CaptainPanic

What do you mean "the public was not outraged"? It hit mainstream news all over the world (at least in the Netherlands, it was frontpage on most news websites). Millions of people commented on it (almost all negative about the police). The last thing "the public" should have done was to be even more outraged than that. They were quite outspoken, but remained calm and peaceful. The next thing "the American public" should do, is use their democratic rights to get some changes. But looking at the way the elections in the USA are developing, I think that "the public" thinks that is one bridge too far. The large majority of "the public" will probably vote for the two ruling parties. If they do, I think we can blame "the public" for being stupid and screwing itself. If the US was not a democracy, we could blame a dictator. But it is a democracy, so the public have nobody to blame but themselves. And obviously also that policeman for being an idiot.

This has been discussed countless times, and so far, turning water into hydrogen for fuel is more expensive than fossil fuels, and has numerous practical problems. Without more focus, this thread will go nowhere.

So, elementcollector1, forgive me if this is rude, but why did you ask the questions when you seem to know the answers yourself better than anyone so far?

It's a good blog... everybody should develop their own little tricks to calculate, and maybe this helps some people. For me, I have my own ways. From the blog: I find it easier to say that 195 is 5 less than 200. 200/5=40 So, 195/5 should be 39. By now, with 4 significant numbers it depends on the work you do. For me the good-enough answer would often be "a bit less than 600", and the calculation would go something like: 2978/5 is a little less than 3000/5, which is a little less than 600. You don't always need 4 significant numbers. But if you do, I am not sure that dividing by 5 is so much more difficult than multiplying by 2 and dividing by 10. Still, for some people this can be helpful, and you can never practice simple mental calculations too much.

Neither have I... I think the mods just give each other medals. That's how it works in any dictatorship. It's always the boss who gets the biggest bonus. But at least you've won something: you're a Scientist already! I'm just an organism. Anyway, if I ever win post-of-the-month, I will choose the Free SFN Lunch (*), because there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, so I'd break the laws of nature, thereby proving science wrong at everything, and making the whole forum obsolete including the post which won me the free lunch, getting us all stuck in a paradox. I guess you can see why I will never win it. (*) The non-vegetarian one. With meat.

I think the question of the thread is not clear anymore. Are we discussing a real-life maximum speed for surviving a fall off a moving motorcycle, as stated in the OP? Answer: not so fast. Most people will have serious injuries at regular highway speeds. There is a reason that driving a motorbike is 35 times more often fatal than a car. (wikipedia) Or are we discussing a sci-fi (but real physics) top speed for a (ground?) vehicle? If so, the question is not clear. What is important? Should it just be cool? Should it be as fast as possible? Should it be able to move everywhere? Should it be practical? Should it corner, or just go like hell on the straight? Is the road perfectly smooth? And why can it not be an airplane (which can land vertically)? What's the reason to stick to a surface? I mean, yes, you can build a maglev motor for 1 person sitting in a half-open cabine, with multiple thrusters... If designed with future materials and methods, the laws of physics don't stop you. So, we can only discuss the practical side of this, which brings us to the question: "WHY?" Because a single-seat electric chair with rockets attached to it doesn't sound like a practical means of transportation to me

At least Obama has the wisdom to note that future administrations might abuse this law. He only states what his administration will do. And that may be for the next year only, if one of those republican idiots who are running for president wins.

To me, a hero is someone who unselfishly endangers his/her own life to help others. Someone who risks everything in everyday-life, for example by jumping in front of a truck to save a kid, is to me the ultimate hero. With the exception of WWII (fighting the nazis) and the Cold War (trying to keep both parties from destroying everybody), there hasn't been a conflict which I think was worth fighting. Soldiers seem to risk their lives to help some leader or politicians achieve some goals, and I just cannot share the enthusiasm for that. Can someone be a hero, when he unselfishly helps someone to achieve something wrong? Therefore, the example that rigney shows is a real hero. An American who volunteered to assist the British to fight against the nazis. But, to me, real heroes are especially people like the guys who went into that Fukushima meltdown to fix a broken nuclear reactor. Or in general firefighters and lifeguards. Or doctors helping patients with highly contageous diseases... etc, etc... those are the heroes for which we never seem to get any statues and songs. But without such people, we probably wouldn't be here.

