EdEarl

People do smoke another kind of aroma therapy oil, but I didn't want to suggest something illegal in some parts of the world. The amount should be small and the oil should be thin so it absorbs into ones blood or evaporates as one exhales.

YW

Yes, if that is what your instructor wants.

Binary is a number system, not a language. The reason it is used is silicon switches have only two states, on and off corresponding to 1 and 0 of binary, which means binary and silicon switches match perfectly. If switches are used that have more than two states, then another number system should be used, one that matches the switch.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M. Pirsig. Future Shock by Alvin Toffler. The Limits to Growth by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III, because it was a wake up call; although the science is out of date and the book only has historical significance.

One big logic matrix with all inputs, gates and the output.

Those are correct for each of W, V, and X, but they aren't combined.

Yes, grats. You can write the equations as follows: W(d,c) = d .or. c = w V(b,a) = b .xor. a = v X(w, v) = w .and. v = (d .or. c) .and. (b .xor. a) = f

Either you are guessing or you have given me incorrect information. You said V was .xor., what are the inputs to V? You said X was .and., what are the inputs to X?

Then the expression "(d+c)(ba)" cannot represent the circuit as shown; although, it may be equivalent (I haven't worked it out). Again, write each of the subexpressions for W, V and X separately.

Why are you concerned only about X? The expression "(d+c)(ba)" doesn't mention W, V, X or f. Perhaps you will realize the answer if you write down separately what W and V do (label the lines between W and X and V and X), and the value of f.

I fear everyone except those who are batshitcrazy, and believe only people who are batshitcrazy should be allowed to buy a gun. Anyone who is crazy about batshit, will spend all their time examining fecal matter, and will not care about murdering masses.

You might dissolve the caffeine in an oil used in aroma therapy, e.g., bay oil or carrot seed oil, vaporize the oil and inhale it along with the caffeine.

I saw more about photonic computing about a decade ago than currently. The Wikipedia article says: Today research is oriented more towards nanotube and graphene gates, rather than photonic gates. And, of course there is research into quantum computers. Sorry I cannot be more helpful.

The book,The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps by Marshal T. Savage, is a good read and describes how humanity may colonize the galaxy. It is "hard" science fiction, and describes some science that is incorrect in detail, yet reasonable in concept. For example, his idea of using seacrete to make floating cities is probably not possible, but a Dutch architect envisions floating cities as a possible response to rising sea levels. Regardless of whether the ideas presented by Savage are developed exactly as described or not is unimportant, the ideas are generally sound, IMO and others. In addition to the idea of people actually migrating into space throughout our Galaxy, this thread has links to a news article and paper that physicists wrote that explain how replicating machines with AGI can launch ships to carry the seeds of humanity throughout the Universe.

Funding comes from many sources, including: individuals, religious organizations, foundations, corporations, and governments. In its current form the question is unanswerable, IMO. There are several findings, each one should be considered individually. Some are about chemistry and from my understanding of chemistry (I'm not an expert) the idea the precursors of amino acids and amino acids can be produced when the right elements come together with enough energy is reasonable, and I accept it can sometimes happen as described (i.e., I have a high degree of trust in this case). I accept that amino acids are components of proteins; one only needs to look at the formula for amino acids and proteins to know it. I accept that proteins are necessary for life. Beyond that, the findings are speculative. It is obvious that somehow these chemicals combined to make life; otherwise, we would not be communicating on this forum. Again, I think this question is couched incorrectly. I generally do not trust anyone, except my wife. When I read about science I always think about whether the science being described makes sense to me or not. For example, a scientist says a satellite orbiting the earth must be traveling at about 17,000 mph. I think, "That sounds reasonable." However, if I were to tell someone else "A satellite must orbit the earth at about 17,000 mph," I would want to mathematically verify that speed before making the claim myself. Fortunately, Wikipedia has already done the calculations. Thus, I quote Wikipedia after examining the page, and remembering work from my university physics class. It would take me a few hours to do the math to be sure Wikipedia hasn't made a mistake, but I have a high degree of confidence their calculations are correct. I do not have an answer for this question, only questions and statements to expound on this question. First, science is merely a body of knowledge, and knowledge does not harm or help anyone until it is used by someone. The quest for knowledge is inherent in humanity, we all seek to know things in order to minimize our risks and maximize our successes. For example, we want to know how to grow wheat better to avoid insects from eating it before we can, and to grow strong healthy fields to maximize harvests with minimal work. In the process of learning to live more successfully, we learned to make bread and beer. We can eat too much bread, become obese, and die of a heart attack. We can kill microbes in water with beer to make water safer to drink, but we can drink so much beer that we die of alcohol poisoning. Would it be better to not know the science of growing healthy strong wheat, making bead and making beer? Is it better to be ignorant or educated? I prefer to be educated, but we have the knowledge to destroy ourselves. I can only hope we do not. I think scientists have discovered things that can be used for both good and bad, and scientists like other people do their share of both good and bad. Most people, including scientists, on the average try to do good, but sometimes fail. The media are not always accurate and fair with any reporting. They sometimes distort stories to make them more interesting. IDK, pass. I think we do not have the capability to do such a thing at this time. I think the results from such an endeavor are unpredictable, at least at this time. Unless the cost of such launches were very small or the probability of success very high, it would be a waste of time and resources.

