CaptainPanic

Personally, I regret that Santorum lost. I thought he was quite entertaining... In the same way that the way hurricane Katrina developed was quite interesting. Anyway, on a more serious note, I agree with imatfaal that this is just the way the US's democracy works.

Here's an article of a 850 meter long beaver dam. The article also gives some additional interesting facts on beavers. And here's that same dam on Google Maps. Anyway, define "bad for a forest". If you mean "bad for biodiversity", then no, it's not bad. It's even good. If you mean "bad for wood production", then perhaps it could be bad becuse you have less surface for the forest. At the same time, this artificial beaver lake may prevent some droughts and fires. So, it may have benefits too.

Mod comment: I've turned down the volume (font size and colors) a bit on the post of Tharindu.

At 0:33 you give us some insight into the source of your creativity. I hear that if you're stoned out of your mind, your mind keeps wandering off to different topics. So, please do yourself and everyone else a favor: Just write down what you're thinking when you're stoned... Then get sober, order your thoughts, separate the good stuff from the bad gibberish, and put only the good stuff online. Please?

! Moderator Note Jozef, I have removed your email for your own protection. It would get picked up by lots of spam bots. To people who want to reply to Jozef, please just post in this thread. Or, alternatively, use our "Personal Message" tool. Click on "jozef" at the top left of the post, and then click on "Send me a message". Then Jozef can send his email to you through the personal message, which means the spam bots cannot see it.

! Moderator Note DrDNA, Please keep this discussion polite. I know it's a clash between different schools of thought, which might make a discussion a frustrating thing to do. Still, your only two options are: patient and polite posts, or no post at all. Please think of this mod note before pressing the "post" button. Do not reply to this mod note.

That's counter intuitive for me. I would think you get additional distance, if you maintain your velocity for the same time, which means you keep the same (kinetic) energy for a longer period of time (and you do not get more energy). Or, you get additional (kinetic) energy, and therefore a higher velocity, if you would apply the same power for a longer period of time. But then you would need a new formula, because yours doesn't include power or acceleration. That is obvious now. Because it doesn't allow you to include these substances which are stores of time, whatever they may be.

Well, the dollar isn't that low compared to the euro... with the current exchange rate it would be more like $ 9.00/gallon. Still, pretty expensive. And yes, the result is that cars in Europe (or should I say cars designed in Europe) are more efficient and smaller, and we don't seem to have the same need for pick ups . And yes, there's a lot of screaming going on. So, we might be near the tipping point. But yeah, that's off topic and possibly worth its own thread. Let's go back on topic: Ah, yes. They care. Good point. My point was that for most of us, the climate (change) is simply not the #1 priority. Money is our #1. But if your entire country is about to be swallowed be an ocean, then the climate (change) is definitely the #1 priority. So, because of the high fossil energy prices, I believe that the majority of the world will soon enough start adopting sustainable energy at a larger scale. And that will happen with or without climate change... climate change is simply irrelevant for this transition. However, as you correctly point out, people in Kiribati (as well as Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands and the Maldives) wouldn't care about the economy, they just want to keep their feet dry, and would be looking at quite different measures... measures which are a direct result of the state of the climate. Unfortunately they can only hope that our economic priorities will lead to sustainable solutions before they lose their entire country. And even further back on topic (all the way to the OP): I am not sure, actually. Why should people trust some government funded scientists who say that the entire world should change all its habits? Governments are known to be the puppets of lobbyists... the big question here is obviously which lobbyists? Big Oil, or Greenpeace? I understand if there are a few people who get it wrong. (Btw, the correct answer is obviously Big Oil, who are economically the biggest in the world, and can fund the biggest lobby.) Ignoring my earlier point that climate change is being overtaken by ridiculously expensive fossil energy... I think the responsibility for taking care of our climate is with governments and the companies that use lots of energy, not individual voters. It's like with the acid rain. Who cares whether people still deny it (some do). Governments forced the oil and energy companies to remove sulphur from the fuel (gasoline/diesel) or from the smoke (coal plants). And that's it. It's done now. What I cannot understand is that there are people who should take responsibility, but don't. Or worse: People who deliberately create a lobby to deny and mislead, when they know better. They are really broken. I think we call that a "psychopath".

