CaptainPanic

The color of your skin shouldn't have any relevance at all for a scholarship. However, if a government makes a decision that a certain group (*) needs to raise their average level of education (especially when they have a historical reason for being poorly educated, and the country itself is to be partially blamed for that) - then I think it's acceptable to give them a priority for a certain amount of time. This should not go on indefinitely. (*) It does not matter whether the group is defined along ethnic lines, religious lines or geographic, labor class, whatever...

no, but you'd be growing the plants in insulated environments anyway as the temperature is below freezing most places and times. Yup. On Mars we need greenhouses no matter what. They would have multiple purposes: to keep the heat in for the plants (we might need double glazing, lol), to keep the water in, to recover oxygen for the settlers. I agree that we should imitate Mars here on earth... but such a system doesn't have to be self-contained. I actually think it's ok to have some leaks to the outside atmosphere, both here in our test-labs and on Mars in the real thing... What's important is that you test the right things here. And later on Mars that you keep the moisture in the greenhouse. The lower gravity and lower pressure (and therefore lower wind strength) will make for interesting plant shapes: very flimsy and tall.

Even cold water can melt the ice/snow. however, you will need a place it can run off to, otherwise you just create a skating ring in the parking lot. This disadvantage also goes for the hot water: it's gonna turn to ice eventually. As a rough guideline, 1 liter of boiling hot water can melt 1 kg of ice. 1 liter of cold water (10 Celsius) will only melt about 100 grams of ice... so you need lots of water. Salt is an option, but as was said before: you need lots of salt, and it is not guaranteed to work (depends on the temperature). I would recommend just shoveling it out...

Spyman, did you take anything serious in this thread up until now then? As a sidenote, I've reported this thread to be moved to speculations... it's been in the real-science section long enough now.

I both agree and disagree with that... I agree that the law is very clear. And the law says red means stop. I disagree because there are plenty of cases where the laws are just stupid, and even childish. Take for example a traffic light at a completely deserted crossing. In the Netherlands the traffic lights (finally!) just turn off (blinking orange) in the night, so that you don't stand completely alone on a deserted crossing waiting for absolutely nothing. In some cases however, traffic lights aren't turned off (but they should be). In such a case, especially on a bike, in the rain, and especially if you have a good view of the traffic (nothing hides behind a corner), I think it is completely understandable if you break the law and keep going... Another example: construction works have blocked the bike-path for 5 meters, and it forces all cyclists onto the sidewalk (where it's not allowed to cycle). It's just for 5-10 meters. Should I really brake, get off my bike, walk 10 meters, get on it again and carry on? I mean, that's what the law says... but come on! If the sidewalk is empty, I am NOT going to walk. I will cycle. (If there are people, I will make an estimate of the danger of cycling there, and I am likely to get off my bike). If I get a fine in both those cases, the only conclusion that I can draw is that the law is wrong, not me.

I assume that a large majority wants a democracy. Yes, indeed. I do not think that they will all vote for the same party once they got their democracy... in fact, I think that a multi-party system is the healthiest form of democracy... so I hope they will be as divided as possible. But actually, I have no idea of the political landscape in Arab countries. It's probably still developing. The US seems to discuss exactly these topics, yet that is not a religious government (although some parts of the republicans are, perhaps). Anyway, I really believe that if a majority of a population wants to outlaw these things based on the rules of some religious book, then it's up to a democracy to deliver the laws to outlaw such things. I personally would dislike that very much, but you can't always get what you want in a democracy. If it is a very fundamental right, then a constitution should be there to keep that safe. It usually requires a larger majority (2/3rd or something) to change a constitution. Some democracies even bring up such a vote twice, with an election in between. That's all meant to prevent sudden changes. If, despite all that, a democracy still pushes towards a religious law, then so be it. I think that democracy should simply let the majority (attempt to) make the rules, and the minority gets to be the opposition. A proper democray also has many checks and double-checks, and an opposition should have some power. I know that it really sucks if you're part of the minority, and it's an important issue for you... but that's democracy for you.

Entertaining post. Of course there's some world order kinda thing. We all know that... Yes, there are governments, and yes there are very rich people. But I disagree with you that they all plot together. World leaders and the wealthy of the earth disagree about many things... and I would be very surprised if such rich and arrogant people would be able to form such a thing like the New World Order. It would most likely be a New World Disorder, as we observe in reality. At the same time, I would be very surprised if they do NOT keep in touch with each other through some networks. If you're rich and influential, it's important to know other rich and influential people. Makes sense. Of course there are secret underground bunkers too. Most likely built against nuclear attacks. And of course high ranking military officers sit in those bunkers. It's their job. The part that I find really unbelievable is that we would have a twin star that -somehow- we never found yet... and that the above two things: networks of powerful people and underground bunkers, have been formed and constructed for the sole purpose of this unbelievable event. If that other star or huge planet is really that close, then someone with a telescope should have found it by now. We've found hundreds of tiny rocks beyond the orbit of Pluto, but somehow we shouldn't be able to find an object which -according to you- will be visible with the naked eye in 6 months. Wow p.s. I wouldn't want to be an astrologer with such a massive object permanently distorting each and every planet's orbit! And I think I'd also rather die immediately than be stuck in a comfy bunker on a planet which is thrown out of its orbit.

You only need to heat up a very tiny part of the wire to a high temperature. It's possible to do it. Any light bulb can show you that you can heat a wire to extreme temperatures using a battery. The wire in the light bulb would burn through if it wasn't encased in a glass bulb with an inert gas in it. As was pointed out above, the battery can also break open/explode... and the materials inside are very nasty and in contact with your skin can hurt you a lot. If you get it in your eyes, you're risking blindness. Doing it outside is not much better. The materials are also toxic... There's a good reason why batteries aren't considered general waste, and should never be thrown away with the normal garbage.

Mars stands approximately 1.5 times further away from the sun than Earth. The intensity of the sun is therefore 1.5^2 = 2.25 times as weak. That's still more than adequate for plant growth though. Yeah, nitrogen is necessary, but I don't think it's necessary in the atmosphere. Nitrate in the soil is enough. Obviously, a lot of other elements are necessary too, sometimes in tiny concentrations. I'd be surprised if a massive planet like Mars wouldn't be able to supply some greenhouses with all the necessary elements though. Since most of those do not enter a gasphase, and can be recycled from all the poo (manure/fertilizer), the problem will eventually be solved. On Mars, any cycle of life that makes use of the gas phase (atmosphere) is the real challenge... which means that we just have to look at CO2, O2, and water.

The only thing I mean to say is that in the countries that went through a revolution lately (Egypt and Tunesia), I don't particularly care if they get a religious leader... as long as the foundation of the government is democratic (and remains fully democratic also after the 1st election). For example, the Queen of England is also the head of the Church of England. That seems to work. It's an example of how religion and a democracy can exist side by side without problems. The only thing I want right now is to give the people in Egypt and Tunesia a fair chance. If they like to get a religious head of state, then so be it. As long as they get themselves a proper democracy as well. If we are going to oppose those countries before they even completed their revolution, then we actually increase the chances of the fundamentalists. And it's that where I see the real danger... there's no problem in religion, no matter which religion) but there is certainly a problem with the extremist fundamentalist approach to religion.

I don't think brains are capable of doing these two tasks at the same time (checking where you're running and reading/studying). If you're off the treadmill and outside, then I recommend that you keep your eyes on the traffic and other people around you. If you're in a place without other people (like a forest) then you most likely need to keep your eyes on the ground to avoid twisting your ankle. Perhaps on a dedicated running track without any other people would you be able to do this... In short, I don't see many opportunities to really read anything while running outside. I don't believe it's possible, because if your complete attention is on the book, you'd essentially be running blind, and if it's not completely on the book, then you are not very efficient at studying. If you're on a treadmill, you can just place an ordinary computer screen in front of it, or a tablet as you suggested yourself. It's fully adjustable: you can change the position, and you can change the fontsize and resolution. It might not be an efficient way of studying, but (1) it's technically feasible and (2) you're certain that the road ahead is free of obstables, you might touch a handhold or something to relieve your eyes of the task of determining your location so that you can fully focus on the text.

Agreed. And I wasn't defending Mubarak's regime... I think we can agree that it was not a democracy, and there was no freedom to vote. I think everybody will agree with you: killing people for having the wrong religious is bad, m'kay? I will also agree that it's better to have a complete freedom of religion, and a separation of church and state. But I maintain that you paint the picture so incredibly black and white. You make it sound like it's either freedom, or some Taliban-kinda lunatic government. Did it ever occur to you that there's a lot of possibilities in between that are acceptable, or am I just misunderstanding the point you're trying to make? In all the 47 countries in this world that have Muslim majorities - many of which have Islam as a state religion - how many people got executed? Hardly anyone. It's a nonsense argument. The point I try to make is that you can have a functioning democracy, and a state religion. And you can also have no state religion, and still no democracy or freedom. And you just ignore that, and talk about the worst examples you can possibly find... and then you go: "See, told you it's bad".

