griffenjam

Members
  • Content count

    2693
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

193 Neutral

About griffenjam

  • Rank
    Contributor
  1. What do you do to get in the mood for productive work?

    Quote:Original post by tstrimp One thing I've read is to commit yourself to working on it for 5 minutes. Thats a small number and much easier to get started on. Once you're done with your 5 minutes you're usually in the mood to continue at that point. It's worth a try anyway. I do this all the time. I'll find just a few lines of code that I know need work and make a few changes, before I know it I've written a few more modules and it's time to go home.
  2. Quote:Original post by mattnewport That article really does beg the question, just what is the standard international condom size? I know for condoms made in the US (likely to be the internation standard) a regular condom is designed for a 4-5 in...member...
  3. Help me fix my PC

    Quote:Original post by superpig Also, while I do have a machine I could put the motherboard into to test with, getting hold of it would be pretty inconvenient (it's at my parents' house). Beyond a simple visual inspection, are there any standalone tools that I can use to test the motherboard with? Aside from a second power supply there are none that I know of. If the problem is your power supply there's a good chance that it took the MB with it though, this has often been the case with faulty power supplies in my experiance.
  4. Help me fix my PC

    Sounds like a blown capacitor either on the MB or in the power supply.
  5. Gonna fly... I'm a free bird!

    Quote:Original post by krikkit Seems that some duct tape is in order when I first open my Wii. Someone beat you to the punch.
  6. I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

    Quote:Original post by LessBread It seems to me that if we figured out gravity we would also have figured out faster than light travel, in which case we could just colonize a suitable planet in another star system. [cue Star Trek theme song... [grin] ] There be dragons in other star systems!
  7. Gonna fly... I'm a free bird!

    I almost want to get a Wii just to see if I would end up doing this. Ohh, and to play the games....
  8. I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

    Quote:Original post by LessBread Quote:Original post by griffenjam Quote:Original post by LessBread Quote:Original post by griffenjam I'm not saying that it wouldn't take a large amount of work. Venus is the prime example of a runaway greenhouse effect. First you would have to thin the atmosphere just to make it so the pressure wouldn't kill you, then you would have to change it's composition so that it wouldn't hold on to heat as well. The difference is that the gravity problems on the Moon and on Mars are things that can never be fixed. Hawking made his statement with the point of preserving mankind in the Event that the Earth were rendered unliveable and it's unlikely that a base on the Moon or Mars will ever be able to be totally independant of help from Earth, or even that humans would be able to live there for a non-trivial amount of time. It would take more money and time to set up a base on Venus, but once you did it could be self supporting and be an actual colony with families and cities and stuff, not just one enclosed base with a rotating staff. Would the payloads we sent to Venus survive the acid in the upper atmosphere? Terraforming would be long and costly and at first would have to consist of siphoning the atmosphere from above. I understand that it's not easy. If I'm wrong about the lack of gravity having such a strong effect on the human body then Mars is an idea planet to set up camp on, but I don't think I am. Even one year in space has pretty severe effects on the bone structure of the people there, and that's with the contrived work outs they do. Ten years of 1/3 gravity may not even be possible for the human body to take. I'm not saying Venus is the easiest choice, I'm saying it's the only possbile choice. Don't you mean probable? I mean, it's possible that we could figure out how to generate gravity in which case it would be "back to the moon Alice!" [grin] I've thought about that as well, the problem with that is it limits the use of the colony. You wouldn't want to artificially increase the gravity of Mars or the Moon on a planet wide scale (do this to a simple simulation of the Solar system and see what happens after a few decades) so you would need to do so on in inhabited areas. You could make it just a normal part of buildings, or place some kind of generator under cities, but what about livestock and nature areas? A colony to replace the Earth would require wild animals and they would have the same problems adapting to low gravity as we would. So, with artificial gravity Mars and the Moon open up as options, but limited options. People could stay there as long as they like but it wouldn't be a true independant colony, it would still require food sent from Earth.
  9. Global Inequality and the Spectre of Capitalism

    I always find studies like this interesting because it seems to suggest a universal standard for wealth. Not all people seek to dominate markets and spend their lives hording as much as possible. Personally, if I had 10 or 15 million dollars I wouldn't work another day in my life, but you see these super-rich working like dogs (for super rich people) despite great wealth. Also, the first and third world are different. I don't think it's always a matter of third worlders being denied access to money or assests, it's a matter of them having a different society, government, level of technology, and just plain being different people. What would a study like this have shown just before the age of exploration? A small number of societies around the world would have possessed things that today we would classify as wealth and nearly everyone on the planet would have been living in what we would call poverty (no running water, simple buildings, little to no international trade options...). A study done at that time would have found things to be very similar to what they are now and it wouldn't have been because of the rich keeping people poor, or corrupt systems denying the lower classes opportunity, it would have been differences in culture, and technology. I'm not saying the rich doesn't keep the poor down, because I know they do...in many many cases they do. But I'm am saying that what wealth is and what poor is often depends on who is experiencing it, which makes it a very hard thing to quantify in this manner.
  10. I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