You don't need a reason to know something, or to call something science. But you do need a reason to write it on a forum, and to think that other people should read it. So, I guess Bignose just wanted to know why we should be interested in your new formula for speed.

The concept already exists. Micro Combined Heat and Power are heating systems that generate electricity and use the waste heat to heat your home. They are already on the market, available for everyone. But the turbines are not placed in the pipes. You first run the gas turbine or Otto engine (both regular internal combustion engines), and you only use the waste heat to heat the house.

! Moderator Note Dear Prof. Eggtop, In a way this forum attempts to do the same thing as you: create more interest in science. This forum is a collection of people, ranging from primary school children, through higher education up to professors at universities. We have a few threads here which are just a loose collection of cool facts or quotes as well. Feel free to join those, or open your own thread! At the same time, it is against our rules (section 2.7) to open a thread specifically to advertise your own blog or site, so I removed your link. I understand if you hadn't seen that yet. It's nothing personal.

Who cares whether climate change is true or not? At the gas station, a liter of gasoline costs 1.80 euro, and despite the crisis the oil prices are only going up. I can only imagine what will happen to energy prices if the economy will ever fix itself again. The whole climate debate is being overtaken left and right by the reality of increasing costs of fossil energy vs. decreasing costs of sustainable energy. I refuse to believe that it's going to be much longer until wind turbines, electric cars and other sustainable sources of energy are simply cheaper. In some sunny countries, solar panels (without subsidy) already have a reasonable payback time. Btw, I do think that the climate is changing (it's warming up), but I am no climate scientist. The debate has become so political that I prefer to stay away from it.

Abbreviations acronyms and initialisms. I guess "orgo' is "organic chemisty"? On a more serious note: It helps if you've heard of the periodic table, and it helps if you've finished your primary education levels of maths. But apart from that, you can start with basic organic chemistry with practically no prior knowledge. I had it in my highschool in my 2nd year of chemistry, but the 1st year did not contain many topics that were essential for organic chemistry. In summary: I guess you can just go straight ahead.

I think the problem with drinking blood would be that it becomes solid all by itself when exposed to air. It's the same reason your blood turns into a crust when you're injured. Maybe that's why most countries turn it into a sausage? Blood sausage is not hard to find. In the Netherlands, I think the majority of supermarkets (if not all of them) sell it. It's also part of a traditional English breakfast.

Glass is transparent for visible light. As you can see in a window, light goes straight through it. But glass is not transparent for heat (infrared radiation). Instead, it reflects and absorbs heat. But inside the house, most heating is done through convection, not radiation. It's a different type of heat transport, most importantly by the circulation of air. So, your jar of pickles will probably be the same temperature as the rest of the room... especially if you give it some time after you bring it in from the shop.

Wikipedia suggests other numbers.

Probably around the same time as Londinium became London in the English language, and Londres in the French, Spanish and Catalan, Londen in the Dutch and Frisian language, Llundain in Welsh, either Lunnon or Lunnainn for the Scots, and Londain for the Irish. In Finland it's called Lontoo and on Corsica they call it Londra and so do the Romanians. In Czech it's Londýn and in Polish it is Londyn. It seems a minority of the Europeans agree with the English on the spelling of the name of their capital: Germans, Swedish, Norwegians and Danish seem to agree ... but I have to admit that I didn't check all languages (official and unofficial). In Old English it was spelled Lunden, and while that looks quite different, we must note that the pronunciation has hardly changed, although that may be a surprise to the Americans. So, while that is in no way an answer to the question, it shows at least that it is quite common to totally ruin the names of capitals and countries in other languages. And no, I'm not even a native speaker, and feel free to shoot me down on anything I just wrote.

It wind turbines cause local warming, and local cooling, then due to the way radiation works (specifically: radiation is a 4th power function of temperature), the net result across the entire planet should be global cooling. The article only mentions local warming, not global. Esbo, it's sad that you think that the article is nonsense when it is actually not... and that you then replace a correct article with your own faulty theory.

