kerbiloid

A fruit of sin. What's beaver than beaver?

When you aren't able to make one big engine, put thirty small ones.

Merchandise the branding is cheating.

Floor 3055: The Minute Man II.

Banned by She-Ra.

With these beasts one can never be sure. https://naturetravels.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/whats-the-difference-between-a-moose-and-an-elk/ It sounds like Imperial vs Metric, but moose. Thanks, they aren't poisonous like similar mushrooms.

Once again, do we call energy E and Euler's constant e because we respect the energy more than Euler with his constants?

What "anecdotes"? Should I believe someone's graphics or my own eyes, speaking about my own local weather? When only the climate alarmists have the right to speak? No. So, the opponents are by definition greedy, while the proponents are by definition right? What makes you think that the capitalists selling "green power" are less greedy than absolutely same capitalists selling fossil fuel? Especially in the world of cash and profit where noone of them is nailed to his type of business, and free to invest into any industry bringing profit. Arent' the windmills made of same mined fossils? Why do the silly fossil companies not switch their production from burning the fossils to making plastic turbines from them, if the windmills are really so much effective as this infographics tells? I believe , if the things were so good for windmills and solar panels, the first corporations selling the green power were Solar Shell, British Plantoleum, and Exxon (the latter would not even change the brand name). I believe in money rather than in charts painted for money. The objective fact is what the rich people put their own money into. The charts and theories always were for sale. It's enough even to look at the so-called "dark matter" story. An absolutely thin-air and controversial hypothesis is trying to explain the observable facts by adding a magic substance which we can't detect by definition. And what's with any voice contradicting this phlogistonish mainstream idea? They are weak and sink. They are considered as clowns. And it's not good for their career and wallet. While there is (and can't be) absolutely no evidence of its existence, so it's a matter of interpretation. It's safer to cry for the mainstream louder than others than to have a different opinion. Because noone will quote you, and (magic!) your quotation rank falls down, so you are not a real scientist. The continental drift theory is a nice example. Seventy years ago the author was treated as a freak, but now same academic crowd calls freak everyone who contradicts it, lol. Then define, what do you need, "renewable" or "low footprint" You can't extract same energy from less amount of carbon, You produce absolutely same amount of carbon dioxide per joule from same amount of burned carbon. You want to extract the carbon dioxide from exhaust? The plants don't do that for free. They just convert the solar energy (which they absorb instead of reflecting back into space as light or as infrared). Because CO2 needs same energy to be splitted back into C and O2. The plants don't provide the energy, they just convert it. The more plants you have, the lower is the Earth albedo, the greater is its warming from the sun light. And they need fertilizers, whose production needs fuel and chemicals, and produces same toxic exhausts. In case of coal all this poisoning has already happened hundreds of millions years ago, and you just get this carbon for free. So by proposing the "ecofuel plants" instead of coal you just try to poison the air once again instead of using the thing you have for free. The only way to extract the carbon dioxide from exhausts is to store this carbon dioxide as is or turn it into some stable solid compound. And this is absolutely opposite to "grow more plants". It's just elementary physics.

Thinking that "a" was an article rather than "A-class" is cheating.

Game over. Saruman is Maya, so is immortal. Ryuk has met an immortal entity, can't implement the essence of his nature, and choke on apple. (Notice! It's not a note.) (So, the rule of don't order Ryuk himself is not applicable.)

Yes, it is. This summer was wonderfully cooler thanthree previous ones, and it was raining almost every second day. Just like in my childhood, when the summer rain was a usual daily routine. Like the climate is changing cyclically... Wait... Oh, ...! Also hydrology, cosmology, mineralology, and quantum physics for understanding the depth of processes. Listing them still doesn't conjure their power and doesn't make the slogan more argumented. And many people do not think so. For example, many of those ones who actually mines and refines. But arguing against the human-hating mainstream can cost them career and money, because the human-hating accusations are in trend, and everyone disagreed is a heretic. While the arguments that the "green" energy can produce even more exhausts and wastes are ignored. Also still nobody has answered the very simple question. I'll repeat it again. As the coal is the distilled carbon of the plant cellulose, and nothing more, how can the carbon in form of coal be more dirty than the same amount of carbon from the holy, innocent, blessed "energetic plants"?

... he joined the tournament of pathologist students. But instead of Zelda, the police came. Link Kerman's heart got unlinked from fear. Gollum Kerman tried to find a cave before the night ends.

Thank you so much!

This is "majority is always right and let the crowd vote which science is bigger". One thing is to discuss the particular study of dysprosium conductivity at 50 K temperature in presence of liquid argon, and the current experimental results. Then it's normal to argue that twenty scientists have repeated the experiment and got similar results and are (or aren't) agreed with the theory author explanations. Absoluely another thing is to let only one party have a voice in a wide discussion with controversial arguments. The worst thing is to bring subjective, emotional "arguments" like "We all die if you aren't agreed with us!!!111" Almost always the emotions in a scientific discussion mean a lack of arguments and an attempt to cry louder to make shy opponents shut up. That's how all this human-accusing, human-hating discourse "we are guilty for everything!" works.

This is just for usability. But not out of greater respect to energy than to Euler. Even looks that vice versa, lol.

