lajoswinkler

Life doesn't require oxygen. Even today, large part of the total living biomass is anaerobic. It's part of the biosphere that survived the oxygen disaster and managed to stay undercover, away from that poisonous gas. Methane we see on places like Titan is primordial. It's condensed nebula we were made from. Because of their high abundance and extreme stability and versatility of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur compounds, you can bet all life begins with those in aqueous solutions. Shapes of organisms depend on what they do and where they do it and you can bet on high similarities to our invertebrates, if they get to complex multicellular levels.

I don't understand, how will he ever launch with the weight of his steel balls? Joking aside, he is a bit nutty, but I'm with him when he says: "That's what happens though. You try to do something great like this, and you just get nixed by all these city councils and all these environmentalists and people that don't really know anything about what you're doing," Hughes said. "The amount of money and media it would bring to an area is phenomenal, plus the residual income from people coming back years down the road to see where Mad Mike took off and landed." I don't see any reason to not let him do this. It's his choice. If the country allowed people smoking, which causes huge financial problems with nation-wide lung cancer, if it allowes people injuring one another and promoting violence in ill-named "sports" such as boxing, if it allowes gambling which ruins whole families, why shouldn't he get a permission to launch himself in a well inspected vehicle over a river? Unlike people in mentioned examples, this guy is only endangering himself. It's pure bureocratic hypocrisy.

That's ......... Of course it's in the brain. It's the result of total central nervous system performance. It can be detected, modified, turned off and on using chemicals, scalpels, lasers, electrical and very powerful dynamic magnetic field. There's literally no evidence for your statement, yet tons of evidence against it.

I saw it yesterday.

No, it's 100%. But there is usually a software that comes with the laptop's motherboard drivers that offers you different energy management. I use battery saving which holds charge at 60%.

Does anyone have negative feelings about this sight? (you approach it, look down, and there's nasty stuff going into the abyss)

IskuÅ¡ao sam Orbiter prije nekoliko godina i odbilo me to Å¡to je jako user-unfriendly, a i to Å¡to je dosta ružno izgledao. Doslovno kao da maÄÂku staviÅ¡ u pilotsku kabinu i Å¡to sad? Eto, imaÅ¡ tipke i vozi. LOL OK je kao ozbiljni simulator, ali previÅ¡e za mene.

Istina, to su sve dobre ideje. ViÅ¡e nego jednom sam predlagao Squadu da u poÄÂetak karijernog naÄÂina simulatora ne stavljaju odmah Kerbale, Å¡to je odmah na nož doÄÂekala dežurna djeÄÂja posada trolova. Isti oni koji su napadali Ferram Aerospace Research i Deadly Reentry. I gle - sad će ih ukljuÄÂiti u MeÄ‘utim karijerni naÄÂin mi je dosadio, a kako i neće nakon tri pokuÅ¡aja? markothefan1, tko će ti reći? btw lijepa letjelica.

Oh, few decades ago it was mandatory to learn this, and then it was abandoned in schools. Then it was reinstated. I think it was abandoned, again.

Electron microscopy requires specially prepared material and that usually considers heavy metal ion binding to the object you want to watch. It's always dead material and thus it appearance is not the same. These critters wouldn't explode, but they will suffocate in vacuum. They are doomed. Their breathing holes are clogged and it's a matter of short time before they kick the bucket. But it's nice to see something alive under electron beam for change.

Thank you.

Yeah, I didn't mean completely different movie. Try to make a script where the initial set of parameters is the same. Debris impacts the shuttle. I don't understand the jaded hatred towards this movie. OK, it's not the best movie of all times, but it's among the greatest pieces of SF ever filmed. Does such superiority turn some people into nitpicking twats? Amount of things where you'd have to close your eyes because of factual errors was negligible compared to 99% of all movies dealing with space. Saying it's "the worst film ever" is nothing short of an idiotic statement, and it's not my subjective opinion. Worst movies ever don't get a load of Oscars.

Dobro doÅ¡ao. Ako imaÅ¡ koji screenshot, slobodno ga stavi ovdje. U novom updateu napokon dolazi neÅ¡to sliÄÂno FAR-u i DRE-u, da.

Its eyes are rather uncanny. That reptile stare, lacking neocortical emotions, with those weird pupils. Why yes, we are. Here's some more weird flowers. http://www.lifebuzz.com/similar-flowers/ This might also be scary for some people. Although not flowers, but leaves, they look rather uncanny. That's why we have klunatik channel to make us feel better. https://www.youtube.com/user/klunatik

It reminds me that rocket science is not a valid term. It's aerospace engineering.

This is a rather uncomfortable photo for me, too, but I can tolerate it. You? You must be terrified of this photo, right?

You do realize that without those key features of the script, the whole movie would end in the first 5 minutes, right? If you think you could do better, do it. I dare you.

Why on earth is that cheesy? If anything, most people actually didn't get the meaning of the protagonist's rebirth.

Why is it absurd?

I've explained this in the original, main thread PakledHostage linked. They have angular momentum and the centrifugal force is there. It simply must happen in real world. Whether or not it's dangerous depends on the parachute rope vs suit friction, and that's where the scenario freedom fits in. It's an elegant, superb moment in the movie that not even some scientists have recognized, which is a shame.

Well not everyone on the planet lives in a rich country where most stuff is peachy. Vast majority of the world continues to use (at least as the redundant base) analog radio, continues to include RF ports on television sets, etc. Digital networks and the whole Internet thing is horribly prone to attacks and collapses. Shifting to it and abandoning well established technology tested for more than hundred years would be incredible stupidity. The same goes for commands in vehicles such as aircrafts and spacecrafts, also military equipment. Shifting to 100% digital input is never done for a damn good reason. Digital transmission requires an RF port. It's just the encoding of the radiowave information that is different. If you're talking about Internet Protocol Television, then you don't need anything other than a phone network connection, but that costs money. Each month you have to pay for it. Digital television is free. You plug in the antenna in the RF port and you're good to go. There's always at least main national television broadcast, but in most cases you have lots of channels (private local ones, etc.). 1) I don't think it's being phased out. It's a basic, redundant system and it always exists. I've yet have to find an example of a country where good old analogue radiowave transmission has become abandoned. It is being upgraded; digital transmission is being added. Television is a bit different, but radio is still firmly into RF. 2) Why should all of them be equipped with it? One is enough and most of them are connected to that grid. 3) Really? That is not important? Wow, the things I won't read here... That's one of the most important things to avoid massive panic. 4) Literally any 3.5 mm cable can be used. 5) That's not how these things must work. A disaster can occur and then you tune in to the radio. Any reasonably intelligent person would do that in the case of total power failure. Networks are down, there's no electricity, but you have your radio and your batteries and you tune in to the national broadcast. You must live in a wealthy community. Most of the world's phones are Androids.

Geez. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80281-Interstellar

Great stuff, but I'm getting annoyed by the constant following of the mouse pointer. I can't keep the planet still while I change its preferences.

You have much to learn about communication redundancy. Pushing the world into digital-only is one of the stupidest things we could do. Those things have the fragment of rubustness. It's like deciding to abandon RF ports on television sets. You simply don't do that, and it's absolutely not comparable to printing first aid in every book. LOL Radio is elegant and doesn't suffer from digital problem such as if part of the transmission is failing, you get no transmission at all. You get some white noise, that's it.

I'd make it required by law. Having a radio receiver can be a lifesaver. Radio is a lot more robust thing than WWW and you want redundancy when you spread information.