Questions of a weird mind

[AtomicKitKat]

Conversely, if you wanted the day to last forever(or at least a long time), go to Venus. It takes longer to make a single spin about the axis(a day) than it does to complete one orbit about the sun(a year). And it rotates in reverse to the Earth. If Venus had plants and animals, their cycles would be utterly alien to any other life on any other planet in this solar system.

PS. Venusian days and years are both in excess of 200 Earth days. The Venusian day is about half an Earth month longer than the year though.

[Yora]

Okay, this one is much more practical then theoretical and also fairly basic.

But I got my hands on a pair of white, chinese counterfeit chucks for 17€ and I also intend to get some organge cloth dye.

Now how would I get these markings on them? :smallbiggrin:
http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1t2brBUfH1qdbp1ro1_500.jpg

I dyed a pair before, and the thread does not take the dye, so I even got that covered. Stiching it on would be the most simple solution, but also require a lot of work and wouldn't look that great.

[Ravens_cry]

Wax and stencils?
That would be my guess.

[Qwertystop]

Why, when talking about the theoretical terraforming of a planet for colonization, is Mars suggested so much more than Venus? Venus has enough mass to hold an Earthlike atmosphere, for one thing.

[Ricky S]

Do bees taste their own honey?
(Troy and Abed: Community)

[razark]

Why, when talking about the theoretical terraforming of a planet for colonization, is Mars suggested so much more than Venus? Venus has enough mass to hold an Earthlike atmosphere, for one thing.
Because Mars doesn't have a surface temperature high enough to melt lead, and an atmospheric pressure 92 times Earth's.

[Yora]

Mars has just a thin and cold atmopshere, something you can quite easily compensate for with heating and pressurized housing and suits.

The atmopshere of Venus is in one word "Hell". You have 490° C and 93 times the pressure of earth on ground level. Even with extensive terraforming, you won't be able to get anyone down to the surface of Venus. The pressure is close to what you have at the bottom of the Challenger Deep and at close to 500 degrees, getting a vehicle down to 30 degrees interior temperaure would be a huge obstacle. With terraforming, you might get the temperature down considerably, but that still leaves you with the insane air pressure that will simply crush anything not specifically made for such conditions.

[Qwertystop]

I assumed that it would be easier to siphon off the huge amount of excess air, which would also fix the temperature. Atmospheres don't accumulate exceptionally quickly, so that would suffice for a while.

[Yora]

But Venus is about the same size as Earth, and if I am correct pressure is proportinal to volume, so it would be similar to moving the entire oceans off earth. Or maybe even twice as much. That's a LOT of gass we're talking about.

[razark]

If you're going to remove the atmosphere, there's the question of what you do with it. You suck the atmosphere off, and vent it into space? It will just settle back to the planet eventually. Removing the atmosphere would be a massive project in terms of effort and cost.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, the carbon can be exported or used in-situ. The Moon has most things, but fairly little carbon, and it is a vital part of any ecosystem. It can also be used as a raw material for a variety of uses. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotube#Structural)

[Gnoman]

The biggest reason, I think, is that Mars is Out, while Venus is In. Colonizing something further from Sol than Earth is seems like a bigger step, psychologically.

[Yora]

I think any serious attempt at terraforming would have to be based on starting a self-supporting chain reaction. But you would also have to work with the material you have on site and can't remove any in meaningful quantities. If you want to reduce atmospheric pressure on Venus to Earth level, you'd have to convert the gas into stable solid or liquid states, and given the amounts it would cover the entire surface in a quite substential layer of material.

[Elemental]

Another advantage for terraforming Mars is that it is smaller, so less resources would be required.
So, add in that it would require less effort, and then less resources... Economically, it's the better choice.

Also, if my remember correctly, Mars will survive the Sun's expansion as it ages, whereas they can't be certain with the Earth. Venus on the other hand, would be destroyed before the Earth.
So, for the exceedingly long term, Mars is the better choice, again.

[Ravens_cry]

On the other hand ,the upper atmosphere of Venus is among the most Earth-like environment in the solar system besides, well, Earth.
There is a band where the temperature and air-pressure are approximately Earth-like, carbon can be used as a construction material, and oxygen becomes a lifting gas.
All that air above you makes dandy radiation protection as well.

[Riverdance]

Do bees taste their own honey?
(Troy and Abed: Community)

Boring answer is yes, in the sense that they feed it to their babies. I don't know what the interesting answer would be. (Sorry to interrupt the terraforming discussion. Do continue)

[Xuc Xac]

If you're going to remove the atmosphere, there's the question of what you do with it. You suck the atmosphere off, and vent it into space?

How? It's already surrounded by the vacuum of space and it's not going anywhere. You'd have to bottle it and carry it out of the gravity well that currently contains it. That is ridiculously expensive and energy intensive. It's already under extreme pressure, so you wouldn't even be able to pack it into a smaller volume when you carry it out.

If you sequester it somehow (by turning it into some sort of solid, such as converting carbon dioxide to other organic molecules), it's going to take up a lot of space.

Basically, it comes down to this: Terraforming Mars is like setting up a survivable colony in Antarctica; terraforming Venus is like setting up a colony inside the magma dome of an active volcano on the bottom of the ocean.

[razark]

How? It's already surrounded by the vacuum of space and it's not going anywhere. You'd have to bottle it and carry it out of the gravity well that currently contains it.
Which would be why I immediately followed with:

It will just settle back to the planet eventually. Removing the atmosphere would be a massive project in terms of effort and cost.

[AtomicKitKat]

Hmm. Venus has a crapton of Carbon Dioxide, yes? Plants convert COv2 into Oxygen(and starch for growth), yes? Perhaps a couple centuries of using Venus as a pre-Sol-Whip(sligshotting via Sun gravity, so going inwards rather than out, before going out) Oxygen refueling station could siphon off enough of the COv2 to lighten the atmosphere?

With regards to a question I saw earlier, I think it's a male thing. Just today on my way to work, a bunch of foreign kids went by, and my mind instantly went through a scenario where they either tried to snatch or destroy my handheld gaming device, which resulted in me causing grievous harm with bodies, and then going through a trial where my defense was that they had it coming for coming to my country and stealing from me. I think it's a holdover from older times where you had to think ahead in case your brilliant plan to trap the cave bear backfired/failed. Folks who didn't think ahead, usually didn't survive to pass on that trait.:smallconfused:

[Riverdance]

Hmm. Venus has a crapton of Carbon Dioxide, yes? Plants convert COv2 into Oxygen(and starch for growth), yes? Perhaps a couple centuries of using Venus as a pre-Sol-Whip(sligshotting via Sun gravity, so going inwards rather than out, before going out) Oxygen refueling station could siphon off enough of the COv2 to lighten the atmosphere?

With regards to a question I saw earlier, I think it's a male thing. Just today on my way to work, a bunch of foreign kids went by, and my mind instantly went through a scenario where they either tried to snatch or destroy my handheld gaming device, which resulted in me causing grievous harm with bodies, and then going through a trial where my defense was that they had it coming for coming to my country and stealing from me. I think it's a holdover from older times where you had to think ahead in case your brilliant plan to trap the cave bear backfired/failed. Folks who didn't think ahead, usually didn't survive to pass on that trait.:smallconfused:

Well yes, plants do that, but they usually have a much harder time of it when they're being baked crispy by temperatures and volcanic eruptions. :smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

Well yes, plants do that, but they usually have a much harder time of it when they're being baked crispy by temperatures and volcanic eruptions. :smalltongue:
If you could engineer the plants to be biological balloons filled with oxygen, they could stay in the much more temperate upper atmosphere.
This would be real genetic engineering, creating new concepts rather than copy and pasting, and far beyond our present capability but not beyond possibility.

[razark]

If you could engineer the plants to be biological balloons filled with oxygen, they could stay in the much more temperate upper atmosphere.
I'm not sure such plants could be made self sufficient, because they would need other nutrients besides carbon dioxide to grow. In addition, the clouds tend to contain sulfuric acid, which probably wouldn't be helpful to life forms we are familiar with.

[Elemental]

I'm not sure such plants could be made self sufficient, because they would need other nutrients besides carbon dioxide to grow. In addition, the clouds tend to contain sulfuric acid, which probably wouldn't be helpful to life forms we are familiar with.

Though, there are microbes who are capable of dealing with high acid concentrations.
Perhaps atmosphere dwelling photosynthesising microbes could be a good bet?
We already have numerous examples of such life on Earth that can survive harsh conditions.

[Grinner]

Why is rum the drink the dead like best?

I've seen several instances in popular media where mourners alternately drink and pour rum over a dead friend's grave. It seems like a death rite, but do you all know anything about its origin?

[Ravens_cry]

I've never seen that, but if it started, say, as a sailors tradition, it would make sense to use a sailors drink.

[Tonal Architect]

I know a few cultural references to pouring a glass of strong spirits to the ground, and remarking that it's being served to "the saint"; this can be either quipped in response to accidentaly dropping the contents of a glass to the floor (usually), or performed in the context of an offering, whenever one engages in the consumption of alcohol. I believe the practice, as well as the one-liner, has its origins in african religious practices.

Although that's as close to your example as I'm able to come up with. I've never heard of the practice you're describing, though rum is usually linked to pirates, and perhaps sailors, as pointed above.

[Ravens_cry]

I'm not sure such plants could be made self sufficient, because they would need other nutrients besides carbon dioxide to grow. In addition, the clouds tend to contain sulfuric acid, which probably wouldn't be helpful to life forms we are familiar with.
As others have mentioned, there is creatures on Earth that survive quite acidic conditions.
Another way would be to use banks of linear accelerators on Mercury to send slugs of reactive material to Venus, magnesium, calcium, and/or iron are some possibilities, about a million cubic kilometres would do combine with and lock most of that carbon dioxide, the rest plants and/or blue-green algae could take care of.

[Xuc Xac]

I've never seen that, but if it started, say, as a sailors tradition, it would make sense to use a sailors drink.

If it was a sailors' tradition, they wouldn't waste booze by pouring it on the ground.

[Elemental]

If it was a sailors' tradition, they wouldn't waste booze by pouring it on the ground.

To be fair, funerary rites are among the strangest of human traditions.
And besides, wouldn't they want to give a last drink to their dear departed friend?

[Yora]

I know a few cultural references to pouring a glass of strong spirits to the ground, and remarking that it's being served to "the saint".
Ah yes, the good old saints. The universial solution when the new christian priests in the area don't approve of worshipping the local spirits and gods. :smallbiggrin:

[Grinner]

Found a name for the general practice: libation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libation). However, the only reference to rum is the "for the Saints" one.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Sometimes I'll do that, only the phrase we use in my circles is "One for the Dead".

[Gravitron5000]

If you're going to remove the atmosphere, there's the question of what you do with it. You suck the atmosphere off, and vent it into space? It will just settle back to the planet eventually. Removing the atmosphere would be a massive project in terms of effort and cost.

That's easy. Send it to Mars and kill two birds with one stone... or terraform two planets with one (really long) hose.

[Karoht]

@Atmosphere on Mars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars#Atmosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mars#Radiation

Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere, meaning radiation gets through in pretty signifigant amounts. And it's difficult to shield. A single solar storm of any kind could cause pretty signifigant damage/harm.

Something that the robots we send there will have to deal with. I don't know if there is even a fix for that.

[pffh]

@Atmosphere on Mars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars#Atmosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mars#Radiation

Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere, meaning radiation gets through in pretty signifigant amounts. And it's difficult to shield. A single solar storm of any kind could cause pretty signifigant damage/harm.

Something that the robots we send there will have to deal with. I don't know if there is even a fix for that.

Sure there is we just blow up the sun.

[Ravens_cry]

Sure there is we just blow up the sun.
How would you propose to do that?:smallconfused:
Yes, I know you are joking.

[razark]

Something that the robots we send there will have to deal with. I don't know if there is even a fix for that.
Our robots seem to be able to handle it.

Spirit:
Planned: 90 Martian solar days
Mobile: 1944 Earth days landing to final embedding
Operational: 2269 days from landing to last contact

Opportunity:
Current: 3011 days since landing

Viking 1:
2245 sols, until a faulty command sent by ground control resulted in loss of contact

Viking 2:
1281 sols

[Karoht]

Our robots seem to be able to handle it.

Spirit:
Planned: 90 Martian solar days
Mobile: 1944 Earth days landing to final embedding
Operational: 2269 days from landing to last contact

Opportunity:
Current: 3011 days since landing

Viking 1:
2245 sols, until a faulty command sent by ground control resulted in loss of contact

Viking 2:
1281 sols

Yes, they can. It's rather expensive to shield them though, and I highly doubt that Viking 1 or 2 had to endure a solar storm of any kind. Humans aren't really shieldable. There are some cave systems and similar landing sites which hold some potential to keep people safe, which is good news. But plant life which needs sunlight? Yeah, thats going to be dodgy at best. Who wants radioactive tomatoes? And then there is water. It's absorbed rather a lot of radiation over the years, so until we test it we can't be sure if it is still drinkable.


As for propulsion... behold!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR
Not a launch vehicle, but once in space this baby should get going pretty quick they say. Perfect for sending satelites and robots mostly.

[Ravens_cry]

With an on-board nuclear reactor, it could even be useful for sending humans from planetary orbit to planetary orbit.

