ewmon

And very humble, and never sought the limelight. Maybe he knew he "merely" stood on the shoulders of giants.

"The Eagle has landed" — Despite being the first to stand on the surface of the Moon, in a technical sense, he's probably best known for the Eagle's critical landing. On the approach to the computer's intended landing zone, Armstrong saw that it was covered with boulders, and so he took control and, with Aldrin calling out altitude and velocity data, Armstrong coolly overflew the target despite a false low fuel warning and opted to land farther ahead on more suitable terrain with only 25 seconds of fuel remaining, the closest that any moon landing came to running out of fuel.

The conservative lunatic fringe seems to thrive in the southwestern US —

• the 1963 assassination of Democratic President Kennedy (Dallas TX),
  
• the 2011 attempted assassination of Democratic Representative Giffords (Tucson AZ),
  
• the Koresh Branch Davidians, and the 1993 siege (Waco TX), and
  
• the polygamist/pedophilic Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (AZ, TX, CO and UT).
  

Can anyone think of any others?

Looking at it, I got the impression it was not a substitution cipher of any kind.

It looks like the letters are legitimate, so I'm thinking that it's a transposition cipher (that's where the plaintext is moved around, like shuffling cards).

It also looks like there's extra letters added.

I suffer from tinnitis (ringing in the ears), and aspirin makes it louder.

I also must point out that stating a whacky deeply-held belief is not a gaffe. It's having a whacky deeply-held belief. For example, Todd Akin's views on rape is not a gaffe. It's misogynistic lunacy.

Akin's remarks were grossly in error scientifically and grossly offensive to everyone. To say that Akin is a moron is an insult to morons. Comments like these make people wonder what other idiotic garbage quietly floats around in Akin's pea-brain.

It harkens back to 50 years ago and beyond when the narrow-minded idiocy was that, long story short, a rape victim's body lacked lubrication (because she wouldn't be sexually excited) and also "kegeled" itself shut, and so could not be raped, and that any woman who was penetrated probably let it happen, or had a gun to her head, or was knocked unconscious. I think Akin's remark is based on this ancient fallacy that "legitimate" forced penetration was next to impossible instead of some fallacy (that I've never heard) that forced penetration somehow prevented fertilization. I think that this "try to shut that whole thing down" idiocy refers to the dry kegeling.

Some websites are showing the statistics that 5% of rapes result in pregnancies which results in 32,000 pregnancies in America annually. I think it's scientifically sound to divide the 32,000 pregnancies by 5% to derive 640,000 rapes in America annually. Looking at the demographics, there's 156 million females in America, and combining these statistics, there's 1 rape in America annually per 244 females. Given that American females lives about 81 years, then on average, a female has about a 2 in 7 chance of being raped in her lifetime. That's beyond epidemic.

The North Carolina government can foolishly divert its gaze as it pleases, but it's the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that determines the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) and issues Flood Insurance Rate Maps (used to set insurance rates against flood risks and whether buildings are insurable at all against floods), and it's the National Flood Insurance Program that issues insurance policies that cover properties within flood hazard areas.

I think ecoli and ivanv have given you answers in the correct vein. I think you're looking for a compiler, which is software that converts commands that are in a computer programming language (that's easy for us to understand) into machine code (that's easy for the microprocessor to understand).

Machine code is the the actual language of a microprocessor, which works in binary. I have programmed in machine code, and it is very tedious (like micromanaging how a person completes a task). Think of it this way — instead of, say, commanding someone to go into the kitchen and make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, the machine code would command every muscle and neuron of the person's body to perform in a precise and synchronized manner to produce the same act.

So, when a computer programming language (ie, C++, VB, etc) commands that A=20, the computer needs a compiler to translate this command into the processor's machine language to dedicate a memory location, make an entry into what I think is called the "memory allocation table" that associates the name "A" (which is written in binary in the table) with this memory location address (also in binary), and storing the binary value of 20 (ie, 10100) in this memory location. Same thing when you command A=A+1; the processor's machine code must look up "A" in the table, retrieve the associated memory location address from the table, retrieve the value from this address in memory, store it in the computer's working space so the computer can work on it, increment the value by 1, and then store this value back into the memory location (thus writing over the previous value of A).

So, I think the answer you're looking for is that you need a compiler.

Are you still you deep down?

Not to be picky, but we all think about the real "you" deep down, as if "you" is the center of a Tootsie Roll pop.

The fact is, our brains evolved outwards, and "you" are the billions of neurons that form the surface layers called the "cortex". That's why, in an accident (ie, damage from the outside), you can lose parts of "you" without losing, for example, your pulse and respiration — that is, damage from an accident can occur to the outer "bark" of the brain (the Latin word "cortex" means "[tree] bark") without damaging the essential functions that are controlled by the brain stem.

On the other hand, strokes generally do not discriminate, so you could lose any combination of functions — "you", vision, balance, motor control, feeling, pulse, respiration, etc.

