p1t1o

Apparently there is a fair amount of support for the idea that the Romans did just that. Id wager it would be very plausible to do it in modern day but that the pervasiveness of fragile electrics/water-damageable materials would make it problematic and expensive.

Even the most optimistic astro-biologist has to admit that in any given group of planets, life is rare. Ergo: can only entertain the notion of life if presented with copious signs of it.

Large fur-bearer is inefficient due to suboptimal surface-area/volume ratio. Sheep are much better suited to wool production, more wool per required unit of animal feed.

I dont think thats quite right. The abstract describes the particles being coated with an acid resistant coating which protects it through the stomach, the "motor" (<eyeroll>) only activates once in the intestine, where the particles collect at the intestinal wall. I am highly skeptical that the so-called "motor" is physically propelling the particles to the "target". What we are seeing in the data is a drug-coated particle, with a certain composition, that tends to arrive in the right place. Is there a nozzle to direct this "thrust"? Is there a guidance system? "micromotor" seems like a poor choice of words. Or more pessimistically, Clickbait. For all we know, there are proteins in the intestinal wall which have a slight affinity ("stickiness") for magnesium, or magnesium oxide - or like literally any of a hundred other explanations that are not literal rocket powered guided missiles. ** Getting past the stomach is easy, I think that the point of this new techniques is that they arrive at the right places, or a more optimal concentration at the right places, specifically on the intestinal membranes in question. Rather than say, flushing straight through and being passed in waste or entering the bloodstream.

Welcome to the forums! Dark matter is still a mystery. We know very few things about it. We know that it has mass and that it exerts a gravitational field based on its mass, the same way normal matter does. But it does not interact with normal matter in any other way (that we currently know of.) It is invisible, EM radiation is not impeded by it in any way. You cant touch it, it passes through normal matter, and vice versa, completely without resistance. There is dark matter in the room with you now, although it is very diffuse. There is estimated to be approximately 1 protons-worth of mass of dark matter per 2-3 cm3, within our solar system. One interesting hypothesis (note - unproven/lack of data, competes with other hypotheses) is that dark matter is normal matter that exists in other universes. Some advanced physics concepts describe how fields (eg: magnetic, electric) cannot pass between, or influence at all, other universes - except for gravity, which may be able to be felt across universes, and this is how we are detecting "dark matter". This would explain many of its strange properties, for example that you cannot see or touch it. **edit** Further note - if gravity can propagate across universes, this opens up the possibility of communication with other universes... **edit#2** Furtherfurther note - the "leaking" of gravity between universes has also been postulated to explain why gravity is so weak, compared to the other universal forces (eg: electromagnetism).

https://bioone.org/journals/bulletin-of-the-american-museum-of-natural-history/volume-35/issue-370/766.1/The-Brazilian-Goblin-Spiders-of-the-New-Genus-span-classgenus/10.1206/766.1.short "The new endemic goblin spider genus Predatoroonops is erected for 17 new soft-bodied oonopid species from Brazil: Predatoroonops schwarzeneggeri" "Males of this new genus are easily diagnosed and separated from other Oonopinae genera by the extremely modified male chelicerae that frontally have median furrows and accentuated projections."

Again, forgetting the complexities of roche limits and fancy-schmancy orbital stuff - for the water to form a "limb" joining the two bodies, it would have to be in gravitational equilibrium, meaning that the zone of space the water occupies would have to have zero net gravity. (This would also be unstable as there would be no correcting forces should something destabilise the body of fluid) And I dont think the zone of zero gravity is that large, or that shape, when two bodies approach each other, how could it be? Ergo - either one body sucks all of the water off the other, or each planet retains 100% of its water (assuming the orbit can be achieved in the first place).

Played Superhot recently, its excellent! Very much suited to VR. Literally dove onto the sofa to dodge bullets yesterday. Not played Beat Sabre yet but everyone I have talked to so far on the subject mentions it, probably better give it a go when I get a chance.

Even without taking into account Roche limits or advanced orbital mechanics, there is so much opportunity for drag forces in the described scenario that if it ever were forced into being, it would rapidly decay and you'd eventually find yourself with one large planet.

Did you order a Yorkshire Pudding for desert?

Exactly. In the english language, rules dont have to make sense "Depleted tank" has seperate meaning to "Depleted [element]" because: [image obtained by searching "eccentric british"]

I think it is possible that the "depleted" prefix to "depleted uranium" is a one-off and is not necessarily applicable to anything else. Uranium is in wide use and is mostly related to its fissile nature, DP however has applications which use its density, and can only be used if its fissile nature is "depleted". THere are exceptionally few contexts where this would apply to any other substance. Im sure there are some examples, but Id wager there are far more appropritate words/terms to use already, shoehorning in the "depleted [x]" format just seems unnecessary "sci-fi" jargon. ** I recall a vaguely related memory of a sci-fi computer game ("Xenocracy" IIRC) which had a low yield nuclear missile called a "tamped nuclear warhead". First it was incorrect use of the word "tamped", the tamping does not reduce the yield, actually the exact opposite. And ALL nuclear warhead must be tamped, or be impractically huge with much reduced efficiency, its kind of an important part of the mechanism.

