Function

I find it a bigger problem that his doctor revealed such thing. Doesn't seem likely that Trump has given consent to do so

How do parent birds teach their ... kids that worms are in the ground?

This seems rather a question on what you see as direct communication. One cannot "not communicate".

Please consider reading, interpreting and applying posts #45 and #46.

Meta reply in the world's most hated font: not to mention the time you could saveup doing something more useful (what a sh*tty colour) without editing every sentence in your post!

A toast to that.

I wasn't speaking of "being conscious of your whereabouts in your dreams" while dreaming, rather of pure physiological presence of some characteristics comparable to consciousness (too general, but to get the point: an EEG pattern in REM-stages very comparable to those in wakefulness)

About that quote: at some times, I wish I'd had faith.

It's clear that you are not conscious while sleeping, but, forgive me when I'm wrong, I thought there was indeed a certain degree of consciousness while dreaming? In which case I would completely distinguish it from "being conscious", "being aware" and "being wakeful"

Don't think this promotes smoking cannabis. Just saying.

(Astro)physicist Carl Sagan said that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Absence of evidence of consciousness in a comatous (too short-sighted term, but let's stick with that for now) state does not let itself be deduced to the evidence of absence of consciousness (which could have very far reaching consequences) Ergo, as long as it is not proven that there is a god or isn't, there both is and isn't a god. [something went wrong editing my message, but something here said something about having to consider the possibility of the OP's god both existing and not existing until it has been proven that his god exists] And as long as Team Science (sorry OP, but I'm on that team) can't prove there isn't a god, not merely by noticing there is no evidence of presence, thus to pronounce the absence of evidence, then it must be considered a possibility that his god exists whatsoever, since the absence was not proven. Since none of the possible evidences are realistic (neither the evidence of presence, nor the evidence of absence), we won't ever come to an agreement and we should let religion remain a most personal thing, of which the purpose and meaning to a person is non negotiable. In conclusion: as long as the OP can't prove the presence of a god, then his god is as meaningful as Schrödinger's cat.

Throwback to #8. If you feel indifferent about everything, yeah ... It's over.

Lack of joy and happiness may contribute to an impending depression, in which case you basically already are (or rather, may feel) dead, psychologically. While still alive, I'd go for happiness.

If something is evolutionary important, it's well preserved throughout evolution and is not much mutated. An example: the 16S rRNA (16S ribosomal RNA) is very well-preserved across different species: its function is identical in all, and is present in every living thing. To compare with general DNA: in order for 2 entities to be considered of being members of the same species, they must: Have > 70% identical DNA Have > 97% identical 16S rRNA (because not large mutations are found across different species) It's quite similar to our own eukaryotic 18S rRNA If, for proteins, a specific amino acid is very important, you'd see it be well-preserved throughout evolution with few mutations or SNPs.

I've always memorized the following equation (so far hasn't ever failed me yet, since basically every variable is in it) [math]y=y_0+x\cdot\tan{\theta}-\frac{g\cdot x^2}{2v_0^2 \cos{\theta}^2}[/math] Is it about 40 ms-1?

Why do we actually have to make things this complicated? If you stand on a platform and you see a train starts moving and a person walking in the opposite direction, you find it funny he isn't making any progress whatsoever in relation to your frame of reference, while he's gaining quite some metres in his frame of reference Makes the discussion a bit easier: no question where the energy comes from or goes into.

How did you get that?

Explains half of my problem. Thank you very much for that. So what about the apparently indifferent factor of 100 = I0/Ix? Is intensity invariable through a medium? That'd be very counter-intuitive ...

Hello everyone Let me address, after a long time, again the experts in the truly bizarre domain which goes by the name "physics": In my course, my professor says: [math]\alpha = 10\cdot \log{\frac{I_0}{I_x}}[/math] With [math]\alpha[/math] the attenuation of ultrasonic sound waves in a tissue, expressed in [math]\text{dB}\cdot\text{cm}^{-1}[/math], [math]I_0[/math] the intensity of the ultrasonic sound wave upon entrance of the tissue (or rather, right before it) and [math]I_x[/math] the remainder intensity after passage through the tissue of width [math]x[/math]. How is this even legal in physics? He basically states that [math]\text{dB}\cdot\text{cm}^{-1}[/math] is dimensionless. Which clearly isn't the case. Then, he states that alpha is about 20 dB/cm in bone tissue. I can understand that per cm progression of the sound waves in bone, their volume decrease with 20 dB. But: [math]20 \text{ dB}\cdot\text{cm}^{-1}=10\cdot\log{\frac{I_0}{I_x}}[/math] [math]\Leftrightarrow \frac{I_0}{I_x}=100[/math] Which insinuates the invariability of the intension as the sound wave penetrates the tissue. Ergo, I don't find it possible for me to solve the question by what factor the original intensity is divided when the sound wave travels 2 cm in bone. Intuition says: 10,000. But if the formula is correct, and the attenuation is indeed completely independent of the depth, it should be, and remain forever, 100. Please don't tell me that's true. Thanks; F

Considering a projectile wouldn't go as fast, would the birdy then penetrate itself with its own bullet? EDIT: on second thought, I think that'd be impossible too, given that the projectile will never go as fast as the birdy and upon firing (or rather, release), it will just stick to the bird, and when it (the bird) finally lands at a certain time, it will perhaps come roll out of its barrels?

Come on people, we must acknowledge the fact that certain people have other standards to which they measure certain things. We must be flexible enough to reckon a difference in perception and the degree to which things can be percepted flawlessly. To say someone should "get over it" or to say that one has a lack of humour is, imo, quite close-minded and lacks the empathy needed to get insights in the perceptions of others and their coping mechanisms. I still believe 'commanding' (don't shoot me) someone to "get over it" interferes with his coping mechanisms. In short: if someone has a problem with someone else saying something, instead of seeing it as a useless exaggeration, try to understand why this person thinks that way and try to find a way or line of thought in which you may find it understandable of thinking that way.

Strictly seen, imo, he didn't say anything wrong since he did not formally accuse Barron Trump of having an inappropriate habit of torturing small animals. The word "like" is very important in this case and means as much as "as if", as in: Should Barron Trump have the habit of sitting at home torturing small animals, then being at the inauguration of his father interferes with the possibility of him performing his habit, which causes him looking mad. Which is totally differen from saying that Barron Trump looks mad because he can't be at home torturing small animals. EDIT: reaction to the edit: oh my. I hadn't seen that yet. Why yes I find that quite inappropriate, too. For different kinds of reasons

Sounds plausible from what I know of it. Place the laser at the uttermost possible place near the end of the path. It'd also be dependent on the capabilities of your laser, imo.