I to have often wondered how he came to power and how he convinced so many to follow such a dark course. To be honest i think some of it was simply the perfect storm type scenario. A cult of personality built around someone who was severely flawed who was able to attract a great many others who were similarly flawed.

Unfortunately, I do not think that his way of thinking was so much different from his contemporaries. Appealing to the masses was one of the reasons he got to power after all.

Yes. I am reminded of a paper written by a Scandinavian on Genghis Khan who said that he was merely a product of his time, and that if not him, then someone else, but that the course of history would have happened nonetheless. I think Hitler was the one who happened to rise to the top of this "cult", and that he did not convince anyone to do anything they didn't want to do. Granted, the ones who flocked to him were most like him, and there were others who obviously opposed him and stayed away. It always amazed me how an ugly, little, dark-haired and dark-eyed runt convince a nation to take pride in tall, handsome, athletic, blond, blue-eyed Aryans. However, he wasn't convincing them of himself, but of an ideal already somewhere in their minds.

I think everyone agrees that the conditions forced onto Germany at the end of World War One set the stage for the unforeseeable economic disaster that it suffered during the Great Depression, but it also set the stage for the accompanying national humiliation and debasement — the natural reaction to which fostered the rise of Nazism.

I think that between leaders and members of any organization, there's this conscious (or sometimes unconscious) communication where the leader suggests something, the members confirm it, and the leader goes ahead and "orders it". I mean, how else does a leadership get members to drink the Kool-Aid, or to castrate and poison themselves in order to rendezvous with an alien spaceship behind a comet? I occasionally find this among Christian who marvel at how their thoughts and actions are supernaturally synchronized, and I realize they simply don't know human organizational behavior. Or maybe this is one form of the "supernatural" — "good" if a bunch of people join up to feed the homeless, or "evil" if a bunch of people join up to gas millions of innocents.

It must be difficult to live your life without being able to understand the difference between one shameful act by one soldier and the wholesale deliberate slaughter of six million people.

Exactly. I also think that entire nations can change over time, and so I don't think of what the "Germans" did, but of what the "Nazis" did, same with the "Imperialists" compared to the "Japanese".

So I start different dilutions. I would do 10^-1, 10^-2, 10^-3 and so on. If you could imagine like 10 wells. I would transfer 33 microliters from the 10^-1 well to the next one, making it a 10^-2. So as I go further into dilution of the bacterium, the spent media is also decreasing.

 

I start growth and end growth at the same time for all of these dilutions, but for some reason I see more growth after 24 hrs in the 10^-1 dilution than the 10^-5 dilution of bacterium.

I'm letting CharonY handle this, someone who, as far as I can tell, knows more about this than me.

FYI, you're describing "serial dilutions" of the bacterium (and spent medium?). What do you mean by "spent medium"? Do you mean that you don't otherwise add any medium to the wells? That the wells get all their medium, along with their bacterium, through the serial dilutions?

So when we do these dilutions fewer cells are developed.

"Fewer" as compared to what?

What about this.

A resistor is not in a circuit, yet IF its properties of resistance and conductivity do not currently "exist", but are considered — at some time/circumstance — to be attained/acquired/manifested, then they are 0 and/or ∞, but which is which and why, or are they some other values, or do they exist but are "undefined"?

Have you considered computing the mode or the median? I think the median might appeal to you.

The two end numbers are slightly relevant in that they give you the bounds inside which your "average" (however you choose to compute it) will definitely fall. This may seem trivial, but still, there it is, so they're not totally irrelevant.

You might like a central weighed method that I've often used as a moving average to eliminate raggedness in curves. I don't know the name of it, but I'm sure I didn't invent it. It works best with symmetrical populations, and less well for skewed populations.

Open your Microsoft Calculator (Click on: Start/All Programs/Accessories/Calculator). Type in 1001, and then click on x^y and then type in the number of your data points minus one (in this case it's 5). Your "answer" (for your weights) will be 1,005,010,010,005,001. Each thousand groupings will be your weighs, like this: 1, 5, 10, 10, 5, 1. In Excel, enter your data points in a column in the order of their magnitude. Your first example will be:

85

45

32

27

20

3

In the next column, enter your weights next to your data points, like this:

1

5

10

10

5

1

In the third column, set each cell equal to the data point times its weight (such as C1: =A1*B1, etc).

At the bottom of the third column (skip a line to make it easier to distinguish), sum your third column values (such as C8: =SUM(C1:C6)).

At the bottom of the second column (skip a line to make it easier to distinguish), sum your weights (such as B8: =SUM(B1:B6)). Surprise, surprise, this sum will be a power of 2. In this case, it's 32 (=2⁵). Where did you use 5 before? Aha!

At the bottom of the first column (skip a line to make it easier to distinguish), set the value equal to the bottom of the third column divided by the bottom of the second column — that is, the sum of the weighted data points divided by the sum of the weights — (such as A8: =C8/B8). This will be your weighted average.