[factotum]

Yes, they can. It's rather expensive to shield them though, and I highly doubt that Viking 1 or 2 had to endure a solar storm of any kind. Humans aren't really shieldable.

Shielding doesn't have to be inches of lead to be effective--the shielding on the Moon lander, for example, was a few sheets of foil, effectively! (OK, they deliberately launched those at times of low solar activity so they wouldn't have to survive a solar storm, but I imagine with 40+ years of development we've probably got even better shielding materials by now).

[Elemental]

Shielding doesn't have to be inches of lead to be effective--the shielding on the Moon lander, for example, was a few sheets of foil, effectively! (OK, they deliberately launched those at times of low solar activity so they wouldn't have to survive a solar storm, but I imagine with 40+ years of development we've probably got even better shielding materials by now).

Indeed we do. I can't remember the exact details, but it's either some form of plastic or ceramic...

And besides, Mars is further from the Sun, as such, solar storms would be slightly less powerful by the time they reach there.
Also, once terraformed, its new atmosphere may provide more than adequate shielding. People can go inside if there's a huge storm coming.

[Ravens_cry]

Shielding doesn't have to be inches of lead to be effective--the shielding on the Moon lander, for example, was a few sheets of foil, effectively! (OK, they deliberately launched those at times of low solar activity so they wouldn't have to survive a solar storm, but I imagine with 40+ years of development we've probably got even better shielding materials by now).
Some of the things we got now are ideas like a magnetic field (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast04oct_1/) around the spacecraft to shield it from charged particles like electrons and protons.
It unfortunately has no effect on neutral particles like neutrons and photons, but neither does the Earth's magnetic field and and the longest any human has spent in space, total, is 803 days.

[Yora]

Our robots seem to be able to handle it.

Spirit:
Planned: 90 Martian solar days
Mobile: 1944 Earth days landing to final embedding
Operational: 2269 days from landing to last contact

Opportunity:
Current: 3011 days since landing

Viking 1:
2245 sols, until a faulty command sent by ground control resulted in loss of contact

Viking 2:
1281 sols
http://xkcd.com/695/

[Ravens_cry]

http://xkcd.com/695/
That comic always makes me very sad.:smallfrown:
Thank God computers are not intelligent, or some of the things we do to them would be very cruel.

[Yora]

How does one define the primary effects and the side efects of medication? Nobody wants to feel nausea, but if you are suffering from terrible pain in an injured and healing foot, is the loss of pain perception in your feet from medicine that fights an infection still a side effect?

I've started taking medication againt my ADHD and it makes me significantly less aware of things in my perepheral vision. And I just can't find out if that's one of the intended effects of helping me focusing my attention, or a side effect causing impaired vision. And if it is the later, but helps me, is it still a side effect? :smallbiggrin:

[Qwertystop]

How does one define the primary effects and the side efects of medication? Nobody wants to feel nausea, but if you are suffering from terrible pain in an injured and healing foot, is the loss of pain perception in your feet from medicine that fights an infection still a side effect?

I've started taking medication againt my ADHD and it makes me significantly less aware of things in my perepheral vision. And I just can't find out if that's one of the intended effects of helping me focusing my attention, or a side effect causing impaired vision. And if it is the later, but helps me, is it still a side effect? :smallbiggrin:

Alternately, it might be bringing your peripheral vision down to a non-ADHD level. Note: I don't have ADHD, so I don't know whether there is any difference in that area, but that could be an explaination.

[Yora]

Might be quite likely, but it still raises in interesting question: Is there really any difference between main effects and side effects, except for the question if they are desirable or not?

It's like Viagra for toddlers with heart diseases. Or even like Viagra for old men, since it was developed as a treatment for heart diseases, but someone noticed one of the side effects is worth a lot more.

[Ravens_cry]

Might be quite likely, but it still raises in interesting question: Is there really any difference between main effects and side effects, except for the question if they are desirable or not?

It's like Viagra for toddlers with heart diseases. Or even like Viagra for old men, since it was developed as a treatment for heart diseases, but someone noticed one of the side effects is worth a lot more.
I guess it's like asking the definition of weeds.
Grass in your lawn, good, grass in your garden, not so good.
Unlike weeds, medication is meant to have certain primary effects and are tested mostly for the safety and efficacy of those effects. Using them for other purposes is known as 'off label' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-label_use) use.
The trouble with using them for off labvle uses is that they have not being tested as much, if at all, for their safety in such uses, how long they can be used safely and at what doses. It's one thing to pop a Viagra whenever an some guy wants an erection, it's another to use it chronically.
If such off label uses become common, another example is the use of aspirin's side effect of thinning the blood as a way of preventing heart attacks, studies will hopefully be done.

[Yora]

Under the hypothesis of the mythochondrial Eve, the oldest female shared ancestor of all humans, do scientists of the field in question actually assume a single individual?
My understanding is that the calculation is done almost entirely by extrapolation, so if you assume that all humans alive today share one female ancestor, then this woman would have lived such and such many years ago. After all, DNA is constantly changing and given a known constant rate of mutation (or assumed average) and the known diversity of mitochondrial DNA in humans today, you would get a result if you extrapolate backward. But I don't think that automatically indicates that we all share the same great great great ... grandmother.

So, do the experts really assume a single individual, or is it a mathmatical thought experiment?

[Story Time]

Why is it that physicists tell the media ( or that the media tells others ) that they discovered a new particle when they only discovered a new quark state?

[The Succubus]

Why is it that physicists tell the media ( or that the media tells others ) that they discovered a new particle when they only discovered a new quark state?

Because journalists tend not to be very particular with their accuracy.

[PrometheusMFD]

Under the hypothesis of the mythochondrial Eve, the oldest female shared ancestor of all humans, do scientists of the field in question actually assume a single individual?
My understanding is that the calculation is done almost entirely by extrapolation, so if you assume that all humans alive today share one female ancestor, then this woman would have lived such and such many years ago. After all, DNA is constantly changing and given a known constant rate of mutation (or assumed average) and the known diversity of mitochondrial DNA in humans today, you would get a result if you extrapolate backward. But I don't think that automatically indicates that we all share the same great great great ... grandmother.

So, do the experts really assume a single individual, or is it a mathmatical thought experiment?

The common theory is that it was no single female human, but still a relatively small amount, something like 800 (though this is off the top of my head, and the number could be completely different), barely enough to keep enough genetic diversity among the species. This would have been very early in humanity's life. So "Eve" most likely wasn't a single person, but there is evidence that points to a small number of females at one point in time.

[AtomicKitKat]

Sorry, lost track of this thread for a while there.

Re: Mitochondrial Eve.

I think the prevailing theory was that the vast majority of humanity was wiped out, down to a scattering of individuals(as mentioned above, but closer to maybe a dozen or so), and these are the mitochondrial "Eves", but the true "Eve" would be their immediate or 2 steps above ancestor(assuming most of the "Proto-Eves" were say, cousins or half-sisters or some other almost but not quite relatives.)

Re: Venus, or as I want to call it, Neo Earth.:smallwink:

I was actually thinking of constructing a greenhouse the size of a small moon, like a "Death Star"(sorry, just saw Austin Powers 2 on Sunday. :smallbiggrin:), which would orbit Venus, with plants(algae) arranged around the "equator", which would be a large bank of windows constructed in a manner which would allow enough sunlight through for photosynthesis. My understanding of plant basics is rudimentary compared to my knowledge of animal biology, so bear with me here. What I think I remember was that plants basically create carbohydrates(carbon+water, so essentially, an arrangement of Carbon/Hydrogen/Oxygen in varying quantities) from CO2 and water, with additional carbon from the soil, the reaction being powered by sunlight. Oxygen is the "waste material" in this. So assuming the above holds true, we extract the Oxygen released by the above, thus our "Oxygen refueling station"(which could theoretically double as a food refueling station), in exchange for some basic raw materials(faecal matter and/or additional supplements). Essentially, you're eating plants fueled by the crap of those who passed before you, and you're fueling the plants for the next generation of travellers who pass.
*pause for breath*
I think one other thing I considered above was that Venus' "day" and "year" are almost equal, which means one could theoretically have the plants working practically all year(200 days, so 2/3 of an Earth Year), with the only fear being that their cells would burn out(essentially, the plants would have maybe only half the lifespan of their terrestrial counterparts, assuming minimal genetic modification). The other problem I foresee is Hydrogen, or the lack thereof. It may be the most common element in the universe, but it's still a very large load of empty space out there. :smallfrown:

[Karoht]

@Death Star Greenhouse

Here's a pair of excellent resources you should look into. Just to give you an idea of what is possible on earth before you look to space. Especially if you plan on feeding plants with *ahem* compost.
www.growingpower.org
www.omegagarden.com

[Brother Oni]

The trouble with using them for off labvle uses is that they have not being tested as much, if at all, for their safety in such uses, how long they can be used safely and at what doses. It's one thing to pop a Viagra whenever an some guy wants an erection, it's another to use it chronically.

It depends. Generally medicines are tested for safety no matter what their usage, but they're not tested for efficacy in off label use.

Of course if the off label dosage or frequency exceeds that determined for the original use, then that obviously isn't tested for.

Technically speaking, Viagara's ED function is an off use label as it was originally developed for heart indications. Once its now (in)famous effects were discovered, they changed the clinical trials and development plan rapidly.

[Ravens_cry]

It depends. Generally medicines are tested for safety no matter what their usage, but they're not tested for efficacy in off label use.

Of course if the off label dosage or frequency exceeds that determined for the original use, then that obviously isn't tested for.

Technically speaking, Viagara's ED function is an off use label as it was originally developed for heart indications. Once its now (in)famous effects were discovered, they changed the clinical trials and development plan rapidly.
True enough. Another example is using small doses of Aspirin for its blood thinning qualities, which can be useful in preventing heart attacks.
This does tend to result in blood in the stool however.

[Soliloquy]

http://xkcd.com/695/

Counterpoint: http://abstrusegoose.com/204

[Yora]

Technically speaking, Viagara's ED function is an off use label as it was originally developed for heart indications. Once its now (in)famous effects were discovered, they changed the clinical trials and development plan rapidly.
Since then, they did more trials on the heart issues and there is a variant used and prescribed in such cases. It's just not that famous.

[Brother Oni]

Since then, they did more trials on the heart issues and there is a variant used and prescribed in such cases. It's just not that famous.

If you're talking about revatio, its dosage is lower and there are other medications on the market for the same indications. As far as I can tell, it's still exactly the same drug in the same form, so you could theoretically get the same effect as viagara by dosing up on revatio.

To be honest, it's hard to match the fame of viagara, both for its recreational misuse and it being the first product of its type (oral tablet for ED).

[Kindablue]

Why is it that physicists tell the media ( or that the media tells others ) that they discovered a new particle when they only discovered a new quark state?

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20090830.gif

[Karoht]

Why is it that physicists tell the media ( or that the media tells others ) that they discovered a new particle when they only discovered a new quark state?Because some people hear the word Quark and think of a Star Trek character rather than a term from physics.
Where the words Atom, Molecule, Polymer (many molecules), and Particle, all still have some meaning to the average public.

Also, the press doesn't give a hoot. Science doesn't sell, controversy sells. Occasionally scientific controversy sells.

[Yora]

I don't like team sports, and especially not silly american team sports. So a simple answer will be enough for me:

But I've read that the american sport "leagues" have a fixed number of teams and new players are recruited by the league organization and then there's a lottery which team goes first in picking one of the new players for their team, then who goes second, and so on.
But I also heard that american sport fans get hugely upset about players deciding to switch to another team. But if players can't chose the team that will pick them, how can they decide to switch? Aren't they employed by the league which tells them what team to play for?

[Grinner]

Some players are free agents, or mercenary players.

It also depends on the level of sports. I think what you're talking about is the college level sports, where a player applies to one or more teams. If he's accepted to multiple teams, more likely to happen if he's been "scouted", then he chooses one team to go with. He's allowed to switch teams at the last minute, but I suppose it's frowned upon by some.

Once you get to professional sports, the decorum associated with teams changes. Then, players become more like Pokemon cards.

[Soliloquy]

Best. Mental. Image. Ever.:smallbiggrin:

[Eldan]

Physics question: is it possible for a planet to have a natural geostationary satellite, as in, a moon? Could that moon also be tidal locked?

Because I had an idea for a weird SciFi story, basically.

[Ravens_cry]

Physics question: is it possible for a planet to have a natural geostationary satellite, as in, a moon? Could that moon also be tidal locked?

Because I had an idea for a weird SciFi story, basically.
I believe Pluto's moon Charon is in fact a real life example of this, though depending on the mass of the moon you may want to look up the effects on tides.

[factotum]

Physics question: is it possible for a planet to have a natural geostationary satellite, as in, a moon? Could that moon also be tidal locked?

I'd say any moon close enough to its primary to be in geostationary orbit would *have* to be tidally locked--in the case of the Earth that would be more than ten times closer than our Moon is now! (Let's hope this moon of yours is a bit smaller than ours :smallwink:). It would be a fairly unlikely astronomical coincidence, of course, but then, so is our Moon being so close in size to the Sun (as seen from the Earth's surface) that during an eclipse it can exactly block out the main part of it and leave the solar corona visible.