I think oceanographic research funding is minimal in some areas, especially the study of marine life. However, huge sums are being spent to discover suboceanic oil and gas. One should be careful of wishes. Suppose additional funding discovered a previously unknown marine fishery. One must assume that commercial fishing companies would immediately begin to rape that previously unknown fishery. While additional research may give insight into steps necessary to help fisheries recover and maximize ocean production, can effective policing be imposed? Pirates threaten vessels in parts of the world, many places are not patrolled and commercial fisherman can do as they please. Comparing the $ spent for oceanic vs space research is not in any way a fair comparison of scientific results. Exploring space, whether from an observatory, by robotic vehicle, or manned probe is far more expensive than exploring the oceans. Compare, For example, the costs of the Tara Oceans research and that of the SKA: Or, compare the cost of the SKA and one of the more expensive deep sea explorations, the Deepsea Challenger: Moreover, consider the number of amateur astronomers, who build their own telescopes and observatories in their back yard, and spend countless nights looking at the stars. Now, compare that number of amateur astronomers to the number of amateur oceanographers. A search of "amateur oceanographers" resulted in this hit: Whereas, a search for "amateur astronomer," resulted in thousands of hits, with many local clubs, magazines, and an industry that sells equipment to these amateurs. The expedition of the Tara Oceans, illustrates that if amateur oceanographers were challenged and guided by professionals, than local individuals (amateurs) with little funding could collect samples of marine organisms around the world and make them available for study to local universities, and in some cases the amateurs could do some of the research themselves. I'm not sure why astronomy and archeology have many amateurs/volunteers helping to advance these sciences; whereas, other sciences, including oceanography, do not. Is this anomaly is indicative of funding differences between ocean research and space research? Pure research can result in discoveries that are unexpected and sometimes have hugely beneficial consequences, which is a good argument for additional funding for additional money for undersea research, but it often fails to convince politicians, the public, and corporations. It is true, that something about space captures the imagination of people, and I believe at one time people had the same feeling for the sea. What has changed?

Hello Alex and Gregor. Welcome to SFN. Enjoy.

Studies of Type 1A supernova in the late 1990's showed that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Which leads to the conclusion that there is an event horizon beyond which we cannot see, because the Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light beyond that event horizon. This conclusion does not mean that matter is moving faster than the speed of light; rather, it means the fabric of space between concentrations of matter is expanding at an accelerating rate. The Hubble deep field observations have observed galaxies whose light was emitted almost 13 Ga in the past. During that time, the Universe has continued to expand, taking galaxies Hubble photographed as 13 Ga old light past the event horizon. Thus, those galaxies are currently past our ability to see them. In the future the light that they have already emitted will shift more into the red, into the infra red, to microwaves, radio waves, and eventually disappear from our vision. The speed of light is invariable, instead its wavelength becomes longer (redder) as the source emitting that light recedes from use faster; conversely, light becomes bluer (shorter wavelengths) as the source emitting light approaches us faster.

This news reports only on two glaciers and one location each. Hopefully these locations were poor choices to take samples.

Education is important. One can take logic and elementary philosophy to learn some things about critical thinking. But, no one class teaches how to observe and understand, because neither observing nor understanding is a simple process. If we want to observe trail signs left by elephant and understand what they mean, we need one teacher, and if we want to observe exploding stars and understand what occurs we need another teacher. To observe either elephants or stars, we need different tools. However, educators could teach a basic class in observation and understanding, to teach the process. Once a person understands how to carefully observe anything, and to tease as much information as possible from that observation, they will have learned a basic skill that has led them to mainstream understanding of that thing. They should realize the same process can be applied to observing and understanding other things, which should help them suspect whether their knowledge is mainstream or otherwise. Understanding the process is experience, and going through the observation and understanding process more than once builds upon experience. In other words, experience and education are important.

1. Read several definitions of thermodynamic work. 2. Assume you fill a balloon with a gas, not stretched full, but full enough it doesn't have any folds or flaps. You are not allowed to stretch the balloon out of shape; otherwise, you can do anything to it you wish; afterwards, what is the state of the gas.

I'm not exactly sure whether the airline network you mean is their electronic booking network or an arc that they fly. If you mean an arc that they fly, I assume airlines consider many costs and earnings for each arc flown (take-off through landing). But, without detailed financial data, I doubt one can calculate such costs accurately, especially since costs differ from airline to airline.

This research seems to be a step toward understanding abiogenesis, and one that points in a direction not previously investigated. Will this information lead to further progress, or to another difficult road block?

Just so there is no misunderstanding, 1. Does A+B mean A or B or A exclusive or B? 2. Does D' mean not D? 3. Does AB mean A and B? 4. Is there any significance to your underlining the entire equation: D'C'B'A+D'C'BA'+D'C'BA+D'CBA'+D'CBA+DC'B'A'+DC'BA? If the underline means the entire equation is not equation then use one of the laws to change it to another form without the not. If this is why you cannot start, make the whole thing look simpler by renaming each of the term+term+term.... I recommend you put parenthesis around a couple of the terms and see if you can simplify the things in parenthesis. Use the laws (monotone, nonmonotone, and De Morgan's) to simplify. Try something and show your work. Check your work with a K-map, just don't turn it in. I'll let you do this studiot.