Fully defensive Monk (lvl 6) Thoughts?

ItsBuck · 1 month

This raises an interesting question. If your main point of contention is that carrying a baby causes changes in the mother, how would you feel if humans laid eggs like birds or reptiles? Would you consider it a socially acceptable practice to smash an egg if the mother didn't want it, or would that be an immoral act?

Hob_Gammidge · 1 month

There's this

I don't believe that God enjoys screwing anyone over. He wants everyone, but not everyone will pick him, and he knows that.

waht · 2 months

Anything is possible. Not everything is probable.

I believe Star Trek Voyager had an episode covering this very question. They actually give well reasoned arguments as to why humans never discovered the civilizations before.

HerrPotatis · 2 months

For all practical applications, usually no more than 3 decimal places. Ancient peoples got along fine with less precise approximations of pi.

Ancient Hebrews: pi ~=3

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it about. (I Kings 7, 23; II Chronicles 4, 2.)

Ancient Egyptians: pi =~ 3.1605

((8d)/9) ² = pi * r²

(16r/9)² = pi * r²

(16/9)² = pi

3.1605 ~= pi

Ancient Greeks(Archimedes): 223/71 > pi > 22/7

Calculated by finding the areas of regular polygons that inscribed and circumscribed the circle.

Many civilizations, each responsible for amazing feats of engineering, didn't use more than 2 decimal places for pi.

HerrPotatis · 2 months

we know surprisingly little about their decimal behavior

Actually, we know the exact expression for the value of e. It's an irrational number, but it conforms to a very noticeable pattern if you expand it out with continued fractions. here

Unfortunately, the same can't be said for pi.

drakeypoo · 2 months

Yep. Your dexterity is still limited by the physical structure of your little toe, but it would get easier to control over time. You did it with all the muscle groups you control now when you were an infant. That's why infants appear to have such crude motions, they're still learning how to use everything.

You can also "teach" yourself to control involuntary twitches as well. If you experience that particular twitch enough, you can "learn" the muscle group responsible for producing it. With a little practice, you can turn the twitch into a voluntary motion.

Ecorin · 2 months

Perhaps cross-sectional area was a poor choice in terms. It's more closely the projection of the opening onto the normal of the surface of the earth. If you take a cylinder and look at the bottom of it, then angle it, the observed area is smaller. This is the term I was going for.

MintyChaos · 2 months

What you're describing sounds to me a lot like the Afterimage phenomenon.

Basically, it happens when you view a high contrast object (the single night light in an otherwise dark hallway in your case) and your receptors (the rods and cones) in your eye cannot clear it. Because they hold the same level of stimulation for too long (a very relative term), they tire and temporarily stop responding to changes in the image.

This is why you see the spots or light moving around in the dark. The spots always appear in the same position in every image your brain gets. The "bouncing" you notice is your eyes attempting to focus on an object whose position is relative to the eye's position. You can never look directly at it, no matter how hard you try, so you chase it visually until it disappears, so it appears to move relative to the environment.

Ecorin · 2 months

Correct. Also - fun side fact - it's not just the diameter of the needle that affects the size of a droplet. It's also closely tied to the cross-sectional area of the needle. The radius affects this, yes, but the angle you hold the needle at makes a very large difference.

If you take a piece of wax paper and an eyedropper, if you hold the eyedropper vertically, you'll get smaller dots than if you hold it at a 45 degree angle. The vertical orientation of the dropper has a larger cross-sectional surface area and thus less effects of surface tension, so the droplet detaches faster. The angled orientation has a smaller surface area, so the droplet can accumulate more volume before gravity wins out and it drops down.

This is why whenever you need an accurate measurement of drops, hold it vertically. If you're measuring precipitants or pH values of dilutions, the change in drop size can give you very different results.

FireFight · 2 months

It doesn't. The universe just waits to see how long it lasts, then it decides.

jackatman · 2 months

I get a broken link. Do you have another source?

jjmcnugget · 2 months

(acoustic intensity) = (displacement distance)² * (frequency)² * (the speed of sound) * (the density of the medium)

You can think of the displacement distance as the amplitude of the sound and the frequency as the pitch. Given that the speed of sound is a constant, your acoustic intensity in dB is proportional to the density of the medium. Empty space has a density of effectively 0, so you get no sound there, but in a gas cloud, the observed volume would be directly proportional to the density of the gas in the cloud, which in itself is caused by the force of gravity between all the gas particles.

The sound "exists" in these clouds, but most clouds are so spread apart, it's at levels so low the human hear could not discern it. If you're talking about something more localized like a gas planet, there's definitely sound there, and plenty of it. Jupiter and Saturn have air pressures over 1000x that of Earth, so if follows that they would be incredibly loud.

Lemon_Aid · 2 months

It depends on whether the disease is recessive or dominant.

Dominant traits only still exist because the person lives to reproduce before the disease kills them. That's why you don't see dominant diseases that kill early in life. They go extinct before they're passed.

Recessive traits are a little trickier. A person can carry a recessive gene for a disease, but never get the disease (they have a hybrid genotype). This is why certain diseases like genetically passed forms of anemia are still around. If you're healthy and unaware of your genetic shortcoming, you breed and pass it on to your children. Even if both you and your partner are hybrids, odds are only 1 in 4 of any children you have will die. Since I'm not sure where you are coming from in terms of biology education, I'll draw you some punnett squares for reference.

Case 1: 1 Hybrid and 1 Clean

\ R |R
R|RR|RR
r|Rr|Rr

If "r" represents our disease and you have to have two "r" genes to get the disease, this pair produces no outwardly sick children. It does, however, allow the genes for the disease to be passed along.

Case 2: Two Hybrids

\ R | r
R|RR|Rr
r|Rr|rr

Here, two outwardly healthy parents have a 1 in 4 chance of producing an outwardly ill child, a 2 in 4 chance of continuing the disease's propagation, and a 1 in 4 chance of a genetically clean child.

Case 3: 1 outwardly ill individual, 1 clean individual

\ r |r
R|Rr|Rr
R|Rr|Rr

This pair produces no outwardly ill inidviduals, but creates 4 hybrids that enter the gene pool. Here we can see it is beneficial evolutionarily for a disease to kill after the individual has reproduced rather than before.

Case 5: 2 clean -> all children clean

Case 6: 2 outwardly ill -> all children outwardly ill

From this, we can note that a recessive trait has a >50% propagation rate. More pernicious diseases that kill earlier are closer to 50% whereas the more chronic ones are higher. As long as the population grows, the diseases persist.

TL;DR: Dominant diseases - People have sex before they die. Recessive diseases - people carry the diseased gene without getting sick.

Note: These examples are all based on simple dominance and recessiveness. In reality, the genetic model is more complicated than this. This also covers only diseases that are carried in a single gene. Diseases that span genes or are not entirely dominant or entirely recessive make this model much harder to figure.

Edit: Formatting. It's hard to make Punnett squares out of a text editor

StephenWolfram-Real · 2 months

You would also have to approximate the packing ratio (ratio of free space to occupied space) of paper clips too, which is a difficult problem in itself. Then you need the shape of the pool as well as the size. Are the walls rounded or flat? Is it a circle, a rectangle, or neither? This also affects how many paperclips you can fit.

RayADropofGoldenSun · 3 months

I definitely agree with this. A psychiatrist diagnosed me with ADD when I was about 12 years old. I was failing all my classes, I could never finish a task or a project, and sitting still and focusing was something I could do for 10 minutes tops, on a good day. She started me on Concerta and I stayed on it for several years, but then stopped before I went to college because I didn't want to rely on drugs my whole life. Everything started falling apart again. I wasn't lazy. I just literally couldn't do it.

I know a kid whose mom had him diagnosed with ADD and put on medication. He claimed that the medicine made him "angry" and "hyper". She refuses to believe me when I tell her that her son doesn't have ADD. ADD medication amounts to a few chemical inhibitors mixed with amphetamines. That's why he's angry. That's why he's hyper. He doesn't have it. She just refuses to believe that he's not doing well because of some other reason.

It's people that excuse their or their children's actions with ADD that tick me off. I know what it's like. I know what you can and can't control when you have it. I know you're trying to sell me some BS. I've gotten to the point where I never mention I have it to anyone because the fakers have ruined it for me. I don't get sympathy or understanding. I get rolled eyes.

MisterFlibble · 3 months

I had hoped you would ask me that.

I recommend you read a little of Sir William Ramsay's The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament

It's a bit long, but chapter 3 and onward each deal with a specific instance that seemed rather unlikely, but upon further investigation proved itself to be true. You can read in depth, or just scan the chapters if you want. He spells out the apparent contradiction and accounts the legwork he did to try to see if it was true.

MisterFlibble · 3 months

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." -Cristopher Hitchens

I assume this statement was made regarding a rebuttal of Russell's Teapot. In regard to evidence, I believe this statement isn't entirely true. I can tell you that I have 10 fingers and 10 toes and most people would take that at face value and believe it. If I told you I had 9 toes, it would be less believable, but you'd expect an anecdote of how I lost a toe. If I told you I had 11 toes, you`d probably want a picture or refuse to believe it. Claims that depart from what is normal usually require evidence. We live most of our lives taking only the evidence of competent authoritry. To do otherwise would reduce our entire lives to uncertainty.

I will admit that many of the miraculous claims made in the Bible have little to no archaeological evidence, and I do not blame anyone for skeptcism of them, but many of the rather unlikely claims made in the Bible have indeed been proven to be true.