[EDIT] Oh, the reason the Pluto-Charon system is like this, incidentally, is because the two bodies are not far off being the same size, so they're both tidally locked to each other. That would be a reasonable way to do what you want, thinking about it.

[Ravens_cry]

How big would a basically Earth sized double planet be in the sky at these distances apart?

[Elemental]

How big would a basically Earth sized double planet be in the sky at these distances apart?

Not sure if this answers your question... But when viewed from the Moon, the Earth has a diameter four times greater than that of the Full Moon observed from Earth.

Also, interesting note... A solar eclipse observed from the Moon in which the Earth passes over the Sun would last for hours with the Earth's atmosphere visible as a reddish ring around the planet.

[Ravens_cry]

So more than 40 times the size of a full moon.
OK, interesting.
The reason I asked is because I had an idea for a graphic novel involving two races in a double planet system launching the equivalent of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, told from the point of view of one of the astronauts, maybe even twice, once from a crewmember on each spacecraft.

[Elemental]

So more than 40 times the size of a full moon.
OK, interesting.
The reason I asked is because I had an idea for a graphic novel involving two races in a double planet system launching the equivalent of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, told from the point of view of one of the astronauts, maybe even twice, once from a crewmember on each spacecraft.

Sounds interesting.
However, I think at that distance the two would be tidally locked, which would cause problems.
But you can ignore all that. Science should not get in the way of a story, only enhance it.

[Ravens_cry]

Sounds interesting.
However, I think at that distance the two would be tidally locked, which would cause problems.
But you can ignore all that. Science should not get in the way of a story, only enhance it.
Like what? Could they spin around a central point, like some binary stars?

[Elemental]

Like what? Could they spin around a central point, like some binary stars?

I would think that they would spin around a central point because the centre of mass of a system of two equally sized objects would be between them somewhere.
However, the problems I was thinking of would be concerning ocean and land tides. Tides caused by the Moon are already significant, tides caused by an object with the mass of the Earth would be substantially greater.
Edit: Yes, the land tides would be significant, resulting in earthquakes.

[Ravens_cry]

I would think that they would spin around a central point because the centre of mass of a system of two equally sized objects would be between them somewhere.
However, the problems I was thinking of would be concerning ocean tides (possibly land tides, but I'm not certain). Tides caused by the Moon are already significant, tides caused by an object with the mass of the Earth would be substantially greater.
Not to mention closer. It could be background stuff, alluded to but normal for them so not exactly mentioned much.

[Douglas]

Physics question: is it possible for a planet to have a natural geostationary satellite, as in, a moon? Could that moon also be tidal locked?

Because I had an idea for a weird SciFi story, basically.
That's pretty much the definition of tidal locking, I believe. All planet/satellite systems will shift towards that configuration over time, it's just a matter of how quickly and how far off the initial state was.


I would think that they would spin around a central point because the centre of mass of a system of two equally sized objects would be between them somewhere.
However, the problems I was thinking of would be concerning ocean and land tides. Tides caused by the Moon are already significant, tides caused by an object with the mass of the Earth would be substantially greater.
Edit: Yes, the land tides would be significant, resulting in earthquakes.
Ah, but we're talking about two objects that are tidally locked with each other - which means that there aren't any tides.

Tides are the mechanism that causes tidal locking, and they are caused by two objects orbiting each other without being tidally locked. If tidal locking has already been achieved, then there are no more tides.

[Elemental]

Ah, but we're talking about two objects that are tidally locked with each other - which means that there aren't any tides.

Tides are the mechanism that causes tidal locking, and they are caused by two objects orbiting each other without being tidally locked. If tidal locking has already been achieved, then there are no more tides.

Of course, you're right about that. How could I forget that?
Anyway... I'm pretty sure there'd be some significant seismic effects on a pair of geologically active planets that are tidally locked to one another.

[Ravens_cry]

Perhaps the side that points toward the other planet would bulge somewhat, but by how much?

[Elemental]

Perhaps the side that points toward the other planet would bulge somewhat, but by how much?

That question is up to the people who know how to work that out.
However, the seismic effects I was referring to would likely take the form of increased volcanic activity and a higher number of earthquakes.

[AtomicKitKat]

That question is up to the people who know how to work that out.
However, the seismic effects I was referring to would likely take the form of increased volcanic activity and a higher number of earthquakes.

That is just the pre-Apocalypse. As time goes on, the planets will eventually become smooshed into one another, and a new, bigger planet, with maybe 1.5 times the mass(the remaining 0.5 got blown off into space on impact, before the combined gravity trapped the rest in orbit, and subsequently reabsorbs them) of either of the originals will be formed.

All of the above of course, assumes Earth-like planetary composition. If the planet were a solid chunk of *insert metal here*, there'd be more gravity(increased mass/density being the cause), but far fewer seismic effects upon its surface. If the planet was light to begin with, then more of its surface would be jettisoned on impact.

[Yora]

Are we speaking of two earth-size planets, with earth-mass, at the distance of pluto and charon, which are both tidally locked to each other?

In a perfect configuration, there would be no tidal forces at all. Both planets would have entered a gravitational equilibrium and the gravitational effect at each point of both planets would always be the same. So you don't have the squeezing effect that is found on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. These moons do not orbit their planets in a perfect circle.
But of course, you wouldn't find a perfect circle anywhere and there will always be minor irregularities in the gravitational effects, so a bit of squeezing on both objects will always appear. How great that effect would be would be whatever you chose.
However, given that Ploto and Charon are both a small fraction of the mass of Earth, that distance between two earth-size planets would probably not work.

[QUOTE=factotum;13187236]It would be a fairly unlikely astronomical coincidence, of course, but then, so is our Moon being so close in size to the Sun (as seen from the Earth's surface) that during an eclipse it can exactly block out the main part of it and leave the solar corona visible.QUOTE]
Pure coincidence, since the distance of the moon increases over time. Some million years ago, the corona would not have been visible. Some million years in the future, it will not be able to cover the sun.

[Ravens_cry]

Not Pluto Charon distances, a bit further actually, at geosyncranous orbit, though it can be farther if I make the day longer.

[Yora]

Now I see. For doube-tidal lock, you probably would need a geosynchronous orbit.

However, that applies only if one body is significantly more massive than the other. With two bodies of similar size, they would be orbiting a shared center of gravity, neither would be orbiting the other.

Let's aproach this whole thing from the other side: What are the parameters that you want to be included in the final result?
I believe it is to have a large planet visible in the sky at a fixed position, for people on either planet?

[factotum]

I wonder how long it would take for two Earth-sized bodies to become tidally locked to each other when orbiting at, say, Moon distances? Bear in mind here that your geostationary orbit distance doesn't have to be the same 22k miles (or thereabouts) that it is for Earth--if the "prime" planet spins slower then geostationary orbit is higher. If you had two Earth-sized planets 250k miles apart that were tidally locked then the day would be an Earthly month long, mind you, which might cause problems.

Actually, there's another issue I can see as well. If there was a massive body in geosynchronous orbit, you effectively lose most of your ability to put communications satellites in that orbit; only the Lagrange points of the system would be stable points, anywhere else would require so much station-keeping thrust due to the disruption caused by the moon that it would be impractical to put anything up there. Imagine how our modern world would be without communications satellites!

[Elemental]

Actually, there's another issue I can see as well. If there was a massive body in geosynchronous orbit, you effectively lose most of your ability to put communications satellites in that orbit; only the Lagrange points of the system would be stable points, anywhere else would require so much station-keeping thrust due to the disruption caused by the moon that it would be impractical to put anything up there. Imagine how our modern world would be without communications satellites!

Oh no! We would have to make do with a land based system!
Seriously, we'd be fine. If we never used them in the first place, we'd never become reliant on them.

[Ravens_cry]

Now I see. For doube-tidal lock, you probably would need a geosynchronous orbit.

However, that applies only if one body is significantly more massive than the other. With two bodies of similar size, they would be orbiting a shared center of gravity, neither would be orbiting the other.

Let's aproach this whole thing from the other side: What are the parameters that you want to be included in the final result?
I believe it is to have a large planet visible in the sky at a fixed position, for people on either planet?
Basically the opening splash screen is a great curve of one planet, with the other hanging overhead also only partially visible with one spacecraft shutting down the third stage booster (or something like the Agena Target Vehicle) after orbital insertion with the sun to one side, probably the left.
No stars.

[Elemental]

Basically the opening splash screen is a great curve of one planet, with the other hanging overhead also only partially visible with one spacecraft shutting down the third stage booster (or something like the Agena Target Vehicle) after orbital insertion with the sun to one side, probably the left.
No stars.

Of course there wouldn't be any stars. You've got the sun in the sky.
You can't see stars during the day time on the Moon where there's very little atmosphere, so you're unlikely to in space.

Also, there would be tides, but they'd be solar tides, and thus not as high.

[Ravens_cry]

Of course there wouldn't be any stars. You've got the sun in the sky.
You can't see stars during the day time on the Moon where there's very little atmosphere, so you're unlikely to in space.

Also, there would be tides, but they'd be solar tides, and thus not as high.
Exactly. I'm also working on some space vehicle designs that are hybrids of various flown, and unflown, capsules, like the Apollo D-2 (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apollod2.htm) proposal.

[Brother Oni]

In fantasy and sci-fi settings, is there a term for a sentient species that eats other sentient species?

I hesitate to use the term cannibal since that generally implies eating your own species.

An example would be the Pak'ma'ra from Babylon 5, but all available sources I can find state that they're carrion eaters and distain fresh meat, to the point that such foodstuffs can cause intense nausea and involuntary projectile vomiting.

I was thinking some cobbled together term (xenovore or something), but I can't think of a more suitable generic term for a sentient being.

[Elemental]

Hmm... That's a tricky one.
All I know is that there is no word in the English language. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to come up with a suitable word for these kinds of things.
All I can think of is that xenovore is a terrible idea because it involves eating things that are classified as foreign, strange or unknown. Not really what you're going for.

[Brother Oni]

Hmm... That's a tricky one.
All I know is that there is no word in the English language.

I believe that most of these terms have Greek/Latin roots anyway (carnivore, omnivore, herbivore, with the various subdivisions like piscivore, insectivore, etc), so wasn't really expecting to find something in English.



All I can think of is that xenovore is a terrible idea because it involves eating things that are classified as foreign, strange or unknown. Not really what you're going for.

Yeah, I wasn't really expecting that one to work - was thinking of the 40K term Xenos (meaning any non-human), which probably wasn't a good idea to begin with.
I know the Aliens from the Alien franchise are sometimes referred to as xenomorphs and the Colonial Marines generally refer to such things as 'bugs' in a derogatory manner, indicating that they encounter (and exterminate) such extraterrestial critters on a fairly common basis.

Hmmm, maybe something involving 'extraterrestrial'?

[Elemental]

Hmmm, maybe something involving 'extraterrestrial'?

Extraterrarian?
It's similar to vegetarian.

[Brother Oni]

Extraterrarian?
It's similar to vegetarian.

Hmmm, true. The problem is that it sounds very similar to a Terry Pratchet joke about werewolves and humanitarians, so was trying to come up with something a bit more grandiose.

The more I think about it, extraterrarian sounds fine for colloquial/dergoatory term for a sci-fi setting and I can probably find something in-universe blasphemous for a fantasy one.

[Matthias2207]

Carnivore is Latin, Xenos is Greek. So xenovore would be some weird crossover, we don't want that. Extraterrestrial isn't a good choice either, because that would mean eating things from other planets than Earth. We want sentient beings eating other sentient beings, so we need a word with 'intelligence', 'thinking', 'conscious' or something along those lines. Sapivore? From Homo Sapiens, the thinking man?

[Elemental]

I was thinking of something along those lines, I just couldn't think of a good way to say it.
But, wouldn't it mean something along the lines of "thought-eater"?

[Matthias2207]

... Yes... Probably.
Meat-eater, plant-eater, all-eater, thought-eater.
A little awkward, but with a little explanation, most would understand what you meant by it.
Sentivore?
Animus is consciousness, so animovore?
But why would someone want to specifically eat meat from sentient beings anyway?

[Elemental]

Either religion, culture or superstition.
Religion as a form of ritual sacrifice; culture as a way of proving yourself; and superstition because you believe that you gain the strength of the consumed individual.

Other reasons are possible.

[Brother Oni]

Either religion, culture or superstition.
Religion as a form of ritual sacrifice; culture as a way of proving yourself; and superstition because you believe that you gain the strength of the consumed individual.

Other reasons are possible.

In my case, I was thinking about a race that essentially had the W40K Space Marine omophagea implant (http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Creation_of_a_Space_Marine#Omophagea), and how it would affect their development, culture and general perception by the larger universe.

Given how their closest equivalent in B5 are viewed, the general consensus is 'not very well'.

Thinking about it some more, aren't mindflayers from D&D pretty much the same, or do they subsist on other foodstuffs?

[Yora]

I'd like to ask my own question about planetary systems:

What would the day-night cycle on moons like those of Jupiter and Saturn be like? Assuming tidal locking for simplicity.
On the one hand you would have strong planetshine during the "night" but a massive solar eclipse every "day". And how long would a full cycle last?

