(Star Trek-flavored hijack)
Oh dear, sorry to be geekish on this. There was a Next Generation episode that addressed this, suggesting that all these folks were basically “seeded” throughout the galaxy. There was an episode of the original series that touched on this subject as well, in a similar fashion. The more practical explanation is that unless it’s a “special” alien, it’s cheaper to make aliens that look like people.
On the subject of Tuvok, I was surprised to see a black Vulcan until someone pointed out that in story-land, there’s no reason to believe there wouldn’t be plenty of variation in the looks of Vulcans. After all, humans vary a lot in appearance, and most every species has variations in appearance, some subtle (such as herring) and some not-so-subtle (such as dogs). They ALSO pointed out that previously we’ve only seen uptight white guys playing Vulcans, and that was an explanation that made sense, too.
(end Star Trek-flavored hijack)
The “common knowledge belief” that gets me often is the idea that “well, SOMEONE’S gotta win the lottery,” which was touched on earlier, and the idea that odds are somehow really flexible. I can’t recall how many times I’ve introduced people to the Monty Hall Problem to demonstrate how odds really work.
I thought about that, but IIRC in said episode (The Chase) it was only Cardassia, Romulan homeworld (so Vulcan I guess), Kronos and Earth that were “seeded” that way.
Referring to the dogmas of virgin birth and immaculate conception:
Not in Protestant theology. Protestants go the other way, and argue that Mary’s sinful state (i.e., that she too suffered from original sin, not anything to do with her pregnancy) is key to Jesus being fully human. We can go into excruciating detail here, but the two dogmas have no necessary connection.
That said, I totally agree with your last paragraph.
This is true, but it does not equate to saying that first-hand personal experience either can always be disregarded or should be. The “…is not data” riposte is a useful correction in circumstances where the value of such tools as large-scale trials, controls and statistical analysis is being overlooked or disregarded. It is also a useful reminder when people are seemingly unaware of the great capacity we all have for flawed perception, flawed reasoning and other types of self-delusion.
CrazyJoe can speak for himself, but I don’t think what he was saying in any sense warranted the ‘…is not data’ response. He was pointing out a different kind of nonsense - the type where ‘official’ reports are seriously at odds with widespread, common experience (common to many people over many generations) in matters that seemed non-controversial before the ‘official’ report appeared. In such cases, calling attention to the discrepancy might alert us to flaws in the way the ‘official report’ either gathered its data or used it, or to the incompetence of the people involved in creating the report.
Sometimes, the wise person says, ‘The plural of anecdote is not data’. At other times, he or she says, 'According to official reports, the Titanic can’t sink".
I fully understand ohm’s law (J = sigma * E) and all that, so I realize that voltage and current are related by resistance. I also know a car battery won’t kill you because of the body’s internal resistance. But at the same time, a 2000v shock won’t kill you either (think ESD).
Whenever I look for “lethal voltage” on the net, it is back calculated from knowing a current of around 100mA is lethal. Looking for lethal current returns lots of hits without reference to a lethal voltage.
I don’t really know the specifics on why voltage/current will kill you, but my supposition is that it is moving charges that do it. Moving charges are current.
Let me stress again that I fully comprehend that voltage and current are interrelated.
You can have high current with low resistance, by the way, since the body is not only resistive but capacitive as well. The voltage across a capacitor can’t change instantaneously but the current can.
I read an ultra right wing screed on the Oscars mentioning The Reader as the story of a Nazi pedophile and the 15 year old boy she seduces (gee, bet that was difficult for an attractive woman to do). This is another one that pops up all the time that irks me:
-PEDOPHILE: an adult who is sexually aroused by prepubescant children.
A 15 year old boy capable of an affair is not a prepubescant child. Therefore she is not a pedophile, she is an
-EPHEBOPHILE: an adult who is sexually aroused by pubescant/adolescent children.
This is actually an important distinction. I’ve even read it used to distinguish the acts of closeted gays like Mark Foley: “Now the fact he came on to 15 year old boys means he’s a pedophile, not gay. We’re not saying gays are pedophiles.”
Well, while it’s true gays aren’t automatically pedophiles or ephebophiles, there IS a major distinction about orientation and the attraction to the young.
A pedophile’s sexual orientation with adults has little or nothing to do with what gender of children he or she is attracted to; a man can be married to a woman and not aroused at all by men his own age or even young men, he may even be genuinely aroused by women, but his pathological sex drive is aroused by prepubescant boys. There’s little or no connection twixt what adults arouse him and what children arouse him.
OTOH, a male ephebophile who is aroused by 14 year boys who are in or have gone through puberty is more than likely homosexual. A male ephebophile who is aroused by 14 year girls who are in or have gone through puberty is more than likely heterosexual. The same is true of the orientations of women sexually aroused by dolescents- hetero women ephebophiles are aroused by pubescant boys and lesbian ephebophiles by adolescant girls. It’s still a pathology, but it’s very different from pedophilia, and there’s also a lot of grey area (some 15 year olds are a lot more sexually mature than others).
Anyway, way too much info but I’m always surprised at how often this error comes up since it’s actually significant due to 1) the orientation differential 2) the difference between a legal minor and a child.
You would get seriously zapped if you touched both output terminals on a regulated, constant-voltage power supply that is adjusted to source 2000 V. (This assumes it can source over 10 mA or so.) But 2000 V of “static” potential is different matter.
Static voltage is not modeled as a power supply that maintains a constant voltage… it is modeled as a capacitor charged to a high DC voltage. The model may also include a parallel resistor (to allow for self-discharge) and/or a series resistor (to limit current initially and throughout the discharge event).
Let’s assume for a second that the model is simply a capacitor charged to 2000 V. When you touch across the capacitor terminals, your body will indeed be subjected to 2000 V, at least initially. But because your body has a fairly low resistance, and because the capacitance value is usually very small, the total stored energy is very very small and the RC time constant is very very short. The voltage decreases at such a fast rate that you’re left unharmed. Series resistance - which is usually present - may increase the time constant, but it will also reduce the initial voltage via the voltage divider that’s created.
In reality, it is often the other way around… your body is a capacitor in series with a resistor (commonly modeled as 100 pF in series with 1.5 kilohms), and the capacitor in your body is charged to a high voltage. More info here and here.
In your own post you indicate that in order for a power supply to be lethal it must be able to source 10mA. Again, it is very difficult to find a reference to a lethal voltage that doesn’t reference the current. This isn’t simply because voltage and current are related by ohm’s law. It is because a high potential is meaningless unless there is actual current flow.
As I said above and as your first cite points out, you aren’t hurt until you start moving charge around. That is the very definition of current.
