Delta1212

See my edit.

The center of mass of a donut is located in the hole. It's not actually within the donut itself. Do if you were limited to traveling only within the confines of the donut, you'd never be able to locate its center of mass. That said, again, no one is saying that the universe is shaped like a donut. But it may be shaped like a three dimensional analog of the two dimensional surface of a donut.

Not it's surface. You're getting the three dimensional object confused with the two dimensional surface that is being used as an analogy for the harder-to-conceptualize three dimensional curvature of space. (Besides which, even if we were talking about the shape, a toroid's center of mass is outside the torus)

If the universe has positive curvature, it could be finite with no center. It would be the 3-dimensional equivalent of the 2-D surface of a sphere or torus.

Really? I'm pretty sure I can curl into a ball that's less than 3 feet to a side without too much difficulty. I probably wouldn't want to be locked in one, and there are probably plenty of people who couldn't depending on height and weight, but if it could cure me of any ailment I'd sure as heck do it even if I wouldn't otherwise.

But then you have to evolve it in such a way that it fits into your circulatory system without disrupting it and wouldn't just kill you anyway if one of them got damaged. Which is not to say you couldn't, but it's not just a matter of one heart good, two hearts better. It's one heart good, two hearts completely different circulatory system.

If I set my alarm to the same time every day for a week, I will start very consistently waking up a few minutes before the alarm. That's precision within five minutes with the last "sync" being five to eight hours earlier (I pretty consistently get up before dawn), and I do it in my sleep. There's more to time sense than being able to consciously mark off the exact moment that 5 minutes has passed. It's like how I can tap my finger an arbitrary number of times on a table, and then repeat the action with the exact same number of taps even if I have no idea what that number actually is. You seem to be looking for a fully conscious time-sense, but most things it gets used for in the natural world don't really require that much conscious input.

Evolution doesn't really care what's "better" though, only what is advantageous. If it doesn't confer a reproductive advantage, it's not going to evolve except by pure random chance, and the chances of randomly evolving a mechanism for keeping track of time at a finely granular level add very, very low. Everything costs something, even if the cost isn't very high. If you're not using it for anything, there's no reason to have it, better or not. Evolution works a bit like a NASA mission in that regard. Yes, there are plenty of things that it might be "better" to have onboard than not, but even small things ultimately do at to the weight, and therefore the fuel requirements and ultimately the expense. If you can't justify why it's getting shot into space other than "why not?" it's not going into space, and, especially for complex mechanisms like a hyper-fine time-sense, if there's no use for it, it's not going to happen.

Well, the question is really whether such precise time-keeping in the absence of external cues is all that useful for most animals. How often does anything really need to know that 5 minutes have passed to within a second with no external input?

The evolution of humans from what? Single-celled organisms? Apes? Slightly-less-modern hominids?

I am a firm believer in meocentrism, that is, that I am the exact center of the universe. Luckily, relativity supports this at least as well as it does geocentrism, so I have some pretty solid footing to work off of.

I can do it in three weighings if I know the weight of a normal coin ahead of time, or in four weighings if I don't. I don't see a way to do it in three weighings without any foreknowledge about the weight of the coins. Edit: Actually, scratch that. I think I need another weighing for each. So I don't think you can do it in three even if you know the weight of a normal coin to start with.

I've got one. My senior project in college involved hooking one up to a qaudcopter as a controller. It was fun, but sadly no visions.

Changing your DNA as an adult is like changing the blueprints for your house after it has been built: It's not going to spontaneously reorganize itself based on the new plans. There are some on-going processes that you could alter, but it's unlikely you'd be able to achieve much of anything that can't already be accomplished with drugs or hormones.

Woops, thanks for catching that.

Are they, though? Engineering is a broad field and covers the construction, maintenance and improvement of all of the infrastructure and much of the technology of modern civilization. There's a decent argument to be made that if you eliminated all of the engineers from the face of the Earth, the consequences would be much more dire than if you eliminated all of the cancer researchers. I don't want to denigrate cancer research, far from it as someone who has immediate family who might not be here without it, but I think it's important to look at actual results when talking about a professions importance to society rather than lofty, feel-good ideals. Garbage collector doesn't seem like the most socially critical job in the world until you see what happens when they aren't around for a week, after all. There is a pretty good argument to be made that cancer researchers would have a much more difficult time doing their jobs without the products of engineering work. And aside from this, perhaps an engineer with a BS is simply capable of doing more for their field than a cancer researcher with a BS.

OOOhhh. It took me a while, but I finally got it. You're actually writing things in a more confusing way than you should. What you were doing is prime + prime = 90 So: 43 + 47 = 90 19 + 71 = 90 1 + 89 = 90 And then you kept going so -7 + x = 90 x = 97 So rather than 90 + -7 = 97, what you're actually trying to say is that 97 and -7 are a pair of primes that are reflected over 45 and add to 90, following the pattern that you had discovered. I see what you were going for, but the notation you were using really was confusing.

I'll leave Engkand aside for a moment since most of the major language differences occur between England, Scotland, Wales, etc rather than within England itself, but I can still definitely tell that you've not spent much if any time in Germany. The first time I went, I spent a while in the South to start and I couldn't understand a word anyone was saying when they spoke German. I figured my German was just much worse than I thought it was. Next stop was Berlin and everyone's speech was clear as day. I made have gotten a little over-excited with the first guy I met who was asking me for help finding his way around as I passed him in the hallway at the hotel, just because he was the first person I actually understood. It was enlightening.

What biology book was this?

There aren't any. It's a made up distinction. It's like asking what the difference in the recipe is between a cake and a slice of that cake.

But in general, yes, drives associated with reproductive success are prevalent because those with them tend to reproduce more. It may not always be about reproducing for it's own sake, though. We have a sex drive because people who have lots of sex are also more likely to have lots of children, and those children, being descended from people who were wired to seek out sex, will be more likely to want to have lots of sex themselves. Natural selection really just means that a population tends to accumulate traits that result in more reproduction because those members that have traits that cause them to successfully reproduce more will be overrepresented in the next generation. Edit: Or looked at another way: The next generation tends to look and act more like those from the last generation who had kids.

Can a country incorporate more than one nation?

"Fifteen squared dollars"

He doesn't need to target Hispanic voters. He's already going to win the Latino vote, because he's going to get them jobs, because a lot of Hispanic people work for him. Or at least that's how I've heard him explain things.

Yeah, AI would only have trouble with emotion if no one bothered to program in a simulation of emotional response. Which makes sense, because why would you for most things that you'd use an AI for? But that's not the same thing as their being unable to do so if we wanted them to. And if you want to see some creativity, look at what Google's image-processing AI has been doing recently with some tweaked setting. It's produced some real Dali-eat-your-heart-out work.