Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Blargityblarg]

Sky: possibly language barrier here, but to 'give someone a lift' doesn't mean one picks them up off the ground, it means one goes to wherever they are and then gives them a ride (usually in a car)

I know. :/ What I mean is that it's perfectly possible for me to pick up a door. It's the literal meaning of 'pick', but why would it be incorrect? D:

Bleh. Blame me typing from an iphone and thus not checking my posts for logic. :/

* Skyrunner brands self as amazingly stupid and runs away

It's not incorrect, it's just the 'odd one out' as it's a literal meaning rather than an idiom.

[MonkeyHead]

That has nothing to do with this. I'm not saying "Why aren't photons blocked by all those stars in the way!", I'm saying "Why don't they spread out like a shotgun blast over 13.xx billion light years?"

They do. It's called the Inverse Square Law, I believe. The fact that we manage to see stars at night considering how far away they are is a testament to the sheer amount of energy they can produce.

I know its a page back, but when something directly related to my field comes up I feel obliged to respond...

I = (σ4π(r^2)(T^4))/(4π(R^2))

So, yea, the intensity of energy (photons) we get here on Earth from a star in Wm^-2 is its power (calculated from Stefans law) divided by the surface area of the sphere the energy is spread out over at the range the star is from Earth. In the equation the main terms that affect our result are temperature (as it is raised to the power 4, and normally in the thousands of K), and range to star (as clearly it is massive). For the Sun, we get around 1400 Wm^-2. For even the closest of stars, you can expect numbers of the order of magnitude 10^-8 Wm^-2, down to the large range. Once we know how much energy, it is fairly trivial to apply Wiens law and Plancks law to determine how many photons, and even a tiny amount of energy represents many, many photons. Of course, there is a threshold as to how far photons can reach us from, due to the limits of the observable universe.


Olbers paradox anyone?

[da_nang]

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/rpm/Pay_As_You_Weigh_200313.pdf

Logic-wise, I can see it. Morally, I'm stabbing my eyes out.

[Skyrunner]

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/rpm/Pay_As_You_Weigh_200313.pdf

Logic-wise, I can see it. Morally, I'm stabbing my eyes out.

Same... >_>

[MagmaMcFry]

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/rpm/Pay_As_You_Weigh_200313.pdf

Logic-wise, I can see it. Morally, I'm stabbing my eyes out.

How does this oppose your morality? I can't see the problem here.

[werty892]

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/rpm/Pay_As_You_Weigh_200313.pdf

Logic-wise, I can see it. Morally, I'm stabbing my eyes out.

If a 747 can carry the space shuttle, I call bullshit on overweight baggage and such.

[da_nang]

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/rpm/Pay_As_You_Weigh_200313.pdf

Logic-wise, I can see it. Morally, I'm stabbing my eyes out.

How does this oppose your morality? I can't see the problem here.

I'm usually of the opinion that you should view people without regard for any discerning qualities they may have unless it's physically/logically necessary. In this case, it's not.

I mean, according to the researcher's logic, you can tax people with osteoporosis or pregnancy more as they're more likely to require medical transport which implies increased fuel consumption which implies worsening of the environment. Or tax disabled people due to their need for transport, tax the depressed for suicidal tendencies requiring medical transport, ad infinitum et absurdum.

Not to mention the privacy issues this proposal will cause.

[10ebbor10]

I know of some (at least one) airplane compagny who does a variety of this already. Basically, people who are to voluminous to fit into the very small seats* are forced to pay another ticket, so that nobody has to come and sit in front of them.** They do get refunded if the plane isn't sold out, so it's a bit more logical.

*Low budget compagny
**Reasoning is that that seat can't move back anymore, and hence isn't resellable stuff like that.

On a side note, if this happens, I'm taking a ton of helium balloons with me on plane trips. Nobody said anything about volume, did they. But really, I doubt this'd make any profit. Can you think of what happens if they have to weight everyone before take-off. Also, online bought tickets, how do they work?

I mean, according to the researcher's logic, you can tax people with osteoporosis or pregnancy more as they're more likely to require medical transport which implies increased fuel consumption which implies worsening of the environment. Or tax disabled people due to their need for transport, tax the depressed for suicidal tendencies requiring medical transport, ad infinitum et absurdum.

Barring a medical condition, overweight is a question of free will. Or at least, that's the common opinion and the reasoning applied here. In reality you'll just end up hitting the poor again.

[Flying Dice]

Overweight can also be a question of whether or not someone has access to fresh, affordable food. Getting all your meals from fast food places and convenience stores because the nearest grocery is halfway across the city isn't exactly a choice. Granted, though, I don't have much sympathy for people who are overweight because they eat too much food complaining about discrimination. S'no different from any other unhealthy habit. You can't generalize either way without (duh) inaccurately generalizing about people, though.

[10ebbor10]

I mean, according to the researcher's logic, you can tax people with osteoporosis or pregnancy more as they're more likely to require medical transport which implies increased fuel consumption which implies worsening of the environment. Or tax disabled people due to their need for transport, tax the depressed for suicidal tendencies requiring medical transport, ad infinitum et absurdum.

Barring a medical condition, overweight is a question of free will. Or at least, that's the common opinion and the reasoning applied here. In reality you'll just end up hitting the poor again.

Bolded for emphasis

[Flying Dice]

I got it the first time. Point is, you won't just hit the poor. Though frankly where business is concerned you could automatically assume that every decision will negatively affect the poor, regardless of who else is affected, and you probably wouldn't be far from the mark very often.

[Devling]

Many fat people are predisposed to being fat.

[10ebbor10]

Many fat people are predisposed to being fat.

There's also the rather strange brainquirk that results in overweight people have an increased appetite, and such things.

[RedKing]

Many fat people are predisposed to being fat.

I think it's a bit of a "nature vs. nurture" issue myself. Yes, obesity tends to run in families but that can be as much due to modelling poor dietary behavior and the fact that the parents are going to be determining the children's diet by their purchasing decisions.

[Descan]

Don't they try and work around the nurture/nature thing by studying seperated twins?