Greg H.

By "benefit to commerce" do you mean "increases profit"?

True, but it's just a matter of calculating the number of the week first, and if it's a leap year or not. Most calendar management classes can already do this (f.e. Calendar.getWeekYear() in Java 7). My point is, while any new system will be somewhat difficult for humans to get used to, computer calculations will barely hiccup so long as the developers have the requisite notice to prepare for the change. Note that I am not necessarily endorsing the system being espoused in the OP. I think adding days to the end of one week a year is an unnecessarily cumbersome way of doing it.

Personally, I say we just wait to see if the OP responds again. If the NSA lets him keep talking, he's obviously not onto anything important, right? In case there's any question, the above is intended to be sarcasm, and I doubt anyone but the conspiracy theory "community" would take any of this dreck seriously.

Why would that change? All that would really change is how you display the date itself in human readable form. And we manipulate that programmatically anyway depending on he needs of the user.

No harm, no foul. As Arthur C Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." At least until it's understood.

Actually it would just be evidence of teleportations - they could be scientific as opposed to magical in nature.

I am reading Walter Truett Anderson's All Connected Now: Life in the First Global Civilization.

See http://time.com/54684/star-trek-kate-mulgrew-the-principle-film/?hpt=hp_t3 for more. Seriously, in this day and age, people still think the Earth is the center of the solar system and the sun orbits us? This is the kind of ridiculous "science" content that moves us backwards, not forwards. According to the article a couple of people involved with the production are now speaking out against it.

My attitude on the whole Pussy Riot situation is this: Artists and musicians have been calling attention to the inequities and tribulations of their homes for centuries. It is the touchstone of a truly free society that they can openly criticize their government without fearing retribution from that government for doing so.

This is pretty much how geothermal power works. See http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/how-geothermal-energy-works.html for more details.

In science, a model is a mathematical representation of your hypothesis that can be used to make predictions. These predictions can then be compared to experimental evidence to determine how closely your idea follows reality.

A quantum computer is significantly faster than twice as fast as a normal computer. Try an order of magnitude faster or better.

Oh wait...

Actually, 1 second is equal to 186,282 miles.

That said, statistics are very useful in a number of fields provided that: A) They are collected correctly, with a proper methodology, and B) They are interpreted correctly by the reader. Unfortauntely, both A and B fail with amazing regularity through no fault of the math itself.

Touché.

The trashcan would have been a more apt place for this. Numerology is as much scientific speculation as a banana is a horse.

Without further clarification, this would mean my refrigerator is alive.

That's amazing work.

I have to admit, this whole thread made me giggle a little.

In order. #1 Yes, you can use bots to defeat captchas, as long as they're not too advanced. I've never done it before, but some googling will probably turn up a solution. #2 What you're talking about is called deep linking. Unfortunately, many database driven sites use asynchronous ajax calls to dynamically update the HTML on the fly, so those other URL's don't actually exist - it mostly depends on how the site transfers data inputs for the queries. Using the URL has disadvantages, mostly in the maximum length of the query string that can be used, so it's not that useful for sites that offer lots of search features or that can generate long parameter strings. Unless the site artificially supports deep linking to the database results, you're out of luck. However, there are programs you can use to automate filling in the forms when you need to run a search repeatedly. These applications are mostly used to automate qa testing, so you might take a look at what's available in that realm. Also, I am not sure why you got two down votes on your post, so I gave you a plus. Enjoy.

No, they just reduce the cabin pressure until you pass out (or die) from lack of oxygen. At the heights that airliners normally cruise at, the air is too thin to support human life. I suppose you could add something to the pressurization system that would pump something through the plane if you wanted to, but I doubt it's standard equipment.

There is a significant difference in thinking mankind can control the climate, and knowing that our activities have influenced it. The first one is ludicrous - the second is backed up by scientific evidence.

Since I have no idea how many airliner related fatalities occurred in the last ten years, I am going to address the financial issues of adding a mass ejection system to an aircraft. Let's start by remembering that airliner take off weights are fixed. Exceed the maximum allowed weight and the plane simply will not fly - it won't be able to generate enough lift to get airborne. That fixed weight is then divided into two categories - revenue weight, which is the weight of people and cargo that the airline is being paid to move, and tare weight which is everything else, including the weignt of the plane itself, any fuel on board, as well as the weight of the crew. You can express the total weight as [math]W_{tot} = W_{rev} + W_{tar}[/math] It's pretty simple - if you increase the tare weight, by adding an ejection sytem (even parachutes), you lower the available revenue weight. Since the airlines are already strapped for cash because they underprice the cost of flying (thank you government subsidies), that would result in a rise in the per-seat cost of a ticket. Which would be fine if we can make the assumption that the total amount of passengers and cargo remained stable. Unfortunately, we can't - increased costs of tickets would inevitably price some people and businesses out of the market, forcing them to switch to cheaper (albeit slower) alternatives. So while Supersafe Airlines might grab a larger slice of the business pie (which is, in and of itself an assumption) because of their ejection system, even with the higher prices, the overall pie is going to be smaller, so there's no guarantee it will actually increase profits. And the more you raise prices, the fewer people will actially be able to afford to fly Supersafe Airlines. No airline is going to risk pricing itself out of an already cut-throat market for an optional safety device. In all probability, the only way you'd ever see something like this is if it became mandated by the FAA, or some similar body. Keep in mind that airlines want to maximize profit, and that means maximizing revenue weight flown per operating hour - it's why you rarely see a half full airplane anymore, even on the red-eyes and off-peak days. Unfortunately, while maximizing profit means minimizing flight risks, which can translate to increased passenger safety, minimized flight risk is the not necessarily the same thing as maximized individual passenger safety, and most airliner safety features are there because they are required to be there by regulation, not out of any feeling of goodwill by the airline.

As far as I know, you don't have to measure the entire orbit of an object to determine its orbital velocity as long as the orbit is assumed to be stable. If, for example, I determine that it takes the earth 3 months to cover rougly a quarter of its orbit, then I can feel reasonably certain it would take 12 months to cover the whole thing. Combined with the distance from the center of gravity, I can determine the orbital velocity with a reasonable amount of error. The math isn't that hard - you just need measurements precise enough to be useful. In fact, all you really need to compute it is a fairly accurate measurement of the masses of the two objects and the distance between them to compute the orbital velocity: [math] v_o = \sqrt{\frac{G (m_1 + m_2)}{r}}[/math] See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed