How many times have you bought a coffee? Did you stop and think about whether it would be a good coffee or not?

That's something I'd never really thought about. Especially since you're supposed to be compassionate to get into heaven. I guess for someone who doesn't believe, they're spending eternity without God anyway, since they never thought he existed in the first place. Maybe they get what they think will happen anyway and they just die and stop existing. Those who do believe always had God and always will. Maybe those who don't believe are taken to heaven, but since they won't open their hearts to see they don't think they're really there. You've definitely sparked some deep thought for me, at least.

I've always seen it as just a different way of addressing the same problem. How can you really know what exists outside the universe? It could be God, it could be a programmer, it could be that the universe is an elementary particle in a larger universe. We really have no way to know, and it's doubtful that we'll ever know.

Is that what you think? So, quantum physics isn't science? Statistics aren't science? What about computational fluid dynamics, that produces quite accurate results, but can't account for every situation, so it won't be completely accurate every time.

Science and the idiots who make policies are two completely different things. I'm not sure why you think that social science isn't falsifiable either. Just because you can't make something happen every single time doesn't mean it's completely worthless.

It's for writing code. The monospace font makes it easier to see the indents in your code and make it easier to follow what's going on.

The association with TFA is that people using OpenSSL are an "isolated tribe" who have recently "died" from the heartbleed attack which has exposed a whole load of stuff that was supposed to be secure.

I've read a few of your posts so far. Something that comes across to me is that you seem to be building all your ideas from scratch. I'm not going to tell you that there's no point in doing that, but when you come to basically the same conclusion as the rest of the world came to decades ago, that's a sign that you're not insane, not a sign that you have some revolutionary idea. Everyone goes through stages where they think that the entire world is controlled by people who don't know what they're doing; but by the time they reach your age they're supposed to realise that the reason they're running the world is because they understand it better than you.

If I'm an average person who wants to look better in a bathing suit, I have vastly different diet and exercise requirements that if I were an Olympic athlete. Just as there are separate forums available to "normal" people and those wishing to win Olympic gold, so are there separate forums for the people who want to read the news and check facebook, and the people who want to build their own supercomputer cluster. This is a technical forum, any advice here is given with the assumption that the person asking already has a good chunk of knowledge about how to use computers. It should be implicit that anyone coming to a forum like this is already aware of virus scanner and popup blockers. People come here for the next level.

As to your stab at the "Let's Move" campaign. I hadn't really paid much attention to it up to this point, but there are 5 points, including eating fruit instead of sugary snacks and drinking water instead of sodas, which reduce calorific intake significantly. Also, you can burn off an average PB&J in about 30 minutes of playing, like a kid does most days at recess.

How do you get this shit to the front page Bennet? Serious question: I have a bunch of articles about where bears shit and how wet water is that I want to share with the /. audience.

*you're

But they were also bullish when it was $900. Maybe it'll get back up there, maybe it'll die. Who knows?

It's basically the same principle. In the case of the atmosphere, the gravitational pull of the Earth is acting as a compressor, and the lower pressure at higher altitude is the low coil. When the gas expands and rises, the energy of it's temperature and pressure are converted into gravitational potential energy. The only energy lost is the heat radiated to space.

The atmosphere reaches equilibrium where it is pulled toward the Earth by gravity with the same force that the pressure is exerting to push it away. The rotation of the Earth also comes into play, with the air being flung out like a centrifuge.

It depends what apples you want to compare. The fact that it is cooler higher up is a result of the first law of thermodynamics. The pressure of a gas can be used to do work, so it should be counted as energy. These guys did a better explanation of it than I can do: http://www.thenakedscientists.....

  The premise of the greenhouse effect is that the atmosphere absorbs the heat radiating away from the planet leading to an increase in temperature. The atmosphere of Venus doesn't get down to 1 bar until you're 50 km away from the surface. At this point you're above 90% of the mass of the atmosphere, so there simply isn't enough CO2 (or anything for that matter) to absorb the heat being radiated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

If you were to look at a gas giant, the atmosphere probably absorbs a far higher amount of the radiated energy, even though there aren't as many of the "traditional" greenhouse gasses. As you said, the atmospheric temperature of Jupiter probably matches the same correlation for Venus, because it's far enough away from the surface of the planet that it is ruled by the simple physics of gas laws and absorption of radiation.

Biting flies can and do evolve, but they can't say to themselves, "I'd like to bite more zebras, so I'm going to evolve better ways to decide what to land on."

If the flies who could and did land on zebras reproduced at a rate significantly higher than those who didn't land on zebras, then they would evolve. As that hasn't happened (turns out landing on a zebra isn't such a great thing for a fly to do anyway), there has been no evolutionary pressure and the flies haven't changed.

I didn't account for the internal heat in either planet. I'm not sure how much that would affect the model, but in either case it would push toward more greenhouse.

Temperature is lower at higher altitudes simply because it is at lower pressure. It will be the same on whatever planet you want to look at. Looking at the temperature that high up is just misdirection. Obviously if you're higher than most of the atmosphere, the atmosphere won't affect you as much. The light isn't passing through as much CO2 from those altitudes, so it isn't affected as much it.

Condensing both of our conversations into one:
A very simple climate model is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

An overview of what's included in the models and why is here: http://www.aip.org/history/cli...

Please don't feel bad about imposing. If I can show just one person the light it will be worth it.