Mr Skeptic

However, from the numbers it seems that the majority of ball lightning cases couldn't be one of these transcranial magnetic stimulation hallucinations.

Thanks mooey, I was hoping you'd show up. Yeah, that's the gist that I got since most of the translations are in that direction and only a few and in footnotes in the other. Still it seems like a rather important difference for it to be ambiguous about! Well I know from elsewhere that the eye for an eye should apply to the woman, but I was uncertain as to whether this was just restating that or including the child. I suppose this context helps point toward the harm including the child as well. --- From reading the Bible I had gotten the impression that children seemed to be treated as property (albeit very valuable property). God killing off Job's kids along with his other possessions, for example, and collecting someone's kids (as opposed to, say, the parent) for an unpaid debt. Do you know if this impression I got is accurate?

Right, but miscarriage means death of the infant.

Here's a link to the various translations of Exodus 21:22 Exodus 21:22-25 22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. [a]: Exodus 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage It's not entirely clear whether this passage is talking about the woman or the child being seriously injured. Is it saying that if someone accidentally kills a pregnant woman's child he has to pay a fine and if the woman gets hurt besides it's "eye for an eye", or is it saying that if someone accidentally causes a premature birth then he has to pay a fine, and if either the woman or child are injured it's "eye for an eye"?

Right, the heat exchanger would transfer heat from your hot to your cold without doing any work. This is a waste since you want the hot output hot and the cold input cold. Essentially it is a heat engine with 0 efficiency. Furthermore, the warm input will waste the solar input by warming hotter and so radiating more thermal energy, but despite the hotter temperature achieved will end up cooler. Also, the insulation will be spread more thinly as it covers two pipes. Leaving the ambient temperature pipe uninsulated will have no effect since it is at the same temperature as the environment and will neither cool nor warm.

So long as the humidity is anywhere below 100% and you ventilate enough, there will be no overall condensation. The ventilation would raise the temperature of the walls to that of the outside, and at that point there will be no more condensation (since the walls are not colder) and any water on the walls will evaporate (since humidity is less than 100%). The closer to 100% humidity the more ventilation will be necessary. There will be no condensation if the outdoor air is cooler than the basement walls. Which brings me to a third option I forgot about: air conditioning the basement. So long as the influx air is cooled more than the walls, it cannot cool and cause condensation at the walls. As for the dew point, it depends on the humidity in the air. If you measure humidity in relative humidity, then the dew point depends on both the temperature and humidity in the air. The reason the dew point matters is that if the walls are above the dew point, there will be no condensation on them so neither ventilation nor dehumidifier would be necessary. (as insane_alien said, however, sweaty athletes would raise the local humidity significantly). I think the best choice is dehumidifier. It would probably be more expensive than ventilation, but cool dry air is fun for athletes.

As far as I know, "falling in love" is an effect nature uses to counteract our tenancy to be unnecessarily perfectionist or unnecessarily cautious. The effect is to exaggerate the positive aspects and ignore the negative aspects of the other, motivating the couple to make the effort to mate and helping them bond. A lot of time and energy is wasted by this, however, so eventually the couple falls out of love to avoid "burning out" and so there is more time left for work.

But how would we tell the difference between a black hole and something that is simply really close to absolute zero?

Of course, but one of the things they do know is that we're not supposed to spoon-feed answers. Remember also that there's a difference between not knowing an answer and not wanting to bother to tell you an answer (nor even give you hints). It really doesn't help any when you falsely pretend that a proof someone gave you is invalid. Whether that is due to incompetence or malice really doesn't matter: it makes you look bad. If you do not understand a proof there is no shame in saying so; pretending instead that it is invalid won't score you any points. I really wouldn't blame folks for totally ignoring you after the way you've treated them.

If by "one day" you mean "billions of years from now when the universe cools to the point where stellar sized black holes are warmer than the background radiation" then sure. Alternately, micro black holes are much hotter and those could be detected via Hawking radiation if we were to find one.

Think about it. What purpose would insulation serve for water at ambient heat? What would be the effect of having something with a high heat capacity (a water pipe) next to something at a different temperature?

I'd say you're making baseless accusations. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well, he did finish the proof in several different manners. What do you have to say now?

The problem is that you have a cold surface that reduces the temperature of the air; when the temperature of the air drops the amount of water it can hold (but not the amount of water it does hold) drops. If the humidity rises to above 100% then condensation results. The two solutions are to warm up the basement surfaces (such as by sufficient airflow) which will prevent the air from being cooled, or to reduce the humidity of the air (using a dehumidifier) to prevent it from passing 100% humidity when it does get cooled.

Did you think we'd know more about your condition than your doctor would? Regarding your brother, he need not have inherited the same genetic problem as you did (look up Mendelian genetics), nor even if he did need not have gotten your disease (look up penetrance).

Not necessarily. Evolution can happen within a second, such as an instantaneous event that kills off a certain subset of individuals in a species and changes their allele frequencies. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If you define evolve, the answer to that will be obvious.

Moved to Homework Help. Even if it isn't technically homework, it is still the same sort of problem and the same sort of rules apply. --- I'd start by replacing two variables with a single one.

Hm, interesting thread. I think it is sad that Rand Paul is a bit spineless. If he can't stand up for what he believes he should either quit saying how he believes that or quit politics. I think that the Civil Rights act has largely been a good thing, but could well be obsolete. Circumstances are different now. Bascule, private clubs are those with a specific membership, not not those which serve the public (non-members), whether or not it excludes portions of the public, and regardless of what they call themselves. As for affirmative action, I am undecided. On the one hand, it discriminates against people who have done nothing wrong, on a basis of race, but who have an advantage due to discrimination by their ancestors (via inheritance). On the other hand, it helps other people who have likewise done nothing wrong but are still disadvantaged due to having historically been discriminated against based on race (due to inheritance).

I'm impressed by how succinctly you summarized it. "a full reading will explain the connection". Wow.

How about the previous verse: 6 When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground. The impression I get from this is that they couldn't have arrested him is Jesus hadn't let them. Some force and implied threat of more force if they didn't let his followers go. (none of the other gospels mention this aspect and instead all 3 have Judas doing his thing).

Technically, it is a new theory whenever it is modified. The reason for modifying theories rather than starting from scratch is that it is a much, much easier process. You are guaranteed a better result with very little effort. If you started from scratch, you need to think up a whole new theory, then show it at least as good as the previous one. While possible to do, it is much harder. Yes. My opinion is that it is data on the faults of our understanding of gravity. But it could also be some kind of real material; after all we do know of nearly undetectable matter (neutrinos). Now if there were some pile of dark matter somewhere without the visible matter, or alternately a large amount of visible matter with little to no dark matter, that would suggest it is real.

Just one question: Who made the earth round when it had previously been flat for such a long time?

Well I say, if they want to be responsible for the content of the data they transfer, then they should be free to choose what to allow and what not to allow. If they want to say they're not responsible for the content of the data they transfer, then they had better shut up and transfer it.

And if you remember, Jesus intended to die, and also he forced the soldiers to let his buddies go (John 18).

Sure. We think God is perfect.

I think they want the winners to have good riddle-solving skills rather than good internet searching skills.