miracmert

Mine used to be 89-90 C until I fixed the damn cooler fan and even after those temps my CPU survived as good as before so don't worry

Hey there! I'm studying chemical engineering in Turkey EskiÅŸehir Anadolu University, I don't pay anything because it's a state college. I'm finishing my 2nd educational year in a week and normally I should be getting my degree after 2 years more but I don't think I will do that because as jimiki8's school there are a bunch of people who graduate in 4 years most of students study 4+ years. I know somebody who is studying his 8th year. Our faculty produces desperate chemical engineers who will become unemployed if they stay in the industry because there are already too many chemical engineers in Turkey. I love my study but I don't think I will find decent job in the sector if I stay in Turkey...

How do I stop playing this game guys? I need help!

Wow, this is one of the coolest space image I've seen But I didn't understand a lot about what puzzles astronomers. Is it that more light scattered into interstellar dust than it should have?

GMOs are good if they are used for a good reason. They are terrible if it is used for selling same seeds every year because they are modified to not breed again thus giving the seed company a very good sales money.

AFAIK, gasoline has difficulty burning completely into H20 and CO2 thus giving less energy then kerosene. And there are probably operating difficulties of gasoline since it has much lower boiling point (difficult to stabilize I suppose). But looking at density and CO2 emmission, kerosene looks like a heavy and polluting option. But, again, it gives much more energy and contains less impurities, gasoline is less efficient compared to kerosene. Some smart guy correct me if I'm wrong But also I should add that even though kerosene gives a lot energy I don't think it's very efficient too. Liquid hydrogen is environment friendly when burned with pure oxygen and gives a lot more energy per kg. liquified propane would be a nice choice too if it wasn't too unstable for a rocket engine. But I also think maybe they should give a try to ethanol for more lightweight rockets:) - - - Updated - - - I think gas fuel for ground vehicles are dangerous no matter how safe the system is. If you are living in a country where gasoline price is very high like I do, I would say ethanol is good choice

Well, I don't know much about this and it bugged me too and I read two different opinions about this and I'm not a physicist so what I'm going to say is probably not more than two opinions: One thing I read was that even though you could travel at light-speed (imagine looking from a photon's perspective) there is still lightspeed that you are not going to be able to reach because the speed of light is there in every frame, so relative to you there is still light faster than you, going at lightspeed. Another opinion that I read was that since photons were going at the speed of light which means there is no more time, all of the photons were actually only one photon that is independent of time and can be in any place in the space at the same time (because it's not bounded/limited by time and 3 dimensions anymore). So yeah these are the different perspectives on the subject that I read looong time ago and I'm not even sure if I remember them correctly, having an explanation from a more-knowing-person here would be better because I'm curious too.

Looks like Mun to me

Then what is intelligence I don't mean a virus or a car can solve a differential problem, but they do have intelligence, because an ordinary salt molecule cannot reproduce even dependently but a virus can. Computers do have intelligence, not naturally -and yes! That's why we call that artificial intelligence- and that's the reason why we are not using our table to play KSP instead of our couple hundred of bucks worth computer. When you examine DNA or RNA itself, it seems pretty stable and pretty unalive and also if you, let's say, observe a bacterium that does not have its managing molecules then it seems pretty unalive too. But when you combine them, boom! There is energy transformation/transition, growth, reproducement, waste production, substance consumption and all. So what I'm trying to say is that we know what life does, but we don't know what causes life to exist. A virus has a managing molecule, an isolated body but yet it can do anything with them rather then robotically transforming its genomes to an organism and making more of itself pointlessly.

That's exactly what I mean. Viruses are intelligent compared to a rock, sand or sea. But hey, there are also car which drive on the road itself, drones which will fly itself.. They are intelligent too, but they are not alive as far as we know. Intelligence is not the same with life, viruses have intelligence which enable them to hold on a host organism and insert their RNA/DNA into the nucleus but as Kryten mentioned they cannot reproduce independently, they must have a host cell to do so. Very good point, and it is another problem about defining "life". Would we consider sexual reproduction as dependent or independent reproduction? If one would think the reproducing bodies are the same of their kind therefore it would be considered independent, but another would say one body must need another in order to reproduce (well of course I'm not talking about bees or similar organism) which makes it another kind of dependent reproducement. And as you said managing molecules -I do not know if this is the correct English phrase but I couldn't find a translation- are not considered to be alive since they don't have energy transformation, waste production, growth and so.

You could define life like that, but viruses are not considered as living organisms even though they have a RNA and they reproduce and they are basically machines with intelligence. We cannot define life in an exact definition because we haven't seen such different examples of it. ** I don't understand why there was only one mission to Titan which lasted 30 min on the surface with so little information been sent because of programming error on the probe. I understand it takes long to go there and it's considerably expensive mission but it is an interesting celestial body, only one with liquid lakes on the surface other than Earth, has a very similar atmospheric characteristic (not composition but physicalcharacteristics) to that of early Earth's, and would make so much difference in science to find anything close to life. Even if there's not life on the surface, still the moon itself is promising because of its interesting environment and water-lava. Oh and also think about it, it would be so cool to live on Titan -as a natural local of Titan-. Seeing Saturn on the sky? Dayum!

I agree with what K^2 says, we are pretty sure that a life form as we studied and observed on Earth would have possibly no chance to evolve on the surface of Titan, but we only have seen life on Earth. We have no idea if evolving&reproducing intelligence can form on a different environment, based on different principles/elements other than that which we have witnessed until now. Heck, we can't even give an absolute definition of life in our planet, I believe it would be arrogant to be sure of an only-closely-observed-for-30min moon to be inable to harbor a certain lifekind .

From recent news: New horizons waking up and getting close to Pluto! That's the most exciting for me because I have always wondered about how Pluto looks like

Spinning may be because of the rocket structure. Check center of mass and direction of thrust from the VAB editor. About the comm problem, are you using an omni-way antenna? Others won't be able to pick up signals from ground control as far as I know.

I can't wait to see what Pluto really looks like. I hope nothing goes wrong with this mission or we will have to wait a lot more years to see Pluto closely..