The propellers were apparently in perfect condition, but the explosion did cause a "whiplash" effect in the larger structure, transmitting violent forces which can cause quite widespread structural damage.

Update time. Its been a few moons since I last thought about VR, but very recently I had a pleasant surprise. I had paid off my student loan several months ago, but due to a quirk of how student loans are run, I ended up overpaying by a decent sum of money, which was recently funnelled back into my bank account. So obviously I immediately bought an HTC Vive Pro - second hand from eBay, managed to get an ok deal. What happened next you cry? Took about, I dunno, 15 mins to get from unboxing to functioning VR setup. The installation was quite involved, but it mostly took care of itself, everything installed automatically, no issues with drivers or anything. I wont go into detail about software or how the installation wizard works, thats not why you're here. Long story short - first VR thing you see will likely be the SteamVR "home". And let me tell you, immersion is total. Your old room disappears and you are somewhere else. Walking directly into your walls is a very real risk and even though you know, intellectually, not to do so, the temptation to wander is strong. Obviously I havnt really even scratched the surface, I tried one or two things. Got a simple interior design program and tried modelling the apartment we are in the process of buying. Program was simple but damn, this is the future of interior design. This is the future. How can I describe? When you enter, say, a very large room or building when playing on a 2D monitor, cool its impressive and all...but you dont understand the difference it makes to have it be 3D and real-scale. Things look huge and far away, its a visceral effect, hardwired. When a butterfly flits past you on a 2D monitor, you notice and maybe are surprised "Ooh a butterfly". With 3D immersion, its more like "AHH WHAT THE $%&^&* WAS THAT?!?!?" because something just flew right past your ear. Its more than just a surprise or a cheap jump-scare, you actually jerk your head and start moving your hand up to brush whatever-it-was-that-nearly-touched-your-ear away. There is SO much potential with this tech, and it actually works! There IS something in this life that does exactly what it says on the tin! I havnt had a chance to really get to grips with it - my main reason for purchase is for hardcore flight simming and I really need a weekend to dedicate to starting that up, but I am confident that it is going to be an experience. Am also looking forward to trying out Fallout, Skyrim and Senua's Sacrifice. I cant really be bothered with things like fruit ninja or beat hazard or whatever its called. But even just things like chatrooms are a revelation. the SteamVR "home" (I forget what its actually called) literally has chat-ROOMS. EVeryone has a room, *I* have a room and you can invite people over or people can visit (all optional of course.) Some points to note: The damn thing requires 3 - count'em - 3 seperate power outlets, on top of all the ones that my PC, speakers, monitors etc. use, so that was a challenge. Even for seated-VR, you still need a decent space, because the base stations still need you in their field-of view. But they are quite efficient and only one needs to be able to see you at any one time. Standing or "room-scale" VR is exhausting. Before you know it you've been on your feet for 3 hours. "Room scale" VR needs a LOT of room, mostly its not an option. (And frankly, even with the largest room scale setups, you still cant walk all that far.) There arent actually that many decent games yet for VR, one or two AAA titles and a few pretty good bespoke VR games, but a lot of quite simplistic, casual or just trashy games. Man, the big fat wire is a pain, but mostly you dont notice it (until you do) but the wireless addon is like, another £500. Thats a lot for a minor quality of life upgrade. I thought the vive controllers were bulky and ugly, but guess what? It doesnt matter because you cant see them lol! For a little while after using it, after removing the goggles, you are still careful try not to bump into objects that you cannot see, and try to reach for things without walking too far. Its weird. I say you cant "see" the controllers, but you can, because most time they (or a version of them) are simulated for you exactly where they are in real space. Its accurate enough to be able to find and press buttons by seeing where they are in VR. Its very cool. For example, when you put the goggles on, obviously you cant see anything real. Except the controllers are like, right there! And they are real and you pick them up and well, did I say that immersion was total? Resolution. Probably the weakpoint of the tech. You are staring at the screens from an inch distance, you'd need an absolute TON of pixels to bring that up to HD or 4K density of detail. Even with the Vive Pro's enhanced resolution, you can still perceive a little fuzziness, still see the pixels if you squint. There's a lot of room for improvement here, but having said that, resolution is not bad and the size of the virtual display is of course massive compared to the slice of vision that even a very large 2D monitor fills. Thats what all those pixels (1440*1600 per eye) are used to do. Field of view is nothing to worry about. It is quoted I think as 110degrees, and what you see when you wear the goggs is a large circular aperture whcih fills almost your entire field. Only the very edge of peripheral vision is blacked out. Basically you hardly notice the deficit, it is effectively your entire field of vision. FunnyStoryTM: My fiance tried it. But something weird happened. She didnt seem to have the natural knack of hand-eye coordination between visual input and controller. When using the controllers in 3D space, she used them more like a keyboard and mouse attached to a PC rather than using them as her actual hands. There seemed to be a disconnect between being "in" a simulation and "operating" a simulation using fancy tools. I think if she plays around with it for a few hours, it will "click" into place and she will suddenly become much more proficient, but watching her trying to manipulate menus was painful! And surprising, actually I had assumed that everyone would take instantly to it. tl;dr - I had a nice windfall and bought an HTC Vive Pro. It lives up to the hype. This is the future. Even a true, goggle-less 3D monitor would not supercede this level of immersion, I cannot think of a device that would make this obsolete (apart from 100-year away tech like every surface [like, including the kettle, doorhandles etc.] in your house is part of an active display), only improvements in resolution and ease of use. Oh and one last thing - I have an nVidia GTX 970 GPU, the minimum spec listed on the HTC website and it runs perfectly smooth with everything I have gotten around to doing so far. Im sure I will find things to do that will tax the graphics harder, but there was certainly no massive FPS drain caused by powering the double-displays in the goggles, even with the Pro's resolution. As long as you are above a certain - apparently reasonably low - threshhold, you definitely do not need huge graphics power to drive these.