The system most definitely exists... and I completely agree with your analogy of the butterfly effect. Although the meteorologists study very hard, they most certainly fail to take every butterfly into the equations. And that's what I tried to say: yes, it's mathematical. No, we can't model it. You can't map the butterflies. They fly whenever they feel like it.

From the Western perspective: a large number of countries have moved from: - a technologically backward part of the world - a colony, exploited for its resources - an independent nation, still largely controlled by the larger powers of this planet - truly independent countries, supporting their own economy Right now, a number of Arab countries seem to be making a move: one step up the ladder of progress. They make the final step towards true independence... Although we must acknowledge that our Western superior power is (relatively) in decline, we have to accept that the world as a whole is making progress! It's good news! We (Western nations) are as powerful as ever... but we just noticed that these people want to join us... join us in pretty much every sense of the word "join": there will be more free people in this planet. True, they have a different religion, but who cares? They move towards a democracy: freedom! The holy grail of our (Western) civilization.

Can you use the same lane as cars? Or are you supposed to go to the side, and use only a fraction of the lane (so that cars can pass)? ??? When I brake, I prefer to have both hands on the steer... I thought that was common sense? I'm quite surprised about this actually. My brakes are located on the steer - I can't brake safely without both hands on the steer... Regarding biking, the Netherlands looks pretty much like this (note the following: a bike lane in a different color, a special bike traffic light, and nobody (not even small kids) wears a helmet or gloves because it's not really necessary. Only people on racing bikes wear helmets here. Obviously, cyclists ignore the traffic laws on a massive scale, like everywhere... but the combination of lots of experience and proper infrastructure means that there are very few incidents. Lots of people use their bike every day, and all kids get biking-in-traffic lessons before they're 12 which is possible because it's a safe assumption to think that all kids have a bike. Also, city councils take the bike infrastructure very serious. I completely agree however that lights and reflectors are really important (especially on a rainy day)... and since those little LED-lights were invented some years ago, there really is no excuse for not having a light.

You're absolutely right. If you stand outside your house, and you cannot see any light from inside, then you can safely assume that all that light was absorbed and converted to heat. All other appliances create heat directly. Unless your heater is a heat-pump (reverse airconditioner), your heater and any other appliance will create exactly the same amount of heat per kWh of electricity. Both have 100% efficiency in creating heat. The only difference is that visible light is absorbed by different objects than the infrared... so other things get slightly warmer because of the visible light... but it is safe to assume that this effect is negligible. You can test this by getting a small heater and a lightbulb of exactly the same power, and preferably of the same weight... Place both in a separate box which is completely closed (i.e. lets no light out). If the boxes are relatively heavy compared to the heater nad lightbulb (i.e. it takes a little while to heat up), then you will notice that both boxes heat up at the same speed. You can then later replace the lightbulb by a fluorescent light (which is more efficient at making light) of the same power, and check again. It should have the same outcome.

You can describe a voting system quite well with maths... But you cannot describe the effect of some news-articles, or political advertisements... so such a tool would not be able to predict anything. One little action by 1 person can trigger an enormous cascade of effects which can change an entire region (like the guy in Tunesia who set himself on fire - and now revolutions break out in multiple countries).

Where does the assumption come from that ALL religious Islamic governments have to massively suppress all freedom? And where does the black and white picture come from that ALL Western countries are really free? Are we really free? Is information really free? Do you really have a choice? From your optimistic view, I assume you live somewhere in Scandinavia, which (imho) is really one of the few beacons of freedom. What's bad about having a state-religion? Sweden, a beacon of freedom had a state religion until 2000: the Church of Sweden, it was Lutheran! Nobody ever complained. I think you're being unreasonably positive about the Western model, and unreasonably fearful of the possible Islamic democracies.

LOL - appreciate the sense of humor. However, I don't see where I insinuated anything about aliens. "They", as far as I understood, are most likely the powerful and rich people of the earth. Why would aliens hide in Denver Airport?

Personally, I think we'd be much better off without "them"... so once we find out where "they" went, we have to find a way to convince "them" that the apocalypse really happened. Then when "they" re-appear, we can tell "them" that we are superior aliens who just look like humans to make "them" feel more comfortable. And then we can make "them" work for us. Thanks Yomomma for telling me this.

Keeping all other things the same, can you reduce the number of lawyers? No. But why would you keep all other things the same? It sounds like the people in the financial department in a large company. They're being told that they have to be more efficient with less people. At first, they oppose. They say that "it's impossible, and management has lost its mind, because you can't do the same work with less people". Then some people start to think outside the box, and someone realizes that this simply means that they must reduce the amount of work that is being done... Rather than doing all the tasks, they scrap some unnecessary tasks. I have no idea how we can achieve this... all I know is that we have to.

