Roamer

5 hours ago, DrKrettin said:

If the drops kill most bacteria, I can't see why a whole week is more beneficial than (say) a couple of days. 

Because it will kill the more-resistant bacteria as well

This is likely not beneficial to YOU, however, if more-resisistant bacteria survive,

we can't treat that bacteria with the same antibiotics anymore in the future.

On 19-9-2017 at 5:36 PM, Ian Zonja said:

How long should it stand until everything collapse?

Pollution can make certain systems collapse by poisoning creatures that fulfill a certain niche.

EVERYTHING collapsing is nigh impossible;

it's best to look at matter first, i ll try to discern 3 categories(more are possible):

1) certain matters are biologically usable; they can be made part of the bio-mass(=animals, plants)

2) other materials aren't realy usable by(/in) lifeforms (most metals)

pollution would have to continue for a huuuge time before we 'd run out of matter for bio-mass

3) the third category are materials that would poison creatures;

these materials could/would be consumed by creatures that cannot handle these materials,

(ps:many materials are not poisonous untill taken in in large enough quantities)

radio-active  materials can be counted under the third category.

The materials under category 2 and 3 do not necessarily increase, though they are pulled out of the earth and thrown into the atmosphere(=biosphere)

(regional) eco-systems can(and have) fallen due to pollution, generally speaking the first ones to observe it happening are locals near the eco-system,

not people local to the polluting factory(/car/cow/..)

Humans getting poisoned until civilised systems fall/fail because of pullution ... well, i doubt even the Chinese would ever allow thát to happen.

1 hour ago, Eldad Eshel said:

Maybe give out a list of the many nobel prizes you have won.

I live in the EU, in 2012 we got a nobel for not bashing each other's heads in, does that count ?

If you have a character selected(just type anything down and select it with leftmouse) you can rightclick with your mouse and paste over it.

It's something that people say when they come across hardships they can not avoid.

It's usefull to to the human psyche to have something to hope for, a goal to achieve,

and if there is no other reward for the hardship, the least a person can hope for is that this particular hardship will become easier to deal with in the future.

Becoming stronger holds true in many ways, for example sickness will make your immune system stronger,

adversary will make your will more focused etc;

Basically, biological entities are very good at ADAPTING, which (partly) is (re)focusing effort to deal with the problems at hand

Though actually going out and trying to overcome (random) hardships is generally not a good idea

since hardships can(and will) damage one's health/psyche/social status.

Easy practice is a better alternative.

Well, first of all, creators of ads generally get paid before the ad is launched.

(They 've created something for an advertiser, not for the viewing-audience)

After some clicking on the appropriate sections of youtube,

it does seem() that advertisers do not have to pay(full?) for advertisements that are skipped.

(thus Youtube doesn't get paid)

Avg. CPV is the average amount you pay when a viewer watches 30 seconds of your video (or the duration if it's shorter than 30 seconds) or engages with your video, whichever comes first..

https://www.youtube.com/yt/advertise/launch-ad.html

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3013684?_ga=1.148635135.951375823.1439213818

https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/2375431

 

Even one in Santiago, Chile, or Madrid, Spain? (elevation 521m and 588m, respectively)

Nope, then again, who's gonna swim that way ?

Why do you need a 1000 feet of water ?

Most if not all buildings will be flooded to top with 60 or so feet, and anyone swimming in it would think they're somehow transported to the atlantic ocean.

Now i never said it was scientifically impossible, i was just giving you a compliment.

but since you asked

Where specifically does it fail as a scientific possibility?

When you started moving backwards in time.

Some good stuff for sci-fi.

What happens when you switch to Firefox or another browser ?

A "God" is simply a fully optimised soul,

If you change the definition of a god then it's not hard to prove a god exists,

then again, what have you proven ?

Reïnstall everything ?
It's something that needs to be done every now and then, just like the dust bunnies

I like to take lots of selfies and then upload these onto facebook but does this necessarily make me selfish?

No, that is called vain.

A lot of people say if you take lots of selfies that it may mean that you are selfish.

Probably jaleous people.

What is the correlation exactly between taking selfies and being selfish?

The words look alike, i suspect that's why people think they 're related.

Furthermore, does correlation always imply causation?

no, there are more ways of correlation then causation.

Recently a rise to what I could only really call 'physical keys' has dawned, such as texts to help verify a login or account creation.

Text ?? are you maybe referring to Captcha ?

