CaptainPanic

I'll try to post my findings before the end of 2018.

Any chance that we can get back the ability to write a short text with the rep (the + or - that we give each other)? Sometimes, I feel like complimenting someone - but it's not worth a reply. For example, if I like to write "Hahaha, lol, good joke"... that's pure spam if I reply with a quote, and then add just that text as a reply. But it goes perfectly with a positive rep.

Personally, I think it's already too late. I see no solution at all. The world's population is too large, and the average wealth and level of education too low. We can solve the energy crisis, but the biggest problem of all, over-population, has no solution. There are several problems: Birth control through achieving a certain level of wealth: won't work Resources Nearly 7 billion people... if we want to raise the standard of living of the majority of those people to the "western" level, then the earth is too small: not enough resources, land surface. Time It has taken us decades, or even centuries to raise our own prosperity to a level it is now. I'm not sure we have that amount of time. Cheap labor Bear in mind that we achieved our own "western" wealth using all those poor countries for cheap labor, producing goods at a price that we'd never achieve if we did it ourselves. Raising the wealth of poor countries to something similar as ourselves will have to be done without the use of cheap labor. Noble as all your thoughts and intentions may be, there is no way, I repeat: no way, that we can ever hope to raise the standard of living in all the poor countries to our within a few decades. The process may take centuries, before which the population will have reduced itself in different ways: famine, war, disasters... or worse: it's grown up to 20 billion or something, wild nature ceased to exist, and we're all searching for scraps in the dust. No guarantee it even works Also, history may have taught us that wealth and birth-rate seem related... but that's no law. It may turn out quite different in other cultures. Economic model The current economic models reward those who are able to use cheap labor, and does not actually reward the labourers. Within the rich countries, unions may protect the workers... nobody protects the cheap labor in poor countries. We haven't even been able to stop child labor. Motivation in Western culture Western countries are even struggling to keep the population of Pakistan alive. Those people lost everything... and we can't even provide some simple tents and a pot of rice to eat. Point is: most people don't care. We'd rather sit in a comfy house, drink our coffee, and not give up anything. Other issues Politics and religion It's political suicide, and goes against several large religions to even discuss birth control. Many of the world's leaders will never even discuss it, let alone solve it. Growth, growth, growth But the worst is: the growth hasn't stopped at all. We can help as much as we want, but even with Western aid, poor countries struggle to keep their standard of living the same it was. The world is no nearer to a solution to over-population than 30 years ago. With a population growth of 2% per year, the entire economy of a country must grow by 2% per year just to keep the wealth per capita constant.

I don't know how the first life came here, or how it started... and I don't wish to be involved in that discussion with the knowledge I have. But I do know that "life" is incredibly contageous. Life goes everywhere. There is no place on earth without life, except for some special labs - and it takes an incredible effort to keep life out. So, once it started or arrived here, it was here to stay. What really helps is that at some point, plants evolved. The circle with plants absorbing CO2 and water, using the sun, and the rest of life eating those plants or each other makes life incredibly abundant here. The fact that we have plants does not mean that we're the only place with life. I'm surprised that we haven't found life on other places yet. But then again, the robots we sent to other planets (Venus, Mars) weren't exactly highly mobile, or sophisticated - I mean, it's pretty impressive that man has sent such robots to another planet, but those methods of analysis are nothing compared to a fully equipped earth based laboratory with several researchers. What I mean to say is: we may not have searched hard enough.

I believe I gave all the facts already, so I conclude that either the facts were obscured by too much text - or I may still not understand the question... If it's the latter, please be patient with me Taking money from the rich: progressive tax system; Rich people pay not just more tax, but pay a higher percentage of their total income in tax. Giving to the poor for use however they see fit: money from the state: € 652.19 per month for a single person, double that for married couples. Giving to the poor for use pre-determined by the government: (partial) refund of health insurances and costs for education. I also know that a budget of € 652.19 per month means in practice there is little left to spend "however you see fit", because most will be spent on a house, food, and the standard bills (phone, energy, water for example). However, the person is allowed to spend this money differently. Does this answer the question?

