CaptainPanic

So, the hackers are prosecuted and sentenced without a trial. That's a pretty bad development.

! Moderator Note pmb, Please stop writing about all the conflicts you've had in the past. If you want to make a fresh start, write something scientific. This is a scienceforum. Thanks. Thread closed.

If heat transfer would be so simple, we'd all have a much lower energy bill. I think wikipedia gives a better (longer) list of possible reasons why the Mpemba effect occurs than the article you linked to.

As far as I understood, the equation does not make any predictions about the unknowns, and it does not claim that it will enable anyone to make a reasonable estimate of the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (with our current knowledge). But if we would have sufficient data, this equation will probably enable us to calculate a reasonable estimate. The problem is the lack of data, not the equation. Still, we started this thread to talk about the topic, and we are hampered by a lack of data just as much as the person who thought up that formula (that's probably Mr. Drake).

I'm not saying we should shut up this guy on the video - I'm not against the freedom of speech. I am just warning the other 95% of the US citizens that he's not addressing them, but only the other rich people. But for the rest, you're completely right here (even though you aim to mock). Tax is a public system, and the public (i.e. everybody) is what matters. An average is a decent measure for that. We cannot go about having a tax system based only on the wishes of the rich. Luckily, a democracy is a system where once every while the entire population is asked for their opinion, and often the new government or president will then rule the country based on a sort of average of the population's wishes. To listen only to the rich few percent is called an "oligarchy". I don't want that.

1st example: 250,000 $/yr 2nd example: 150,000 $/yr Claim: if you earn this modest income, Obama is gonna make you pay. LOL! I know the USA is the richest country, but you guys are not THAT rich! That's not a normal income, as I'll show below. Here's the actual average incomes per household in the USA in a wikipedia picture. He talks about incomes 2 to 7 times the average. And please note that half the people earn less than the average. This dude pretends to speak for all Americans, but instead is a manipulating bastard who speaks only for the richest few percent.

Of course it is. Video material enables cherrypicking in an extreme way. These people serve burgers and fries all day and may be excellent at their jobs. But if a single mistake is filmed and becomes popular, their reputation is ruined. A video is not objective. And editing can make it even worse. That said, from my own experience at McD's, they have a lot to worry about, because the service is indeed quite often poor.

swansont, the SFN Oracle. It talks a lot, and it's mostly right.

In a proper trial, the defendants need a lawyer too. I'll play that role here (pro bono). The portable video camera of Dr. Steve Mann constitutes a threat to the operations of McDonalds, as it was seen as a tool to record the service and quality at this particular McDonalds for the purpose of an anti-McDonalds campaign. This also constitutes a direct threat to the employees who are often employed with temporary contracts. Obviously, a single mistake on youtube from their side is the end of their job - especially if it goes viral. A physical assault however is wrong, and the defendant will plea guilty. However, it was provoked by Dr Steve Mann.

! Moderator Note John Cuthber, please be so kind to provide a little more explanation to avoid the situation where your posts are misunderstood. This refers specifically to the post of [math]\pi[/math] =[math]\pi[/math]. IsaacAsimov, please don't be provoked immediately and don't respond so strongly - it can only lead to escalation.

Are there countries where money alone can get you into university? (And will it eventually also get you a degree??). In our system in the Netherlands, you must have finished your highschool at a certain level (the highest level, which gives access to university). Without it, you can forget about it, regardless of how much money you have.

First of all, the opening post clearly mentioned that something is "probably bull" if [...]. Emphasis on probably is mine. Nothing gets dismissed straightaway. Secondly, the opening post clearly states that nowadays (i.e. in this modern age), scientists work in teams. You mention scientists who achieved their success over a century ago. That's not now. Thirdly, there are 7 criteria. Check all 7, and it's propably bull. To dismiss something only based on one of them is silly, and was never proposed. That said, you haven't been around on our lovely forum for so long yet. Stay for a bit, and you'll notice that we get plenty of crackpost who claim to be a genius, but happily ignore the most fundamental and trusted laws of science. In addition, their ideas cannot be tested. What are we to do with that? Scientists are not elitists - that's just a stupid conspiracy theory. Scientists have used the same trusted method for centuries, and it works. Play it by the rules, and you will get accepted, certainly here on our friendly forum.

