has2k1

19 ms·

151.
by has2k1 12y ago
Expansion can be due to a lot more than mere birthrates. First and foremost expansion will happen only when there is means to do so. And, 'means' can be driven by a combination of curiosity and necessity. On earth people have gone
152.
by has2k1 12y ago
The burst lasts as long as it takes the stuff (radiation) get past the planet. That is only a few seconds. That radiation is travelling at light speed so given our present knowledge an early warning system is unthinkable. However for a star
153.
by has2k1 12y ago
I highly recommend "How to Read a Book" by Mortimer J. Adler, it was quite an eye opener for me.
154.
by has2k1 12y ago
Nuclear weapons are hard enough to build that they require a coordination of resources and knowledge, so there is an amount of level headedness among those that build them. A pessimistic view follows that, if some technology in our future i
155.
by has2k1 12y ago
I'll add another guess. A resource crunch, i.e. we simply use up the required resources before we figure out how to explore our planetary neighbourhood. e.g When we figure out that a helium engine is possible, very efficient and very s
156.
by has2k1 12y ago
I do not see it as humans being "really bad" at those things. Comparatively, across all mammals and other animal species we are really good at it that we engage in thought and communication beyond what is necessary for immediate s
157.
by has2k1 12y ago
Simulations do not like this scenario. The gravity is not enough to counter the expansion due to the heat, so the water (vapour) leaks off far and wide with little chance of coalescing in the inner solar system.
158.
by has2k1 12y ago
At first glance it seems so, but afterwards it still seems like nothing has changed for the space travellers. Maybe the picture gives an illusion of a 2D birds eye view hence looking simpler than the reality.
159.
by has2k1 12y ago
Asimov's short story "The Dead Past" carries a similar theme.
160.
by has2k1 12y ago
The scenario for baseline-3 is just a conceptual tool(pythogras theorem) to establish a bound. It still doesn't get you into orbit. What I was grappling with, is. I presumed @ars (parent) knew he was talking and in expressing my conten
161.
by has2k1 12y ago
@SamReidHughes > ... accelerate upward then turn 90 degrees and accelerate horizontally I am not for such a scenario at all. The point of the upward (upward only and not considering the atmosphere) acceleration to the desired location is
162.
by has2k1 12y ago
Zero feelings involved, just analysis before numerical computation. The concepts need to make sense first.
163.
by has2k1 12y ago
I see it this way. You have to accelerate the mass to the escape velocity. You also have to achieve a net effect of being in orbit (some distance x above surface of earth). The most direct vector to that distance is perpendicular. The two c
164.
by has2k1 12y ago
You would have to build up a lot more speed if all you are going to do is decelerate once you "take-off". Also noteworthy, once you get to the escape velocity you would require an additional force just to keep you circular.
165.
by has2k1 12y ago
I'm still lost. Isn't being tangential along the equator less advantageous than being perpendicular at the poles. When you start tangential, as soon as you cover a distance equivalent to the radius of the earth, you are then perpe
166.
by has2k1 12y ago
Given that earth is a ball, aren't you always pointed heavenward if you are between 0-180 degrees. So you might as well start of by pointing directly heavenward, i.e 90 degrees. Plus, turning requires acceleration you cannot just capit
167.
by has2k1 12y ago
> I absolutely love formula 1, I've watched almost every race in the last 30 years. Love, huh! Not an addiction?
168.
by has2k1 12y ago
I like the implied statistical wisdom, i.e. If you fail often, then help us find where we are failing. Rather than, if your passing solutions are brilliant then help us find passing solutions. An aside, for things like unit tests where in m
169.
by has2k1 12y ago
That was by intention. Head on, the original question is less penetrable. The restatement is meant to emphasize that a symbiotic relationship between the host and the virus could drive the evolution. Cancer -- bad for host, virus takes care
170.
by has2k1 12y ago
It is not a silly question. We can put it through the paces. The question you are getting at is, "Did measles evolve to keep cancer at bay?" Or stated in another way, "Did it evolve because it was keeping cancer at bay?"
171.
by has2k1 12y ago
He started using a good tool. He came up with habits suited to the tool. With time, he refined his workflow. So, why should he change. Writing is an art, the writer an artist. To each, their canvas and brush.
172.
by has2k1 12y ago
Without gravitational waves the statement the "fabric of space" becomes mysterious. What "fabric" if it does not fold in ways we expect it to be folding based on other observations.
173.
by has2k1 12y ago
Well, I feel for the scientists involved. Before that revelation my expectations where that gravitational waves would be detected after the next supernova in the milky-way galaxy. That would require a lot less ingenuity. I would take discov
174.
by has2k1 12y ago
The Maasai are not known for their height, it's the Dinka (remember Manute Bol?) of South Sudan.
175.
by has2k1 12y ago
Is it guaranteed to blow your mind?
176.
by has2k1 12y ago
When you look at the successes of nature you cannot help but marvel at it's ingenuity. But then you look at it's failures and you can only marvel at it's stupidity. Nature is just like a password cracker tries all possible co
177.
by has2k1 12y ago
Nature does not always find a way, look at the fossil record for evidence.
178.
by has2k1 12y ago
There is certainly no forwards and also no backwards. It is just an on going optimization process. It is on going because the constraints change. Most of the constraints can be summed up under the general term "environment". The e
179.
by has2k1 12y ago
You Don't Write Code, You Develop It.
180.
by has2k1 13y ago
A hunch about the benefits of Quake is fine. But, elevating that to a status of belief in such short order seems a little wacky, even if you turn out to be right. "Onto something" is far from "got something".

More ›