Is that concentration difference due to the fact that (salt) water is still slightly compressible (although considered incompressible, like all liquids, there is a small but measurable compressibility)? Or are you perhaps talking only about the bottom and top surfaces of the body of water, and not about its bulk? Different interfaces will of course influence the salt water differently. I mentioned before that it's possible to generate electricity from a salinity gradient (reversed electrodialysis, for example). And if I look into a summary of the theory of electrodialysis, then I cannot see the gravity in that formula... which would mean that it's possible to generate small currents if you simply place two electrodes into the container with salt water at different heights. And that would make it a perpetual motion device... I remain skeptic.

Tachyons. Tachyons are the answer to all pseudo science, sci-fi science and rips in the space-time continuum. Use them wisely.

I don't believe that natural (earth-bound or galactic) events will happen in 2012... it would be coincidental, and a very lucky guess for a bunch of people living hundreds of years ago. I believe the best scenario for 2012 total annihilation is man-made. Every economic crisis brings a risk of war. History has plenty of examples of that. But the only realistic scenario for near-future man-made global annihilation is if the USA and Russia start nuking each other and their allies. All other catastrophies, like global warming, flooding or an ice age will take more than the 2 years that remain until it's 2012. Still, I haven't really figured out why Russia and the USA would start nuking each other... Maybe Palin will hold up her middle finger while standing in her garden, and the Russians get offended, and retalliate with a first nuke? Or perhaps the anticipated solar storm will disrupt some systems, and it's all a big accident.

In particular the bolded part? I struggled with your question, because I am not sure there is a philosophy behind the system we have, other than that it seems to work quite well, and we became very wealthy while using it. The answer may be as complicated as the age-old discussion about what is better: socialism or capitalism. I think that solidarity is a core-value of humans, especially of those who share a background, or in this case, of those who share a country. The point is that everyone can lose their job. Everyone can fall upon hard times. And therefore it is only humanitarian to assist those who go through tough times. At the same time, the poor people are also simply greedy. Rich people give, poor people receive. But, take for example education. It is also simply an economic investment to educate almost everybody, and to allow almost everybody to study until their early twenties. The same goes (to a certain extent) for healthcare. Healthy people work harder. Healthcare and education cost money, but also (indirectly) generate money. So, I believe the answer is more complicated than one or two core values that underlie our system. There are economic, humanitarian and other motivations. The reduced poverty part means that people who have no work, no income, get money from the state. For a single person, this is € 652.19 (link in Dutch) per month... and that nearly doubles for people married people (unless the other partner is working). That also excludes some of the subsidies I mentioned earlier. At this point I should probably add that this somehow doesn't mean that people aren't motivated to work. Unemployment is at 5.7% now, despite the crisis. In the end, the goal of our economic system may be something along the lines of reducing poverty rather than increasing the cumulative wealth. But I should definitely add that this is something that is constantly debated in Dutch politics and media, and there are plenty of people who seem to think that our goal should simply be to increase our overall wealth, even if this wealth is all in the hands of a happy few. This balance shifts with every election and government we have. I believe this to be an interesting statistic. And I also believe that high taxation can actually lead to increased wealth, if tax money is spent for the benefit of the people.

I am sorry if you took this too personal. First of all, you just explained that you don't qualify as a fool (according to my definition) because you actually did look up the map, and you did educate yourself a bit. I was referring to all people who deliberately and knowingly withhold information from themselves even when it is relevant and available. I guess that I am actually mean to people who do that, and I will call them fools... People who deliberately remain ignorant, out of laziness or whatever reason, undermine our system, our democracy, and themselves... and I find it very difficult not to be mean to such people... And the same time, I shall attempt harder to remain polite. I was under the impression that "fool" wasn't such a strong word. However, I should have made my other post less personal, and more general.

Wealth redistribution is quite common (to a certain extent) in Europe. To take the Netherlands as an example: We have a progressive tax system. From €0 - € 17.878,- you pay 33,50% From € 17.878,- € 54.776, you pay 42% From € 54.776 and over you pay 52% (source in Dutch) Then in addition, our VAT (value added tax) is 20% on most products. We also pay road tax, tax if you have a pet, tax for owning a house, tax for waste processing, tax for inheriting something... and I probably forget quite some taxes. And most of that money is then spent by the government in such a way that it benefits everyone. That in itself is already quite a wealth redistribution. It's funny to talk to people from North-America, and explain them how much tax I pay. They often nearly faint when they realize that for every euro I spend, at least another euro goes straight to the tax office. But I like paying my taxes. Most of it is spent well, on healthcare, education, public transportation, infrastructure and reduced poverty. Then, in addition, there is a progressive (depending on income again) refund of the health insurance. Universities are heavily subsidized (yearly fee for any university is about € 1,600), but students get some additional money from the government. The amount they get depends on the income of their parents. Public transportation is heavily subsidized. It's free for students, and I believe that elderly people get a reduction. Healthcare is heavily subsidized as well, and equal for all (no special clinics for rich people - everybody goes to the same hospitals). There are a few systems that seem to favor rich people too though. Subsidies for buying a house are not lower for more expensive houses. Road tax depends on the weight, not the price, of a car. Hope this little summary of taxes in a system quite different from the USA is interesting.

