CaptainPanic

It's not really unique, so it's not so good. My google gives me nearly 100,000,000 hits when I look for the word. But I don't know the story you want to write. Maybe it's a perfect name. My advice: write the story first, then worry about the title later.

I would like to see some numbers to back up the assumption that they were richer. I believe that it was claimed true by the nazis, but they ran a big propaganda machine. You should doubt anything they claimed. As a good lie, there may be a little truth in it, but it is probably hugely exaggerated. Or even a complete lie. All I know is that Jews historically ran the diamond business (In Antwerp, and for a while in Amsterdam). They still do. In that field, I guess it's a matter of networking, which is easier in your own (religious) circle.

It's perfectly safe to teach the robots some intelligence, but for crying out loud, don't let the average Youtube commenter teach a bot!!! It will destroy humanity. Then, same question after reloading the site again: Aww. Maybe we should split off all the posts like mine, and keep a separate thread for the science and coding, and one in The Lounge for the funny results from the bot? I had to post this, but it's not really helpful to the OP.

If you can't compete, you go bust. That's capitalistm. Deal with it. Anyway, I still believe that the US has no problem with high production costs. Instead, it has a problem with overhead costs. There are a lot of businesses in the USA that I consider overhead. I've written a blog post on it 2 years ago, but it's still relevant.

Thanks Ophiolite. Just a quick reply to say I'm reading and learning.

Khan Academy

It's pretty, but it doesn't mean much to me. To me, the most fascinating thing is that you can even remember such a picture... I never remember stuff from my dreams for long, although I often notice when I wake up how far from reality dreams can be.

So, science as a whole is now "left wing indoctrination" according to a presidential candidate? WTF? I am lost for words.

Is it not easier to vent the tanks with dry air (or nitrogen - which is more expensive, but already dry)? It shouldn't be hard to get an air dryer or sufficient capacity. Just blow the air through. Dry air or a vacuum should create the same concentration difference between water droplets and bulk gas phase, and assuming that the temperature is also the same, you get the same mass transfer. Vacuum processes are especially useful if you want to recover your vapor - but I guess you don't shed a tear if your condensate is lost forever. It might also be safer for your equipment. It seems rated for overpressure of 3000 psia, but can all bits and pieces also handle vacuum? Sorry for not answering the actual question.

That just sounds funny I understand what you meant to say though, and this post is not very helpful for the thread. Still, it made me chuckle.

Good one, jeskill. Salicornia is indeed suited for seawater conditions, and it tastes good too (although it's a little salty, for obvious reasons). I wonder what the yield per hectare (or per acre) could be. Too lazy to look it up

Oops... didn't mean to bring creationism into this thread. But I admit it was deliberately provocative. Please accept my apologies for choosing exactly the wrong words. My point, of course, was not that any data we gather is incorrect. I wanted to talk about the interpretation, interpolation and possibly extrapolation of these data points into an ecosystem. I just thought (note: past tense) that the picture we're painting for ourselves of the ecosystems of millions of years ago is very much simplified, perhaps even over-simplified. I guess that's inevitable. But that may be more the case for laymen like myself. The picture for experts is much more detailed than I thought possible. The ice cores are (I think?) one of the main inputs for the graphs I linked to earlier, showing the earth's temperature over a period of 400,000 years. What I meant, in statistical terms, is that I thought it is difficult to determine whether a certain data point is an outlier if you only have a couple of data points. An outlier could be a fossil of a species which had all but died out by the time the particular individual lived... meaning we think there were millions of them, when there was actually only one. But before I throw more oil on the fire of this thread, I wish to point to Ophiolite's post (and others too, but I think this is a particular good one) which showed me that there are indeed additional arguments to check whether a datapoint is an outlier or not. We can gather additional information about the ecosystem - and if that is all relatively constant, there is an additional argument that assume that the population of the fossil is also relatively constant.

What do you like? Board games? Sports? Card games? Computer games? And if it's computer games (I guess so), what do you like? First-person-shooter? Strategy? Puzzles? Platform games? Racing? Role-playing?

