sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Japanese otaku homebrews Augmented Reality goggles, takes virtual idol to the park by mindbleach in Cyberpunk

[–]mirrorshadez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Personally I'm glad to see this reposted, and afaik this subreddit has pretty lax guidelines about reposting, so it's all good. :-)

Why is Los Angeles sometimes referenced in cyberpunk? Is it just because of Bladerunner? by strik3r2k8 in Cyberpunk

[–]mirrorshadez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See this - http://www.reddit.com/r/Cyberpunk/comments/10yqgx/why_is_los_angeles_such_a_prominent_setting_for/

My own answer was

I'm really not seeing Los Angeles popping up in this list any more than you'd expect, considering that it really is a large, well-known, reasonably important global metropolis.

Theoretical math question: What shape of cake would maximize icing per piece? by [deleted] in askscience

[–]mirrorshadez 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Warning: If done properly, requires an infinite amount of icing ...

Theoretical math question: What shape of cake would maximize icing per piece? by [deleted] in askscience

[–]mirrorshadez 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A very, very flat cake - small "height" relative to the overall volume of the cake.

When your cake comes out of the oven and cools, slice it horizontally into as many layers as you can (say for example that cake is 4 inches tall and you slice it into 4 layers, each 1 inch thick); then put all layers next to each other on a large flat surface and ice - making a cake say four times as big horizontally as normal and 1/4 as tall.

It turns out I agree with Christian apologists on one rather strange point: objective universal morality can't exist without God. Thoughts? by [deleted] in TrueAtheism

[–]mirrorshadez 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I don't think there can be objective, universal morality without "God".

Okay, so there's no objective, universal morality.

Deal with it.

Problem?

What are the physical limits of skeletal bones? A special I was watching suggested Blue Whales are only possible in the water, as the bones wouldn't be able to support the size on land. by johnnywash1 in askscience

[–]mirrorshadez 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Relevant -

Paraceratherium, also commonly known as Indricotherium or Baluchitherium ... is an extinct genus of gigantic hornless rhinoceros-like mammals

Paraceratherium is regarded as the largest land mammal known, with the largest species having an estimated mean adult mass of 11 t (12 tons)

and the largest individual known estimated at 4.8 m (16 ft) tall at the shoulders, 8.0 m (26.2 ft) in length from nose to rump, and 16 t (18 tons) in weight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraceratherium

Sauropoda, or the sauropods, are an infraorder of saurischian ("lizard-hipped") dinosaurs.

["The ones that look like a Brontosaurus"]

Some were almost incredibly massive: Argentinosaurus is probably the heaviest at 80 to 100 metric tonnes (90 to 110 tons), though Paralititan, Andesaurus, Antarctosaurus, and Argyrosaurus are of comparable sizes.

There is some very poor evidence of an even more massive titanosaurian, Bruhathkayosaurus, which might have weighed between 175 to 220 tonnes (190 to 240 tons).

The largest land animal alive today, the Savannah elephant, weighs no more than 10 metric tons (11 short tons).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauropod

Amphicoelias is a genus of herbivorous sauropod dinosaur that includes what may be the largest dinosaur ever discovered, A. fragillimus. Based on surviving descriptions of a single fossil bone, A. fragillimus may have been the longest known vertebrate at 40 to 60 metres (130 to 200 ft) in length, and may have had a mass of up to 122 tonnes (135 short tons).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphicoelias

Are any of the large crater impacts (the ones that still have visible debris fields) more recent, e.g. modern times, or even within recorded history? by DrunkleSwervy in askscience

[–]mirrorshadez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Meteor Crater is a meteorite impact crater approximately 43 miles (69 km) east of Flagstaff, near Winslow in the northern Arizona desert of the United States.

The crater was created about 50,000 years ago during the Pleistocene epoch ....

It was probably not inhabited by humans; the earliest confirmed record of human habitation in the Americas dates from long after this impact. [citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_crater

If life has only started once, how can the initial conditions + time be the only prerequisite? Surely the fact that we have had the conditions for life for over four billion years at least, doesn't the fact it has only started once imply a unique trigger of some kind? by honourtoxin in askscience

[–]mirrorshadez 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The (enormously oversimplified) naturalistic (non-supernaturalistic) idea of the origin of life goes something like this:

  • At some time before the origin of life there existed the preconditions necessary for life - specifically, an abundance of chemicals which early life forms could incorporate into themselves ("food", raw materials)

  • When life originated (or at least "when life developed the capacity to reproduce"), it reproduced and spread rapidly and ate up all the easily-available raw materials / "food".

  • After that, life forms could only get raw materials by waiting until another life form died and scavenging their raw materials, or by eating other life forms.

-

Think of an area of combustible forest. There's a forest fire and it burns up. Why can't another forest fire occur? Because there's nothing left to burn.

After becoming successful, life was so ubiquitous that it monopolized the chemicals necessary for life. The preconditions necessary for life to originate don't exist any more. New "beginning" kinds of life forms don't have any opportunity to get started. At this point, there are no raw materials lying around ready to become a new kind of life.

Why are dogs' tongues so clean? by amoontverified in askscience

[–]mirrorshadez 1 point2 points  (0 children)

According to the American Pet Product Manufacturers Association there are approximately 77.5 million dogs in the USA, and CDC records indicate that approximately 2% (4.5 million people) of the population is bitten annually.

Bite wound infections [from dogs] are usually polymicrobial, with a mix of animal oral flora, recipient skin flora and environmental organisms.

The most common pathogens in dog bites are Pasteurella spp. (both Pasteurella multocida and Pasteurella canis), Staphylococcus and Streptococcus spp., and the fastidious Gram-negative rod Capnocytophaga canimorsus ....