But... that's rather easily solved by looking at maps (commercial, but good site), right? Take a look at a world map, a map of Asia, a map of South America and North & Central America, a map of Africa (ok, nobody cares about Africa - poor people who live there). I mean, if you do that every now and then, at some point you remember. If you read, and comment on, a thread about not knowing anything about international politics, and geography - and you realize that, then why not take a quick look what Google has to offer???? And if you have kids: to them a favor, and place a map of the world on the wall somewhere near where they play. I learned all the countries of the world just because I stared at that map every now and then for a number of years.

Really? Are you sure... because i am European, and somehow i highly doubt that... Me too. Care to give a reference? I've traveled in most European countries, and people tend to know a thing or two about the world outside their own borders. I'd believe if you would have said that only 80% of Europeans know that Canada and the USA are two separate countries (and only 20% think it's the same, or haven't even heard of Canada). But 80%? I think you just made that up yourself.

While I agree that most of what you write is true, I disagree that this is the main factor of ignorance. The definition of ignorant is "lacking in knowledge or training" or "an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware and is often used as an insult". I agree that most people are probably unaware of the fact that they blindly follow some stupid rules, as a simplistic form of self defense against the system. But their main reason for ignorance is still a lack of useful facts about the world they live in. I really, really hope that you took the effort to go on Wikipedia, Google Maps, or any other source, to look up where Afghanistan and Iraq are on the map, in relation to other places that you know. If, despite sitting behind a computer with internet, despite discussing the topic of ignorance, and despite specifically mentioning a gap in your knowledge, you did not look this up, you're not just ignorant - you're a fool.

This thread is so old, that the universe must have been significantly (about 99%) smaller when this was created, so are we certain that this highway story is still valid? If I counted correctly, this thread is 8 years, 1 month, 12 days, 1 hour and 8 minutes old when it was suddenly electro-shocked back into existance by cipher510. Nice. *runs down into the basement of SFN to search for even older threads*

The real value of the forum for me personally is that I rehearse all the topics that I learned about in the past (school, university, voluntary study) that I don't need in my own field of work. The few things I need at work are hard to forget, because I use them every day. But all the other topics just slowly fade away - that is, until some smart kid on the forum asks a question about it, and motivates me to look it up again. So... that seems pretty much the same answer as ajb... except that my blog is not about my research at all.

I'm just trying to find a methodology here... (and failing to find it - but it may be a start). So, as stated by the OP, we exclude bank accounts, phone numbers, bar codes, passport numbers, serial numbers of all kinds of products, project numbers, driver's licence numbers, and all other numbers that are just a row of digits, but don't necessarily represent the number That leaves us with: Distances Industrial and agricultural production units Other numbers used in sciences Money etc Basically, we need: - An estimate of how often a human being says a significantly large number in any category - An estimate of how often that number is being rounded off, or has a decimal We know we have about 7 billion people on earth, of which at least 2 billion will be educated enough to be able to handle numbers into the billions. Then we can make a statistical analysis of the chance that there is an unused number below a certain value. (Nearly impossible, but hey, this isn't my idea or question) As how to find the actual number... I fear we must install Big Brother first, and monitor every person in the world... I hope you weren't asking a trick question where the answer is: "as soon as you find the number, it is used, and the answer (whatever answer) becomes invalid as soon as you find it"...