What do you mean "top speed without killing the rider"? On a perfectly flat surface (or when levitating high enough above the ground, i.e. flying low) there is no theoretical maximum if the "biker" is enclosed. You can just invent a low flying rocket or jet. Here's a movie of a F-14 fighter going supersonic at low altitude. It depends on you (the author) how much real-life you allow into the story, and how practical this should be. If the biker can fall off somehow, you kill him at anything above 150 km/h I guess. Bikers survive such speeds only at racetracks with large areas of completely flat gravel and grass, because they have a soft landing and plenty of space to roll over and slowly reduce their kinetic energy. And even then they risk injuries. In the normal world (for example on highways), there are many more obstacles on the side of the roads: trees, signposts, bridges, other vehicles. Hit any of those at anything above 80 km/h, and you're in very serious trouble. Hell, probably 30 km/h is dangerous already if you hit a tree face first. In addition, staying on the bike is not so much a problem with wind force. A modest windshield can protect you. It's all about bumps in the road. With higher and higher speeds, a tiny bump can launch you and your bike into the air. And that would be the end. And in the real world, on real highways, I don't think anyone can reach that 365 km/h. Because real highways have corners, bumps, traffic, etc. Here's a of what it looks like to go 417 km/h in a car. You need a very (very) long straight road, which is very flat, otherwise you will fly off.

I'm not American, but I'll happily answer anyway. - Yes - Yes - No - 50% "Cosmetics", according to the online definition I found includes such a huge amount of products. It is an enormous market, and constantly developing new products, so testing should logically be huge too.

Let me start by not answering your question . I think nowadays, the easiest thing is to get access to a 3D printer. No need for mold boxes, and no need to fool around with dangerous molten hot chemicals. Or if it should only look pretty, but doesn't need to be strong, maybe candle wax is good enough? Much safer and easier than most other options. Anyway, back on topic: You're probably looking for resins, because those are at least liquid: polyurethanes or perhaps phenol-formaldehyde resins. Note: all those contain dangerous materials, and you probably need a well-ventilated place. There's a fire hazard and some materials can be toxic. Not something to fool around with then. The exact method to mix components, and to get them to react depends on which resin you're using. Google showed me that there exist kits that probably include all components (I googled for 'plastic casting'). The method used for most plastic parts which are cast is called "injection molding". It includes an extruder which does multiple things at once: it mixes the plastic pellets and melts them by shear force, it blends in optional colors and other materials. So, at the extruder outlet, the plastic is molten and blended, and it is at high pressure. This mix is then forced into the mold by the pressure. These molds are almost exclusively metal. And that's not something you will easily do at home. I have no idea about materials for a mold box, but I guess that this depends on the plastics you're using.

Good luck studying! You're always welcome if you have any specific questions.

I didn't take it as an offense. No worries. I think my next reply also was just an explanation of what I meant. If I was offended, I would have said so.

The serious answer is of course: because of a combination of our genes and the way we grow up. Because of who we are. Because we're all different. And it's good that way. But I prefer to approach it from the other side: If we would all desire exactly the same, it would be awfully crowded in your apartment. Imagine 7 billion people, all wanting to live in exactly the same place. Some people choose a life of traveling, and they will not understand why you stay in 1 place, and only take a few weeks of holidays. Some people choose to have kids, and cannot understand people that don't want them. Some people say that a park is not the same as the real nature, and cannot understand city people. And city people cannot understand how someone can stand the loneliness and inconveniences of living in the middle of nowhere. Some people like rock, and cannot understand what people like in opera music. etc, etc, etc.

It's not gonna be the end of the show, but they will probably have to find another location to test their more dangerous experiments. (A location with more space, and less people).

