zapatos

We already have spacecraft that move fast enough to reach other star systems. There is no required minimum velocity required to travel that far. What is required (among other things) is an appropriate amount of time. Most velocities we achieve will ensure that whomever embarks on the journey will die before reaching the destination. Since we would already need to figure out how to survive for generations in space for such a journey, does it really matter if that is three generations or 100?

As a representative said today, things weren't nearly so chaotic when George Santos was speaker.

Can you please explain why the highlighted section is true? I'm curious why slowing down didn't also use roughly 8kg of fissile fuel per kg of payload thus increasing the fuel needed to 16kg per kg of payload, rather than 75kg.

The design of Morton Thiokol's solid rocket boosters for the Space Shuttle was limited in size due to the width of a horse's ass. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/4-feet-85-inches-space-shuttle-horses-ass-william-batch-batchelder

I read your post and it made me happy. Well, I was happy until I realized since I couldn't detect 'happy' with my five senses that is is not real, and thus I am not 'really' happy. Now I'm sad. But wait. Since I can't detect 'sad'.... <endless loop>

You shouldn't toy with people. If you don't tell him where to place the flux capacitor how is he ever going to get this thing to work?

I agree. He tried arguing his case but they basically said "too bad, that's the policy". They let him rewrite the paper by the next day for half credit. He was pretty pissed and said he didn't feel in the least bit bad about what he did. It's hard to believe that his actions were what they were after when they wrote the policy.

My son recently got a mild reprimand for plagiarizing his own work. He was writing two different papers at the same time on a related topic for two different classes and reused a page or so from one paper on the other paper. They were turned in a couple of days apart and the second paper popped up as a violation due to the same text. I (and he) didn't even know you could plagiarize your own work.

There could be 50 reasons he responded the way he did, many of which are perfectly reasonable. My opinion is that you should always assume the most respectful interpretation of a person's response/words/actions/etc. until you have evidence to the contrary.

Can everyone who is on your team please stand up? I must have missed the invitation.

My experience is that banks always figure out their mistakes. I imagine simply giving up and saying 'we can't figure out why our numbers don't match' is unacceptable.

So you opened this thread for help in calculating an average?

You can't just pick a random set of numbers and expect to find a consistent 'rate of change'.

Um, that is what you asked for...

https://news.thin-ink.net/p/we-produce-enough-food-to-feed-15#:~:text=Today%2C the world produces 150,There is enough for everyone. You'll have to explain why you believe we don't have enough of some of the others. With water for example as far as I can tell we have plenty, it is just that people often live in the wrong place. Not enough dairy for whom? Saudi Arabia and Russia are cutting back on oil production due to too much oil on the market. Are we expected to run out soon?

Which resources do we not have enough of?

That was quite interesting to watch!! 😁

They ARE population control. With a side benefit of progress. /tomato tomahtoe

It is also a result of choices made by industries and governments. Everyone who has a voice in the decision on what/where/how to manufacture has an impact.

I don't think anyone needs to be sterilized. Many countries have already shown that simply by being prosperous (and the things that go along with that) is often enough to lead to population decline. Stopping lives from beginning can be achieved through global development. Not many people are opposed to their lives getting better.

Not everyone is doing okay.

My fault. I didn't re-read your post first to understand why you responded the way you did.

Please tell me what that new definition is. Because if you cannot, then how can they possibly consider it? Please show an example of where they are doing this and what that new definition is. NO THEY DON'T!!!!!!! They've ALREADY allowed trans women to compete WITHIN THE TRADITIONAL WOMEN'S CATEGORY!!!

Again, you are the one who is saying how they need to change the definition to function. No one else.

You are the one advocating for them to change it because you say they "have to operate around universally accepted definition." They are not attempting to change it themselves. They are attempting to integrate transgender women into the competition.