[factotum]

If the moon is tidally locked then its day/night cycle would be the same as its orbital period--those are listed on Wikipedia, so for Jupiter that would range from a little over seven hours (Metis) to nearly three Earth years (S/2003 J 2--catchy name there :smallwink:). A daily solar eclipse wouldn't necessarily happen, though, because most of the moons' orbits are not exactly aligned with the ecliptic (e.g. the moon would pass "above" or "below" Jupiter relative to the Sun). In addition, for a tidally locked moon, there would be many places on the surface where you would spend the entire day with Jupiter on the opposite side of the moon from you, so those places would not see a solar eclipse in the way you're thinking. Of course, that would vary according to the time of year, so some parts would get eclipses in summer, some in winter.

[Elemental]

Clearly, Yora desires real estate on the planet side of the moon.
Wise decision as the views would be spectacular.

And yes... There'd be a lot of planetshine.

[Xuc Xac]

In addition, for a tidally locked moon, there would be many places on the surface where you would spend the entire day with Jupiter on the opposite side of the moon from you, so those places would not see a solar eclipse in the way you're thinking. Of course, that would vary according to the time of year, so some parts would get eclipses in summer, some in winter.

For a tidally locked moon, the hemisphere facing away from Jupiter would always face away from Jupiter. That's what "tidally locked" means. The only parts of the moon that would witness a solar eclipse (when Jupiter blocks the sun) would be on the subjovian hemispere. The antijovian hemisphere would have day and night as the moon rotates relative to the sun, but it would never see Jupiter no matter what time of year it was.

[Elemental]

For a tidally locked moon, the hemisphere facing away from Jupiter would always face away from Jupiter. That's what "tidally locked" means. The only parts of the moon that would witness a solar eclipse (when Jupiter blocks the sun) would be on the subjovian hemispere. The antijovian hemisphere would have day and night as the moon rotates relative to the sun, but it would never see Jupiter no matter what time of year it was.

Somehow, subjovian and antijovian do not seem like the words you were looking for.
Maybe...
We'd be looking for the prefixes that mean facing and facing away from...
Not below and against.

Unfortunately... My mind refuses to think of them.
Does anyone have any clue as to what they are?

[Xuc Xac]

Somehow, subjovian and antijovian do not seem like the words you were looking for.

They are the exact words.

Per Wikipedia:
"The side of Io that always faces Jupiter is known as the subjovian hemisphere, while the side that always faces away is known as the antijovian hemisphere. The side of Io that always faces in the direction that the moon travels in its orbit is known as the leading hemisphere, while the side that always faces in the opposite direction is known as the trailing hemisphere."

The subjovian surface is "below Jupiter" because Jupiter is always in its sky. The antijovian surface is "opposite Jupiter" because it's... opposite Jupiter.

[Elemental]

They are the exact words.

Per Wikipedia:
"The side of Io that always faces Jupiter is known as the subjovian hemisphere, while the side that always faces away is known as the antijovian hemisphere. The side of Io that always faces in the direction that the moon travels in its orbit is known as the leading hemisphere, while the side that always faces in the opposite direction is known as the trailing hemisphere."

The subjovian surface is "below Jupiter" because Jupiter is always in its sky. The antijovian surface is "opposite Jupiter" because it's... opposite Jupiter.

I suppose that makes sense.

[factotum]

For a tidally locked moon, the hemisphere facing away from Jupiter would always face away from Jupiter.

Yes, I realised that myself on re-reading my post this morning--I am fully aware of what "tidally locked" means, really I am! :smallwink:

[Yora]

Can someone explain to me the numbers thrown around in regard to the facebook stocks?

38$ per share times about 420 million shares gets a total of 104 billion. That number I understand.

Also, they are giving out the shares at a price that is higher than their current value. So after the sale all the stock combined are worth 18,4 billion $ more than before the sale. That's normal, that's what selling shares is all about: Getting more money for the company.

Now to the interesting parts. The german news sites I've been reading use the word "Erlös", which appears to be a translation of revenue. But they are not economy news sites and I have a hunch their use of the word is a bit fuzzy and they are not actually meaning revenue. And I'm also not completely sure what either terms specifically means.

So:
How much money does facebook has as income per year?
How much money remains, when you substract the bills they have to pay?
How much cash does the company have on bank accounts and stored away in bills and coins?
Since they want people to buy stocks, these numbers must be available somewhere to company outsiders.

[GolemsVoice]

I just typed "Facebook figures (Kennzahlen)" into google, here's what it gave me:
2011 they made about 3.711 billion dollar, of which 1 billion is actual profit (before taxes)

Look here: http://www.thomashutter.com/index.php/2012/02/facebook-neuer-press-room-aktuelle-nutzungsdaten-kennzahlen-firmengeschichte-als-timeline/

I don't know how valid that is, however.

[Yora]

So with "total costs and expsenses" of 1,95 billion and "income from opperations" of 1,75 billion, that's a profit of 200 million. How do they get to a net income of 1 billion?

[GolemsVoice]

3,711 - 1,955 = 1,756
1,756 - 0,756 (taxes etc.) = 1

It's like a substraction going downwards, not individual numbers

[factotum]

Note that a profit of $1 billion, while it seems a lot, is actually pretty pathetic for a company that's valuing itself at more than $100 billion, which is the main worry people have about the Facebook IPO--e.g. that either Facebook is going to have to change its business model to get more income to shareholders, or that it's going to tank big-time and lots of investors are going to lose money!

[Yora]

The main issue is, that in this case they don't start selling stocks to raise capital for investments in infrastructure or product research, or anything like that. They already have more than enough money to do that.

So why would people who run and own a company by themselves want other people to buy parts of the company? This means they will have to share all the profits the company will make in the future. If they wouldn't sell stocks, they could keep the profits all to themselves.

The only explaination is: The people in charge want to transform their company shares and future profits into cash right now.
Why would anyone, especially people who run the company, want to do that, unless they are expecting that there won't be any profits in the future and the company itself will lose worth.

In short: People are trying to get rid of their shares and have found a way to make it sound as if it is a good thing.

[Elemental]

I personally stay away from economics as I find them difficult to understand and am not rich enough to need to worry about them.

[Karoht]

I was looking long and hard at the Facebook IPO as a short term play.

I'm kind of glad I didn't. Yes, it is selling, but the early trade numbers are not enthusiastic. And the IP pricing means that Day 1 profit will be difficult to come by.

I really hope that I'm not eating these words in a week. Or tomorrow.
But I will be honest, I don't see Facebook as a good long term play. It is only one big tech change and a fickle userbase away from being greatly diminished.
Yes I am a Facebook user, heck, I actually like Timeline, but a change like Timeline could impact them in big ways, where that wasn't such a big deal when they were a private company instead of a public one.



I personally stay away from economics as I find them difficult to understand and am not rich enough to need to worry about them.You may not think yourself rich enough to worry about them, but trust me when I say that everyone is poor enough to worry about them.

[GolemsVoice]

As far as I can tell with my limited understanding of economics, as a big company (meaning really big) you just don't get the cash from anywhere else. So by selling stocks, they can raise a huge amount of money in relatively short time.



So why would people who run and own a company by themselves want other people to buy parts of the company? This means they will have to share all the profits the company will make in the future. If they wouldn't sell stocks, they could keep the profits all to themselves.

I guess few leaders of big stock market registered companies depend on their companies profit for income. I'd say the owners of Facebook can expect to get paid handsomely even if they sell stocks. Also, as owners, they get to keep the majority of stocks for themselves, I'd say, so that they maintain their influence.

[Elemental]

You may not think yourself rich enough to worry about them, but trust me when I say that everyone is poor enough to worry about them.

I should clarify that I'm not rich enough to be concerned with share-markets.

[Yora]

Even if facebook would be a sustainable long-term business model and will have 15% of the worlds population as customers for the next 50 years, all these assests would still not be worth 104 billion dollars (which may well grow to 138 billion in the next days).
If you buy stocks, you don't get your moneys worth. You assume to get your moneys worth at some time in the future. And I really don't think this is ever going to happen.

[Karoht]

I should clarify that I'm not rich enough to be concerned with share-markets.If you have a job, you want to be at least moderately informed with them.
If you have a car, knowing that oil stocks declined or rose is rather important.
If you have a house, knowing that the Real Estate Income Trusts (REIT's) are in trouble is rather useful knowledge.
If you work in a trade, knowing the connection to the bank performance of last quarter is quite good info.
If you have a bank account at a publically traded bank, yes, you will want to know what is going on.
But watch gold stocks. They telegraph all kinds of boom and bust. Even though gold is not connected to currency anymore.




Even if facebook would be a sustainable long-term business model and will have 15% of the worlds population as customers for the next 50 years, all these assests would still not be worth 104 billion dollars (which may well grow to 138 billion in the next days).I would say to never underestimate the power of market share. But I agree, this company doesn't appear to be worth 104B right now. Savvy investors are going to figure that out.


If you buy stocks, you don't get your moneys worth. You assume to get your moneys worth at some time in the future. And I really don't think this is ever going to happen.In the instance of Facebook, I agree with this.
That bolded part though? Well, if you didn't get your moneys worth buying them, you would never get your moneys worth selling. And if that were to happen, guys like me wouldn't make money trading from time to time.
Though I'm probably reading to far into that statement, so take that with a grain of salt.

[Elemental]

If you have a job, you want to be at least moderately informed with them.
If you have a car, knowing that oil stocks declined or rose is rather important.
If you have a house, knowing that the Real Estate Income Trusts (REIT's) are in trouble is rather useful knowledge.
If you work in a trade, knowing the connection to the bank performance of last quarter is quite good info.
If you have a bank account at a publically traded bank, yes, you will want to know what is going on.
But watch gold stocks. They telegraph all kinds of boom and bust. Even though gold is not connected to currency anymore.

How to say this without sounding really pathetic...
I'm unemployed, can't drive, live with my parents, don't have trade qualifications, Australian banks are relatively stable and own less than an ounce of gold (but I still like to keep apprised of gold prices as a matter of personal interest).
But I'm nineteen and suffer from anxiety, so it's nothing too terrible.

And now, to steer the conversation completely away from a discussion of finance...

How is it that a severed arm from certain varieties of starfish is capable of growing a whole new starfish?
It doesn't seem like it should make sense...

[Yora]

As far as I can tell with my limited understanding of economics, as a big company (meaning really big) you just don't get the cash from anywhere else. So by selling stocks, they can raise a huge amount of money in relatively short time.
In theory: Yes. That's what stocks are for. Instead of taking a massive loan from a bank, companies can invite other people to join the company and add part of their personal wealth to the companies assets in exchange for a proportional share of the profits.

However, this does not seem to be the case.
1.) Why does facebook need money? I think the estimated wealth before the IPO was about $86 billion (104 minus the 18 they want to raise in new money). Why does a company with annual expenses of $1,95 billion and $86 billion in assets need $18 billion for?
2.) On some economic news sites, I've read that the new $18 billions are not actually added to the company. Instead the previous owners take those $18 billion and leave. (Or actually 57% of those 18 billion, I think.) They don't leave completely and many keep a large part of their shares, but this money is now out of danger. It sits in a bank account and whatever happens to the company, nobody will touch it. At the same time, these previous owners now get a smaller share of the companies profits.

Selling stocks is a reasonable and often smart way to raise capital for a company that needs to expand its infrastructure or invent new technologies, but can't cover the expenses with the cash it currently has. That's simply an investment: Pay some money now to make additional profits in the long run.
But from what I can tell (which admitedly is not that very much), Facebook is not going to invest any of the raised money at all. It's just a couple of people cashing out and jumping ship. And those people are also the people who run the company, so they know how things are right now and how the company is expected to do in the future.
It's all very fishy, to the point of some people calling it a scam or a heist.

So why is anyone buying these stocks if all sigsn say the rats are leaving the sinking ship? On the one side, it's assumed that lots of small buyers have no idea what they are buying at all, they only know that Facebook is really big and there's been a great hype about everyone wanting those stocks. Who has generated the hype? The people who will recieve the money. On the other side, you have these huge evil investment banks. They don't buy stocks to keep them for themselves, but instead they buy stocks for people who told them "I don't have a clue about stocks. Buy some for me which you think will be good and I give you some money for your service of taking care of these things for me". How much they get paid for their service depends on how expensive each stock is. So they are interested that the price goes really high, so they get more money from their clients. And facebook is dealing with all of these big banks. Which also happen to be the primary "judges" how much the stocks are actually worth. But then you would wonder "If their clients lose all their money, won't they lose all their clients?". Yes they would. In which case the government comes in and bails them out with tax money.
And third, there are probably many people who think "I buy the stocks now, wait three days for them to grow, and then sell them all again quickly". Before everyone realizes these stocks aren't worth anything and want to get rid of them as well.

Again, I am no expert and I've been searching for articles written by experts specifically for those that have a negative view.

[Yora]

In the instance of Facebook, I agree with this.
That bolded part though? Well, if you didn't get your moneys worth buying them, you would never get your moneys worth selling.
Okay, that's obviously true. You almost never get your moneys worth immediately when buying stocks. The basic idea is that people sell when they think they get more cash now than payouts in the future, and that people buy when they think they will get more payouts in the future than they are paying right now.