For your two data sets, your weighted answers using this method should be: 31.34375 and 30.5. You wanted 31.0 and 29.5 (for some reason).

Why do I feel like I just did your homework?

I know a fellow who lives for extended periods in developing countries to determine the water needs of communities, find sources of potable water, determine the means to get the water to the people, and then rolls up his sleeves and helps to build the delivery/storage systems. There are non-profits such as Engineers Without Borders, Lifewater International, etc.

Then there's people who develop more "individual" devices such as the Q drum, the Hippo Water Roller, and the LifeStraw.

This reminds me of: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? And the answer is: Yes. So a resistor has resistance, even when it is not part of a circuit. And yet, here we are at a point in astronomy, where the common belief is that the universe is mostly "dark matter" that we can't measure directly.

I also disagree that I can sit at home or in my office and measure a palpable amount of electric field from the electric company's transformer on the utility pole at the street. That's like saying that, from Earth, I can measure the gravitational field produced by Mars. Sure, such fields exist, but they're so infinitesimal that no instrument exists that is sensitive enough to measure it.

I just want to say that random mutations don't occur for any particular purpose. For example, a series of mutations might occur that develop limb-like parts or light-sensitive tissues on the roof of an animal's mouth, but if these mutations don't make the individual better suited for something, somehow better at surviving, better fitted to the animal's environment, then the individual is not more likely to survive and produce offspring with those same (or, again, or slightly mutated mutations) that furthers evolution.

At the same time that being lobe-limbed gave certain fish a mobility advantage to move onto land, I'm sure there were fish who were mutating other features that allow them to better survive in the water. There are mutations that don't seem to confer any better survival characteristics in an individual, but given some future mutation(s), the combination of mutations may allow a higher survival rate in a particular environment. Consider some Arabian horses that have five lumbar vertebra instead of the "normal" six for all other horses. It may not give those Arabians a particular advantage at anything, and may even given them a slight (but survivable) disadvantage, yet future mutation(s) may give an individual Arabian a significant advantage.

There's no "purposeful" direction that random mutations "seek". Mutations may very well (and, I think, most likely do) make an individual less fit to its environment, and results in it less likely to survive and produce offspring. If you study genetic algorithms, you can see more clearly how random software changes can sometimes lead to improvements (ie, better suited for a particular task), but that such random changes most likely result in "broken" computer code.

WHR, I agree with ensuring static dissipation when handling sensitive devices, but I find myself unable to agree with the remainder of your post. My most obvious disagreement is about resistance unable to exist without a potential. Perhaps if you could explain more clearly.

Duh...

zoologists have confirmed that these are were a new species of caecilian (a type of legless amphibian). Named Atretochoana eiselti, biologists are currently not aware of any living populations after destroying their only habitat and dissecting the last of their kind.

BTW, it's hardly a surprise that such creatures were found in a river whose name (Madeira) is Spanish for "wood". Some related aquatic caecilians are also known as "rubber eels". Caecilians move through the ground with a piston-like action. All caecilians have a pair of testicles tentacles. And caecilians have eyes, but they've gone blind! Honest. (You couldn't make up stuff like this if you tried.)

I knew God had a sense of humor when I was a kid learning about sex ... I do what with what?

Or, from the movie Dogma, between Bethany (Linda Fiorentino) and Metatron (Alan Rickman) —

Bethany: Whats he like?

Metatron: God? Lonely. But funny. Hes got a great sense of humor.

Take sex for example. Theres nothing funnier than the ridiculous

faces you people make mid-coitus.

Bethany: Sex is a joke in heaven?

Metatron: The way I understand it, its mostly a joke down here, too.

What does "better" mean in this context?

Are you hoping that these chemicals already naturally exist at these locations, or that they need to be transported to these sites (in which case, make the water elsewhere and transport it in)?

It seems easier to work with, and transform, the water that's there. For example, use solar distillers on liquid water, and use "air well" condensers on water vapor.

have we found the last one rule of the hole universe (if it have)?

Yes (sincerely): Mistakes will be made.

I am not [sure] I got everything, but [the] boldface items are corrections, some inserted and some crossed out. Also the last sentence in the first paragraph is extremely vague, so it is hard to figure out whar what you meant.

Skitt's Law* alert.

Also applies to software revisions — OMG, does it ever!

Not knowing any more than this, I know that the steels are iron alloys with various other elements and of various proportions, so there might be a steel that comes close to what you want.

A silly question, but have you gone here or here?

Positively wonderful!

What I want to know is, the little girl who gave the donation that started the whole thing ... was she part of it, or was she not ... and, if not, I wonder what it did to her! I last see her at 4:57 standing next to the conductor, but then she's gone 10 seconds later.

Well, I guess I'm the resident expert here now.

Thanks. A nice piece of logical work, especially on debunking the ramps.

Could you explain a bit more what you mean by "geysers" and "ascenders".