We can assume that extremists will try. In fact, they probably are plotting already. But they are a minority. They always are a minority. The main question is whether they can sell their message to the people and the military. If a majority of the people actually (initially) think that extremists will be a blessing, then it's too late. It might be a wolf in sheep's clothing, or another trick. Or the extremists might simply play the religious card. The military however are a different story altogether. They might not be persuaded to obey a religious-extremist government. But without the support of the military, there will be no extremist government for very long. The extremists have the best chance to succeed if they have people in the military too. Absolutely true. Another example: Iran is a democracy, yet we all seem to think this is one of the worst governments in the world. But the same is true to a lesser extent in almost every democracy. Yet, as Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Democracy is not necessarily a good government, but it seems to give the people the biggest chance on a fair government that the majority wants. It can still go wrong, but chances seem smaller than with a dictator or a military or religious government. And why is that? Because the Israelis have behaves like a**holes? With the exception of a few years of peace-talks when Arafat was still alive, the Israelis have treated the Palestinians as a nuiscance rather than as neighbors. And I have a feeling that the Arab media will call the Palestinians "freedom fighters" rather than "terrorists". I can certainly understand the sentiment. In fact, I partially share it. I think Israel should reconsider its behaviour, and perhaps back down. I would oppose any military force though. It's a fundamental question that you ask... but also a very black-and-white one... as if there's no option in the middle (a moderately religious government which listens to reason). anyway, let's go with the question: What's better: a country with free people that opposes you, or a country with a dictator who is your friend? Note that we (the West) have about 100 years of history where we declare that Freedom is about the most important thing in the world... isn't is hypocritical then to support a dictator, just because it fits your ideal distribution of world power? I therefore think that (even though it's very inconvenient, and might cause a readjustment of power) the democratically chosen religious governments are the preferred option. And I also believe that we must consider a dialogue with such countries. Remember that it's not even certain that such a religious government is extremist or unreasonable. For example, many European countries have parties in their governments with a religious background... and the American president swears on the bible at the inauguration. It's religious, but not extremist.

In multiple Arab countries, it appears that Muslims want to have a democracy. Hardly anyone seems to cry for the Sharia, or for a Muslim-state. The pictures we see now are not of bearded men dressed in curtains, but of young men in jeans, wearing baseball caps. Women independently join protests, and apparently enjoy a freedom comparable to my country. It also appears that our freedom-loving Western democracies support dictators, even when a population cries for democracy. The behaviour of all Western countries can at best be called opportunistic, supporting the dictators until their position becomes unstable, then quickly switching sides to the revolutionists (and making it appear they never did anything else). 9/11 is over. We are not the freedom loving oasis in the barbaric world. And the Muslims apparently aren't out to destroy us. The above text is based on an opinion article in a mainstream Dutch newspaper, but not literally translated.

Having no predators in nature is no option, because prey would just grow out of control, and eventually starve to death as a result of a population that became unsustainably large. And starving to death is also unnecessarily painful. So, in a way, cats are doing the mice a favor by keeping their population under control. Some mice suffer a horrible death, in order to prevent much greater suffering of the entire population. That's nature's way of ensuring the 'least cumulative suffering'. Why then, should the cat play? Playing is a vital element of becoming a good hunter. It's a chance to study the prey. Just my 2 cents.

Meh. I never suggested it's a black or white option. Zero or one. I have mentioned multiple times that I do not wish to close down Wall-Street, I do not wish to shut down the entire justice system. I just said that your systems went over the top, and became too big. It must become smaller. When a business reduces its overhead, it doesn't fire its entire financial department, and go without financial control - it reduces the number of employees. I suggest that the same might be useful in the USA (and Europe). You dismiss my simplified, but understandable model, and replace it by some subsets of the actual problem. I never said that cash, fluctuating currency values, and debt cannot be part of an economy. I am not saying we abandon it. I'm just saying that if you look at the overall Big Picture, then all that matters is labor and resources on one end, and goods and services on the other end. IN and OUT. What happens between the IN and OUT must be optimized. And it is not optimal. Why wouldn't we be able to regard indeed the entire globe as a system of labor and resources? Nature sure as hell doesn't need cashflow, fluctuating currency values, and debt to make an economy. (Yes, nature itself is a form of economy as well, and if you fail to see that, then you really have to go further back to the roots of our economy). I agree - happiness should be in the discussion. But it's not... We're talking about the US deficit, and how to solve it. I proposed to fix the economy by cutting the most useless programs. You cannot fix a financial deficit with increased happiness.