Im from the North East and totally get that...for the most part anyway. You know the scenery in Bladerunner? Ridley Scott is from around my old neck of the woods and based it on the area.

Its weird hearing people talk about visiting london but also the rest of the country, to me it sounds like you're saying "Yeah, planning a nice holiday, couple of weeks in New York City, and we might take a day and pop on over to San Francisco just whilst we're in the neighbourhood." Obviously there is a disconnect in terms of scale Just beware of train ticket prices, they're only reasonable booked well in advance and ticket price sometimes doesnt seem related to distance. Its a long term problem. We invented the railway, but are just the worst at it. It might actually be worth looking at air tickets, its only like a 40min hop between London/Manchester/Newcastle/Edinburgh (doesnt matter which pair, any one and once you take off you're minutes away from entering the landing stack at the next place.) Bristol is really nice (went to Uni there) and they have a new-ish air museum which has a Concorde http://aerospacebristol.org/ Theres a pretty historical air heritage around Bristol, there used to be a major BAE plant there IIRC, and I think the Fleet Air Arm museum? This might be an interesting "diamond in the rough", if its still open: http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/museums/main/bristol-aero-collection.htm

Looks like the rudder itself was physically jammed. "The torpedo hit aft, however, doomed the German battleship, since it jammed her rudders while Bismarck was executing a sharp port turn. According to the senior surviving officer, the rudder indicator locked at 12 degrees to port after the hit. As is typical when hits take place near the bow or stern, the ship experienced a rather severe transient whipping response that damaged equipment not designed to resist such forces. The most severe damage was to the stern overhang structure. Tears were opened in the side shell and bulkheads adjacent to the damaged area and the smoke-screen generating plant was completely destroyed. The propellers, also quite near the blast, were undamaged. Judicious use of these permitted the ship to maintain headway, but little else. Unable to steer, Bismarck could no longer avoid interception by her vastly superior fleet of pursuers. " "A MARINE FORENSIC ANALYSIS of HMS Hood and DKM Bismarck" https://web.archive.org/web/20110728032446/http://legacy.sname.org/committees/design/mfp/website/recent/research/hood_bismarck_1.pdf And to speak to its "combat worthiness" at this time: "Although Bismarck’s main and secondary armament was in essentially perfect condition at the beginning of the action, her gunfire control systems on were destroyed very early in the engagement and she scored no effective hits on her enemies." An interesting note - a torpedo hit was actually recorded on her superstructure - although this, apparently, is not completely unheard of when a ship capsizes.

