Joatmon

Sorry to hear that you are so short sighted but I'm glad that your condition is one that can at least be corrected with glasses or contact lenses. I wonder about laser treatment? The link I supplied about myopia relates pretty well with your description of your life. It also links myopia to intelligence, which certainly seems to be the case with you. I realise the "warrior thing" was something of a joke. As an Airman I would never have had to do it but I'll just mention that quite a lot of the fighting in the Falklands was hand to hand with bayonets! The last few yards, even today, sometimes have to be fought in that way. Anyway, enough said about that as it's really a bit off topic.

Sometimes I think people feel they have to join one camp or the other. Absolute certainty that God exists or absolute certainty that he doesn't. My truthful stance is that I really don't know and don't understand why people say I must decide. Like you I shall know. or not know, as the case may be soon enough! If God exists I cannot believe He will condemn me for using the reasoning powers He has given me to doubt His existence! I quite like the vision of Heaven and Hell given in the link. http://en.wikipedia....the_long_spoons

It's OK - but took quite a long time to download. I was probably impatient. I'd still like to go on the trip so "Beam me up Scotty" still applies!

The link doesn't seem to work. Nevertheless - Beam me up Scotty!

I do hope you are not describing your own extreme short sightedness. The link confirms that, much to my surprise, intelligence does seem linked to short sightedness. However I think your "warrior" comment was probably tongue in cheek. As a former member of the British Armed forces trained in the use of various weapons (which fortunately I never had to use "in anger") I'm certain that being able to see, select and aim at your enemy with discrimination would be a distinct advantage! Also everyone carrying arms has to abide by rules of engagement. www.vision-and-eye-health.com/myopia.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement

I guess that Idiot Savants have a brain which is generally accepted as not normal. However, in their very narrow area of expertise perhaps they could be classed as geniuses. The link gives information on the condition at a shallow depth but deeper information is easily obtained. The quote is from the last paragraph and makes me wonder how many of the respected forum members with deep expert knowledge might be so classed. They say a specialist is someone who learns more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing. At the other end of the scale there are people who know a little about a wide range of subjects - such a person might be tempted to call himself Jack of all trades, master of none (Joatmon) "That's what the Internet is all about. The net is teeming with idiot savants," http://www.idiotsavant.com/about.htm

Xittenn: You might like to read the link. It gives some support to your idea. http://news.discover...ife-110413.html

We are getting further away from my field of experience. It seems you are getting into Einstein's famous equation E=Mc^2. At this point I'd better bail out and see what other responses you get!

Looks like you are chasing a perpetual motion machine driven by gravity. Many people have constructed many machines of many types in an attempt to realise this dream. Unfortunately none has worked. If you google - gravity perpetual motion - you will easily find many examples. My field is electronics, but as I understand it force itself is not energy. If the force moves something in the direction of that force then work is done and so energy is being used. If the contact between your sphere and its bearing is allowed to move towards the centre of the earth then while it is moving you can make a device which can extract energy which could be used to maintain the rotation. However this movement obviously cannot be maintained. If I haven't got this quite right no doubt someone with mechanical experience will say something!

I thought at first that the question was about balance. For example it can be shown mathematically that a sharp pencil can be balanced on it's tip and remain in that position. However the condition is not stable and the slightest disturbance will see the pencil topple. Then I realised you are talking about the flywheel principle. A heavy flywheel on perfect bearings and with absolutely no losses such as friction with the air will (theoretically) spin for ever. However you input energy to get the flywheel spinning and if you try to take energy from it then it will slow down. You can never get more energy out of a spinning flywheel than you put into it initially. In other words a spinning flywheel stores energy. Of course you cannot create a condition of no losses so the flywheel will gradually lose energy feeding those losses and eventually come to a stop.

That looks ok. I would have looked at it a different way which, to me ,seems easier. I would consider an equivalent circuit made up of 3 capacitors in series 40, 10, 40 (all in microfarads). I would then say the smallest capacitor (10yF) would have the largest voltage across it (15V). I would then say the 40 yF capacitors would each have 15/4 volts across them. All being in series the total voltage across the circuit will be 15/4 +15 +15/4 = 22.5V.

Ok - I'll admit this one. As a lecturer I divided my students into pairs and decided we would use breadboards (simple devices for making temporary circuits) to construct and examine the gain of a basic transistor amplifier. Being completely confident as it was something I'd done many times before, I sketched the circuit on the chalkboard and the class followed my diagram and instructions faithfully. Each group switched on the required power supply to their circuit and every group blew their transistors! Somehow I had omitted the base bias resistor and so everyone had connected the transistor base directly to Vcc (the supply). I suppose you could say that on that day I made the same mistake not only six times but six times in the same instant!

I'm sure we all do - especially if someone is making a definite claim. However, as long as the poster makes clear that he is just repeating what he believes or has heard that's ok? Other people are free to express an alternative opinion and present evidence to back up what they say?

Just a couple of points. This looks like homework. It's past my bedtime. I'll see if I can start you off. If the capacitors were resistors I expect you could solve this problem by making the network equivalent circuit out of three resistors. Using the voltage divider principle you could determine the ratios of the voltages across each part. Bearing in mind that no resistor must have more than 15 volts across it you could determine the input minimum voltage that produces a maximum 15V across any resistor. You can do much the same with the circuit made of capacitors BUT WITH ONE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE. That's enough information for now - have a go and show some working - I'm off to bed (12.30 UK time)

I made clear that what I posted are personal thoughts and therefore anecdotal. However since your comment I have a quick chase around the web and there are plenty of comments from other people on the subject with the majority agreeing with me. Certainly more than enough to justify "some people say"!