I'm not an expert (<-- disclaimer) I think it could be stable. It should be in a balance. If one of the two planets is heavier, it will accumulate a thicker atmosphere than the smaller planet... and the atmospheres will find an equilibrium. There's a few additional comments: - The tides and also the difference in density of the atmosphere would be huge along the surface. - The rotation of the planets would be very fast. - The weather patterns of the planets would be linked (and I wouldn't want to have to make the forecast) - You need one hell of an atmosphere though... If you look at Earth, our atmosphere is only 200 km, with a planet diameter of 12,756 km. - I have no idea about the water balance... would water be able to completely accumulate on one planet? If one planet is larger than the other, it would have a thicker atmosphere. But at the same time, it's the same distance from the sun as the other planet, so temperatures could be roughly the same. The thicker atmosphere would condense more water and the water might all move towards the bigger planet. Just an idea - I haven't thought this through in detail. Reading the description of how a supernova can form (obviously not a stable situation): a binary star system, with one star growing to become a red giant. When they "share a common envelope", their mutual orbit is suggested to shrink. Why? I can see tidal forces slowing their rotations, but why would it reduce the orbit? Is that because a significant part of the mass of the larger star moves towards the smaller star (significantly changing the mass of both centers of gravity)? In case of the planets, if they cannot exchange too much mass, then I guess this could become a stable situation, even though it wouldn't be stagnant (with for example the weather patterns influencing each other).

What I would do: 1. Send a mail. 2. Wait a couple of days. 3. Call them by phone, politely ask if they have a minute to spare, and that it is not a problem to call back at a later time. Be sure to mention they can also reply to your email at their own convenience! 4. Repeat step 3 until you have an answer. And do not be discouraged if you need to call back 15 times. Professors will typically have the university email account completely swamped with hundreds of mails from students, conferences, announcements of papers, other interesting stuff, people who press reply-to-all when normal reply would be sufficient, invitations for workshops, newsletters, FYI-emails, and also some important stuff. You'll end up on the not-so-important list, if you don't end up in the spam. That's not an insult to you, that's just the scientific community spamming itself to death. Also, some professors will be out of office a LOT... like 4 out of every 5 days. They might even be officially part-time professors. Bottom line? Don't give up.

An "argument" in popular language is often used as a euphemism for a fight. If you meant that Americans are having a verbal fight, they you are right. If you meant that they are having a philosophical discussion, then I disagree. The problem is that people disagree on the premises, but only discuss the conclusion. (Changing the topic below) So, I maintain that any discussion between religious hardliners and scientists does not use philosophy or logic to arrive at any conclusion. Instead, it's just an ordinary fight. However, if we're talking about winning the elections, it makes a LOT of sense to simply shout the loudest. History has proven time and again that leaders are not necessarily people who make any sense. Many voters do not use their brains, but instead some other bodyparts to make a decision and cast a vote. Elections are like an advertisement: a lot of emotions, very few facts, and practically no reasoning. The modern politics have nothing to do with reason, and are fundamentally more like religion than science, which is why it is so important to keep the official religions separate from the state: to allow at least a little science into our parliaments. I apologise for not understanding that this thread was about the US presidential elections and politics. I thought we were discussing the term "evolutionist" and responding to it from a scientific perspective. Maybe we should move it to politics?

Why are there 2 threads with identical questions, both in homework help, but from 2 different members (same person, with 2 accounts?)? There is this thread. And this is the other one. I've reported both - hopefully to be merged... [edit] Thanks Klaynos for merging them