Keeping people ignorant is not the point. What humans need is a clear set of rules to live by, and religion can provide that (although it can just as easily screw it up completely, and cause war and chaos instead). Religions were founded around a very basic set of rules that are easy to understand and that make a lot of sense... And it might be just as useful to lead people as the scientific method - especially since almost nobody can apply science on a daily basis to guide them through every obstacle that we encounter. It's just too complicated. Some problems are so complicated that we shouldn't trust humans to apply the scientific method correctly. And some inventions are so dangerous that we might not assess the risks correctly. But science itself is not the problem. The scientists who dedicate their lives to solving a problem aren't the problem either (they understand it). The problem arises only when people like politicians and other leaders, who will only read the executive summary of the research, will still use "science" to guide them. By then, "science" should definitely be put between quotation marks, as these people might be clueless about the contents, assumptions or even definitions. And typically, by then science has also become a synonym for "the truth", even though the scientific method usually includes comments about error margins and uncertainties. All that gets tossed overboard. It's the absolute truth when it fits the agenda, and the uncertainties allow it to be dismissed completely when it doesn't fit the agenda. And that's why I might agree that "science" can destroy us. It's because scientists usually do not decide how their inventions are applied. Other people decide that, based on very limited knowledge and even misunderstandings. This is indeed a huge risk. Is it a reason to stop science? No, of course not. But we might consider the need to keep everyone in check with other means than just the scientific method alone. I am very worried that politicians seem to be fabricating and (deliberately) misinterpreting research to advance their own agendas. And if a set of religious rules can keep them in check and prevent them from turning science into a set of lies to advance their agenda, then I would gladly spend a few hours in some religious building listening to the gibberish of a priest (I probably wouldn't become a believer though, but that's not necessary). If it would be included in the law, I would be just as happy. And if At this moment, science gives us a set of simple rules to live by (for example that you must "prove" everything). And it also leads to some mistakes, just like religion can do when it is taken to the extreme. It's all a matter of balance of power, and making sure that all things developed for the progress of mankind aren't used in the wrong way... p.s. On a sidenote, I don't think we should be using the - button to say "I disagree". It should only be for poor quality posts. At least, that's my opinion.

I agree that it can be uncomfortable, but the post of michel123456 that I partially quoted said you can get sick. Is that an exaggeration then? In hot climates, humidifiers don't need to use much energy. They need to spray water into the air, and evaporation will take care of the rest. But my experience is that the dry lips occur mostly in winter, when the outside relative humidity is high, but indoors that translates as dry air. In such cold weather, your house will provide the heat to evaporate all that water one way or the other (either from the humidifier itself, or your central heating system). Evaporating 1 liter of water requires 2.26 MJ of heat (you must burn about 50 liters of natural gas, or use about 0.6 kWh of electricity). And 1 liter is not much to humidify a house. Google shows humidifiers with a 4 gallon (about 15 liter) reservoir. I'm a bit skeptical to such waste of energy if it is really just about dry lips and skin, which is why I opened this thread. Maybe someone else cares to comment?

First of all: Molds are fungi. I would think that it is very strange if trees can grow, but not decompose at all. The carbon recycle is so quick that without plants decomposing, the whole system would probably reach a dead end in a couple thousand years, because all the earth's carbon would be locked up in dead trees. And that's not very long in the big picture. That said, wikipedia mentions something similar about the Carboniferous period: Wikipedia itself provides no further reference for this remark, so we should take it as it is: a remark. If there is any truth to this, somehow, dead trees (including the lignin in the bark) should be turned back into CO2. It is also theorized that there were more wildfires (also due to the increase in oxygen because more carbon was locked up in wood). But if plants would not be eaten at all, the forest fires would soon be required to convert nearly all carbon back into CO2. It's just very unlikely I think.

What do you need to know? You get better answers with better questions. There are people on this forum with knowledge about biodiesel. There's so much to say, that without question, I will say very little. All I can say is that the primary problem with the waste oil is that the supply is very limited. It will only replace a tiny fraction of all fossil diesel. But it's still a great idea to use it.

