Hi Notarobot, your argument is unfortunately based on a very common misunderstanding of the chemistry of water and salt.

I can assure you that it is an established scientific fact that pure water has the highest heat capacity per unit of its mass compared to any water solutions. The less water there is in a water solution, the less heat capacity that solution has. This is because the temperature of pure water is more proportional to the amount of energy contained within it, which is due to the flexibility of its molecular structure. The more salt you add to water, the less structural flexibility (i.e. purity) there is to distribute and contain energy as the temperature increases. To put it another way, the salt molecules weigh down and restrict the water molecules from moving as freely, which is why salt water has a higher boiling point.

So in fact the more fresh water that is introduced to the oceans, the higher heat capacity and heat conduction there will be.

Furthermore, you grossly oversimplify the problem of climate change by assuming the only change that matters is immediately perceptible to "mammals like us". One of the biggest issues is that even slight variations in temperature can drastically change entire marine ecosystems. If enough ecosystems collapse, it will cause a chain reaction that will be very, very difficult to manage, let alone recover from. Also, even slight variations in salinity can drastically change ocean currents, which in turn affects not just marine ecosystems, but weather patterns throughout the world as well.

I can tell you're an intelligent person, so I hope you'll take me seriously when I say that it's very, very important for all intelligent people to be as diligent as possible when referring to the scientific causes and effects of climate change. Advocate whatever position you'd like as to how we should go about things, but please do your best to validate the information you're using to do so.

This is a great illustration of how I feel every time I try to wrap my head around this stuff; to really understand it, you somehow need to keep in mind everything you know, while rejecting the "obvious" conclusions you draw from that knowledge because you have to be open to the new knowledge you're going to insert that causes you to adjust the knowledge you already had.

It's always astonishing to me that there are enough people on this planet with the necessary mental flexibility to keep pushing the boundaries of our understanding of the universe, because I can just barely understand so many of the things they've figured out.

Great. I tried Crossfit and I thought it was actually quite cool for a bit. However I had specific goals and Crossfits main problem is its unwillingness to adapt.

Here's the idea, you go in and you're given a notebook to track your progress (at the place I went to at least). You tell them your goals and write them down, then you record the workouts you do and the time you do them in ect.

Time: They time how fast you can go through various workouts which seems fine. Until you are doing things badly because you are trying to speed through them, and there's not a lot of reason to try and be FASTER every time. It makes sense to me to limit a workout to say 20 mins, it does not to try and beat your time of doing the same workout by 30 seconds or so. It just leads to sloppy reps and injuries.

Goals: Your goals btw don't matter. It's just a bunch of "I wanna be fitter" usually. My goals were very specific though because they had to do with my chosen profession (soccer referee) and the fact that I really don't care how much I can lift or what I look like.

Looks: They try to make this about fitness, it's all about being able to do MORE WORK. Being fit is it's own reward and being an athlete throughout life is what's cool. On this idea they refuse to have mirrors. I remember having mirrors growing up having Tae Kwon Do classes. Why were their mirrors? So you can look at what you are doing and adjust your form accordingly, they're a great took. The same goes for high school in weightlifting. You can look at yourself lift in the mirror and adjust how you are doing it. Instead they have people there correcting your form, often I found doing a bad job of it and in my case even debating with each other how I ,with heavy weights on my shoulders, should be lifting things. Yeah they don't want you admiring your body or something, the principle is stupid because SOME PEOPLE are there just for vanity and they have mirrors at home. I am there so I can do these things right like I know how, a mirror helps me with that.

Crossfit is a good idea, but I would like it to be less like the rigid religion I found and more flexible to what those paying would like. I'm not paying to join a cult, it's a club of fitness and I can do more leg lifts while you're using the kettlebells.

So who's gonna help me start a gym that'll be an answer to those Crossfit gyms. That are a bit less intense and a bit more focussed on making the gym fun and productive on your terms rather than theirs? Kickstart It!

