Baby Astronaut

Might the additive primary colors gain us two more states? Off can still be 0. Then we have red = 1, green = 2, and blue = 3. I don't see how. Instead of an electron being there or not there in the gate of a transistor—basically two pieces of information—think about an electron being able to hold a million pieces of information... Clearly, it seems to transcend binary.

Posting this for anyone who might not be familiar with the newer observations of this peculiarity. I'm not sure if they even know how it really forms yet. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070327_saturn_hex.html http://www.space.com/common/media/video.php?videoRef=070327Saturn_hexagon The hexagon's mentioned in the following link, where the giant cyclones at each pole were seen last year in higher detail than ever before. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/081013-cassini-storms.html One possible explanation for the hexagon was referenced by Norman Albers on a previous thread. Another potential explanation is thought to be a standing waves pattern. Just wondering if anyone has other ideas on this. It really blew my mind first time I saw it.

I certainly didn't suggest one, just figured if people are saying that openly being able to discuss wages is a possible solution, then why not make a comparison to real life, if any exists? Tests it against reality. The government tends to apply regulations based on how many people would be affected, and the severity. It's pretty obvious to anyone not part of the right wing media. Actually, it's probably obvious to them as well. It's just political scheming for them to say otherwise.

Does anyone know if there's an example from any nation where a business discloses all its employees wages? It'd be good to start with a comparison of businesses that have opposing policies, and the similarities or resulting differences with issues of fair pay.

o t t f f s s e n z ?

Instead of using a computer program on a laptop, why not use a phone browser? It's small and then you can hit a free online scientific calculator like http://www.ecalc.com

Even if all the components achieved superfluidity?

Then we should define substantial. Let's ask ourselves something too. Do more women see lovey dovey films than guys, and at what ratio? At the same time do guys see more testosterone filled bad-boy movies than women? And the ratio? The answers should be telling.

Wow, that made me think of a comparison to matter/antimatter. For every positive matter there is negative matter and they form a pair whose sum is annihilation.

I think people would have to get in the habit of mentioning who they're responding to, what page on the thread, and what part of the conversation. Plus, what about short references from other threads or even a website source?

Thanks Mokele. It's the quantification of a "long, long time" I'm shooting for (Interesting, though. A virus can really just decay on its own?)

I challenge that assertion. Scientists as a group do not "believe" in what you mentioned, rather they use the possibilities as add-on tools for the mathematical construct of physics and defining of reality. I've learned that many perceived instances of "belief" from scientists is either a byproduct of media sensationalism and the way a journalist might angle the scientist's words, or also it just might result from an overeager scientist attempting to communicate effectively to a less scientific public.

Sure, but instead of the whole colony, what if you simply tracked one individual virus? That's what I've heard, but various searches on the internet didn't turn up anything to confirm it. My thought is it would be inanimate like a seed of a tree, until spurred to action when the proper catalysts hit it. Still, I can't help but wonder if a lone virus would have a "shelf life" because of medicines that cut off its reproduction in cells within the host. Wouldn't such medicine be useless if the virus were able to simply "hang out" until the medicine's effects wore off?

More seriously, what's the longest a single virus can exist in the host? Once a duplicate virus has been manufactured and released by a cell, does it have an expiration date, a time period in which it must reach an uninhabited cell and duplicate, before it loses its ability to be sprung into action by entering a healthy cell? Also, some medicines work by disabling the cell's borrowed manufacturing process that a virus depends on. I'd assume the medicine has a time limit, and once the cells' process are functioning again, the virus in stasis has a chance to become functional again -- unless by then it's already "dead".

Well, here the rub. Science does not label anyone as "the bad guys". Yet religion often does. Consequently, those in power using religion as a tool will gain loyalty, as its followers are on the "same side". Thankfully, not all religions are guilty of this, nor all within their flocks. But science depends on proof and facts. However, the approach to science itself does hinge on belief: in that observations must be performed, tests must be done and its results peer reviewed, the methods followed must be precisely noted, etc. However, the field of science and its tested conclusions have little to do with belief. Anyone is welcome to question findings which already have been proven. And there exists no scientific "bible". The entire field of science is always evolving, improving, open to new evidence. Not suggestions, pet theories, or what'll help some powerful group, but actual evidence. Plus science consists of multiple disciplines which get along instead of declaring war on each other.

