CaptainPanic

Oh, they do have plans for long-term issues. It's just that as soon as there was a murder, 15 camera crews race to the mayor's office to ask if this means that we need more police on the streets. The public and especially the media (who report what the public want to read) do not allow politicians to deal with long term, enduring, big-picture, global situations and solutions... because as soon as a short-term issue, or an incident comes up, that politician better be ready to give some answer how we're gonna prevent that from happening ever again.

24 hrs is not possible for me, so please count me out.

I don't mind signing on... but I am not sure how you plan to guarantee that all players are online sufficiently to keep this going. Even the active members suffer from this real-life condition that they call "holidays", which may cause sudden absence from the online world!

That's excluding those Cap'ns who broke down while they were still in the warranty period. Moderators are all volunteers, so we are online only when we have the time.

I think that the past of often being romanticised and idealized. I think politicians in the past were just as naive, stupid and empty as they are nowadays. The only difference perhaps is that nowadays we put a camera on them 24/7, and we expect them to give an answer to a problem mere minutes after some event occurred. In the past, politicians probably had more time to think, and far less time to speak (or at least, fewer things they said were being recorded). As a result, modern politicians seem to make more mistakes.

The simple answer would be: Yes, selective breeding will also work with humans.

I don't understand the question. Are you asking whether the resistance and induction in a material are a function of the frequency? I don't see what could possibly go wrong? Where does the energy go if you have a lower efficiency? Heat! Which is what you want. Your only efficiency loss could be that you heat the circuits themselves. And if you lose more than a few percent into those circuits, you will have a huge problem (they'll be toast). Please note that I am a chemical engineer, with little expertise in electrical engineering.

You're missing a few O2- ions in your equation. Your redox half reactions are not complete. Also, the charge is not the same on both sides of your equation. You have +2 on the left, and +3 on the right side. Charge must be equal on both sides. The iron is likely to be FeO or Fe2O3, not just Fe2+ or Fe3+, which indicates that there is another half reaction you didn't write down yet.

The keyword you are looking for is viscosity. Just look it up on Google and you'll find a ton of information. For practical measurements, I guess I have to advise you to look up viscosity measurement. Also, I have deleted the double post in the Engineering section. I think 1 thread is enough.

It's not a matter of protection against the sunlight to avoid sunburn. It's the heat. Thick clothes, as we all know, form a nice insulation to keep you warm in a cold environment. But just like they can keep the heat in on a cold day, they can also keep the heat out on a really hot day. So, at 45 degrees, you just want to keep the heat out, and a sweater + jeans will help. Actually, nomads in the Sahara desert do the same. I guess you still shouldn't overdo it: you need some kind of ventilation, because you still rely on sweating to cool down.

Mandatory XKCD (webcomic). And this is the link to the XKCD webcomic.

Ok guys, Apart from the provocative opening post, and the large amount of off-topic comments, did anyone already look at the articles themselves? Article 1 is here (direct link, .pdf, seems for free). It's quite a long read. However, article 2 requires a subscription (and no confirmation from your random fantasy email is needed - hint), but it's only 11 lines of text, with just 4 lines of actual math. If this is indeed crackpottery, then do us all a favor, and point out the mistake. You find article 2 by going here, clicking on "february" in the bottom left corner, scroll all the way down in the list, click on the number 3 (3rd page) and then ctrl-F (search) for Einstein.

I am guessing (no facts here) that most teenage pregnancies are caused by careless sex among young people. The male partner is often also very young. You can change the laws, but you cannot change biology. At a certain age, and certainly younger than 18, kids become interested in the other sex. Sometimes so interested that it becomes intimate... and that can lead to a pregnancy. Changing the law does not help... this is a force of nature. The fact that law has nothing to do with it can be backed up with facts: Wikipedia clearly shows that teenage pregnancy in almost all European countries is lower than in the USA, where laws are more strict. [edit]In fact, looking at the numbers, the USA has more than 6 times as many teenage births as some European countries, such as the Netherlands or Spain! Education is the key here... not some stupid law.

LOL! This is going off topic, but no, that's certainly NOT what I was thinking. Hmpf, maybe we should go back on topic, before some grumpy mod (not me) will split off this bit to create a whole thread about stupid mistakes. [edit] zapatos, you too seem to think that things that are legal are also common. Why do you think that?

Oops, I'll edit that one Don't know what I was thinking, but it's obviously "contraceptives". That's embarrassing. Also, thanks for not even giving me one minute to fix it. That'll teach me for being online late.

Let me reply to your question with a question. Why should every person do the socially acceptable thing? Why should you outlaw things that the majority disagrees with? Why should the social peer pressure not be enough already? And where do you propose to draw the line? Which other socially unacceptable things do you propose to outlaw? Sorry for generalizing, but since we started doing that anyway... I think you're just a typical American: superficially prudish. You don't care about any social behavior in general, you just have a knee-jerk reaction to sex-related issues only. There's no point in making it illegal, because it hardly ever comes up anyway. If a 14-year-old has sex, it's usually with someone of the same age, or just a few years more. Who cares? Young people want to experiment with sex. The schools should give them proper sexual education. Contraceptives should be available. And the rest is up to the parents. I cannot speak for the entire continent, but I think even a relatively small age difference of just 3-5 years is very uncommon.

Hans Rosling explains that we have recently reached "peak child": the number of children born per year, in an absolute sense, is at its peak. (Unlike "peak oil", it is not inevitable that it will go down though). He also explains why all predictions correctly say that we will get at least another 3 billion more people on our planet, despite this peak child. It is likely that we will max out at 10 billion people, due to the "Great Fill-Up". Please watch the video before discussing. All 13 minutes are well worth your time. I know that the title of the video is the relation between religion and the number of children born... but (spoiler alert) he concludes that there is no relation. So, let's leave religion out of this discussion. The most important message is that it is inevitable that we will get 2-3 billion more people. And we'd better start preparing for those people today. Any thoughts?

I'm involved in this thread as a member, not as a mod. But I like this troll. We Europeans have been bashing those poor Americans (verbally) often enough, about gun laws, invasions of Middle Eastern countries, about being the ultimate capitalists, or their lack of democracy. The possession of the ball has changed. The US quarterback has it, and he made the pass. It's time the Europeans defend. It's just quite disappointing that this is the best pass he could make. A generalization is such an obvious fallacy, that it's hardly a challenge. We need a better troll. Let's follow Phi's suggestion, and "let's instead answer the question of why there are such different perspectives on age of consent." I have no clue... perhaps such strict laws are simply not necessary in Europe, because we're not really into relations with a large age difference? [edit] hmm... now I am also still generalizing.

I'm no lawyer, but I guess the answer to your question: "This means a 40 year old man can legally have sex with a 14 year old as long as it is consensual" is "yes". But I wish the old guy a lot of luck in court, explaining that he did not trick her into the bed, by any kind of intimidation. Because with such an age difference, court is a very likely place to end up. Also, it's socially completely not accepted to have a large age gap in any relation... If something is legal, does not mean it is common. And if something is disgusting or morally wrong, it does not mean you must make it illegal. So, "Are Europeans pedophiles?" is a really stupid question. It's as stupid as asking: Hey, Americans can buy a gun when they are 16. Are all American highschool kids murderers?

Ok, maybe I am a grumpy old man, but next time, please finish your post before pressing the "post" button.

Tharindu, Nobody has an answer. We all saw your threads. We saw this one, which you now bumped back up twice. Also, we saw the other thread, where you asked basically the same question. I'm sure you're not the only one with algae growth in a cooling tower. So, ask some experts. Ask people who actually have a cooling tower (power stations, industry) or ask someone at a university. But stop asking the same question over and over again here, please. We just do not have an answer. You're welcome to our forum with a new question.

What traction? Traction, according to wikipedia is defined as: "the maximum frictional force that can be produced between surfaces without slipping." But you're having something in water, and something in air, so it will always "slip". Water is newtonian, and the slightest force will cause movement.

I'm not convinced you have actually understood how this all works... All your answers can be found in the Phase Diagram of water. The two parameters of importance are the vapor pressure, or partial pressure of water, and the temperature. When you know those two, you can look up in that phase diagram what the water will be like: vapor, liquid, solid or supercritical. Also, it will show you what kind of ice will form... at interstellar temperatures (just a few Kelvins), and very low temperatures, you actually get a different type of ice than here in our atmosphere (see that same phase diagram for more info). And finally, gravity has no influence on this phase diagram. Gravity only holds our planet together, and holds our atmosphere here. But astronauts in a space ship only need to concern themselves with the phase diagram of water, not gravity (at least, when it comes to the state of water).

If you want something like that "greenbird", why don't you just copy their design, and put some hydrofoils under it instead of wheels? If you want something with a kite (a sail on the end of a cable is called a "kite"), your kite does not need a hull. In your picture, you show that the kite looks like a glider airplane, but the kite is connected to the ship (or whatever you call that bit that's in the water) by a cable. That cable (or rather multiple cables) should control the position, yaw, pitch and roll of the kite. With a simple kite, one cable can be enough, as shown here. There is no purpose for that hull. Your kite only needs wings, and nothing else. And any regular kite will work, but an airfoil is likely a good option. By the way, I only think that an airfoil is a good option because it is the design that the professionals use. I understand that you want to build something with a hydrofoil for the ship, and a kite. It can be done, but you should take lessons from existing knowledge. For example, that kite is already in use on a BIG scale. Skysails (note: commercial link) builds huge kites for ocean-going cargo ships. It's a big fuel saver. Also, smaller sailboats use it (pictures here). So, because all individual components seem to exist already, I conclude that your problem is mostly a control problem. The picture you've drawn looks inherently unstable, which means you need constant control. Don't reinvent the wheel!

There are very few "impossibly difficult circumstances". People might just not explore all options, for some reason. That reason can be a lack of imagination, ambition or creativity. Or they do explore all options, but do not believe they are possible, because or some feeling of pessimism or fatalism.