    Quote:Original post by LessBread Quote:Original post by griffenjam I'm not saying that it wouldn't take a large amount of work. Venus is the prime example of a runaway greenhouse effect. First you would have to thin the atmosphere just to make it so the pressure wouldn't kill you, then you would have to change it's composition so that it wouldn't hold on to heat as well. The difference is that the gravity problems on the Moon and on Mars are things that can never be fixed. Hawking made his statement with the point of preserving mankind in the Event that the Earth were rendered unliveable and it's unlikely that a base on the Moon or Mars will ever be able to be totally independant of help from Earth, or even that humans would be able to live there for a non-trivial amount of time. It would take more money and time to set up a base on Venus, but once you did it could be self supporting and be an actual colony with families and cities and stuff, not just one enclosed base with a rotating staff. Would the payloads we sent to Venus survive the acid in the upper atmosphere? Terraforming would be long and costly and at first would have to consist of siphoning the atmosphere from above. I understand that it's not easy. If I'm wrong about the lack of gravity having such a strong effect on the human body then Mars is an idea planet to set up camp on, but I don't think I am. Even one year in space has pretty severe effects on the bone structure of the people there, and that's with the contrived work outs they do. Ten years of 1/3 gravity may not even be possible for the human body to take. I'm not saying Venus is the easiest choice, I'm saying it's the only possbile choice.
  11. I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

    Quote:Original post by ROBERTREAD1 The money would be better spent by the people who earnt it. Lower the extortion rate and give taxpayers a break. The problem with "What If?" scenarios is that they have no credibility until they actually happen, reguardless of that I'll use one anyways. As Hawking points out, one stray rock in space could be the end of all mankind. The more we are involved in space the more we are likely to be able to prevent this, that being the case isn't the money spent on this kind of thing worth it if it saves the live of everyone on Earth? Or, if the Earth is destroyed isn't it worth it to have a ready made planet to flee to? Also, keep in mind that not all money spent on space produces no returns....are you forgetting VELCRO!!!!111oneonetwo? Technology developed for the space program seeps into our lives and raises the quality of life for everyone, so it's not like you're throwing your tax money down the drain.
  12. I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

    I'm not saying that it wouldn't take a large amount of work. Venus is the prime example of a runaway greenhouse effect. First you would have to thin the atmosphere just to make it so the pressure wouldn't kill you, then you would have to change it's composition so that it wouldn't hold on to heat as well. The difference is that the gravity problems on the Moon and on Mars are things that can never be fixed. Hawking made his statement with the point of preserving mankind in the Event that the Earth were rendered unliveable and it's unlikely that a base on the Moon or Mars will ever be able to be totally independant of help from Earth, or even that humans would be able to live there for a non-trivial amount of time. It would take more money and time to set up a base on Venus, but once you did it could be self supporting and be an actual colony with families and cities and stuff, not just one enclosed base with a rotating staff.
  13. I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

    There's only one planet in this system that it's really worth looking at for a base and that's Venus. The ultra-low gravity of the Moon would cause problems for people that stay there longer than a year, it would be just a larger ISS, totally dependant on the Earth with no way for people to actually live there. The low gravity of Mars has the same drawback, but the extreme travel time to get there would make short duration stays less feasible. There's a high possibility of it being a one way trip as once you adjust to being there going back to Earth (3 times more gravity) might kill you. Venus is very close to the same mass as Earth is, so there is likely to be few to no long term health issues involved in living there. Also, you would be able to come back to Earth after you made the transition. The drawback being that of all the rocky plants Venus has the most hostile environment.
  14. wireless power

    I read this this morning and was initially very excited. Then I read that it was all theory and they hadn't actually done it yet. I have a feeling that there's something they aren't saying. Mostly because the statements "US researchers have outlined a relatively simple system" and "team has not built and tested a system" don't seem to add up. If it's so simple then why release anything before you have a working model? I have a feeling the problem will lie here: "the team investigated a special class of 'non-radiative' objects with so-called 'long-lived resonances'." I'm betting these are dream objects that would make this possbile...you may as well say that anti-gravity would be easy to develop if you could find a metal that had gravity shielding properties.
  15. questions about gravity

    Quote:Original post by SuperNerd Could you just rotate the world and keep everthing else the same? It depends on how objects in the world interact with the gravity changes. Imagine a rock is sitting on the ground. It will be rotating with the world and will be unaffected by gravity change, but what if you pick it up and throw it and gravity changes while it's in the air. Does it still rotate with the world? No, well, it sholdn't. To extend something that was said before, rather than using <0, 1, 0> when your gravity vector is <0 -9.8, 0> I would normalize the gravity vector and negate it. In that example it comes down to the same thing but in cases where your might have a gravity vector with more than one compenent you will need to also have a normalized up vector with more than one compenent.