There's nothing special about Facebook in this regard.
Only that the people who are selling have much deeper knowledge about the company than the people who are buying. And the expectations of future payouts buyers must have is waaaaay.... above what they are currently paying. And as I would argue, even way above any best case scenario.

If I am not mistaken (quoting a german site here), you get a certain factor when coparing the price of a stock with the share of the annual profits the stock provides you. The average factor of the most important companies is 13, which I assume means that your share of the profits over 13 years will be as high as the price you pay if you buy a share right now. For Facebook, that factor is over 100!
Sure, if you have enough shares, that's still a lot of money you make on the long time. But there are other stocks out there which would get you ten times that much money.

That is of course, unless you buy the stock with the expectation to sell it again for a profit long before the share paid for itself. Or you expect the company to be much more profitable in the future than it is right now. However, there is no indication of that happen. Instead the opposite is the case so you probably won't get your investment back in 100 years but even later.

[Matthias2207]

How to say this without sounding really pathetic...
I'm unemployed, can't drive, live with my parents, don't have trade qualifications, Australian banks are relatively stable and own less than an ounce of gold (but I still like to keep apprised of gold prices as a matter of personal interest).
But I'm nineteen and suffer from anxiety, so it's nothing too terrible.
That sounds suspiciously like me. Except for the relatively stable Australian banks. Dutch economy is worse than hell right now.

And now, to steer the conversation completely away from a discussion of finance...

How is it that a severed arm from certain varieties of starfish is capable of growing a whole new starfish?
It doesn't seem like it should make sense...

Let's see... Every cell has the full DNA and starfish don't really have organs. They're arms with a mouth in the middle, but... Without a mouth they can't eat, they don't get energy to grow... Yeah, it doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm sure there is someone here better qualified to explain it, though.

[Yora]

Apparently, nutrients are stored throughout the entire body of a starfish. These can be enough to regrow enough of the body to be able to eat again before it starves. The bigger the fragment is, the higher it's chance to do that.
Some species of starfish even split themselves to reproduce in that way.
However, mortality rates for severed arms are extremely high, I think I saw a number way over 80%, and that was under controlled circumstances in captivity. In the wild, it's probably much worse, as single arms are probably very easy prey.

[AtomicKitKat]

I guess in a way, Starfish are much like Hydra(the plankton-esque organism, not the mythological cryptid) and Annelids(Earthworms). Providing you have enough nutrients, and a simple enough structure. Earthworms are essentially an alimentary canal(mouth to anus), surrounded by a tube of muscles. Earthworms can regenerate, but only if the "saddle" part is unbroken, and whichever half has it will regrow, while the other dies. I might be mistaken about this, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that starfish have multiple hearts, which could also help.

[Ravens_cry]

Some also have a stomach in each arm as well if I am reading Wikipedia right.

[Eldan]

From reading the same article: they have several stomachs, one central stomach, from where the food is then transported to a second stomach in the arms.

THey also don't really seem to have a heart, just a system of tubes.

[Yora]

Why does rain smell? And what does it actually smell of?

[Xuc Xac]

Petrichor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrichor)

[Matthias2207]

:smalleek: It actually has a name!? That's pretty awesome...

[Ravens_cry]

:smalleek: It actually has a name!? That's pretty awesome...
Sounds almost as lovely as it is; I love the smell of rain. Another smell I love is after it has rained, and especially if a lot of flowers are blooming, there is an intense, almost sugary sweetness to the air.

[Eldan]

And the translation is interesting.

I just imagine going out after a storm, now, taking a deep breath, and saying:

"Aaaah, the stones are bleeding the humours of the gods. I love that smell."

[Ravens_cry]

And the translation is interesting.

I just imagine going out after a storm, now, taking a deep breath, and saying:

"Aaaah, the stones are bleeding the humours of the gods. I love that smell."
A melange baked into Earth by the Fire of the Sun, released by Rain's Water into Sky's Air.
What else would gods bleed?

[GolemsVoice]

But does it smell like victory?

[Eldan]

Nono. You have your alchemy wrong. Victory is a major fire/minor water smell. This is a major earth and water/minor air and fire smell.

[Ravens_cry]

OK, medical question, how does cyanosis look different on someone with lots of melanin? If they turn pale, how pale compared to people with less melanin?
If they turn blue, what kind of blue?
Is it more noticeable or less?

[Brother Oni]

OK, medical question, how does cyanosis look different on someone with lots of melanin? If they turn pale, how pale compared to people with less melanin?
If they turn blue, what kind of blue?
Is it more noticeable or less?

According to some digging, depending on how dark the person is, cyanosis may not be detectable until ~75% oxygen saturation compared to it being visible in fairer skinned people at about 85%.

Most of the time, it appears to be comparative measurements, i.e. is one part of a patient darker than the other side, or is the skin immediately above or below the affected area a different colour.

This page (http://www.ehow.co.uk/how_6880150_do-lower-extremities-dark-skin_.html) suggests things to look for and possible observable differences in patients with cyanosis in the lower extremities.
About the best tip they have for a simple appearance test is to look for lighter coloured tissue, such as the nail bed or gums, and see whether it has the characteristic blue/purple tint.

Wikipedia has some images of what to look for: Image 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cynosis.JPG); Image 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aterialthrombosis.jpg) (in the patient's right foot). You could probably use your imagination (or photoshop) to get an idea of how it looks on a person with darker skin.

[Ravens_cry]

Thank you. The reason I asked is because I was wondering how to describe this in a story, beyond the generic 'they turned blue/went pale', which, while often an acceptable shorthand, isn't very evocative.

[Brother Oni]

Thank you. The reason I asked is because I was wondering how to describe this in a story, beyond the generic 'they turned blue/went pale', which, while often an acceptable shorthand, isn't very evocative.

Just bear in mind that while the typical term is 'they turned blue', it's actually closer to purple depending on the saturation level, since blue+red = purple. :smallbiggrin:

Since you're writing a story about how it appears, patient behaviour and other signs may be of some use (assuming they're not unconscious): depending on the cause of the cyanosis, you may get temperatures/fevers (pneumonia based), poor chest movement (they can't get enough air), along with wheezing (if their lungs are impaired by injury or disease), plus clubbing (swelling on the finger joints and toes).

I also missed another stereotypical sign - their lips turning blue, or rather the skin around their lips in darker skinned people.

Edit: found a picture of someone's hands: link (http://byebyedoctor.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/cyanosis-pictures-3.jpg). Note the clubbing and purple colour of the nail bed near the finger tips.

[Urpriest]

:smalleek: It actually has a name!? That's pretty awesome...

Indeed it is. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxR808buN0U)

Edit: Link appears irrelevant, gimme a moment to find the right one. The title is the important part.

Edit: Actually it's fine.

[AtomicKitKat]

Huh. Rock-bleeding. Gotta keep that mental image in mind for if I ever go on a trivia show.

I don't have the funds or expertise for this, but I was wondering. How viable would it be to make say, a waterproofed-wood(for the chassis, since it'll be easier than getting one of steel/aluminium) car out of bicycle parts and clockworks? Ideally, it should be able to be "charged"(wind a spring, escapements to regulate, later on, we can talk batteries) by way of both hand and foot pedals, so that you can release the brake and accelerate from a dead-stop at traffic lights. Also, able to achieve highway level speeds(around 40-50mph/65-80km/h).

[factotum]

Making a car out of wood isn't a problem, Morgan have been doing it for years! (They seriously have wooden chassis in those cars). Clockwork, though, might be a bit trickier--what are you going to use as a spring powerful enough to propel a vehicle like this at all, much less at highway speeds? How are you going to wind that spring in the first place?

[Ravens_cry]

I don't think clockwork spring technology would scale that well, though energy storage in the form of a flywheel might be doable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrobus).

[Matthias2207]

Clockwork, though, might be a bit trickier--what are you going to use as a spring powerful enough to propel a vehicle like this at all, much less at highway speeds? How are you going to wind that spring in the first place?

Gears. Multiple springs.

[AtomicKitKat]

Gears. Multiple springs.

What he said. The issue with the Flywheel bus(I did not know that existed, thanks. The bus I mean. I know what a Flywheel is.) is the weight to power ratio is horrendously bad. I'm thinking more along the lines of something say, Mystery Machine-esque(ie, a passenger van/minibus), with maybe half the height occupied by the various mechanisms(or alternatively, half the internal space, maybe somewhere in the middle for maximum efficiency?), and the ability to switch out unwound springs for freshly wound ones(perhaps by the non-driving passengers, or the driver, whenever he stops). IMHO, the spring switching mechanism has the greatest potential for failure, as you would need some way to keep a wound spring under tension, until such point as it is ready to be unleashed. Maybe if we broke this down into various parts...

For the purposes of ease of reading, I will refer to the entire spring+drum mechanisms as a "battery", and winding it up as "charging".

I foresee maybe a drum within which each spring is contained, and switching "batteries" as it were, involves moving the shaft which connects to the main drive-shaft from one "battery" to another, while simultaneously moving a "drained battery" to the shaft connecting to hand/foot pedals, so that it can be charged while the other is discharged. Maybe 3 in total, so that you can have one discharging, one on standby(to be moved into charging position), and one on charging.

Presumably, this vehicle only has one "gear", which goes from zero to maximum speed(estimating ideally about 60-70km/h, in order to qualify for highways), and anything else is basically locking the main driving gear(the one with the escapement regulator) to achieve a brake. I do not foresee it being available for clockwork motorcycles, due to the difficulties outlined above, which could be multiplied via miniaturisation. Conversely, the motorcycle could have a better power to weight ratio, due to lower inertia/friction(as the gears get bigger, the amount of inertia that has to be overcome to get them moving increases exponentially. square-cubed laws and all that).

Is my (rudimentary) amateur physics/engineering above accurate? I'd like this idea to work, if only because it's yet another alternative to oil(and it would work when solar/wind don't). It doesn't have to be wood. If the basic physics checks out, and the wooden models work, presumably, metal or high-durability plastics would provide a lighter vehicle with much the same amount of power, improving mileage as well as lifespan.

Another thing which puzzles me. Bear in mind, I live in the tropics(1 degree N), so rain is almost a given(except at this time of this year, when it's just humid but doesn't rain much). Why do we not install some kind of hydro-generator on the roofs of buses? It doesn't have to be much, just some kind of no-clog(they make those covers for sinks, that reduce clogging) pipe, with little waterwheels, that turn little turbines, that would power say, the electronics in the bus, or the lighting, or what-have-you. I've also thought of some other things, like installing giant wind turbines alongside expressways, to catch both the slipstream as well as air displaced by passing cars, or again, waterwheels on the sides of apartment buildings, or wind turbines off the edge of the roof(apparently, when the air "falls" off the roofs of high buildings, it creates a terrific breeze).

I've got tons of ideas, but no resources to implement them, so rather than keep them to myself, I have now decided to post them above, for your perusal/critique. Feel free to recommend them to your local officials, if they are plausible. I just ask that I get a little recognition(not financial, necessarily, but a shout-out would be nice) if they do get implemented. :smallbiggrin:

[Yora]

People, I need help. I can't figure this out with google-fu alone:

What if there were an earth like planet but with no major land masses near the equator, or at least distributed in such a way that there is a wide passage for tropical oceaning water to make trips around the entire globe without having to divert too far from the quator to cool off?
Would it just sit there and be happy exchanging heat with the arctic gulfs, or would it form a massive permanent current?

[Elemental]

People, I need help. I can't figure this out with google-fu alone:

What if there were an earth like planet but with no major land masses near the equator, or at least distributed in such a way that there is a wide passage for tropical oceaning water to make trips around the entire globe without having to divert too far from the quator to cool off?
Would it just sit there and be happy exchanging heat with the arctic gulfs, or would it form a massive permanent current?

That's a good question...
I don't know the answer, but I do know that the North-South orientation of most of the Earth's continents causes currents to move along their Eastern Coast lines... All I can say is that it'd have something to do with the coriolis effect. But yes, I do believe the currents at the equator would travel in a mostly straight line...

[factotum]

Would it just sit there and be happy exchanging heat with the arctic gulfs, or would it form a massive permanent current?

I can't see how it *could* form a constant current--there's no force making it do so. Real world constant currents like the Gulf Stream flow because of temperature differentials between the equator and the poles, but you're not going to get that with the situation you're talking about unless the world always presents the same face to its primary, in which case there would be constant currents flowing from the "hot" side to the cold side.

[Elemental]

I can't see how it *could* form a constant current--there's no force making it do so. Real world constant currents like the Gulf Stream flow because of temperature differentials between the equator and the poles, but you're not going to get that with the situation you're talking about unless the world always presents the same face to its primary, in which case there would be constant currents flowing from the "hot" side to the cold side.

Planetary rotation could do it (see above reference to the Coriolis Effect).
And surface currents are often caused by wind patterns.

[Ravens_cry]

I admit oceanography is not my strong suit, but the discussion does interest me.

[Yora]

Don't give the coriolis effect too much credit. On a global scale it does matter, but it's a really weak force at work and probably has a much stronger effect on high altitide air than at the much heavier sea water.

I think the power source would be sunlight. Water cools only by about 1 degree at night in tropical seas, but you'd have the warm spot circle the planet every day for millions of years on end. In addition you have the trade winds on earth which permanently blow in the same direction and also have a slight effect, and the tidal pull from the moon, which also goes the same direction. I think that might add up over time.