Wouldn't the result have been the same if the arms, or the stomach had gone on strike? It's just that we wouldn't be able to say ass so much, and that would make it less funny.

Let's use this definition: orgasm is only the very heightened end of pleasure of sex. My analogy worked like this: the trip is equivalent to having sex. And the orgasm would be equivalent to arriving at the destination. In some cases it is sufficient to simply get to your destination as soon as possible. And in some cases, you deliberately go on a detour. You still want to arrive at the destination, so the rationale is still unchanged. But there is a second rationale: to see something in between. The rationale is really simple. I'll use the wish list again: - People want to have sex. - They want to have the regular normal kind of sex, not masturbation or oral sex - They don't want a baby The thing is: there are methods to be able to check all three boxes, with very minimal risk. The risk is indeed not zero... but then again, it's not zero when you cross the street on your way to the cinema. And mind you, the cinema is not essential for your existance either - it's just pleasure. Still, people engage in the not-risk-free traffic just to get some fun. Do you also sometimes go to the cinema? And do you think about the risks of traffic? If so, you can answer the questions about the rationale yourself.

I wrote that people want to have sex. Not an orgasm. For many people the trip itself is at least as important as reaching the destination.

Villain, you started this topic, so I'll go with your flow. I thought we were talking about abortion, but this seems more about contraception. I guess we'll allow the discussion to include contraception (or the 'no sex' argument). The argument is flawed, because those couples do not have just a single wish in their lives (not having any more kids). Their wishlist is a little longer than that, and includes several short-term and long-term wishes. Two relevant wishes would be: 1. They do not want any kids 2. They want sex So, your statement in itself is correct: if your only desire in life is not to get kids, then not having sex is the safest solution. Indeed, it is the only logical solution. However, if your desires are (1) not to have kids, and (2) to have sex... then contraception is the logical solution. The simple fact is that people can be incredibly horny (that's the scientific word for "wanting sex"), and still not want any kids. There are technical solutions. Why not indulge?

It would mean you essentially have 2 fires. The original fire, and the oxygen-eating fire, which compete for oxygen. The problem is that the fire that burns the quickest will also be the hottest. So, if you introduce some material that would use up the oxygen quicker than the original fire, you just get a fire that burns even hotter... that's not really a solution.

1 m3 of nitrogen is about 1.2 kilogram. If you would be able to make it liquid at room temperature that would be about 1.4 liters of liquid air. So, to flood even a small room, you need quite a lot of mass. You can see in the cool movie that InigoMontoya posted that the 'grenades' used to fight this fire are quite large. They need 3 'grenades' to put out the fire in each room. Still, it works. I think it would start to be really useful if you could accurately shoot such grenades at a distance. The water/foam used by firefighters can only reach a certain height and distance. Btw, displacing air to prevent oxygen from getting to the fire is a big part of firefighting. Water (which evaporates) does the same job. Foam blocks the air too. CO2 fire extinguishers also use the same principle. Of course, water and CO2 also cool down the fire.

Let me explain. In my post, "calm" means that you try to remain in control of a situation, despite the anger. For everyone, anger leads to an increased heart rate, and the release of some hormones (like adrenaline). This makes it difficult, but not impossible, to remain in control of yourself. So when you're angry, you put yourself in a position of the opposition (you're angry at someone or something after all). In addition, you have these physical effects like the increased heart rate. That doesn't mean you have to lose your temper. And it doesn't mean you can no longer think rationally. To an outsider, it does not have to be visible that you're angry, and you will often achieve far more if you don't show that you're angry (difficult as it may be). And that's what I meant by being "angry and calm at the same time". Also, regarding what you described about the destruction of the heritages: I believe you were still angry when you wrote your 2nd (polite) message. But even on wikipedia, there are multiple definitions of what anger is... so maybe my definition is just different from yours. I admit that wikipedia's explanations include a lot of physical and physiological responses, which I claim you can suppress. One of the problems talking about a natural emotional state like anger is that such a word is used in many different ways, and might actually have multiple meanings in popular language. So, in addition to the multiple scientific explanations, the use of the word anger in popular language obscures it even more.