Londoner here Most of the big ticket items already mentioned - RAF museum, Duxford, Imperial War, HMS Belfast and the Science Museum. All of them are must-visits. Be aware that Duxford and Portsmouth are both about 2 hours travel away from London-proper (depending on exactly where you are based of course). I dont know too much about Portsmouth but there IS a ton of Navy stuff there, mostly historic, such as the Mary Rose exhibit and a big museum. Lets see if I can come up with anything else, but most of the science/military stuff mostly covered. The Natural History museum is literally next door to the Science museum and is on par in terms of excellence. Hard to do them both in one day, but you could do it. The Victoria & Albert museum is really interesting, something for everyone. From classical art to japanese fashion to drawings by Galileo. Theres one hallway just dedicated to old locks. Its a very eclectic mix. Probably more art than science but its one of my favorites. The Welcome Collection. Now this is a cool titbit. Started way back when by a rich guy who just wanted to showcase his collection of cool stuff. It is quite medically oriented and actually houses a functioning research laboratory. Highlight for me was the exhibit containing Lord Admiral Nelson's straight-razor and Napoleon's toothbrush. There is also a full hardcopy of a complete human genome - yes, the font is very small and the volumes very thick. Greenwich - Greenwich is a lovely place to visit especially if you can get a nice day, nice grass areas, cafes and a market of local stuff. Cool T-Shirts. Its a part of London-Proper but it has a much more villagey feel to it. The Cutty Sark and the Maritime museum are two main attractions here. Maritime museum is one of the things I want to see the most that I have not managed to do yet. Occasionally you might be able to see a Big Ship moored up nearby as well, I saw the new HMS Queen Elizabeth tied up there when she was still under construction. Something else I have not done yet - I think its quite new - is the Churchill War Rooms. Give it a google and you'll know as much as I do about it. If you like aquaria, theres a great one on the Southbank. In fact, the Southbank is a great place to visit in itself and houses a handful of attractions. Its a good place to eat or grab some streetfood and walk the river with views of London. Naturally theres a ton of other things too worth seeing. London transport mus. London Dungeon. Tower of London. Design mus. Tate modern (IF you're into "ART" with a capital "A"). St. Pauls. The Shard (dont book "tickets" to the observation deck, just go to one of the bars, views basically the same.) London Eye (Meh. Dont do this AND the Shard. Do one or the other.) Speedboat trips up+down the Thames. And my favourite London restaurant: https://rules.co.uk/ PS: also just check out things like special exhibitions that may be on at various places. There are often things happening on the Southbank, or special exhbitions at places like the Scince mus. or the V&A etc.etc. Most of the big museums are totally free EXCEPT for special exhibitions. PPS: Oh and theres a tiny Sherlock Holmes museum at 221b Baker Street (yup, the actual address). Its very small but quite cute, if youre into Sherlock type stuff. You only need 30 mins there.

A big deal but still combat capable. A turret could keep fighting on its own for example. But fresh orders, coordination, navigation and communications with fleet would become a problem, although I would imagine that there are backups for each of these for this event. One should not that battleship bridges were heavily armoured, the bridge would have an inner, armoured bridge for use in battle: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/iowa-class-battleships-had-vault-like-conning-towers-bu-1737002503

Carbon fibre is light. 2 tons of it is a lot. Besides the starting materials (which are...soot and plastic) the manufacturing processes are quite involved. It has to be baked in vacuum, for a start. When a 5kg carbon fibre tour-de-France bike can cost 20k, 5 mill for a 2000kg fairing sounds reasonable. I'd wager that a steel fairing would not be strong enough, and a heavy fairing, taking advantage of leftover lift capacity, might have disadvantages not immediately obvious. Eg: steel strength falls rapidly with temperature increase or a heavy steel fairing might be cheaper to build but more expensive to handle (being ten times heavier), it could easily be a health+safety thing that cannot be predicted simply from the bulk properties of the material. The least likely explanation is that they are wasting money on an expensive fairing with a cheap option right there. Id wager there is something that makes a steel fairing more expensive in the long run, or the CF one cheaper, above and beyond their respective retail prices.

Its a dirty nutritionist secret that fruit juices are about on par with most soft drinks, health-wise. They can be more acidic and can contain as much sugar as coke. "Fruit sugar" (fructose) is no more "healthy" than any other sugar and can be worse due to how it is metabolised. This is a real effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment But still, yeah, not all friends are equal.

Wow I wasnt expecting such a big difference!

I think it might be arguable that it should not be surprising that the core is a harder place to reach. Is there more mass between a person on the Earth's surface and the core? Or between them and a nearish star?

Too many factors to make a reliable prediction but that was the hope... ...but as we all [should] know, war doesnt always work out the way you think. Just off the top of my head, the weather could completely change the outcome either way in that scenario.

Its basically turned into the militaries of Europe vs. the militaries of Asia. But it turns out we actually have quite a good idea what a ground invasion of Europe from the East would look like. Just take those projections made for the Fulda gap during the cold war and scale up by about 2-400% and you're about there I reckon. Weapons and units are more sophisticated today, but no great paradigm-shifts in warfighting since then. Massed ground assault vs defence in depth with a seasoning of nuclear escalation. Most projections had the West holding out against a Soviet assault....but only just. It would have come down to the vaguaries of war and nuclear politics. Now increase the invading force by several times and the picture looks a lot more hopeful for the East and the West doesnt have much else to add to the table (Cold war already involved all NATO countries). So my reckoning is that it would be a easy success for the East, barring nuclear exchange which would level the playing field somewhat, but might destroy the thing being fought over.