[Elemental]

Well... You did ask a question on a global scale in all fairness... At least that's how it sounded.
And yes, the coriolis effect is responsible for much of the motion of ocean currents.

As the very large chart, dating from 1943, in the following link shows, the oceans rotate counter clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere and Clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere.
And note, the Equatorial Currents are mostly straight where they are uninterrupted by land.

Aforementioned Chart (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Ocean_currents_1943_%28borderless%293.png). Note: It is quite sizeable.

[Yora]

Mini rhetoric question: How on earth did Herodotus get the idea that the undead God-King of the Egyptian Underworld, Osiris, was the Egyptian representation of the minor Roman party-god Dinonysus?

That the super-strong, hammer-weilding and monster-slyaing Thor is the Germanic representation of the super-strong, club-weilding and monster-slaying Hercules makes sense. And as a student of religious history and indo-european culture, I would even agree that this is the case. But the depressing zombie-god of the underworld and the party-god? :smalleek:

[factotum]

Planetary rotation could do it (see above reference to the Coriolis Effect).

The Coriolis effect is what happens when you have something travelling at an angle to the direction of rotation on a spherical surface--it is not a force and cannot, in itself, cause motion.

Yora, as for the trade winds, the reason they exist is a combination of the differential heating of the planet causing air to move away from the tropics with the Coriolis effect. In your stated example there is no real space for water to circulate away from the hot regions and so there's no way for the Coriolis effect to bend those water flows into a constant direction. The hot spot moving around the planet every day is not going to cause a current because it *is* moving, and so there's not enough time for a localised hot spot to form that might have associated currents, unless the planet is rotating very, very slowly.

[Purgatorius]

What does "Burlew" mean?

[Matthias2207]

What does "Burlew" mean?

Maybe this helps. (http://www.houseofnames.com/burlew-family-crest)
"It is a result of when they lived in the fort by the wood having derived from the Old English burhleah"

[Soliloquy]

The hot spot moving around the planet every day is not going to cause a current because it *is* moving, and so there's not enough time for a localised hot spot to form that might have associated currents, unless the planet is rotating very, very slowly.

How Slowly?

[GolemsVoice]

What does "Burlew" mean?

From the site Babynamer.com, for the name Burleigh:


Meaning: Its source is burh leah, an Old English name meaning "Wooden fort."

Origin: "burh leah."

[Dr. Bath]

Mini rhetoric question: How on earth did Herodotus get the idea that the undead God-King of the Egyptian Underworld, Osiris, was the Egyptian representation of the minor Roman party-god Dinonysus?

That the super-strong, hammer-weilding and monster-slyaing Thor is the Germanic representation of the super-strong, club-weilding and monster-slaying Hercules makes sense. And as a student of religious history and indo-european culture, I would even agree that this is the case. But the depressing zombie-god of the underworld and the party-god? :smalleek:

Herodotus thought a lot of things. Seemingly things he heard down the pub. Like that bekos story? Or the rubbish about gilded crocodiles? Jeeze Herodotus, cite your sources.

[factotum]

How Slowly?

I have no idea. Guessing it would have to take months for a full rotation, though.

[Gravitron5000]

Mini rhetoric question: How on earth did Herodotus get the idea that the undead God-King of the Egyptian Underworld, Osiris, was the Egyptian representation of the minor Roman party-god Dinonysus?

That the super-strong, hammer-weilding and monster-slyaing Thor is the Germanic representation of the super-strong, club-weilding and monster-slaying Hercules makes sense. And as a student of religious history and indo-european culture, I would even agree that this is the case. But the depressing zombie-god of the underworld and the party-god? :smalleek:

That one's easy. While partying, Dinonysus; the next morning, Osiris.

[Elemental]

Wait, wait, wait...
Dionysus was a Greek party god...

And yes, Herodotus probably made a lot of errors.
After all, when he travelled to Egypt, it was already an ancient land littered with the remains of former golden ages. And I doubt he bothered to learn hieroglyphics.

[Gnoman]

Mini rhetoric question: How on earth did Herodotus get the idea that the undead God-King of the Egyptian Underworld, Osiris, was the Egyptian representation of the minor Roman party-god Dinonysus?

That the super-strong, hammer-weilding and monster-slyaing Thor is the Germanic representation of the super-strong, club-weilding and monster-slaying Hercules makes sense. And as a student of religious history and indo-european culture, I would even agree that this is the case. But the depressing zombie-god of the underworld and the party-god? :smalleek:

Herotodus viewed the wrold through a very hellenic-centric viewpoint. If it wasn' derived from Greek culture, it was automatically of no value. Thus, when presented with something thad did have value, if only to the culture he was studying, it had to be found, somehow, to be derived from Greece. He insisted that every god, demigod, or hero of the regions he studied was simply a Greco-Roman god, demigod, or hero by another name. The fact that they didn't correlate in even a rough way was simply evidence that the barbarians were confused.

[Karoht]

Was anyone ever actually confused by the "full half a bowlful" on that one fiber cereal commercial? All the adults in that commercial look completely lost but I followed that logic at age 6.

[Dark Elf Bard]

Why do people enjoy cooking shows? I do, but I can't really say why.

Also: Why did people think that Alien was so scary? I saw it yesterday, and I've seen much, much scarier movies.

[Brother Oni]

Also: Why did people think that Alien was so scary? I saw it yesterday, and I've seen much, much scarier movies.

For the same reason why some people don't find Silent Hill scary - viewing it in the completely wrong environment.
It's hard to find an atmospheric game scary when you're reviewing it in a busy office during the day.

Also Alien came out in 1979 - I'd be very surprised if any of your scarier movies pre-date it.

[Karoht]

Most people who went to see Alien thought they would be seeing another stereotypical B-grade sci-fi/monster movie.

And then got a ground breaking, genuinely scary, non-b-grade (for the times) sci-fi/horror film, with excellent effects, environments, and an astonishingly good female lead character.


Most of the film is tension and atmosphere. But even just things like the dripping saliva from the xeno... yeah, it just added cred that this thing was around, maybe anywhere, and could kill someone before they knew it was there. That fear of the unknown is what the film really plays on, and it did so in some pretty clever ways.

And then of course the reveal that...
...the Android had basically sold them all up the river...
...and had no idea what they were dealing with, that takes that whole fear of the unknown and the lack of safe haven and just jacks it up to 11.


Meanwhile I think the success of Aliens lies in the fact that they kept many of those horror elements, just enough but not too much, and jacked up the sci-fi with a dose of rock'm sock'm action. I still think that the last 45 minutes of that film are some of the best 'scary action' stuff I have honestly ever seen. And the first hour of the film? Admittedly slow, but did so much world building and character building, and did it right.


I was so very very disappointed by Alien 3 and Resurrection. And especially disappointed by AVP.

That said, I have extremely high hopes and expectations for Prometheus. I hope it really focuses on that tention and atmosphere, goes for as much scary vibe as they can fit in.

[Kindablue]

Alien spoilers:
Holy crap that scene at the end when she's in the escape ship and the alien slowly slides out of the corner I just peed myself a little bit but ignore that and run Ripley ruuuuuuun

[Yora]

How are some animals able to hold their breath for a very long time, while humans without training can at the most reach 30 to 60 seconds?

I understand why whales and dolphins need that ability. But crocodiles and hippos would be okay with just 3 or 5 minutes between comming up for air, why would they develop the ability to stay under water without breathing for 30 minutes and much longer?

[The Succubus]

The second question I think I can provide some insight on.

The longer a predator remains hidden, the better chance it has of blending in with its surroundings. A crocodile, for example can hide on a river bed for 30 minutes. This means the water above it has had a chance to settle, the crocodile's smell has dissipated on the wind, lulling the unsuspecting prey into thinking it's moved off downstream. Patience is a virtue in predators and if you have to be patient underwater, then you'd better have good lung function.

[Matthias2207]

They have special blood. Humans have hemoglobin, but dolphins for example have stuff that can hold four (?/not completely sure about that.) times the amount of oxygen hemoglobin can. There are some other factors, lungs (mostly for diving, resisting great pressure), heart, other organs (consume less oxygen when diving), they all help.
And for the hippos, when hidden under water they are less likely to be eaten by crocodiles. The crocodiles need to stay under water to hunt the hippo.

[Ravens_cry]

Humans are persistence predators, with a lot of adaptations to support that, like our numerous sweat glands, while crocodiles are ambush predators.

[Karoht]

Many of the creatures which can hold their breath for long periods of time, also have slower metabolisms.
A crocodile/aligator only needs to eat something the size of a chicken about once a week to live comfortably.
When you metabolize that slow, it means you burn oxygen much slower than normal as well. So that lungful of air is a lot more meaningful.

[factotum]

Many of the creatures which can hold their breath for long periods of time, also have slower metabolisms.
A crocodile/aligator only needs to eat something the size of a chicken about once a week to live comfortably.

I think a crocodile's low metabolism is almost entirely down to it being a reptile, mind you...it's amazing how much energy mammals have to burn just to maintain their optimal body temperature, whereas crocs obviously don't need to bother with all that!

[Ravens_cry]

I think a crocodile's low metabolism is almost entirely down to it being a reptile, mind you...it's amazing how much energy mammals have to burn just to maintain their optimal body temperature, whereas crocs obviously don't need to bother with all that!
The price of ectothermic metabolism is being much more dependent on the surrounding temperatures, leading to behaviours like basking that can leave it open to being preyed upon by endothermic predictors.

[Elemental]

The price of ectothermic metabolism is being much more dependent on the surrounding temperatures, leading to behaviours like basking that can leave it open to being preyed upon by endothermic predictors.

Which a crocodile rarely has to worry about upon reaching maturity as most endothermic predators just go after easier meals.
I mean... Risk losing a leg for dinner? I'd rather go after a gazelle.

[AtomicKitKat]

Which a crocodile rarely has to worry about upon reaching maturity as most endothermic predators just go after easier meals.
I mean... Risk losing a leg for dinner? I'd rather go after a gazelle.

I'd rather go after a gazelle in just about any multiple choice meat test.:smallbiggrin:

I mean, if you think about it, an Ostrich is possibly one of the worst possible prey-targets for any predator without a range/ambush advantage. One kick from those things can break the femur. We're talking about a bone that regularly takes what, 4 tons of pressure per footfall*? This is a bone that is stronger than concrete!

*4 tons of pressure per footfall figure may not be accurate, but it's in my memory banks.

[Ravens_cry]

Actually a lot of bones, including the human femur, are stronger than concrete.
Ostriches apparently make good eating, though much more of a red meat compared to most birds, but with a lot less fat.

[Karoht]

Having sampled both Ostrich and Gazelle, I'll stick with Gazelle thanks.

And as a predator in the wild, I'll ignore Ostrich for the fact they are dangerous and covered in feathers. Feathers aren't very tasty. Kinda dry. Bleh.

[Ravens_cry]

Having sampled both Ostrich and Gazelle, I'll stick with Gazelle thanks.

And as a predator in the wild, I'll ignore Ostrich for the fact they are dangerous and covered in feathers. Feathers aren't very tasty. Kinda dry. Bleh.
Is gazelle like venison? If not, what is it like?
As an apeling, I'll just cheat and take either out at range.

[Karoht]

Is gazelle like venison? If not, what is it like?
As an apeling, I'll just cheat and take either out at range.Quite a bit like venison. Imagine really really stringy venison. But the stringy-ness actually improves the flavor rather than ruining it.

[Ravens_cry]

Quite a bit like venison. Imagine really really stringy venison. But the stringy-ness actually improves the flavor rather than ruining it.
Well, I'll definitely give it a try if I get the chance.
The weirdest meat I ever ate was cougar.
It was good, but I can't say much else as it was in a stew.

[Karoht]

Well, I'll definitely give it a try if I get the chance.
The weirdest meat I ever ate was cougar.
It was good, but I can't say much else as it was in a stew.Was that in vietnam by any chance? I have a friend who visited that country and returned with a similar story.

[Ravens_cry]

Was that in vietnam by any chance? I have a friend who visited that country and returned with a similar story.
No, Canada. It was hunting live stock, so it had to be dealt with, and, well, waste not want not.

[Matthias2207]

How is it possible that I can post in every thread, but not in the Minecraft thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13386111)?

[Douglas]

How is it possible that I can post in every thread, but not in the Minecraft thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13386111)?
Did the post you were trying to make include the word lynx, by any chance? Or perhaps a colon followed by 2 spaces?

[Elemental]

Did the post you were trying to make include the word lynx, by any chance? Or perhaps a colon followed by 2 spaces?

What's wrong with the word lynx? I mean... It's a fairly inocuous word to include in a post as it's a major variety of large cat formerly common to Europe, North America and parts of Asia, in particular Siberia...

[Tyndmyr]

Actually a lot of bones, including the human femur, are stronger than concrete.
Ostriches apparently make good eating, though much more of a red meat compared to most birds, but with a lot less fat.

In other news, concrete isn't at all strong in many ways. Tensile strength is a notable weak point. Given the wild varieties of ways in which we put stresses on our bodies, it's actually quite reasonable to have more a much more general-purpose material structurally than concrete, which of course means stronger than concrete in certain ways.

