Dihydrogen Monoxide
to give it its (in)correct name.
2735 publicly visible posts • joined 29 Jul 2007
Your first sentence is spot on. Unfortunately everything that follows is an old myth. Chinese characters are a single written form only in much the same way that the Latin alphabet is a single written form. They certainly don't guarantee mutual intelligibility in the languages that use them. A single character will have a certain pronunciation in any given Chinese language (and a different one in a different language – put (typically) two together and you have a composite symbol that represents a spoken word* not a concept or idea. As with any other language the written form is primarily a way of recording the spoken form – It's just Chinese just a lot more ad hoc in the way it does that recording.
*Or something like it. For example, 'kung fu' is accidentally two words in English because Chinese characters are written without any sort of word grouping, but it could just as easily have been transliterated as 'kungfu' and no one would be saying it wasn't a word. On second thought, t's probably better not to talk about words and just refer to the things that have dictionary entries whatever they are.
The grammar of English isn't particularly complex – the orthography on the other hand. But that's just what you'd expect given the several hundred years of coexistence with French. The grammar gets worn down to something that's manageable by both sets of speakers but the pronunciation and the way that it's rendered goes off in all sorts of wild and woolly ways.
that would mean going into space but as the LHC uses a vacuum better than you'd find in interstellar space the engineering is going to be interesting.
E = mc2 or more accurately "energy is mass". So if you have a definition of energy (which you have if you have a definition of Planck's constant and the second) you have a definition of mass. It may seem circular but it is, in fact, consistent (with itself and reality).
Battery swap looks like a shoe-in for commercial aviation use. No one wants to load up a plane with more fuel than is needed for the planned flight and convenience factor is hardly relevant given the sort of effort needed to get a plane airborne. And it open up the possibility to use non-rechargeable chemistries such as aluminium-air.
to determine that (assuming you are referring to the UK)) the truth is a little different. And the claim comes from that august source of truth, the Sun ( which presumably doesn't actually care how many admirals the RN has as long as they all have big boobs).
Mass produced satellites are likely to remain a rarity for the foreseeable but mass produced satellite buses are a thing (for small values of 'mass'). As the cost of entry to space falls due to cheaper launchers they're likely to become much more popular and thus cheaper which in turn. . .
I'm not sure where you're getting the 1m figure from. According to the graphic the 1m telescope is on the ground and the unit on the ISS has an aperture of roughly 50mm. I assume the system is reversible (I can't see why it wouldn't be) so the larger unit will always be on Earth.