Here ya go. http://particleadventure.org/frameless/antimatter.html http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/antimatter_sun_030929.html http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-antimatter.htm http://www.positron.edu.au/faq.html http://www.tech-faq.com/antimatter.shtml

Benefit if it benefits you. Detriment if it's a detriment. Nah. The associated escapism leads to harm. 1. People who drink to escape their problems 2. face a bigger one. The problems don't go away, as they 3. need to be addressed. Otherwise they'll mount up to 4. a point beyond one's ability to handle them in an efficient manner. 5. Totally quitting rarely helps because now you're avoiding 6. the problem you have with escapism, and it needs solving. 7. Thus your best avenue is finding a way to conquer your dependency and escapism 8. by confronting each, instead of running away from them. 9. If you can have a drink at will or leisure 10. and not trigger any relevant social negativity 11. then you don't have this problem to begin with, or you've simply mastered it. There, my "11 steps program" Anyone who simply loves drink for its own sake, and isn't trying to drown their problems, nor attempting to fit in by getting drunk, and for the most part handles themselves wisely, isn't going to have much of a problem. Except if their system is weak internally against the effects of drinking. Such as organ disease or whatnot.

Antarctic ice shelf set to collapse... http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE50I4G520090119

Did anyone read this? http://spectrum.ieee.org/jan07/4819 It believe it's addressing the same issue of going beyond 1s and 0s, but only from the storage end. Using an electron's orientation to create way more possible states than we use now. The technology is still flawed, but one day it might achieve its full potential, and the same can be done to every use of 1s and 0s throughout the computer.

Wow, you hit the nail on the head. Fresh Spin On Logic Also, thanks SH3RL0CK for the links. Interesting reads. Perhaps someday a mesh of analog/digital will be the ideal thing.

Highly doubtful. They would just claim Panspermia (from Earth). Some of them have already changed the story to fit Earth's time scale of many billion years. Nothing's going to stop them from changing it again. (you know, sort of like the WMD rationale kept "evolving" for Iraq -- pun half intended ) Same with exoplanets. But I think a discovery of life will help science, though. Even religion, perhaps.

I apologize for that. Of course your formula works, nice one! Here is the solution I had in mind. 1. Multiply the second digit by itself. 2. Carry over if applicable. 3. Add the second digit to itself. 4. Carry over if applicable. 5. Multiply the first digit by itself. I haven't gotten it to work for numbers over 20 though. If anyone can find one that works, please let me know. I originally wanted to multiply numbers without having to create a multiplication table, and only got as far as two digit numbers below twenty. You can use different numbers as well, for example 15 x 17, but they each must be 20 or less. Anyone want to try finding a method that works for any value or number of digits?

That's not it. And just so I don't confuse anyone, let me clear up two points. By formula I meant what paths/steps got you to the answer. When I asked if any formula can work beyond 20, I asked because I don't know if one exists. Don't take it to mean your formula has to work for numbers over 20 to be correct. Another hint: there aren't more than 5 steps. For example, n + n + n + n + n + n is already wrong. I was nine years old at the time I created it. And only knew basic elementary math like subtraction, addition, multiplication, etc.

Something to consider are things like the Antikythera Mechanism. (wiki) There have been many losses which slowed the advance of knowledge. One of the most devastating was likely the Library of Alexandria's demise four separate times. The library's purpose had been to collect all the world's knowledge. Then poof! It's gone in a blaze of fire. On multiple occasions spread through a few centuries. It's been said that if all the knowledge contained within the library had survived, then Columbus's first landing would've been on the moon. (History Channel)

Transform each number into its square using only the digits of each number. You can add, subtract, and/or multiply the digits in various combinations, but all numbers must use the same exact formula. Hint: uses an old-school calculation algorithm when necessary. I came up with this in 3rd grade. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 If you got the correct formula, it'll also work on numbers 0-9. But can any formula work beyond 20?