[Matthias2207]

Did the post you were trying to make include the word lynx, by any chance? Or perhaps a colon followed by 2 spaces?

No, nothing. I tried it twice, with different text, but it just won't post...

[Brother Oni]

What's wrong with the word lynx? I mean... It's a fairly inocuous word to include in a post as it's a major variety of large cat formerly common to Europe, North America and parts of Asia, in particular Siberia...

I believe it's something to do with a specific use of the word lynx opening up a vulnerability in the forum software, so the mods have set it to be automatically censored if that use is attempted (either by accident or design).

[Elemental]

I believe it's something to do with a specific use of the word lynx opening up a vulnerability in the forum software, so the mods have set it to be automatically censored if that use is attempted (either by accident or design).

Okay. So I can still mention that there are four subspecies of lynx if I need to in a trivia game for some reason.
Good to know.

Edit: And whatever it was happened then.

[Doomboy911]

What's the name of that one bird who's call sounds like someone screaming?

[Elemental]

What's the name of that one bird who's call sounds like someone screaming?

I've heard that jays scream... But I'm Australian, and we don't have them here.

[Douglas]

I believe it's something to do with a specific use of the word lynx opening up a vulnerability in the forum software, so the mods have set it to be automatically censored if that use is attempted (either by accident or design).
To expand on this, lynx is the name of a few things in somewhat common use in computers: a file transfer protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(protocol)), a web browser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser)), and a programming language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(programming_language)). If a potential hacker could use a hypothetical vulnerability in the forum software (I'm not sure exactly what kind of vulnerability it would take) to get the text "lynx " (note the space, it's important) handled the right way or in the right place in server memory, it would function as a command involving one of the three "lynx" things I linked to (I don't know which one) and could be used to compromise the server. Because of this, the host company that owns and operates the forum server - not the forum mods - filters out all attempted posts (maybe even all inbound internet traffic) that includes that text and serves up an error message instead of the normal reply. The software that would receive and act on such a command is not installed on our server because the forums don't need it, but the filter is imposed company-wide and they don't have a good way of granting exceptions.

Thus, any post that contains the word "lynx" followed by a space will fail to post and get an error message instead, but this is for reasons entirely unrelated to both you and anything you might be trying to talk about and will not get you into any trouble. As you may have noticed, I managed to post the word (space included) a few times in my post. This is accomplished by inserting meaningless formatting tags in the middle of the word (in my case, marking the n as black), thereby presenting the filter with "lynx " instead of "lynx ", which could not possibly function as an exploitive hacking command and passes right through but still displays the same when viewed in a post.

[Karoht]

No, Canada. It was hunting live stock, so it had to be dealt with, and, well, waste not want not.Well, thank you for not being wasteful. If it is any of my business, what part of Canada?

[Elemental]

To expand on this, lynx is the name of a few things in somewhat common use in computers: a file transfer protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(protocol)), a web browser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser)), and a programming language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(programming_language)). If a potential hacker could use a hypothetical vulnerability in the forum software (I'm not sure exactly what kind of vulnerability it would take) to get the text "lynx " (note the space, it's important) handled the right way or in the right place in server memory, it would function as a command involving one of the three "lynx" things I linked to (I don't know which one) and could be used to compromise the server. Because of this, the host company that owns and operates the forum server - not the forum mods - filters out all attempted posts (maybe even all inbound internet traffic) that includes that text and serves up an error message instead of the normal reply. The software that would receive and act on such a command is not installed on our server because the forums don't need it, but the filter is imposed company-wide and they don't have a good way of granting exceptions.

Thus, any post that contains the word "lynx" followed by a space will fail to post and get an error message instead, but this is for reasons entirely unrelated to both you and anything you might be trying to talk about and will not get you into any trouble. As you may have noticed, I managed to post the word (space included) a few times in my post. This is accomplished by inserting meaningless formatting tags in the middle of the word (in my case, marking the n as black), thereby presenting the filter with "lynx " instead of "lynx ", which could not possibly function as an exploitive hacking command and passes right through but still displays the same when viewed in a post.

I shall have to remember to place that word at the end of sentences only, a difficult task that I doubt I could accomplish were I a lynx.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, thank you for not being wasteful. If it is any of my business, what part of Canada?
Vancouver Island, but that's about as specific as I am willing to be.

[Karoht]

Vancouver Island, but that's about as specific as I am willing to be.I recalled your previous mention of a fondness for privacy in another thread, hence why I asked sensitively. Vancouver Island is more specific than I was expecting.

We had a cougar scare up in the northern end of the island one summer, up near Port McNeil (Telegraph Cove specifically, about 2-3 hours north of Campbell River). Fun fact, Cougars can swim pretty good. When we went fishing up there, we once saw a Cougar swimming from one island to another. Calm waters, sunny day. My grandpa decided to pull the boat up near it. It was hissing and growling at us. Not very happy. But it made it to shore, probably swam a good 200 yards maybe more. Gave a shake and ran off. That is the closest I've been to one, and the closer than I care to get again.


Rock Cod is a delicious fish. It has poisonous spines on it's back though. My grandpa got a scratch on the back of his hand once, his hand swelled up to the size of a basket ball.
Question. Would Rock Cod need such defenses if they weren't so delicious?

[Haruspex_Pariah]

What's the best way to rotate an office chair while sitting on it and not touching your surroundings? I've tried rotating my lower body while pushing the air(!) in the opposite direction with my arm. It is quite tiring.

[Qwertystop]

What's the best way to rotate an office chair while sitting on it and not touching your surroundings? I've tried rotating my lower body while pushing the air(!) in the opposite direction with my arm. It is quite tiring.

Use your feet to push off the stem or splay-foot of the chair.

[Haruspex_Pariah]

Use your feet to push off the stem or splay-foot of the chair.

Genius! :smallredface: But it feels like cheating because it's much easier than what I was doing earlier.

[Matthias2207]

If you stretch your legs, turn, then pull your legs in, you should get an increase in velocity. Or build a motorised chair with the electric motor from a fan. I don't know if that's going to work, actually.

[Doomboy911]

Eureka! Have someone push you. You don't touch anything.

[Matthias2207]

Why is being shy considered attractive? What evolutionary advantage has a shy woman over a non-shy woman?

[Brother Oni]

Why is being shy considered attractive? What evolutionary advantage has a shy woman over a non-shy woman?

I believe that being shy gives the implication of being submissive, thus it both triggers protective urges and appeals to the dominant nature of an alpha male perspective.

That said, humans are 'civilised' enough that being shy doesn't appeal to everyone - women in matriarchal cultures are generally very different from women in patriarchal ones, both in behaviour and expected role.

[Yora]

It's uncommon in the western world these days, but in other parts of the world, and I assume also in Europe and North America just 200 years ago or so, it's not completely uncommon to kick annoying people out of the village. And if there's some trouble in the village and you need to perform a symbolic act that allows everyone to calm down without appearing to accept defeat, you kill a witch. If there is no old widdow that nobody will miss, it's usually a woman who speaks up too much.

There are probably common practices to get rid of annoying men in socially acceptable ways as well, but they probably just happen to be found eaten by lions at the edge of the village one morning and it's not made such a big deal about it.

In such places, you simply don't want to be the woman with the biggest mouth. They tend to have bad thing happen to them.

In Europe, I think you can observe a massive shift in the last couple of decades. Yes, the big management positions are still held by old men, but the rest of society seems to turn into a matriarchy. Men have to shut up and go along with what their wives and girlfriends say they are doing. And most seem to be quite happy with it. :smallbiggrin:

This even applies to East Asia, despite what manga character stereotypes appear to present. I've recently heard from Japanese women that there's a high demand for Japanese men among young Chinese women. Because they are much easier to handle than Chinese men, who still grew up with some notions of a patriarchal society.
Maybe that's the reason for such characters. People thinking "Man, wouldn't it be nice to have a girlfriend who is perfectly fine with you being a bit dumb and lazy?". :smallbiggrin:

[Brother Oni]

People thinking "Man, wouldn't it be nice to have a girlfriend who is perfectly fine with you being a bit dumb and lazy?". :smallbiggrin:

More like Chinese women are happier with men not expecting them to be domestic goddesses and wait on them hand and foot like a Chinese man would.

I also think it's a subsection of Japanese men (modern maybe or the soushoku danshi) rather than Japanese men in general - I get brownie points from my female Japanese in-laws for doing things like carrying the shopping when we visit (my father in law and my sister in law's husband are both rather traditional Japanese men, so tend not to help out with domestic work).

[Yora]

On the dark side of the moon, without the Earth or the Sun in the sky, would starlight be strong enough to reflect from the ground and be visible to human eyes?

[Matthias2207]

It would be pitch black if it wasn't, so I guess it is.

[AtomicKitKat]

While on the topic of the dark side of the moon, I never quite grasped the concept.

What I understand: The moon rotates about its axis, and it just so happens to complete a Lunar day(1 full rotation) at the same rate as a Terran day.

Question: Does that not mean that we will see approximately 75% of the moon's surface from moonrise to moonset, thereby rendering it more of a "Dark Sliver of the Moon"?

Edit: Never mind. Apparently, the moon has been tidally locked for so long that it no longer spins. Or something.

[factotum]

Edit: Never mind. Apparently, the moon has been tidally locked for so long that it no longer spins. Or something.

It still spins. However, it spins at exactly the same rate as its orbital period, so as it goes around the Earth it always presents the same face toward it. That's what being tidally locked means.

Also note here that the "dark side of the Moon"--e.g. the one that always faces away from Earth--is not always dark; the Sun rises and sets there the same way as it does on the side facing us!

[Ravens_cry]

True dat. In fact, when it is a New Moon from our side, it's a Full moon on the other side. Until the Luna 3 space probe, we had never seen it before, it was impossible.
As for the question of starlight alone making the ground visible, the best way to find out would be to go out in an aforementioned New Moon late at night, far away from other lights, and just your eyes adapt.
While there is some absorption of light by the atmosphere, it should give you a fairly good answer.

[Qwertystop]

Why is the moon tidally locked? What caused it? Is it just a crazy coincidence?

[Douglas]

What caused it?
Tidal locking. Duh.:smalltongue:

Seriously, if you leave any two objects that are orbiting each other alone for long enough they will eventually synchronize their rotation and orbit periods. Uneven gravity from one object over the body of the other will tend to create a bulge on the sides that are nearest and farthest from the other object. If the nearest and farthest sides aren't always the same spot on the object, then that bulge will get dragged around. This is the cause of Earth's tides, since most of the moon-caused bulge on Earth is formed from water in the oceans. Friction between the bulge and the rest of the object will gradually change the rotation period to more closely match the orbital period.

This whole process is called tidal locking, and it's happening all the time between every set of paired orbiting objects in the universe. If something is tidally locked, that just means the process has gone on long enough that the difference between orbital and rotational periods has been worn away to insignificance. Earth finished locking the moon a long time ago. The moon is still working on locking the Earth, and the length of our day is very slowly changing because of it. When the second was originally given a precise definition, the Earth's day was close enough to exactly 24 hours that we couldn't measure any difference. Now, official timekeeping organizations have to occasionally add "leap seconds" to the clock to maintain synchronization with the planet's spin.

[factotum]

Seriously, if you leave any two objects that are orbiting each other alone for long enough they will eventually synchronize their rotation and orbit periods.

Note that this synchronisation needn't necessarily be a one-to-one sync, like the Moon; for instance, the planet Mercury rotates exactly three times for every two orbits. (I think this is because it has an unusually eccentric orbit, so the Sun's gravity has much greater tidal influence at certain points in Mercury's orbit than others).

[Matthias2207]

Note that this synchronisation needn't necessarily be a one-to-one sync, like the Moon; for instance, the planet Mercury rotates exactly three times for every two orbits. (I think this is because it has an unusually eccentric orbit, so the Sun's gravity has much greater tidal influence at certain points in Mercury's orbit than others).

But Earth has 256 something rotations every orbit. Is it still locking? Are the days getting longer and longer, until they are a year long?

[factotum]

But Earth has 256 something rotations every orbit. Is it still locking? Are the days getting longer and longer, until they are a year long?

Eventually, yes. Mercury has already gone into tidal locking because it's 2.5x closer to the Sun than we are (on average) and thus the Sun's gravity is around six times stronger where it is, so the effect has happened much sooner. Given long enough, Earth will become tidally locked to the Sun.

[Elemental]

Eventually, yes. Mercury has already gone into tidal locking because it's 2.5x closer to the Sun than we are (on average) and thus the Sun's gravity is around six times stronger where it is, so the effect has happened much sooner. Given long enough, Earth will become tidally locked to the Sun.

Though... If I remember correctly, the time scale required is substantially longer than the life expectancy of the Sun.

[Matthias2207]

Though... If I remember correctly, the time scale required is substantially longer than the life expectancy of the Sun.

Good, because else we would have eternal night on one side and eternal day on the other. Everybody would have to move to the sides to live in eternal sunset/sunrise so they don't burn/freeze to death. Actually... That's a pretty good setting for a fantasy/sci-fi story. With a huge red sun in the sky, close to death...

