I'm suprised medical scientist didn't consider the implications of the lower-pressured atmosphere at high altitudes. I'm sure that has something to do with it.
I've been following brain-to-computer output technology for a while, and this is exciting. I can't wait for this to be advanced enough to be implemented it a lot of stuff with on/off functionality, like door locks or 'clapper' like light switches. :P
I seriouslt doubt they are made up. Paraphrased from memory, perhaps. But certianly real. If you've worked with customers, it would be obvious.
I have a ton, I should probably sign up for that blog, but heres a sample:
Customer: Can you tell me my credit card payment amount this month. (note, I did not work for a credit card company, and reminded the customer of who she was calling. She didn't care and so I decided to try to calculate it).
Me: Do you know your interest rate?
Customer: No.
Me: What about your total balance?
Customer: No.
Me: D.. Do you have a general guess for either one?
Going on their explaination, if we found a substance that appeared to be water in all ways but had a different chemical composition, it wouldn't be water.
The question is: --------------------- a) Water is a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. b) Every observation or examination by microscope has confirmed this.
Conclusion Therefore we can predict that every future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition. -------------------
They are basically saying that: water = H2O In the past, we have observered this therfore, in the future observation, water = H20.
that's valid. step b just seems like unimportant info.
They claim that "we could look at water in the future and it might have a different chemical compostion", but then we wouldn't be looking at water. They claim this would be only true if we DEFINE water as such, but his #1 statement does just that!
I believe people who got 93% and people who got 100% should consider their scored swapped.
@ darlzwik - I noticed that too, and it made me 'lol'. "I kind of feel like I'm making people sick!"
But, its one of those things... how vocabulary morphs.. Soon very few people will know the difference, and eventually, they will become synonyms. (for example, people look at you funny if you use 'sultry' to describe weather. Or, how 'decadent' doesn't mean 'indulgent', but 'decayed' or 'immoral', which is an odd way to advertise food, IMHO).
I agree. I think Jesus would be aghast at what we call 'Christianity' now.
(That's kind of why I'm hesitant to claim to be a 'Christian', because I think of myself as a Jesus-inspried Christian and not the modern species. You know, all the non-judging and being generally nice to people, etc... :P )
well, it's certainly not the heat radiating from the ground (too many other random thermal factors closer), and if it was due to the 'thickness' of the bottom vs top, the whole thing would freeze at random points uniformly on the outside layer (the bottom of the inside would take an very very short amount of time longer, but it wouldn't be viewable).
Perhaps it has something to do with the old addage "heat rises" and heat escaping from the top? I'm not certain of that...
Despite the appearences, I believe the colder water molecules rise very quickly forming this 'top down' freezing. Without experiemntation with the right equipment, however, I can't say conclusively.
Weighing in on "The bubbles always seem to freeze from the top down. I think this is because the sky radiates a lot less heat than even frozen grass"
It's because the solution is mostly water, and water (unlike most substances) is actually less dense as a solid than a liquid. Most substances, when frozen, will sink in their own liquid versions (as they are more dense). But not water!
So, ice will always form at the top of water and move downwards, unless a large outside influence changes this (like a temperature differential above the freezing water, etc..).
I have a ton, I should probably sign up for that blog, but heres a sample:
Customer: Can you tell me my credit card payment amount this month.
(note, I did not work for a credit card company, and reminded the customer of who she was calling. She didn't care and so I decided to try to calculate it).
Me: Do you know your interest rate?
Customer: No.
Me: What about your total balance?
Customer: No.
Me: D.. Do you have a general guess for either one?
Customer: No.
Me: Um...
Going on their explaination, if we found a substance that appeared to be water in all ways but had a different chemical composition, it wouldn't be water.
The question is:
---------------------
a) Water is a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
b) Every observation or examination by microscope has confirmed this.
Conclusion
Therefore we can predict that every future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition.
-------------------
They are basically saying that:
water = H2O
In the past, we have observered this
therfore,
in the future observation, water = H20.
that's valid. step b just seems like unimportant info.
They claim that "we could look at water in the future and it might have a different chemical compostion", but then we wouldn't be looking at water. They claim this would be only true if we DEFINE water as such, but his #1 statement does just that!
I believe people who got 93% and people who got 100% should consider their scored swapped.
Give this one a try, but be prepared for a challenge! :D (it's pretty darn neat)
http://dark.room.fizzlebot.com/
I noticed that too, and it made me 'lol'. "I kind of feel like I'm making people sick!"
But, its one of those things... how vocabulary morphs.. Soon very few people will know the difference, and eventually, they will become synonyms. (for example, people look at you funny if you use 'sultry' to describe weather. Or, how 'decadent' doesn't mean 'indulgent', but 'decayed' or 'immoral', which is an odd way to advertise food, IMHO).
I agree. I think Jesus would be aghast at what we call 'Christianity' now.
(That's kind of why I'm hesitant to claim to be a 'Christian', because I think of myself as a Jesus-inspried Christian and not the modern species. You know, all the non-judging and being generally nice to people, etc... :P )
Perhaps it has something to do with the old addage "heat rises" and heat escaping from the top? I'm not certain of that...
Despite the appearences, I believe the colder water molecules rise very quickly forming this 'top down' freezing. Without experiemntation with the right equipment, however, I can't say conclusively.
It's because the solution is mostly water, and water (unlike most substances) is actually less dense as a solid than a liquid. Most substances, when frozen, will sink in their own liquid versions (as they are more dense). But not water!
So, ice will always form at the top of water and move downwards, unless a large outside influence changes this (like a temperature differential above the freezing water, etc..).
lol. I agree. Even as a Christian, I'd have to say that the Bible has a lot of... issues.