Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/26/19 in all areas

  1. I stopped watching baseball when the player's union strike caused the World Series to be cancelled in the mid-90s. I stopped watching basketball when some of the players claimed they weren't role models for children and could act any way they wanted to. I stopped watching American football when my team's owner threatened to take the team to another city if we didn't build him a new stadium with taxpayer dollars. At that point, I was 200% done with their shit. Personally, I dislike the emphasis on individual superstars in team sports. I dislike the win-at-all-costs mentality of professional sports (cheating, doping, etc). I think it's led to the acceptance of unnecessarily high levels of aggression and corruption in other areas of our lives, most notably business and finance. It also supports tribalism and violence against those who aren't part of your group. As the OP mentions, some sports are so violent it's causing medical conditions in the players, especially amateurs trying to emulate the much better protected pros. I haven't watched professional sports in 15 years. Instead, I joined a great science discussion forum, and I've been reading and writing and learning ever since.
    1 point
  2. The simplest is linear extrapolation using statistical data from the past. It assumes constant growth (which is not possible to sustain in the reality) e.g. if you have equation f(t0)=x0 and f(t1)=x1, f(t)=x0+(x1-x0)*(t-t0)/(t1-t0) x0 at time t0 take from world population at some time like t0 = 2010 x0 = 6896 x1 at time t1 take from 2012 x1= 7052 f(2019)= 6896 + ( 7052 - 6896) * ( 2019 - 2010 ) / (2012-2010) = https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=6896+%2B+(+7052+-+6896)+*+(+2019+-+2010+)+%2F+(2012-2010) The result of this extrapolation is: 7598 It's pretty close as it should be 7600 millions of people as of May 2018 (according to world population article). So at the end of 2012 we could predict what will be at the end of 2018.. I was rather thinking about procreation (as we are talking about increase of quantity of people with time, rather than abuse of available resources).. But yes. These two things are correlated.
    1 point
  3. I said "often". It wasn't an absolute statement encompassing all. Many nations lost a lot. It doesn't impact my point however. I wasn't claiming war is good or useful. Rather I was pointing out that it is something nations how often entered into for gain. That is a motivation not present currently between the U.S. and China. There is nothing to superficially gain and much to lose.
    1 point
  4. If only that worked with the Hillary investigations. "We've found no evidence that she's guilty." "What that really means is that she covered her tracks!" My favorite part of today was reading on Facebook about how many people were "disappointed in the results of the Muller investigation." Okay...... Perhaps you'd rather the report tell you your president committed treason? Because that's a good thing? And Republicans changing their mind saying "Muller is a great honest guy" when just a few weeks ago he was "the lowest piece of shit on earth", while my more liberal friends change their mind about him in the complete opposite direction.
    1 point
  5. In the days of Imperialism certainly. I believe England was much involved in that era. The Middle Ages of course. Again, England periodically did quite well economically waging war on the Continent. And any time during the rise and fall of the Roman Empire.
    1 point
  6. The issue with such predictions is that obviously we do not have a real idea on what would be possible. Subcellular regeneration on that scale would be akin to immortality for example, so not sure how far one would want to expand the scope of OP. Actually very few larger animals can do that. The water bear is a tiny organism, and certain frogs are a different example. But after that there are not a lot who are known to survive prolonged freezing time. Not so. Development is highly dependent on environmental cues, both pre- and post-natal. The genetic information is expressed dynamically, depending on the situation it finds itself in (which is the role of regulatory circuits).
    1 point
  7. Right. Whether or not Trump specifically colluded isn't where this conversation started. It started during the campaign when numerous people including Clinton herself pointed out Russia was interfering and Trump denied, denied, denied. It is now undeniable Russia interfered, undeniable Trump was made aware of the interference throughout, and as you point out Trump has done nothing about it but obfuscate the issue.
    1 point
  8. Vexen has been suspended for a combination of soapboxing and spamming. Far too many threads opened up with no further participation (and when participation is there, it is often of the category "tell me more"), and includes threads that are topics easily Googled. This is a discussion forum.
    1 point
  9. If you throw a rock, it's a kinetic energy weapon.
    1 point
  10. Plus it needs to rotate slowly enough so that you can safely access the passageway to get to/from it.
    1 point
  11. With a 10 m diameter, your module would have to spin at ~1.4 radians/sec to get 1g at the floor. However, at head level, it will have dropped to ~2/3g, so you would have a 1/3 g difference between head and feet while standing. There is also the Coriolis effect to account for. If you are seated, the center of mass of your body is moving at a certain speed relative to the axis. When you are standing, in order to keep the same rotational rate, it has a smaller speed. If you go from a seated to standing position, your center of mass is going to want to keep moving at the same speed. The result is that you will feel a "force" that is trying to tip you over. Also, if you drop something, it will fall in a curve. This, and a changing g value, Would likely play havoc with your eye-hand coordination, especially if you are going back and forth between the spinning and zero g parts of the station.
    1 point
  12. Here's a graphic showing how big the ISS is when compared to some other things, including the space station from 2001. If you look at the ISS, most of its size is due to the solar panels, and only a small part of it is the station proper. Spinning it while maintaining the proper orientation of the panels would present a problem. Also keep in mind that the difference in size isn't the only issue. If you spin the station in order to give it gravity, you also would have to make it strong enough to withstand the stresses, making it bulkier and more massive.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.