[Douglas]

I think the moon has a much bigger effect on Earth than the sun does. Earth days are getting longer, but the primary impetus for that is to match the day to a lunar month, not to a solar year. Meanwhile, the energy Earth loses by slowing down its rotation is going into the moon's orbital speed, making the lunar month shorter and pushing the moon further away.

The real coincidence in all of this is that the moon is currently at exactly the right distance to just barely cover the sun in a full solar eclipse.

[Yora]

True dat. In fact, when it is a New Moon from our side, it's a Full moon on the other side. Until the Luna 3 space probe, we had never seen it before, it was impossible.
As for the question of starlight alone making the ground visible, the best way to find out would be to go out in an aforementioned New Moon late at night, far away from other lights, and just your eyes adapt.
While there is some absorption of light by the atmosphere, it should give you a fairly good answer.
No, we can't. If we can see part of the moons "night side", that means that in those places the earth can be seen in the sky. And since light reflected from the moon can be quite bright, so would be light reflected from the earth to the moon.
I mean a point on the moon that is on the "far side" when seen from earth at a time where it is also on the "night side" relative to the sun.

[Doomboy911]

I like to consider myself a learned gent (despite having said learned that way a few moments ago) but I don't get this quote "Isolation is a self-defeating dream" makes no sense to me outside of isolation is bad.

[Jallorn]

I wonder how long it would take for two Earth-sized bodies to become tidally locked to each other when orbiting at, say, Moon distances? Bear in mind here that your geostationary orbit distance doesn't have to be the same 22k miles (or thereabouts) that it is for Earth--if the "prime" planet spins slower then geostationary orbit is higher. If you had two Earth-sized planets 250k miles apart that were tidally locked then the day would be an Earthly month long, mind you, which might cause problems.

I don't know if this is still being discussed, but the day length could be solved by having the planets orbit their center of mass at a perpendicular angle to their orbit around their star.

[Ravens_cry]

No, we can't. If we can see part of the moons "night side", that means that in those places the earth can be seen in the sky. And since light reflected from the moon can be quite bright, so would be light reflected from the earth to the moon.
I mean a point on the moon that is on the "far side" when seen from earth at a time where it is also on the "night side" relative to the sun.
What point are you trying to make here?
Confusion abounds.:smallconfused:

[Elemental]

I like to consider myself a learned gent (despite having said learned that way a few moments ago) but I don't get this quote "Isolation is a self-defeating dream" makes no sense to me outside of isolation is bad.

It's because people who decide to isolate themselves forget that they need to go down to the shop occasionally.
That, and fill out Census forms...

[factotum]

I don't know if this is still being discussed, but the day length could be solved by having the planets orbit their center of mass at a perpendicular angle to their orbit around their star.

Given what we know about planet formation, such an arrangement would be extremely unlikely. In addition, you'd just be exchanging one problem for another--instead of having the day being a month long, it would be a full YEAR long!

[Yora]

Since I will be moving again in fall for the fifth time in eight years and just had a discussion about boxes:

Does the same amount of weight appear to be lighter if contained in a larger box?

A small box completely filled with books often appears to me much heavier than a large box that probably weight quite a bit more.

[Matthias2207]

Probably. If you expect something to be heavy and it's not, it feels lighter. So if someone first tells you the large box is light, it feels heavy.
It's all in your mind...

╩
@.@
V

[Doomboy911]

Also a great trick to reduce weight take an empty box and a heavy box and put the heavy on the empty and carry the empty. It's a little gravity trick that makes it lighter.

[Matthias2207]

Also a great trick to reduce weight take an empty box and a heavy box and put the heavy on the empty and carry the empty. It's a little gravity trick that makes it lighter.

Does that really work? I should try that sometime... I'm taking revenge on my brain for constantly forgetting important stuff (and remembering the useless little facts about all sorts of things), so some mind trickery seems appropriate.:smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

Since I will be moving again in fall for the fifth time in eight years and just had a discussion about boxes:

Does the same amount of weight appear to be lighter if contained in a larger box?

A small box completely filled with books often appears to me much heavier than a large box that probably weight quite a bit more.
It depends. While a larger box filled with the same weight will have less pressure per square inch, and therefore could feel 'lighter'; really bulky items can be difficult to carry in their own right.
For example, I was helping a friend move and I couldn't carry an immense box of clothes, despite easily carrying that much mass in a smaller form.

[Elemental]

It depends. While a larger box filled with the same weight will have less pressure per square inch, and therefore could feel 'lighter'; really bulky items can be difficult to carry in their own right.
For example, I was helping a friend move and I couldn't carry an immense box of clothes, despite easily carrying that much mass in a smaller form.

Indeed. The size of an object can affect how easy it is to carry.
But also, conversely, a really small object that weighs a lot can be hard to carry due to the difficulty of getting a good hold on it. I in particular remember the feel of some of the weights we had in primary school. Even though they were only a kilogram, their smallish size made them feel a lot heavier than they were.

[thubby]

It depends. While a larger box filled with the same weight will have less pressure per square inch, and therefore could feel 'lighter'; really bulky items can be difficult to carry in their own right.
For example, I was helping a friend move and I couldn't carry an immense box of clothes, despite easily carrying that much mass in a smaller form.

clothing is also heavier than many people think about. i have at least 1 pair of jeans that sink in water.

[Ravens_cry]

clothing is also heavier than many people think about. i have at least 1 pair of jeans that sink in water.
Well, yes, but maybe I should clarify. I could pick it up, so I know how much it weighed, but I couldn't carry it to its intended destination.

[Doomboy911]

New Question Why on earth do artist hate what they draw?
I just began getting good at drawing (I want to marry you gesture drawing for all the good you've done) and when I look at my work I see so many little off details that I pick at no one else sees the problems. And I see that other people feel the same about their work. What is up with that?

[Brother Oni]

New Question Why on earth do artist hate what they draw?
I just began getting good at drawing (I want to marry you gesture drawing for all the good you've done) and when I look at my work I see so many little off details that I pick at no one else sees the problems. And I see that other people feel the same about their work. What is up with that?

The eternal search for perfection.

Edit: To clarify, any good artist is constantly wanting to improve themselves, thus they tend to focus on the negative of a piece of work, thinking "Oh, I could have done that better".

[Maxios]

Do blind people "see" in their dreams?

[factotum]

Do blind people "see" in their dreams?

I would imagine it depends whether they were born blind or became blind later in life. Someone born blind would have no points of reference to "see" anything in a dream, after all.

[Soliloquy]

Why are there so many Answers here when it is so clearly called Questions of a weird mind?
:smalleek:
Someone is going to make an Answers of a weird mind thread now aren't they?:smallsigh:

[Ravens_cry]

I would imagine it depends whether they were born blind or became blind later in life. Someone born blind would have no points of reference to "see" anything in a dream, after all.
Actually, according to at least one study (http://psychecp.edublogs.org/files/2007/10/dreamsandblind.pdf), that's actually not the case.
Apparently congenitally blind people can see things when dreaming.

[Matthias2207]

New Question Why on earth do artist hate what they draw?
I just began getting good at drawing (I want to marry you gesture drawing for all the good you've done) and when I look at my work I see so many little off details that I pick at no one else sees the problems. And I see that other people feel the same about their work. What is up with that?

If you try to draw something, you have the image already in your head. You'll never draw that picture exactly as you imagined it, so there are always things that went wrong. It's one of the main reasons I don't draw (the other being that I suck at it).

[Tvtyrant]

Question: Can a nuke actually work in space?

I was under the impression that the shockwave formed from the friction of the protons and neutrons hurling themselves outward in a mass, but the friction point is rather small. In movies they always show nukes creating big explosions in space, but without air there wouldn't be an explosion.

[razark]

Question: Can a nuke actually work in space?
Yes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Hardtack_I_Teak_002.jpg
Hardtack Teak test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardtack_Teak). 76.8 km altitude.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Starfish5.JPG
Starfish Prime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime). 400 km.


See also Operation Argus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Argus) and Operation Fishbowl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl).

[Gnoman]

Question: Can a nuke actually work in space?

I was under the impression that the shockwave formed from the friction of the protons and neutrons hurling themselves outward in a mass, but the friction point is rather small. In movies they always show nukes creating big explosions in space, but without air there wouldn't be an explosion.

The effect of a nuclear bomb is caused by the breaking of atomic nuclei, releasing huge amounts of electromagnetic and kinetic energy. While there will not be the shockwave that one normally associates with the weapon, there will still be a fireball, and there will be even greater levels of some of the more interesting secondary effects such as EMP.

[Elemental]

New Question Why on earth do artist hate what they draw?
I just began getting good at drawing (I want to marry you gesture drawing for all the good you've done) and when I look at my work I see so many little off details that I pick at no one else sees the problems. And I see that other people feel the same about their work. What is up with that?

There are some flaws that only the artist can see.
It's a curse I tell you, a curse.

Also, everyone else sees the result of the work, they didn't make it. So how would they know where all the mistakes are?

[Yora]

The effect of a nuclear bomb is caused by the breaking of atomic nuclei, releasing huge amounts of electromagnetic and kinetic energy. While there will not be the shockwave that one normally associates with the weapon, there will still be a fireball, and there will be even greater levels of some of the more interesting secondary effects such as EMP.

It does "work", but quite differently than near the ground.
Since there's no gas to push against and only a very small amount of mass in the bomb itself, the shockwave would be negible.
At the same time, the lack of air that would absorb the energy by heating up allows the energy to spread out unhindered over a much larger area. Without wind to disperse it, a cloud of charged radioactive particles would hang in the area for quite a long time, potentionally damaging any crafts of satellites passing through it.

The worst thing that could happen is a detonation in a medium altitude orbit around a planet with a strong magnetic field. Like Earth!
The blast of electromagnetic energy will travel along the magnetic field lines, amplefing the effect and spreading it over a much larger area. At the right altitude, it can cause a massive power surge through the power grid of entire continents. It's like the lightning strike from hell, heating up power lines so much that tiny cracks will appear or the lines actually melt or catch fire. To repair that, you would have to recycle the parts and build new ones from the material, which can take years. And in many cases, the surge would be powerful enough to simply jump circuit brakers and arc around them through the air, affecting devices connected to the power grid as well.

When they first discovered the effect, they were lucky to have tested it in the middle of the pacific. Right over Arizona or Siberia and things would have turned out very differently.

[Ravens_cry]

Also lucky is they tested it when they did.
Vacuum tubes are, comparatively speaking, EMP resistant.
In the age of transistors and printed circuits, it would have been even worse.

[Matthias2207]

It does "work", but quite differently than near the ground.
Since there's no gas to push against and only a very small amount of mass in the bomb itself, the shockwave would be negible.
At the same time, the lack of air that would absorb the energy by heating up allows the energy to spread out unhindered over a much larger area. Without wind to disperse it, a cloud of charged radioactive particles would hang in the area for quite a long time, potentionally damaging any crafts of satellites passing through it.

The worst thing that could happen is a detonation in a medium altitude orbit around a planet with a strong magnetic field. Like Earth!
The blast of electromagnetic energy will travel along the magnetic field lines, amplefing the effect and spreading it over a much larger area. At the right altitude, it can cause a massive power surge through the power grid of entire continents. It's like the lightning strike from hell, heating up power lines so much that tiny cracks will appear or the lines actually melt or catch fire. To repair that, you would have to recycle the parts and build new ones from the material, which can take years. And in many cases, the surge would be powerful enough to simply jump circuit brakers and arc around them through the air, affecting devices connected to the power grid as well.

When they first discovered the effect, they were lucky to have tested it in the middle of the pacific. Right over Arizona or Siberia and things would have turned out very differently.

I need a nuclear bomb in medium altitude orbit! Perfect weapon in this age of sensitive technology. I could cripple the entire world without killing a single person (as long as nobody stands too close to one of those lightning arc things, but that wouldn't be my fault)).

[Elemental]

I need a nuclear bomb in medium altitude orbit! Perfect weapon in this age of sensitive technology. I could cripple the entire world without killing a single person (as long as nobody stands too close to one of those lightning arc things, but that wouldn't be my fault)).

But wouldn't you then have a cloud of radioactive dust in the atmosphere? That would eventually rain back down on the Earth?
I suppose it would take far too long for it to fall from orbit though.

[Ravens_cry]

I need a nuclear bomb in medium altitude orbit! Perfect weapon in this age of sensitive technology. I could cripple the entire world without killing a single person (as long as nobody stands too close to one of those lightning arc things, but that wouldn't be my fault)).
Yes, because all those people on life support, all those people trapped in elevators, all those peoples whose cars stop working while driving, all those people who starve when food goes bad, all those people who die from diseases from untreated water, from lack of treatment of simple illnesses and injuries, yes, that would not be your fault at all.
Me, sarcasm?
Never!

[Tvtyrant]

Thank you for the answers! I have been stumped about this for years.

[Matthias2207]

Yes, because all those people on life support, all those people trapped in elevators, all those peoples whose cars stop working while driving, all those people who starve when food goes bad, all those people who die from diseases from untreated water, from lack of treatment of simple illnesses and injuries, yes, that would not be your fault at all.
Me, sarcasm?
Never!

Yes, but most of that is long-term, so they have time to fix stuff, and the rest is a minor group. It won't affect the total population too much. Probably. And why should I care? I'm a villain, I don't have guilt or morals. I only have greed. All this could be avoided, I just want world domination!