I'm not all for the Common Core because I've decided that teaching is an imperfect duty ( http://www.uark.edu/campus-resources/rlee/intrau04/oh/k-perf.html ).

What I mean is, the flexibility required of the duty of teaching makes it so hard nosed data collection is never going to accurately reflect the quality of the teaching being done. Therefore, the standardized testing that goes hand in hand with the common core should be abolished.

I have a student right now who can't stop his limbs from going numb and needs to constantly leave class because of some scary combination of ADHD meds and energy drinks he took. I've spoken with mom and the nurse, given him assignments, but beyond that there's not much I can do to reach out to this student. It is not fair or right that my pay be tied to a student(s) in a bizarre situation beyond my control.

And yes, I could be a teacher from pop culture films that follows him home and just mentors this kid, but this student is not alone. I've got literally 150 students all with unique problems and baggage. I get them for 5 hours a week (when they are actually there) and they spend the other 163 hours of the week doing who knows what.

THAT SAID

This video, however, has obvious motives besides just abolishing the common core. Sex education SHOULD be a part of the curriculum and states that adopt sex education tend to have the lowest incidents of teen pregnancies. Mississippi teaches their sex ed classes by passing around peppermint patties (yes, really: http://articles.latimes.com/2014/apr/02/nation/la-na-ms-teen-pregnancy-20140403 ) and, not surprisingly, has the highest incidents of teen pregnancy.

Get it through your fucking skull, religious nuts. Teaching sex ed PREVENTS kids from having sex, not the other way around.

Common core is certainly not something positive that's happened in the education system in the past year, but I'd still take it over what some jesus cheerleaders want to replace it with.

In this case, it is. Lift a 1 kg(mass) on earth 2 metres and drop it. If will hit the earth with a force of 9.8 Newtons. (F=m x a) That's its weight though we tend to use the kg instead of Newtons to express weight. To lift that mass, you would have to exert 9.8 newtons of force.

On the moon where acceleration due to gravity is 1/6 that of earth, that 1 kg mass would only weigh about 1.8 (9.8/6) Newtons. So it would take correspondingly less force to lift it.

So our astronaut should be able to easily push himself upright in theory.

The real reason he can't do it probably has more to do with the design of the suit (top heavy, not very flexible) and the loosely packed surface composition of the moon. Like trying to right yourself while wearing an inflatable sumo outfit in a McDonald's ballpit.

The high jump answer... when a high jumper clears 7 feet he is really just lifting his centre of gravity about 3-4 feet. He just twists his body horizontal to get his legs and feet over.

On the moon then, he would only lift his CofG about 18-24 feet (plus say 3 feet for his legs). So his record jump would be less impressive than you might intuitively think.

Perennially charming with one of the strongest, most flexible egos anyone may ever be invited to witness. She's rock-solid.

unless some killer exclusive comes out, I'm abandoning consoles this season. Both consoles are all about stupid tv, motion and camera gimmicks. and they overcharge for junk I don't want.

I enjoy the freedom and flexibility of PC far too much.

Indeed.
"Video games make you a dummy"?

Reality begs to differ

I think there's three main points here:

(1) The availability of shows online legally and illegally is what has encouraged people to invest in deeper storylines that build over time rather than episode to episode sitcom with little continuity. The pilot model and short term nature of these shows comes from a different era where there wasn't that same availability to catch up on a show you missed. As a result, people were reluctant to get overly involved in a storyline, nowadays it's the opposite.

(2) I think cable companies are always going to struggle to embrace video on demand because their advertising agreements as a major source of revenue (compared to subscriptions for Netflix) require them to stretch out the broadcast of the show. I'd wager that as an ad sponsor, the value of being able to reinforce a brand weekly as a opposed to dozens of times over short several day binge weekend is much larger.