It's obvious, and it's silly. Do we name the variables and constants in different case letters? The unit name/abbreviation is a postfix to the numeric, explaining what's that. They should be equal. The Newton is not Newton. Should we additionally write the unit names in the Ancient-Egyptian cartouches to show which scientist was greater than others?

In no way. The ugly system where the so-called "quotability" is the main if not the only criterion of whether the scientist gets money for his scientific researches or no, is a classic positive loopback system, leading to the situation that only one opinion gets funded and printed, while any opponent doesn't get money to collect and publish the counter-arguments. So, "all magazines tell so" = "thousand of parrots can't mistake telling the same", because if one of them starts contradicting others, its reputation would fall and the river of money would dry. To mention the second, third, and village tiers is just funny. They just want to eat and publish what they can steal from the seniors' table. Wow! Any science needs credibility. That's why it's science. What doesn't, isn't a science. All sciences have the same methods. And the (honest) criminal investigations as well. All of them are the same but for different purposes. What can't be reduced to mathematics and logics, is not a science. In the best case it's a primary empirical facts collection. In other cases it's a propaganda. We do say "a false dichotomy".

Sometimes the home includes all its rooms.

There were a lot of Imperial-like systems before the Metric, and every of them was claiming it as a very handy. So, we have several tens definitions of "pound". *** What looks weird is that some unit names begin from capital letter, while others are lower case. "kg" vs "W" Also, who was Gram?

Imperial or metric?

Not all. P.S. After the we-all-know-whose spy/recon/spotter-sats benefit during the current events it will be rather strange if everyone won't take part in the race of anti-sat tech and sat signal jamming Was it worth it? I doubt. But the I believe, wrong choice is already done. The spy/recon/GPS sats have designated themselves as an existential danger for everyone but their owners. So, the antisat world championship will begin.

Unknown plant seed + rattlesnake blood and venom + GMO peanut butter of three different types, colors, and edibility... Don't stop. Please, just don't stop! This just must fruit into something interesting! Hundreds of Holy Wood movies just can't mistake all at once.

Humans definitely didn't do that, especially in North America. So didn't this. *** I'm pretty sure that the Ice Age end is not a human fault, too. More of that, even if the humans get extinct. A very sneaky species. If burn heavy hydrogen in a fusion reactor to electrolise the light hydrogen.

Now take that chart and throw out the taxes and fines manually hanged on the fossil and nuke energy and add the discounts manually subtracted from the solar/wind manufacture chain and taxes, and you see that all these charts are just a piece of junk. The nonsense with "green" and "blue" hydrogen has the same nature. And the holy energetic plants consist of same amount of carbon as the coal does. Just with organic admixtures and water to be additionally removed. (Because the coal is exactly the carbbon of the plant cellulose.)

In XIX they didn't have enough strong materials for high-pressure engines. Only in XVIII they started using coal in metallurgy instead of charcoal, and thus started melting steel in much greater amounts than before. (Because previously the furnaces were smaller and weren't providing the conditions for the coal burning.) Immediately after that the industrial revolution started, the mass production of cheap steel allowed to equip millions of people with stronger and sharper tools which allowed to manually build first machines and power them with steam engines. It took about a century, till the mid-XIX. The early steampunk epoch. Since mid-XIX they got electricity, first combustion engines, periodic table and early chemical industry. The late steampunk epoch. A half-century later they had the WWI level industry (which immediately used), the dieselpunk epoch. To that date they had only primitive powder lightweight rockets with extremely low ISP, which weren't able to pass through the 8 km thick air regardless of the orbital delta-V. They didn't have enough strong and lightweight steel for effective rocket engine turbopumps and the primitive engines of 1930s were passively cooled. There was no clear idea what should be the rocket fuel. They were trying everything they could buy for nothing or steal somewhere, usually petrol (because usually they were doing this in a car workshop) or ethanol solution (decreasing it with time from 90+% to 75% for better engine cooling) and liquid oxygen. The Oberth, Goddard, GIRD, and German rockets of that time are a rather primitive set of duct pipes used as tanks and nozzles. The Goddard's ones were the most advanced but closed by patents and licenses, so didn't fruit into something bigger. (Ignoring the fact that rather primitive German rockets quickly turned into the Von Braun's Aggregat family after Von Braun had gotten acquainted with Goddard's articles. After the war Goddard got a chance to see A-4 and ensure that copyright is not always good.) So, the combination of the pre-WWII industrial abilities allowed to build much more complicated turbopump engines, rudders, gyroscopes, and so on. It happened less than in a half -century after the first combustion engines and electric machines were created. So, the IRBM-level alcohol rockets and the anti-aircraft kero-acid missiles were tested since early 1940s, and couldn't be made much earlier. In late 1940s they were still having poor understanding of zero-G engines ignitions, so were either igniting all stages on land (R-7, Atlas), or used solid-fuel motors on top (which look weird today). Kerolox and hypergolic engines (with almost twice as high ISP) appeared only after WWII because they were too expensive just for experiments during the war. Germany was using the cheapest fuel it had, while others didn't make big rockets at all. So, anything able to reach even the LKO, let alone LEO, had a chance to appear in mid-1940s or early 1950s, not earlier. This in turn means that the spacecraft would be almost same as Vostok (the advanced Piccard stratoballoon capsule with heatproof insulation) or Mercury, depending on the first ICBM capacity.