[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.5418755 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, science-makes_me_horny.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5418755

A new species of whale was discovered recently. It should make one wonder about what else we haven't found down there.

>> No.5053026 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, 1346078426208.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5053026

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of behavioral genetics. Genes don't make us go out and have sex for the sake of procreation - we have sex because it is extremely pleasurable, and needless to say this strategy has worked very well for the sake of propagating our genes. But sex is more than procreation for humans, it is a social currency and an intersection in so many of our other social behaviors. You have to think in these terms: is evolution "messing" with our potential ability to exhibit homosexual behaviors worth losing whatever we seem to gain in other behaviors for our voracious sexual appetite and deviancy?

Sexual behavior is not a Mendelian trait. Like most complex behaviors, there are networks within networks of genes that control this. The idea that evolution could prohibit homosexuality while maintaining our huge variety of sexual tastes and practices which have been so successful in the past is certainly plausible, but there's no immediate reason to accept it as necessary for us or to conclude that this was an inevitable goal of evolution.

Why is two men having sex solely for the sake of pleasure supposedly prohibited by evolution, but actively using birth control for a heterosexual couple to have sex just for fun no big surprise at all? It's just people trying to move the goal post to wherever they want it to be so they can say genetics is "on their side" of this argument.

>> No.5005710 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, 1326263529715.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5005710

What is the computing power of the human brain in FLOPS

>> No.4890681 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, science-horny.1187505496005.tits.Jason-X.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4890681

Is it wrong to exchange sexual favors for tutoring services?

>> No.4802597 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, 1326263529715.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4802597

Chess anyone?

lichess.org/awoteijl

>> No.4724231 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, 1326263529715.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4724231

First off this isn't homework, this is just a question my astronomy lecturer gave me and i am unable to work out:

A binary star system is found to have a period of 6 years. The H line from one of the stars (star X) is found to have a maximum Doppler shift of 0.1nm. The orbit of the binary system is inclined at an angle of 30 degrees to the line of sight. The distance between the two stars is 15 AU.

What is the maximum line of sight velocity of Star X?

What is the distance between Star X and the centre of mass?

What is the maximum line of sight velocity of the second star?

What are the masses of the stars?

I have answers for them but they seem to contradict each other and fuck up in equations

>> No.4708629 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, 1336839465827.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4708629

It's so cute that ecofeminists actually think the philosophy of science still predominantly rests so simply on reductionism and logical positivism - here views might have been eye opening... 150 years ago.

The historic equity feminists are something to be admired in my opinion, but the academic postmodern feminists of today are so trite and meaningless, constantly dealing with philosophical issues that were solved 30 or more years ago and then strapping a pretty new 'feminists' bow on top and delivering it as something novel. Seriously, we've known for a long time the the combination of science with industry has very severe negative consequences that are worthy of criticism. This is nothing even remotely new. Feminists philosophy is more or less just plagiarism.

>> No.4675197 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, Science_makes_me_horny.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4675197

fap to porn

>> No.4241757 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, science.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4241757

>> No.4188958 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, 1266232996783.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4188958

>>4188039

>> No.4167411 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, science.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4167411

Can't help you, but I approve of boobs

>> No.3540114 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, 1266232996783.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3540114

>>3540083

>> No.3006984 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, sciencemakesmehorny.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3006984

What's the difference between Max Factor and String Theory?

Max Factor has models that work.

>> No.2840023 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, Science_makes_me_horny.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2840023

>>2840014

>> No.2727205 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, Science_makes_me_horny.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2727205

You wish this was true.

>> No.2338335 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, Science_makes_me_horny.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2338335

>>2338325
look how dumb you are

>> No.2278010 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, 1257318649619.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2278010

This will never actually happen. :(

>> No.2187327 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, sciencemakesmehorny.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2187327

>>2187322
TAKE IT OFF!

>> No.2126861 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, 1266232996783.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2126861

>>2126854

when I think about math I touch myself
I TOUCH MY SELF

>> No.1922305 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, Horny Science.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1922305

>> No.1753414 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, sciencehorny.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1753414

I finally got around to sitting down and reading up on the Mandelbrot set, and I nerdgasmed when I understood how it worked. It's so simple and yet so beautiful.

>> No.1746555 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, 1282693638946.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1746555

i was looking for "how to make diamonds" experiment
didn't find it. Here's the next best thing

>> No.1717838 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, sciencehorny.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1717838

Did someone say science?

>> No.1647625 [View]
File: 34 KB, 257x300, 1266232996783.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1647625

Here is a fun psychometric psuedoscientific exercise for you /sci/ducks.

<span class="math">\frac {A + \phi + R + H} {D_B + \sigma)} \Lambda = \alpha[/spoiler]

Where
A = assertiveness
<span class="math">\phi[/spoiler] = wealth
R = relaxation (how relaxed or "chill" you are, as opposed to high-strung)
H = Hygiene
<span class="math">D_B[/spoiler] = douche-bag level (how big of a d-bag you are)
<span class="math">\sigma[/spoiler] = depression
L = looks, beauty
<span class="math">\alpha[/spoiler] = adjusted attractiveness ratio

All items are subjectively rated (by you or another) on a scale from 1 to 10 (with 10 as highest). Your attraction score can be as high as 200 or as low as 0.2

The equation is exponential because bitches like the high scores for the numerator and coefficient, and low scores for the denominator.

FIND OUT YOUR ATTRACTION SCORE AND POST IT

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]