First of all, I am not an evolutionist. Evolutionism is not a church, and you cannot "believe" in it. Evolution is a scientific topic. If I am anything, I am a chemical engineer, because I studied that some time ago. No. There's no reason to assume there is a god (I've never seen anything that I have reason to believe is caused by any god), so I see no point to believe in a god. I think it's larger than just our own, and that what we think is our universe simply expands into something larger. But we cannot prove that now, because we cannot observe anything beyond the edge of our known universe. So the Big Bang is as good an explanation as any. It fits what we observe so far, and I cannot deny that this might just as well be true. Somehow a universe with a beginning (or an end) just doesn't make sense to me. By coincidence. Put many billions of tons of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen on a planet somewhere, and give it a few billion year, and it is very very likely that something amazing forms by purely chemical reactions. Makes a lot of sense from a statistical point of view. Whether that happened here on earth, or life arrived on some asteroid which crashed into earth a couple of billion years ago, I don't know. Evolution doesn't need to be explained. It is obvious, and occurs all around us. Because kids are different than their parents, it's just logical that change occurs over time. About 5 billion years. Reason: because science says so. I do not understand the method to measure it myself (they measure some radioactive materials or so), but I have no reason not to trust some other scientists. Yes, Yes, and No. The universe is so big, there is likely other life somewhere else. That other life is automatically alien - although probably not like in the movies. I have no idea how intelligent such life would be. A UFO is an unidentified flying object. It can be human made, and they exist. The USAF's experimental aircraft probably caused more than one UFO sighting. But I do NOT believe that aliens are flying around our planet on spaceships with the shape of a flying saucer... so I answer no. Yes. It never stops, so there is no end result. I do not think there is an afterlife, if that is what you mean. But we will be 'recycled' and new life will follow us. I will not be aware of it though. i want to make this world a good place to life. I want to live in harmony with other humans and other life. I have no idea how my "beliefs" affect me, because I have never known any other "belief" than this one. [edit] Why are there 2 threads with identical questions, both in homework help, but from 2 different members (same person, with 2 accounts?)? There is this thread. And this is the other one. I've reported both - hopefully to be merged...

I totally disagree that it's useful, because it will not give a result. Ever. As I already said: at the very deepest core, we're comparing miracles to logic. Maybe I should say it's like comparing miracles to reason. If you do not agree on these very basics, you cannot have any arguments. And without arguments, you might as well have a contest who can shout the loudest... which is exactly what every debate between religious hardliners and scientists is: a contest to shout the loudest. Discussing evolution with someone who really believes in creationism is like discussing statistics or differential equations with someone who does not believe that 1+1 equals 2. You first need to agree on the basics before you can discuss the higher levels, or you're wasting your time. People choose to bicker over some derivatives of the fundamental difference between miracles and reason, like evolution vs. creationism, or whether the world is flat or round, or whether it's 6,000 years or 5 billion years old, etc., etc... And if the discussion about the basics is not already pointless (because both sides will never give up), then surely discussing these derivatives without going back to the basics is.

It's a little weird to even compare science to religion to me. The two are fundametally different, so I just don't know where to start. And I think it's better not to start at all. At the very deepest core, we're comparing miracles to logic. Seems a bit pointless to me. The word evolutionist suggests that we can compare evolution to creationism... which is absurd.

LOL I want a new member title. "Organism" doesn't cut it anymore for me. Ok, maybe we should save the thread before it dies in silly jokes. It was reported all over the news that there were northern lights in many northern European countries, meaning many people probably had a few hours less sleep than normally to watch it. I haven't heard of any satellites being damaged or other electronic systems on the ground being damaged. Anyone else?

I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but did you read what I wrote at all? Turbulence inside your copper tube does not matter. You will not be able to see it, you cannot feel it, and you will not notice any effect. So, why bother with it?

I just did not know so many people were that religious. I thought that the importance of religion in the USA was more like over here in (Western) Europe. People might still be registered with a church, but are no longer followers of the church in any practical sense. We often compare the US and Europe as having pretty similar cultures, and differences are measured in the size of a burger or the size of a glass/cup of cola, or how much garlic we put in our foods... I was never aware that there was a large religious difference. Do you think this religious thingy is growing? Or has it always been there, but have I simply never noticed it?

You want to convert sunlight into electricity, and then back into light to grow plants in a 3-story greenhouse? Why not just put plants in a field, and let them enjoy the sunlight directly, in a 1-story field ? If sunlight is your bottleneck, then surely applying the sunlight directly onto a plant would be the most efficient method to use it. Anyway, if we ever have electricity in such abundance, and at such a low price that we can waste it to grow even our most basic crops, then the multi-story greenhouse would work. Until then, it is pointless.

No worries - it was a long post (a rant) that I wrote. Easy to miss something. So, you are effectively saying that the majority of the Americans do not want church and state to be separated? Americans are actually voting religion into their own government, while invading other countries to remove religious regimes? Weird. I thought religion in the USA was only important in small communities (the stereotype I guess would be small town Utah). You say it's mainstream USA that considers religion so important? [edited because I pressed "post" before finishing the last sentence]