I think a close and loving family unit is invaluable. Over quite an extended time I have come to accept that two "parents" of the same sex can provide this. However, I still feel that a family unit consisting of a male and female caring for their biological children is the ideal. I also accept that what I feel is acceptable in today's society must also be found acceptable by me. For myself, I am more unhappy about the number of unmarried, unattached, women bringing up their children, often by different fathers, on their own.

I would just say these are personal thoughts and I present no evidence! I suppose that in prehistoric times the structure of a family depended on two parents with different roles. The mother being the only one who could feed any babies would tend to stay in the cave and the father was needed to go out and do whatever was needed in the way of feeding and protecting. This would be how evolution made males, in general, larger and stronger than females. It could also be argued that it also accounts for males being more aggressive and females more sensitive. Some people say that the male in a household tends to sleep on the side of the bed nearest the door (as I have always done) and this is an unconscious remnant of the need to guard instinct. Without these developments perhaps the human race may not have been able to survive. However, these days and for many years the conditions that forced this family arrangement do not exist. The products of organised society have seen changes that remove a need for the mother to stay at home or for the man to be physically strong enough to literally fight off competition for the right to mate or to collect or kill food. Put it simply if society could have been a coherent thing from "day one" there would never have been a need for physical or emotional differences between the sexes. Perhaps the physical differences that exist will gradually fade away with evolution like the legs of a whale have done. That we cannot control and may happen in it's own time. But mental attitudes are not physical attributes that await aeons of time for evolution. We have the brain power to reason and accept the results of reasoning within our own lifetimes. If the result of such reasoning is that there is no longer a need or place for male and female roles then I suppose we shall eventually come to accept that. The result of this would be that civilisation will continue to develop as it always has but all roles in it's development will be done with equal contribution from both sexes.

Just heard a joke on the radio that reminded me of this thread. Life at work is like monkeys on a tree. Those at the top look down and see smiling faces, but those at the bottom look up and see only a***holes!

Public attitudes to the change of some some things taught and believed as moral and natural need time to be considered. Eventually, but gradually, through education and experience can such changes be accepted. For example for over half of my life (I was in the British Armed Forces until age 40) homosexuality was accepted by me and the people I lived and worked with as so unnatural that exposing other adults to this sort of behaviour was a crime and deserved a prison sentence. Over the next 30 odd years my attitude has very gradually shifted. But because of the entrenched attitude of my first 40 years it has had to be a slow and considered process. I have gone slowly through the "If that's what they want to do in private then let them get on with it", "If they wan't other people to know then what's that got to do with me?" to realising that some of the people I meet and respect in my life are obviously homosexual. I am now happy that such people should be able to declare their love and marry. The point I am making is that someone with entrenched attitudes needs education, experience and time, more time than people realise, to allow those attitudes to change. I have somewhat similar ideas about young people living together without marriage - but this will do for now!

I once had it explained to me, and I believe it to be true, that, quite often, in treaties and agreements between countries vagueness is often built in to allow the two parties to interpret the agreement in their own way and so express surprise at the other party's later interpretation! The two interpretations can then form the basis of further negotiations later. The idea being that this "accidental let out" was better than no treaty or agreement at all.

According to this link the most common cause of death is heart disease. Combating heart problems must also be expensive. I personally have been kept reasonably fit since retiring almost 20 years ago with the help of a stent in one of my heart's arteries, the odd MRI scan now and again, 6 monthly checks at my GP's surgery and a handful of tablets twice a day. Well done the UK National Health Service, may it continue to succeed for some years yet! edit: just reread the OP - unfortunately the heart is very useful so perhaps troublesome it may be but doesn't qualify for the list? http://tlc.howstuffw...n-the-world.htm

If you think you know when you acquired it you could use system restore and try restoring your system to a date before that.

It's a play on "Nutcracker suite by Tchaikovsky". With all that strength the suggestion is unless she's careful your "nuts" may be in danger. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nuts

The Nutcracker Sweet?

The spaceship landed on a distant planet suitable in every way to support human life. A young male astronaut fitted a Babel Fish into his ear and went out to explore. He found the local humanoid females surprisingly attractive and their way of making strangers welcome was to whisk them off to bed. So he quickly found himself snuggled up against a beautiful alien female. He started to kiss her passionately and found she was caressing his left hand. she then lifted his hand and slid his little finger up her right nostril. He thought to himself "strange custom" but go with it if that's their idea of foreplay. After a while she removed his finger so he guided her hand down his body. "What's this?" she asked. He explained what it was and what he intended doing with it. She was horrified and said "In two days time I shall be laying an egg. Any contamination in my egg chamber will interfere with the formation of the shell!". The young astronaut then realised that he had been expected to impregnate her with his left little finger in her right nostril. He made polite conversation for a while, thanked her and went back to his spaceship. When he returned a female astronaut asked him if the local aliens were friendly. He told her they were indeed very friendly. She said "I'll go and explore a bit so have you any advice for me?" Well, the male astronaut replied "If I were you I would use the Babel Fish and I would strongly advise you to blow your nose".