I have a question for you, though. Doesn`t the notion to dismiss something stem from evidence of unlikeliness? That, in itself, is evidence.

whatthefuckguys · 3 months

Can't speak for everyone else, but I don't much like the idea of anyone using this page for a campaign platform. That's why I down voted it.

MisterFlibble · 3 months

On what grounds do you call different books of the Bible the same story? The books span hundreds of years with nearly 40 different authors. If they were making up an end to a story, it would be the end to some other guy's story, not their own. Moreover, many of the events written are the end to multiple people's stories. The new testament shows the fulfillment of psalms, Isaiah, Malachai, Job, Ezekiel, and many others. You can always call it a conspiracy, say that they made it up to hold power, but then the question is who "they" are and what "they" would stand to gain from a story that teaches people to love one another and to worship a deity whose will overrides even the King.

You're right that the archeological evidence for miracles is very sparse, but bread rots, mana goes bad in a matter of 2 days, cities are rebuilt, and life goes on. The same claim you make about miracles could be applied to any number of ancient events. Why don't we disbelieve stories about the ancient Greeks, the Mongolian hordes, Alexander the Great, or stories of ancient Saxony (England)? Easy. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I touched on the point of cohesion earlier, but these ancient myths you claim are so consistent are riddled with issues. Taking the Greek ones as an example, they can't decide whether Hades, Zeus, and Poseidon drew lots for their kingdoms or if Hades was cast into the underworld as a punishment for treachery. They can't settle on genealogies of many of the gods. They don't even provide any sort of chronology for events. Each event is self-contained and doesn't have any temporal locality to any others.

MisterFlibble · 3 months

You could always go with fulfilled prophesy, archaeological evidence, and cohesion of message. Mythology doesn't have that backing it up.

Houston979 · 3 months

Is this today's Battalion? I need to make sure to grab a copy.

NeedsEvidence · 3 months

Notable Points:

Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis.

People don't get evolution because it's a slow process.

Free space has energy and is inherently unstable.

It would be more surprising if we didn't have a universe than the fact that we do have one.

Our universe is remarkably complex, so God must be remarkably complex

Other forms of life might yet exist.

Scientists and politicians should be atheists or they hold contradictory points of view and are then to be considered untrustworthy.

Politicians lie about their religion because people consider atheists as untrustworthy as rapists.

The anthropic principle is valid only if we have the assumption that we are typical, both evolutionarily and cosmologically.

Because we live in the time and place we do, what we can know will be different from any intelligent being that might exist at a different time or place.

A deistic God may exist, but not the Judeo-Christian one

God is irrelevant to science

Religion is incompatible with science

Just because something is comforting does not make it true.

Particles can be created from nothing if there's high gravity and they will have opposite energy, so it doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Audience Questions:

Is it wrong to accept an atheist standpoint as a starting point for science? (Was booed off after trying to quote Hebrews 11:2)

Life from a non-carbon chemical foundation or a non-water foundation

What can I do to spread science? ("spread the good word" were here exact words)

Why are science teachers bad at their jobs?

How did rational fear in predators and such become irrational fears like politics and religion?

If 90% of people believe in religion, how would the minority prove their worldview is the correct one?

Idiocracy dilemma

What caused the Big Bang?

Dawkins says science is good, religion is bad. Where do humanities stand?

If we have separation between church and state, why is religious reasoning from politicians tolerable?

Is there a scientific basis for the evolution of free will?

I put down as many as I could recall and went back through it to see if i skipped any segments. This is most of the main points.

Wizzelz · 3 months

Also correct. I'm sure you already know what I'm about to say, but I figured I'd tie it in for the casual reader.

These sRGB and aRGB schemes work by pushing "pure" red, green, and blue values father out. If you're working from the area equations mentioned, aRGB and sRGB work by allowing adjustment of the R term, allowing a larger spectrum while maintaining only 3 reference colors.

diplomatika · 3 months

Eating McDonalds for every meal will kill you faster than smoking will, but you can't really equate the two like that. They damage different parts of your body. Smoking impacts the lungs (obviously), the brain (by forcing nicotine receptors to bind to it), and the circulatory system (by decreased oxygenation and increased heart rate). Fast food works on the circulatory system (via cholesterol), endocrine system (via cholesterol and fat), and liver.

There haven't been as many studies done on fast food diets as there have been on smoking, but most studies showed a rapid decline in liver function and decreased circulation as the primary results. The results of the experiment in "Supersize Me" shows that the liver of one who eats too much fast food is in many ways indistinguishable from that of an alcoholic.

Cirrhosis of the liver will make eating nothing but fast food more dangerous than smoking in that you will probably die faster, but neither is a good choice to make. A normal, healthy person is more likely to die from a fast food diet than a nicotine overdose, but both of them are destructive to your health, and telling yourself that smoking is still healthier than fast food is not a good stance to make.

kg959

TROPHY CASE

kg959

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login