The only physical key i got is for my bank(card + reader)

Captcha and the likes exist to make sure they're dealing with a real human who is putting in some effort to get in.

Because if only one in a million attempts-to-gain-access succeed there would be no way it would be worth it for a human hacker to get in,

but without Captcha the servers could be attacked by automated programmes trying out every different key.

Other solutions are possible, but they all amount to consuming more resources from a hacker to get in,

which would also consume more resources from the server and get costly one way or another.

 

Animals not dying off ("the environment does not "kill off" anyone due to being unfit.") can't mean merely low pressure. You said no deaths from the environment. That means no predation, no death from competition for resources, etc. Low pressure would imply some deaths.

 

And, of course, this may not be what the OP meant.

As long as i 've been alive i 've had no danger to die from competition/predation. Off course i could 've died due to an accident but i call human society "low pressure"

 

IOW, a situation that you have not shown to exist, has never existed, and cannot exist. (Unless immortality is a thing)

 

And that would lead to greater genetic diversity, but it's not clear to me that it would necessarily lead to greater biodiversity)

We don't need immortality, LOW pressure is not the same as NO pressure.(and creatures dying from old age is no problem)

I suppose you 're right that greater genetic diversity does not necessarily mean greater biodiversity (i used the word "initially" as i didn't want to speculate)

but surely greater genetic diversity is a prerequisite for greater biodiversity

 

You have not established that the maggot fly was (or would be) in a "low-pressure" situation. You haven't really defined what that means.

A "low pressure"-situation basically means that the environment does not "kill off" anyone due to being unfit.

It goes without saying that this wil initially result in greater biodiversity.

 

I still don't try to guess

 

+1 for you

It's just an advertisement, OP has already been deleted.

Anyone can make a puzzle that nobody can solve, but that doesn't make it a good puzzle.

A good puzzle is one where, when given the answer, you say "damn, i knew that" - i doubt this puzzle falls into that category.

First off, when being a dick and being called out on it you should agree and point out that being a dick does not invalidate your point(s).

edit:note this is general statement, i did not read the thread involved.

Further, i 've seen some discussions involve the "you should learn <insert theory> before claiming <insert claim>"-argument.

As Swanson pointed out, it's hard for the, umm, recipient of such argument to guess the value of the argument or the mentioned theory.

And i was thinking, maybe some () list of important theories and terminology per section would be of value,

people could refer to it when stating someone should learn/know theory X.

For me, also unscholared, i would actually love to see such list since it would "level the playing field"

(with the help of wiki/google)

 

That's a big "if", and the related question of "how much?"

 

What the US pays is a meager subsistence, and that may also be true elsewhere. If I retire when planned, my pension will be about twice what I would get from social security, and that's only the defined benefits portion from paying into an annuity.

 

I also have a version of a 401(k) (investments) to which the government employer contributes as well as personal savings. But such things are only possible for people with disposable incomes.

It was the "if" i was responding to.

Is that not what is happening?

Differs from country to country.

but generally something like this is happening yes.

 

Not really, but it sounds implausible. For example, the UK government has just introduced an "opt out" scheme for pensions; i.e. you will be automatically enrolled in a pensions scheme and you have to choose not to. Because there were too many people who, even if they new they should have a pension, hadn't bothered to arrange one.

Looks like a good system, no enforced participation, just a little push to the people who don't bother to make their minds up.

In such system, if the pensionsystem is bad(or, more likely, there are better alternatives) participation-rates will still go down and/or the sytem is forced to improve.

I suppose my previou assumption only holds true for "good" pension-systems, where people can clearly see the benefit to them.

I disagree with this as an assumption. Much depends on what happens to people in any society who don't have a way to support themselves when they retire. Will they be homeless and starve? If the society ensures this won't happen, then the society is paying for elder care anyway, and probably in a less efficient manner.

If the society is going to pay for poor elders anyway, why do you need a pension-system ?

A better alternative is paying a minimum to elders, no matter whether they 're rich or poor, and allow individuals to safe money through a pension if they want to have more then the minimum when they 're retired.

Do you have any evidence that is the case?

Depends, do you disagree with my statement ?

The pension model is socialist.

I 'm all against forcing people to participate in pensions,

however, if people would be free to participate in a pension-system, pensions would still be used by the majority of the people who participate now.

That is a valid point, but I think many of these things are due to the absence of information rather than complete control.

Or, often the lack of free will is caused by absence-of-information ?