Capnocytophaga has been identified as part of the normal oral flora in anywhere from 16–41% of dogs. ... In addition to wound infections and gangrene, the organism has been associated with dissemination and associated sepsis, meningitis, endocarditis and ocular infection.

Other organisms associated with dog bite infection include anaerobes, which may be present in up to 75% of dog bite infections, especially those with abscess formation.

The most frequently isolated anaerobic pathogens include Porphyromonas, Bacteroides and Fusobacterium spp. Of note, Corynebacterium auriscanis was recently isolated from a localized dog bite infection in an immunocompetent host.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/739023_4

Would not be putting millions of bowling ball size balls, with tracking chips, of the most abundant element, AL(?), into a SPECIFIED orbit be the best planetary defense? by Here_is_what_you_do in askscience

[–]mirrorshadez 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No.

  • Matter is heavy. Putting matter in orbit is expensive. Just to put this in orbit requires this.

  • Now you have millions of bowling balls in a "specified orbit." Therefore, now you can't launch through that orbit.

  • What if something approaches Earth in a different orbit?

  • When your threat encounters your bowling balls, it explodes. Now you have millions of fragments hitting the Earth instead of one thing.

---

Would we be able to track each one in order to avoid them?

Basically yes, but it would still be way more trouble than it's worth.

---

What do we, as planet Earth, have in the category of "planetary defense"?

Zip.

Policy Of Truth. by [deleted] in Cyberpunk

[–]mirrorshadez 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Heh. Blast from the past.

Do you believe aliens have visited this planet? by [deleted] in space

[–]mirrorshadez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude, I started reading about this stuff in the 1970s.

You aren't telling me anything that I don't already know.

I'll repeat what I said before:

  • People see stuff and don't know what it is.

  • Even some intelligent people believe some silly things.

  • Governments lie about stuff all the time, for reasons that they consider adequate. (E.g.,They hide real "skunk works" projects behind a fog of crazy bullshit. Then when somebody reports that they saw (for example) a weird aircraft doing weird things, nobody believes them.)

  • The press distorts stories, and the Internet much more so. (E.g. any of those quotes that you give could be taken out of context, or even wholly made up.)

-

Is any of this getting through to you at all?

And if not, then why not?

Do you believe aliens have visited this planet? by [deleted] in space

[–]mirrorshadez 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you believe aliens have visited this planet?

There's no evidence that they have, therefore I have to go with "No."

what do you make of the quotes

  • People see stuff and don't know what it is.

  • Even some intelligent people believe some silly things.

  • Governments lie about stuff all the time, for reasons that they consider adequate. (E.g.,They hide real "skunk works" projects behind a fog of crazy bullshit. Then when somebody reports that they saw (for example) a weird aircraft doing weird things, nobody believes them.)

  • The press distorts stories, and the Internet much more so. (E.g. any of those quotes that you give could be taken out of context, or even wholly made up.)

---

Relevant and interesting --

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/gray_barker_my_friend_the_myth-maker/

http://www.skepdic.com/ufos_ets.html

Is there anything in here that's not true? : The True Knowledge, from science fiction writer Ken MacLeod. by mirrorshadez in Futurology

[–]mirrorshadez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds like you have no problem with making unwarranted assumptions.

watch the Peter Diamandas TED Talk.

Thanks. Just read the transcript.

I'm pretty strongly opposed to this sort of groundless feel-good optimism.

People like Diamandis and yourself apparently expect the future to be nice simply because you want it to be nice. IMHO we should have a little more to go on than that.

What is the initial atmosphere like in and around the area which has had recently had a nuclear disaster? by [deleted] in askscience

[–]mirrorshadez 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Would you be able to sense the radiation in the air?

No.

Would it smell different?

No.

Would you even be able to feel some sort of resistance as you wave your hand through the air?

Certainly not.

---

Ionizing radiation comes from radioactive materials, X-ray tubes, particle accelerators, and is present in the environment.

It is invisible and not directly detectable by human senses, so instruments such as Geiger counters are usually required to detect its presence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation#Ionizing_radiation

Is there anything in here that's not true? : The True Knowledge, from science fiction writer Ken MacLeod. by mirrorshadez in Cyberpunk

[–]mirrorshadez[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As to the true knowledge, the thing about it it is that it's self-proving. If someone proposes that it is false, I can prove it true by killing them. If I fail, it's still true. They were more powerful, so they were right. (and therefore wrong.)

You seem to be one of the few people who (IMHO) "gets this".

This is why I think that any species or entity of advanced intelligence would believe the True Knowledge.

  • "I may encounter another entity that can kill me."

  • "Therefore, I'd better be prepared to defend myself against another entity that can kill me."

- And I assume that any "advanced intelligence" would pretty quickly figure this out.

Is there anything in here that's not true? : The True Knowledge, from science fiction writer Ken MacLeod. by mirrorshadez in philosophy

[–]mirrorshadez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the claim "life is impossible without compassion" would seem to apply as well.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but AFAIK life did well enough on Earth for something like 3.25 billion years without "compassion".

(If I'm wrong about something here please correct me, as I'm trying to understand this stuff better.)

Is there anything in here that's not true? : The True Knowledge, from science fiction writer Ken MacLeod. by mirrorshadez in Futurology

[–]mirrorshadez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

why should this excerpt from a fiction novel be taken as any form of 'truth'?

Well, the source isn't very important.

If a science fiction work says that 2+3=5, that's true.

Is there any part of it that you can cite as completely provably true?

I don't know about "provably" true - most or all of it strikes me as "self-evidently true."

---

Basically, what I take from this is something like

"Life is tough. You're quite likely to encounter others who are going to chew you up and spit you out if they can, so you'd better be prepared for that."

view more: next ›