I already mentioned I have something to say about this... so here goes. I couldn't disagree with you more! If your politicians (with the exception of the president) are also members of the military, police or other armed forces, you have broken the Separation of Powers (trias politica). Senate and House of Representatives are part of the Legislative branch of a state. The army and police are the Executive branch. However, the president is also part of the executive branch, and is in fact the commander-in-chief in the US. You should not combine the two branches. For the discussion, let's assume that high-level politicians are all members of the armed forces. First question, high or low rank in the armed forces? Low rank: If they have a high position in the Washington, but a low rank in the army, this would probably lead to problems. How could someone follow orders in a situation where their lives are at risk, and then be allowed to make the laws when back home?? And what if a higher officer dislikes a politician? 100 push-ups every morning for passing the wrong law? Or always select the politician for the most dangerous jobs? It would give huge power to the officers that rank higher than the politicians. It can probably only work if the politicians would be high-ranking officers, although that would possibly be the worst outcome of all. Because, how could this work: - A democratic army command. It could mean you vote for your military leaders. Probably a bad idea, because it may be better to select the best tacticians rather than allowing the voters to have a say about this. - A military dictatorship. It could also mean your army commanders are allowed to make laws (but are not elected). No good. - Only high ranking officers in the army can be elected. Still, that's not much different from the dictatorship. The only thing that can work is if you say that if you want to be elected, you should have served in the army in the past. I am very curious to hear how you guys think this could work, without ending up with a dictatorship or a crappy army command.

If you wanted to discuss something which is based on a (giant) assumption, you should clearly say: "Let's assume that it is a fact that science is destroying our society"... then you can proceed with a "what if" question. But if you don't include the assumption, it seems you're jumping to conclusions.

Could you first explain why you think science is destroying our society? At the moment I would disagree with this... and therefore I cannot discuss the actual topic.

Ok. Let's skip the argument about the choice of example. Sorry to bring it up. But what should this example show? Is this an attempt to place your dog, or dogs in general somewhere on the scale in the spectrum of consciousness? And shouldn't we discuss that particular scale first before putting certain animals on it? I've been trying to find such a scale, but my Google searches have come up with nothing useful. There are a lot of studies about particular animals... but scientists seem to be very wary to make a general scale and place all animals on it. Comparing an amoeba, a duck, your dog and humans may be trickier than we think. [edited to fix a typo]

I don't think this should be in politics. Placing it here should allow members to agree or disagree with politics (with conflicts the US is in), and that seems off topic to me. The soldiers fight the wars of the politicians, they do not make policies. The veteran guy did say something related to politics: Although I have something to say about that, I am not sure it is on topic, so I will not discuss it (yet?). On topic: is this guy a hero? I have no idea. He's certainly brave to say certain things on stage, but that doesn't make him a hero to me yet. And I am not sure what he has done to receive that award. The video said very little about his actual achievements, or even in which conflict that happened. A hero in one country is a terrorist in another country... and this is an international forum, so I am not sure we can ever agree on a definition of a "hero".

This is the point of the post. Good, so we're still on topic The question is how we can measure the "spectrum of consciousness of animals", isn't it? This thread seems to propose that we can measure the levels of consciousness of animals by observing the choices they make. Other people propose that we measure whether animals recognize themselves in a mirror. When summarized like that, both tests seem a very black-and-white test, no spectrum. So, we must find out how we can turn such tests into something capable of measuring a spectrum of consciousness. I don't see any easy way out, and we might need multiple tests to create a good spectrum. Luckily, there are more tests. Here's an article about Animal Cognition, which gives more tests, and mentions more types of animals - so perhaps this could be the start of that spectrum. I have some problems with the examples in this thread so far, about pet dogs. Observing the behavior (specifically: choices) of a pet is, in my opinion, not the best way to measure the consciousness of an animal: - Pets are subjected to relatively strange environments, which lead to behavior that you will never encounter in nature. - People have strong emotional bonds with pets and may attribute more consciousness to their animals than they actually have. I'm not saying you guys do, but other people might, and that can hinder the objective observations - When people observe a choice from a pet, they may themselves be influencing the measurement, by body language or otherwise. In addition, it seems that the intelligence of dogs is particularly hard to quantify: Finally, and only on a sidenote, I think that even an amoeba will not score an absolute zero on the consciousness scale. It will score an incredibly low score, but probably not zero.