In the USA, the evil is not the student loan. Student loans are fantastic, actually. The real evil are the ridiculously high tuitions (or the lack of government support for education). Compared to the USA, the problem is a lot smaller in almost every European country: tuition for a university is typically lower than 2,000 euro per year for all EU students, possibly with the exception of the UK. In some countries, university is even free (completely paid with tax money). That means that at the end of your study, the loan will be small (if not zero), and it's easily paid back. A study should not be a financial commitment for the rest of your life. Obviously, since nothing is really for free, the downside is that we pay more tax over here. The deal is that I don't have a big debt at the end of my study, but I do pay more tax. So, although the financial burden for the whole country is the same, individually we take smaller financial risks when we start a study.

First you spend energy to get the object up. The object gains potential energy. When it comes back down again, all that energy has become heat. Normally, the potential energy would be converted to kinetic energy first. It would accelerate under the influence of gravity. There is no reason to stop, except friction. This can be a break, or a parachute, or just the table or ground that stop the object. In all those cases, the energy was converted to heat. (But not very much, so it's hard to measure/notice the heat when it falls from just 1 meter).

That's a bit harsh...

If someone thinks that was harsh, I'll apologise. I thought it was funny. As far as I know, we no longer have a requirement for a minimum number of posts for any of our own forums, that's why I thought that sesh was actually talking about other forums. Maybe one of my fellow mods knows if we recently changed something?

Pessimistic? Why? Because "never" is a word that implies that the chance is zero. Not tiny, but zero. I totally agree that all evidence that we have now is that the odds are small, but I do not yet conclude it is zero. Therefore, I agree with Moontanman that the conclusion that we will "never" make contact is pessimistic, because it is my opinion that it underestimates the chance. It would be anyway. We've shown plenty of times how ruthless we can be with other life forms... ask the Neanderthals. You're turning it around: we defined the goal to find life. Thus overestimating the odds is optimistic, and underestimating is pessimistic.

Because you forget to login! Or, maybe because you don't even have an account? Or, perhaps your keyboard is not plugged in? Or, maybe your laptop ran out of battery? Or, maybe your mother told you to do your homework instead of surfing the internet? Really, there could be many reasons. Maybe you can give a little more information what is going wrong?

We're talking about the Drake equation (copypasted from wikipedia): The Drake equation states that: [math] N = R^{\ast} \cdot f_p \cdot n_e \cdot f_{\ell} \cdot f_i \cdot f_c \cdot L[/math] where: N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible; and R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space Yes, but as the universe ages, it becomes more and more likely that (1) life develops and (2) it becomes intelligent. Judging by how stuff went on earth, especially intelligence needs a lot of time, and is more likely to happen as a planet or star system ages. So, in the Drake equation, fℓ, fi and fc will increase over time. Also, what proof do we have that there is not some minimum technological knowledge after which a civilization cannot go extinct anymore? Babylon came and went, but humans - on average - became more and more advanced. Why would every civilization have some expected life time? Why can't L be all the time between the first signal sent into space, and now? That would mean that L also is an ever increasing value. I agree that the cosmic radiosilence gives us nothing to conclude that there is life out there, but I think you're being unnecessarily pessimistic.

Our signals indeed fade quickly (just like all waves that originate from a point source). If we know the intensity of the intergalactic background noise, we should be able to calculate when the average radio transmission becomes unrecognizable (when it becomes significantly weaker than the noise itself). You'd expect that the guys at SETI have thought about this? What else do they expect to find?

Oh, I missed the fact that you specifically talk about other galaxies. Yeah, we'll only get the old news from them.

Here's a picture of all the stars within 50 lightyears from us. We've started making radiowaves approximately 100 years ago... so if those stars have alien life, and they wanted to talk back to us, only these few stars are close enough that the signal would have reached us by now. But that number of stars is growing really (really) fast. The number of stars within the "bubble" where our signals have traveled is a 3rd power function of time (volume is a third power function of radius).

The non serious answer: A circle would be 1.047197551*π ? The attempt to give a serious answer: If the impossible would be possible, then it is a safe assumption that everything would change.

It is there.

There exist devices called "thermoacoustic heat engines" and "thermoacoustic heat pumps". Wikipedia has a page about it, although I think it's not the best wikipedia page ever. I bet that the sound inside those devices is a LOT louder than your average street noise though.