(3) US TV tends to be based on very short term contracts and consequently short term narratives and story arcs. This becomes particularly evident where shows that never expected to make it to their 4th or 5th season see characters acting irrational and appearing to exhibit multiple personality disorder as writers try to inject drama into underdeveloped characters. You can see the lack of long term planning, and the writing looks like it's been done episode to episode, with the result being a mess. I'd say that this was a big issue with Lost and Heroes (subjectively speaking).

Comparatively, I would argue the success of something like Game of Thrones is partly attributed to a ready-made long term narrative from the source material which avoids these usual issues. In the case of House of Cards, they not only had the UK version to base it on and the additional flexibility that Netflix provided and I'm sure these were major contributing factors to the strength of the show.

I just assumed that flexibility is a plus for all genders in the fine art of love making!

Could be, Honestly I don't know if lesbians enjoy flexible partners as much as men do, so it would be hard to say.

Impressive flexibility

I think it's like @grinter said: Seems that low flexibility and high angular tension cause the chain to resist small-diameter bends, and gravity just feeds the mechanics of the whole thing.

A few questions...
ANYBODY who doesn't give 110% to their career will not reach the highest levels of that career?
Are you saying that Georgew W. gave 110% to become President? Well, if that what he delivered is what it takes to get the job, it's a shame I can't run for office. I wouldn't even have to put on pants to come across as less idiotic as he did.
Are you really buying into this "Just give everything and you'll get there" myth? 'Cause that's not how the real world works for everyone. Have you ever been denied a deserved promotion? That is not that uncommon, especially for women. Look, giving your best is usually necessary but not always required. Luck, a lack of scruple, intolerance of others, manipulative skills and connections can really propel your career even if you don't work hard enough to deserve it. Just think of the cliché of the woman who sleeps her way on top. She doesn't even have to give 110% there, men are easy to please.

And regarding you biological theories, yes, men are stronger but how strong do you have to be to sit in an office? How much strength does it take to type on a keyboard? I'd say the jobs these female breadwinners we're talking about have are usually not involving tasks of great physical strength.
And why is it automatically the women job to take care of the children?
I mean, we're talking 2 parent families here since single women have no other choice than going to work unless you want to suggest poverty or child labour as viable alternatives.
In todays first world society it shouldn't be such a stretch to consider men as caregivers of the family's offspring. What makes the stronger sex so unsuitable to play that part? Because we're emotional cripples, unable to bond with the little ones like people with real breasts? Because society could point at us and laugh about our mangina? What is it a woman does a man can't do?
Oh I get it, that's just how biology wants it, right? We have to listen to mother nature, it's the smart thing to do. Well, that's at least what I told the cops after I left my house naked. You know, pants don't grow on trees and shirts don't run through the woods, evading capture by predators. It's not natural, not what mother wants. Let's not do this. Right?
We decided to shape the world as we see fit a long time ago. We can't change all behavioural routines in our heads but we are not powerless either. Why stick to role models that are ancient when we can make new ones with more benefits? Humans can't fly; didn't stop them from building planes. This is a question of nurture not nature.

What troubles me the the most, though, is your apparent belief that households with both parents working do it by choice. That is certainly not always the case, especially not in lower income families in America. To avoid that both parents would be forced to work, you need to have minimum incomes that are high enough to feed an entire family. How much is the minimum wage in america and how well can one person provide for a family with it? Would you like to raise 2 kids with only that much money?

Another thing is your idea that "women should gravitate to careers that will give the maximum flexibility so that they can spend all the needed time with their children". What kind of career is that? What jobs allow you to have "maximum flexibility" in terms or worktime? Drug dealing? E-Mail spamming? Porn?
I'm sure such jobs exist but I'd say they're very, very rare. Not a viable solution.

You call it "guidelines not rules" but maybe these guidelines are as antiquitated as ducking under the table when the bomb drops. We live in a brave new world, we need to do better than this. We shouldn't leave potential untapped because grampa doesn't like it. This is the 21st century, let's act like it.

There is nothing that makes women less qualified to bring home the bucks. "Think of the children" is simply a lazy argument against it and only shows the real problems of this debate: sexism and a lack of social security.