We understand each other, but I am perhaps already an exception that I don't allow myself to see such useless TV. And I do consider repetitive advertisements for something that I don't want or need useless. I no longer have cable TV. I recently moved, and I just couldn't be bothered to get cable TV. TV is such utter crap nowadays... even the shows themselves are void of useful information. Even the shows that call themselves "scientific" (discovery and national geographic are the ones on cable TV in the Netherlands) are just 3x5 minutes of advertisement where the "information" density is high, and then 3x15 minutes where you learn practically nothing, so that your brain gets some rest before the next advertisements. I watch online streaming videos. That allows me to watch whatever I want, whenever I want, with hardly any advertisements... although I bet that'll change drastically before the next decade is over. But anyway, computers give me a lot more power to watch what I want, and to avoid watching all that I don't want to know. So, no, I haven't watched primetime celebrity TV, but I can imagine how terrible it must be. Anyway, my main point is that with the average quality of information as terrible as it is, it's not fair to blame the individuals for their ignorance.

A quick look at the company website suggests that this is a chemical that acts on hormones in the human body (of females I believe). I suggest you stop immediately to try to make this medicine yourself before you poison someone. Medicines must be very, very pure, and are normally tested extensively over a period of up to 10 years. You don't know how to make it (other than having a link to the recipe). You probably have no clue about the methods to check the purity. You have limited information about the chemicals needed. The patent may leave out some important steps, or additives (solvents, or ligands of the catalyst, just to name some things that I didn't spot in the 30 seconds I glanced over the patent). Especially if you try to "help" someone you actually know, you should know better than to feed them medicines that are made by a hobbyist. I know that the pharma industry are a right bunch of bastards that take too much money from all of us... but that doesn't mean you should avoid them and make "medicine" yourself. I don't know about the laws in your country, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there is quite a severe penalty on attempting to make medicine which is then actually used by others.

Perhaps only sideways related... but I would like to add that worldwide, our heads are being filled with crap. Like many Americans don't know most European countries or their capitals, I cannot name most American states (I'm happy to get to 25) or their capitals (probably less than 10). ... However, I still remember the name, and even the music tune used in the commercial, of a detergent that has already disappeared from the supermarket shelves for 10 years! That kind of information is just pure head-pollution. I don't even want to know it! Imagine the knowledge that could be pumped into people's heads if only 1 out of 10 advertisements on TV contained useful information (non-profit) rather than an advertisement. I bet that even the most ignorant American can name at least 10 detergents, 3 brands of pizza delivery, 2 brands of famous cola, 10 brands of beer, 5 insurance companies, 5 different painkillers, 3 phone companies, etc, etc. Just imagine if we wouldn't spend all that time on advertisements, but we would just voluntarily listen to actual useful and objective facts and explanations.

Moving such an amount of water from earth to the moon, in addition to my previous post, has some other problems which we probably cannot overcome. The added weight to the moon, and the reduced weight to the earth may actually influence the orbits of the earth and the moon (around each other). It'll affect the tides. It'll affect climate. And, even 1 centimeter of the water in the oceans, as sisyphus mentioned before, will only take 150 billion space shuttle missions. I like brainstorm sessions such as this, I really do... but moving water from the earth to the moon, with the sole purpose of negating the rise of the sea level because of global warming is just stupid. Lakes So, that leaves us with creating large (very large) artificial lakes... or even better: re-filling old existing lakes. (But, do we want to add salt water? Water that contains all kinds of micro-organisms, and larger creatures, that may kill the local eco-system?) We may need something seriously big - like Lake Chad and/or the Aral Sea. This may actually be realistic - the volume of those lakes is at least significant when compared to the size of the oceans. And then there's the issue of pumping capacity. To get a significant amount of the ocean's water into a lake, we need a massive amount of pumps. I maintain that it may actually easier to work on sustainable energy and avoid the problem in the first place. But feel free to brainstorm about teleporting water to whatever planet you all fancy in order to solve the very near-future and very real problem of global warming and sea level rise.

In old threads, the information might be out of date. Often you see people asking a question, or quoting a previous post - but no answers can be expected because the member is inactive now. Finally, the reason that the thread was started (someone was curious about something) expired. With that I mean that the person who opens the thread is often the person who is asking a question, and the other members help this person by answering the question. If the person who opened the thread is still active, it is likely he/she already has an answer or lost interest. If the person became inactive, answering is pointless. I think it's better to open a new thread, so that it is clear on what topic the new thread is centered. The old thread can be included with a link.

A woman only needs 1 man to become pregnant... but 1 man can make many women pregnant (unless they're very serious about being lesbian, and don't allow men near them... but the porn lesbians don't tend to be very strict). Just my 2 cents.

Sisyphus, I believe you missed the "without lifting the pencil" part. Here's my solution: