Mr Skeptic

What was news to me recently, is that you produce about as much body heat as an equal mass of solar material does by fusion. Which means the problem is much harder than I was led to believe, seeing as we'd have to do about 1000 times better than the sun or even more, to be useful.

Look up the enthalpy of formation, and compare.

Just cancel out the units until you're left with grams.

I don't know about that. Each tribe had pretty much its own religion, most of these tribal religions are very unlike the universal religions in that they are very specific to the people or location. As with the languages of these tribes their religion will die out too. I do think we'll have more flavors of the universal religions though.

I think that equation only applies to the maximum current. The point of a transformer is that the same energy can be transferred with less losses due to resistance, or with thinner and therefore cheaper cables. This despite the losses at both ends due to the transformers.

A tin-foil hat will stop the EMP. You'll need a thicker tin-foil hat for a more powerful EMP. It won't completely stop the EMP though, but it just has to reduce it to a harmless strength. If you have extra money to spend, upgrade to a Faraday cage.

Sure. Ignore the horizontal velocity. The vertical velocity is zero.

Oh I see, you answered part of the first question and were asking if it is correct. Well, it's close enough to true for school. It's a nasty little truth that a lot of what you learn in school is half-truths, because the whole truth is always more complicated. Looks to me like you need to study a little more about photosynthesis.

It's not strictly true. Autotrophs create their own food, and although green things are the biggest group of them, not all the green things are plants (eg algae and cyanobacteria). Some don't even use photosynthesis such as the ones living in caves and near thermal vents.

Well you could start by replacing the percentages with number of patients. And show your work, so we can help you better. You should be able to get 4 numbers, and if you think about it it should be fairly easy to see which type of result they are.

Well we could all travel to Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity. Should be pretty safe, since its in our home country where nothing can possibly go wrong.

Well he certainly didn't call it the "Rally to Restore Sanity to the Republicans", so he'd better be mostly non-partisan about it. Which doesn't mean the Republicans won't receive the brunt of it if they're the ones doing the most extreme things.

So quantum mechanics is supernatural then?

And even if the muscles could push, it would be pretty useless to push on tendons.

I see. So the probability of one sample testing positive is .04, but 10 samples are tested simultaneously, with the test returning a positive if at least one sample is positive and negative if all samples are negative. The negative is the easiest case to find, it is the probability of every sample testing negative (with probability 1 - .04 = .96 each). The positive you can either calculate by summing the probabilities of 1, 2, 3, ..., 10 samples testing positive, but there is a much much easier way. Since the test will return positive or negative, the chance of the positive result is easy enough to find once you know the chance of the negative result.

That is how I feel too. And yet my understanding of quantum mechanics is that it is supposed to have true randomness, so that the results cannot have a cause. In particular there's supposed to not be any hidden variable that would explain the results (Bell's Inequality). So while something generic could be said such as the measurement taking a certain value due to "wavefunction collapse" or the particle decaying because it is "unstable", that can't tell you why it collapsed to that particular value or why it decayed at that particular time.

Interesting picture, but its missing the the other presidents using the constitution as toilet paper too.

If you think you can make a perpetual motion machine, you know there is an aspect of physics you misunderstand. For example, volts have no energy.

It doesn't look like you have enough info, not if the test can give an inconclusive result. It looks like you're given the answer to your second question? But I haven't heard of a composite test. Does that have another name?

There's plenty of unstable nuclei that haven't decayed. Instability is not a sufficient cause for both the decayed and undecayed nuclei. --- Let me go with a slightly better understood example, with astronomy. Solar systems can "decay" and fling an object out of them. What is the cause? Really its a string of continuous cause and effect, you can't usually point out "there -- that's the cause". I'm not sure if this is relevant to the quantum version though.

You might want to ask a mining or petroleum person for some advice. Keep in mind that it will get much harder as you progress, because a lot of time might be spent taking dirt to the surface. What size hole do you want?

No, it's the number of copies of chromosomes (homologous or exact copy). Unless the cell has defects, this should be the same as the number of (homologous) copies of chromosome 1.

Aren't you doing exactly what swansont said you're doing? All the things with a materialistic explanation don't count because they're too uninteresting now, and only the currently unexplained ones count as interesting. That's even less impressive, especially since your testable predictions aren't. As I showed in the other thread, the "functional" aspect you ignore when inconvenient and only require when convenient. So you're left with being unable to explain the very things you claim can't be explained materialistically.

Due to the configuration of this particular planet, with a constant day and night and a thicker atmosphere, wind power would be the ideal choice for it. You'll have on the ground prevailing winds towards the day side, which will be denser due to the dense atmosphere (also denser because they will be cold). Anyhow, I think if a wind farm is set up there then the colony won't need any other power source and would have plentiful electricity.

Yes, I'm pretty sure Stewart criticizes the right more than the left (which they have done plenty to deserve), probably still in quantity of criticism but also in quality of criticism. Also whoever is in power at the time gets bonus criticism, which is the Democrats for now. But whoever does something worthy of his criticism is very likely to get it, whatever side they are. On the other hand, some of that could be my bias showing. Studies show that when things are ambiguous people predominantly choose the option that they like better, so that conservatives are more likely to think that Colbert actually does hold the conservative views he pretends to hold, he's just being funny.