing thing has a huge section dedicated to display, as if that was why people use a spreadsheet. /rant

The problem with analog is that it is inaccurate -- was that a 1.5 or a 1.5001? Each time you touch your data it gets a little corrupted. Whereas with digital, any small corruption gets eliminated each time the data gets copied. The data would have to switch between a zero and a one before there would be any corruption, and there are error correction protections that can usually detect when that happens. Basically, digital is far more error resistant than analog, for only a little less data density (occasionally more than one bit is stored in any particular measurement).

What do you mean? Are you saying God isn't eternal? That would be the Law of Cause and Effect. It's even good enough for philosophers.

No, the whole point of the decay being truly random is that it can't have a cause. Sure, the nucleus loses energy, becomes more stable, entropy increases, etc... but why does a specific nucleus decay at a specific time? I've previously argued that the law of cause and effect seems incompatible with quantum randomness. Ah, here it is

Conservation of energy -- since the orbit is not perfectly circular, you get closer and farther to the sun. The difference in gravitational potential energy gets converted to/from kinetic energy.

Well, newspapers really like reporting certain things that were done in a home lab. Eg the "nuclear boyscout".

Well, that's amusing, clever, and has a lot of truth to it, but after thinking about it I decided I would be rather sad if I had to find my own food, make my own computer, etc. Overall, I would rather have people than not, with of course the exception of some of them.

I suggest you read Ecclesiastes. Its written by King Solomon (who is supposed to be the wisest person ever), complaining about how life is pointless.

It's much higher if you go out on the streets and look than if you post questions on the internet from your computer Blue eyes are recessive traits, so genetically people are unlikely to have blue eyes compared to brown eyes.

Might I suggest you use the same methods to completely eliminate crime?

In some places, people are expected to devote much of their life to education, get a good stable job/income, and then have a child. Then they are expected to be responsible parents and spend some time with their kids. If you have your kid before you finished your education, or before you have a stable income, you're going to be in big trouble. And its far far worse for a single mom. In any case, having a child when not ready for it can be disastrous both for the parent(s) and for the child. Also, being pregnant and having a child is fairly obvious to everyone who sees you.

I thought it was a great report, though I would have to take points off for not including the relevant equations etc to show that he knew what he was doing.

If by futile you mean sustainable, sure. Any other method (overall adding or overall removing CO2) would be unsustainable. After we have a carbon neutral system, we can let nature balance out the CO2 or do additional carbon sequestration. Currently, we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere.