Slashdot Mirror

Mars lacks...water? Really? Given the body of research which indicates it has permafrost, I think you may want to check your facts.

Mars lacks...water? Really? Given the body of research which indicates it has permafrost, I think you may want to check your facts.

The Japanese were only ready to give up their arms, not surrender. IIRC they were asking for terms that would have allowed them to retain some level of dignity prior to the first bomb dropping.

Then again, there are some new reading materials that challenge my understanding of the situation... http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HASRAC.html

Who knows what to believe.

The grandparent post was talking about internet freedom, not press freedom.

Google is famous for providing censored search results in China, so a search on google.cn returns a subset of the results from google.com. If a country like that is given control over what websites their citizens can access (through controlling the DNS servers for their country or by other means), you can bet they'll be blocking the same sites that they won't let Google index. This is evil.

Unfortunately, the press freedom index apparently doesn't weight the internet very highly. After all, Google provides similarly censored search results in at least three of the countries you listed: France, Germany and Switzerland. To allow those countries to censor their citizen's internet is evil.

The issue is large scale charge differences, which no one has observed, leaving a literally universe-sized hole in the electric universe theory.

You're not paying attention to what's happening. We have observed MANY things that could indicate large scale charge differences. Are you familiar with "Elephant Trunks"?

(Rotating elephant trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A...454..201G

(Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A%26A...332L...5C

(Formation of Twisted Elephant Trunks in the Rosette Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Ap%26SS.280..405C

(Theory of twisted trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A%26A...403..399C

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154..385R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007IAUS..237..188R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AAS...204.3309R

(Near-Infrared Study of M16: Star Formation in the Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565L..25S

(The young open cluster Stock 16 - an example of star formation in an elephant trunk?) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..148T

(The formation of elephant-trunk globules in the Rosette nebula - CO observations) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240...84S

(Systematic Motions in the Elephant-Trunk Globules of the Rosette) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979BAAS...11..714S

(On Elephant-Trunk Structures in the Region of O Associations.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954ApJ...120...18F

(The distance and mass of the large elephant trunk, a CO cloud pointing towards NGC 6231) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A%26A....48..187S

(Comet-tail structures in emission nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957AJ.....62S..28O

(Comet-Tail Structures in Emission Nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957ApJ...125..622O

(Bright Rims Around Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982iue..prop.1281E

(Tales of an Elephant's Trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..158..370B

Of particular note is the fact that protostars are being found within the "Elephant Trunks". If you have not read what the Electric Universe Theory states, then you will have no idea why this is important. It is the price that you pay for being pseudo-skeptical: you cannot actually judge observations by both paradigms on your own. All you can do is to repeat dogma taught in astrophysics classes and textbooks, completely indifferent to the history and philosophy of science issues associated with that strategy.

I recommend that you keep a very close eye on how these complex nebulae materialize before our eyes as our telescopes become more powerful. You're going to see that these supposed clouds are in fact composed of fine fil

The issue is large scale charge differences, which no one has observed, leaving a literally universe-sized hole in the electric universe theory.

You're not paying attention to what's happening. We have observed MANY things that could indicate large scale charge differences. Are you familiar with "Elephant Trunks"?

(Rotating elephant trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A...454..201G

(Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A%26A...332L...5C

(Formation of Twisted Elephant Trunks in the Rosette Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Ap%26SS.280..405C

(Theory of twisted trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A%26A...403..399C

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154..385R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007IAUS..237..188R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AAS...204.3309R

(Near-Infrared Study of M16: Star Formation in the Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565L..25S

(The young open cluster Stock 16 - an example of star formation in an elephant trunk?) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..148T

(The formation of elephant-trunk globules in the Rosette nebula - CO observations) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240...84S

(Systematic Motions in the Elephant-Trunk Globules of the Rosette) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979BAAS...11..714S

(On Elephant-Trunk Structures in the Region of O Associations.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954ApJ...120...18F

(The distance and mass of the large elephant trunk, a CO cloud pointing towards NGC 6231) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A%26A....48..187S

(Comet-tail structures in emission nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957AJ.....62S..28O

(Comet-Tail Structures in Emission Nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957ApJ...125..622O

(Bright Rims Around Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982iue..prop.1281E

(Tales of an Elephant's Trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..158..370B

Of particular note is the fact that protostars are being found within the "Elephant Trunks". If you have not read what the Electric Universe Theory states, then you will have no idea why this is important. It is the price that you pay for being pseudo-skeptical: you cannot actually judge observations by both paradigms on your own. All you can do is to repeat dogma taught in astrophysics classes and textbooks, completely indifferent to the history and philosophy of science issues associated with that strategy.

I recommend that you keep a very close eye on how these complex nebulae materialize before our eyes as our telescopes become more powerful. You're going to see that these supposed clouds are in fact composed of fine fil

The issue is large scale charge differences, which no one has observed, leaving a literally universe-sized hole in the electric universe theory.

You're not paying attention to what's happening. We have observed MANY things that could indicate large scale charge differences. Are you familiar with "Elephant Trunks"?

(Rotating elephant trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A...454..201G

(Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A%26A...332L...5C

(Formation of Twisted Elephant Trunks in the Rosette Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Ap%26SS.280..405C

(Theory of twisted trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A%26A...403..399C

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154..385R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007IAUS..237..188R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AAS...204.3309R

(Near-Infrared Study of M16: Star Formation in the Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565L..25S

(The young open cluster Stock 16 - an example of star formation in an elephant trunk?) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..148T

(The formation of elephant-trunk globules in the Rosette nebula - CO observations) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240...84S

(Systematic Motions in the Elephant-Trunk Globules of the Rosette) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979BAAS...11..714S

(On Elephant-Trunk Structures in the Region of O Associations.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954ApJ...120...18F

(The distance and mass of the large elephant trunk, a CO cloud pointing towards NGC 6231) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A%26A....48..187S

(Comet-tail structures in emission nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957AJ.....62S..28O

(Comet-Tail Structures in Emission Nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957ApJ...125..622O

(Bright Rims Around Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982iue..prop.1281E

(Tales of an Elephant's Trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..158..370B

Of particular note is the fact that protostars are being found within the "Elephant Trunks". If you have not read what the Electric Universe Theory states, then you will have no idea why this is important. It is the price that you pay for being pseudo-skeptical: you cannot actually judge observations by both paradigms on your own. All you can do is to repeat dogma taught in astrophysics classes and textbooks, completely indifferent to the history and philosophy of science issues associated with that strategy.

I recommend that you keep a very close eye on how these complex nebulae materialize before our eyes as our telescopes become more powerful. You're going to see that these supposed clouds are in fact composed of fine fil

The issue is large scale charge differences, which no one has observed, leaving a literally universe-sized hole in the electric universe theory.

You're not paying attention to what's happening. We have observed MANY things that could indicate large scale charge differences. Are you familiar with "Elephant Trunks"?

(Rotating elephant trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A...454..201G

(Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A%26A...332L...5C

(Formation of Twisted Elephant Trunks in the Rosette Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Ap%26SS.280..405C

(Theory of twisted trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A%26A...403..399C

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154..385R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007IAUS..237..188R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AAS...204.3309R

(Near-Infrared Study of M16: Star Formation in the Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565L..25S

(The young open cluster Stock 16 - an example of star formation in an elephant trunk?) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..148T

(The formation of elephant-trunk globules in the Rosette nebula - CO observations) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240...84S

(Systematic Motions in the Elephant-Trunk Globules of the Rosette) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979BAAS...11..714S

(On Elephant-Trunk Structures in the Region of O Associations.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954ApJ...120...18F

(The distance and mass of the large elephant trunk, a CO cloud pointing towards NGC 6231) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A%26A....48..187S

(Comet-tail structures in emission nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957AJ.....62S..28O

(Comet-Tail Structures in Emission Nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957ApJ...125..622O

(Bright Rims Around Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982iue..prop.1281E

(Tales of an Elephant's Trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..158..370B

Of particular note is the fact that protostars are being found within the "Elephant Trunks". If you have not read what the Electric Universe Theory states, then you will have no idea why this is important. It is the price that you pay for being pseudo-skeptical: you cannot actually judge observations by both paradigms on your own. All you can do is to repeat dogma taught in astrophysics classes and textbooks, completely indifferent to the history and philosophy of science issues associated with that strategy.

I recommend that you keep a very close eye on how these complex nebulae materialize before our eyes as our telescopes become more powerful. You're going to see that these supposed clouds are in fact composed of fine fil

The issue is large scale charge differences, which no one has observed, leaving a literally universe-sized hole in the electric universe theory.

You're not paying attention to what's happening. We have observed MANY things that could indicate large scale charge differences. Are you familiar with "Elephant Trunks"?

(Rotating elephant trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A...454..201G

(Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A%26A...332L...5C

(Formation of Twisted Elephant Trunks in the Rosette Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Ap%26SS.280..405C

(Theory of twisted trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A%26A...403..399C

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154..385R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007IAUS..237..188R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AAS...204.3309R

(Near-Infrared Study of M16: Star Formation in the Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565L..25S

(The young open cluster Stock 16 - an example of star formation in an elephant trunk?) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..148T

(The formation of elephant-trunk globules in the Rosette nebula - CO observations) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240...84S

(Systematic Motions in the Elephant-Trunk Globules of the Rosette) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979BAAS...11..714S

(On Elephant-Trunk Structures in the Region of O Associations.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954ApJ...120...18F

(The distance and mass of the large elephant trunk, a CO cloud pointing towards NGC 6231) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A%26A....48..187S

(Comet-tail structures in emission nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957AJ.....62S..28O

(Comet-Tail Structures in Emission Nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957ApJ...125..622O

(Bright Rims Around Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982iue..prop.1281E

(Tales of an Elephant's Trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..158..370B

Of particular note is the fact that protostars are being found within the "Elephant Trunks". If you have not read what the Electric Universe Theory states, then you will have no idea why this is important. It is the price that you pay for being pseudo-skeptical: you cannot actually judge observations by both paradigms on your own. All you can do is to repeat dogma taught in astrophysics classes and textbooks, completely indifferent to the history and philosophy of science issues associated with that strategy.

I recommend that you keep a very close eye on how these complex nebulae materialize before our eyes as our telescopes become more powerful. You're going to see that these supposed clouds are in fact composed of fine fil

The issue is large scale charge differences, which no one has observed, leaving a literally universe-sized hole in the electric universe theory.

You're not paying attention to what's happening. We have observed MANY things that could indicate large scale charge differences. Are you familiar with "Elephant Trunks"?

(Rotating elephant trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A...454..201G

(Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A%26A...332L...5C

(Formation of Twisted Elephant Trunks in the Rosette Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Ap%26SS.280..405C

(Theory of twisted trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A%26A...403..399C

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154..385R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007IAUS..237..188R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AAS...204.3309R

(Near-Infrared Study of M16: Star Formation in the Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565L..25S

(The young open cluster Stock 16 - an example of star formation in an elephant trunk?) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..148T

(The formation of elephant-trunk globules in the Rosette nebula - CO observations) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240...84S

(Systematic Motions in the Elephant-Trunk Globules of the Rosette) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979BAAS...11..714S

(On Elephant-Trunk Structures in the Region of O Associations.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954ApJ...120...18F

(The distance and mass of the large elephant trunk, a CO cloud pointing towards NGC 6231) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A%26A....48..187S

(Comet-tail structures in emission nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957AJ.....62S..28O

(Comet-Tail Structures in Emission Nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957ApJ...125..622O

(Bright Rims Around Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982iue..prop.1281E

(Tales of an Elephant's Trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..158..370B

Of particular note is the fact that protostars are being found within the "Elephant Trunks". If you have not read what the Electric Universe Theory states, then you will have no idea why this is important. It is the price that you pay for being pseudo-skeptical: you cannot actually judge observations by both paradigms on your own. All you can do is to repeat dogma taught in astrophysics classes and textbooks, completely indifferent to the history and philosophy of science issues associated with that strategy.

I recommend that you keep a very close eye on how these complex nebulae materialize before our eyes as our telescopes become more powerful. You're going to see that these supposed clouds are in fact composed of fine fil

The issue is large scale charge differences, which no one has observed, leaving a literally universe-sized hole in the electric universe theory.

You're not paying attention to what's happening. We have observed MANY things that could indicate large scale charge differences. Are you familiar with "Elephant Trunks"?

(Rotating elephant trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A...454..201G

(Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A%26A...332L...5C

(Formation of Twisted Elephant Trunks in the Rosette Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Ap%26SS.280..405C

(Theory of twisted trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A%26A...403..399C

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154..385R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007IAUS..237..188R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AAS...204.3309R

(Near-Infrared Study of M16: Star Formation in the Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565L..25S

(The young open cluster Stock 16 - an example of star formation in an elephant trunk?) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..148T

(The formation of elephant-trunk globules in the Rosette nebula - CO observations) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240...84S

(Systematic Motions in the Elephant-Trunk Globules of the Rosette) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979BAAS...11..714S

(On Elephant-Trunk Structures in the Region of O Associations.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954ApJ...120...18F

(The distance and mass of the large elephant trunk, a CO cloud pointing towards NGC 6231) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A%26A....48..187S

(Comet-tail structures in emission nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957AJ.....62S..28O

(Comet-Tail Structures in Emission Nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957ApJ...125..622O

(Bright Rims Around Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982iue..prop.1281E

(Tales of an Elephant's Trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..158..370B

Of particular note is the fact that protostars are being found within the "Elephant Trunks". If you have not read what the Electric Universe Theory states, then you will have no idea why this is important. It is the price that you pay for being pseudo-skeptical: you cannot actually judge observations by both paradigms on your own. All you can do is to repeat dogma taught in astrophysics classes and textbooks, completely indifferent to the history and philosophy of science issues associated with that strategy.

I recommend that you keep a very close eye on how these complex nebulae materialize before our eyes as our telescopes become more powerful. You're going to see that these supposed clouds are in fact composed of fine fil

The issue is large scale charge differences, which no one has observed, leaving a literally universe-sized hole in the electric universe theory.

You're not paying attention to what's happening. We have observed MANY things that could indicate large scale charge differences. Are you familiar with "Elephant Trunks"?

(Rotating elephant trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A...454..201G

(Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A%26A...332L...5C

(Formation of Twisted Elephant Trunks in the Rosette Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Ap%26SS.280..405C

(Theory of twisted trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A%26A...403..399C

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154..385R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007IAUS..237..188R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AAS...204.3309R

(Near-Infrared Study of M16: Star Formation in the Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565L..25S

(The young open cluster Stock 16 - an example of star formation in an elephant trunk?) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..148T

(The formation of elephant-trunk globules in the Rosette nebula - CO observations) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240...84S

(Systematic Motions in the Elephant-Trunk Globules of the Rosette) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979BAAS...11..714S

(On Elephant-Trunk Structures in the Region of O Associations.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954ApJ...120...18F

(The distance and mass of the large elephant trunk, a CO cloud pointing towards NGC 6231) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A%26A....48..187S

(Comet-tail structures in emission nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957AJ.....62S..28O

(Comet-Tail Structures in Emission Nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957ApJ...125..622O

(Bright Rims Around Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982iue..prop.1281E

(Tales of an Elephant's Trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..158..370B

Of particular note is the fact that protostars are being found within the "Elephant Trunks". If you have not read what the Electric Universe Theory states, then you will have no idea why this is important. It is the price that you pay for being pseudo-skeptical: you cannot actually judge observations by both paradigms on your own. All you can do is to repeat dogma taught in astrophysics classes and textbooks, completely indifferent to the history and philosophy of science issues associated with that strategy.

I recommend that you keep a very close eye on how these complex nebulae materialize before our eyes as our telescopes become more powerful. You're going to see that these supposed clouds are in fact composed of fine fil

The issue is large scale charge differences, which no one has observed, leaving a literally universe-sized hole in the electric universe theory.

You're not paying attention to what's happening. We have observed MANY things that could indicate large scale charge differences. Are you familiar with "Elephant Trunks"?

(Rotating elephant trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A...454..201G

(Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A%26A...332L...5C

(Formation of Twisted Elephant Trunks in the Rosette Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Ap%26SS.280..405C

(Theory of twisted trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A%26A...403..399C

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154..385R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007IAUS..237..188R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AAS...204.3309R

(Near-Infrared Study of M16: Star Formation in the Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565L..25S

(The young open cluster Stock 16 - an example of star formation in an elephant trunk?) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..148T

(The formation of elephant-trunk globules in the Rosette nebula - CO observations) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240...84S

(Systematic Motions in the Elephant-Trunk Globules of the Rosette) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979BAAS...11..714S

(On Elephant-Trunk Structures in the Region of O Associations.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954ApJ...120...18F

(The distance and mass of the large elephant trunk, a CO cloud pointing towards NGC 6231) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A%26A....48..187S

(Comet-tail structures in emission nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957AJ.....62S..28O

(Comet-Tail Structures in Emission Nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957ApJ...125..622O

(Bright Rims Around Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982iue..prop.1281E

(Tales of an Elephant's Trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..158..370B

Of particular note is the fact that protostars are being found within the "Elephant Trunks". If you have not read what the Electric Universe Theory states, then you will have no idea why this is important. It is the price that you pay for being pseudo-skeptical: you cannot actually judge observations by both paradigms on your own. All you can do is to repeat dogma taught in astrophysics classes and textbooks, completely indifferent to the history and philosophy of science issues associated with that strategy.

I recommend that you keep a very close eye on how these complex nebulae materialize before our eyes as our telescopes become more powerful. You're going to see that these supposed clouds are in fact composed of fine fil

The issue is large scale charge differences, which no one has observed, leaving a literally universe-sized hole in the electric universe theory.

You're not paying attention to what's happening. We have observed MANY things that could indicate large scale charge differences. Are you familiar with "Elephant Trunks"?

(Rotating elephant trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A...454..201G

(Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A%26A...332L...5C

(Formation of Twisted Elephant Trunks in the Rosette Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Ap%26SS.280..405C

(Theory of twisted trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A%26A...403..399C

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154..385R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007IAUS..237..188R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AAS...204.3309R

(Near-Infrared Study of M16: Star Formation in the Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565L..25S

(The young open cluster Stock 16 - an example of star formation in an elephant trunk?) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..148T

(The formation of elephant-trunk globules in the Rosette nebula - CO observations) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240...84S

(Systematic Motions in the Elephant-Trunk Globules of the Rosette) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979BAAS...11..714S

(On Elephant-Trunk Structures in the Region of O Associations.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954ApJ...120...18F

(The distance and mass of the large elephant trunk, a CO cloud pointing towards NGC 6231) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A%26A....48..187S

(Comet-tail structures in emission nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957AJ.....62S..28O

(Comet-Tail Structures in Emission Nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957ApJ...125..622O

(Bright Rims Around Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982iue..prop.1281E

(Tales of an Elephant's Trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..158..370B

Of particular note is the fact that protostars are being found within the "Elephant Trunks". If you have not read what the Electric Universe Theory states, then you will have no idea why this is important. It is the price that you pay for being pseudo-skeptical: you cannot actually judge observations by both paradigms on your own. All you can do is to repeat dogma taught in astrophysics classes and textbooks, completely indifferent to the history and philosophy of science issues associated with that strategy.

I recommend that you keep a very close eye on how these complex nebulae materialize before our eyes as our telescopes become more powerful. You're going to see that these supposed clouds are in fact composed of fine fil

The issue is large scale charge differences, which no one has observed, leaving a literally universe-sized hole in the electric universe theory.

You're not paying attention to what's happening. We have observed MANY things that could indicate large scale charge differences. Are you familiar with "Elephant Trunks"?

(Rotating elephant trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A...454..201G

(Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A%26A...332L...5C

(Formation of Twisted Elephant Trunks in the Rosette Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Ap%26SS.280..405C

(Theory of twisted trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A%26A...403..399C

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154..385R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007IAUS..237..188R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AAS...204.3309R

(Near-Infrared Study of M16: Star Formation in the Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565L..25S

(The young open cluster Stock 16 - an example of star formation in an elephant trunk?) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..148T

(The formation of elephant-trunk globules in the Rosette nebula - CO observations) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240...84S

(Systematic Motions in the Elephant-Trunk Globules of the Rosette) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979BAAS...11..714S

(On Elephant-Trunk Structures in the Region of O Associations.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954ApJ...120...18F

(The distance and mass of the large elephant trunk, a CO cloud pointing towards NGC 6231) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A%26A....48..187S

(Comet-tail structures in emission nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957AJ.....62S..28O

(Comet-Tail Structures in Emission Nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957ApJ...125..622O

(Bright Rims Around Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982iue..prop.1281E

(Tales of an Elephant's Trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..158..370B

Of particular note is the fact that protostars are being found within the "Elephant Trunks". If you have not read what the Electric Universe Theory states, then you will have no idea why this is important. It is the price that you pay for being pseudo-skeptical: you cannot actually judge observations by both paradigms on your own. All you can do is to repeat dogma taught in astrophysics classes and textbooks, completely indifferent to the history and philosophy of science issues associated with that strategy.

I recommend that you keep a very close eye on how these complex nebulae materialize before our eyes as our telescopes become more powerful. You're going to see that these supposed clouds are in fact composed of fine fil

The issue is large scale charge differences, which no one has observed, leaving a literally universe-sized hole in the electric universe theory.

You're not paying attention to what's happening. We have observed MANY things that could indicate large scale charge differences. Are you familiar with "Elephant Trunks"?

(Rotating elephant trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A...454..201G

(Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A%26A...332L...5C

(Formation of Twisted Elephant Trunks in the Rosette Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Ap%26SS.280..405C

(Theory of twisted trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A%26A...403..399C

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154..385R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007IAUS..237..188R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AAS...204.3309R

(Near-Infrared Study of M16: Star Formation in the Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565L..25S

(The young open cluster Stock 16 - an example of star formation in an elephant trunk?) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..148T

(The formation of elephant-trunk globules in the Rosette nebula - CO observations) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240...84S

(Systematic Motions in the Elephant-Trunk Globules of the Rosette) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979BAAS...11..714S

(On Elephant-Trunk Structures in the Region of O Associations.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954ApJ...120...18F

(The distance and mass of the large elephant trunk, a CO cloud pointing towards NGC 6231) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A%26A....48..187S

(Comet-tail structures in emission nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957AJ.....62S..28O

(Comet-Tail Structures in Emission Nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957ApJ...125..622O

(Bright Rims Around Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982iue..prop.1281E

(Tales of an Elephant's Trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..158..370B

Of particular note is the fact that protostars are being found within the "Elephant Trunks". If you have not read what the Electric Universe Theory states, then you will have no idea why this is important. It is the price that you pay for being pseudo-skeptical: you cannot actually judge observations by both paradigms on your own. All you can do is to repeat dogma taught in astrophysics classes and textbooks, completely indifferent to the history and philosophy of science issues associated with that strategy.

I recommend that you keep a very close eye on how these complex nebulae materialize before our eyes as our telescopes become more powerful. You're going to see that these supposed clouds are in fact composed of fine fil

The issue is large scale charge differences, which no one has observed, leaving a literally universe-sized hole in the electric universe theory.

You're not paying attention to what's happening. We have observed MANY things that could indicate large scale charge differences. Are you familiar with "Elephant Trunks"?

(Rotating elephant trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A...454..201G

(Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A%26A...332L...5C

(Formation of Twisted Elephant Trunks in the Rosette Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Ap%26SS.280..405C

(Theory of twisted trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A%26A...403..399C

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154..385R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007IAUS..237..188R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AAS...204.3309R

(Near-Infrared Study of M16: Star Formation in the Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565L..25S

(The young open cluster Stock 16 - an example of star formation in an elephant trunk?) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..148T

(The formation of elephant-trunk globules in the Rosette nebula - CO observations) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240...84S

(Systematic Motions in the Elephant-Trunk Globules of the Rosette) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979BAAS...11..714S

(On Elephant-Trunk Structures in the Region of O Associations.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954ApJ...120...18F

(The distance and mass of the large elephant trunk, a CO cloud pointing towards NGC 6231) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A%26A....48..187S

(Comet-tail structures in emission nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957AJ.....62S..28O

(Comet-Tail Structures in Emission Nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957ApJ...125..622O

(Bright Rims Around Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982iue..prop.1281E

(Tales of an Elephant's Trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..158..370B

Of particular note is the fact that protostars are being found within the "Elephant Trunks". If you have not read what the Electric Universe Theory states, then you will have no idea why this is important. It is the price that you pay for being pseudo-skeptical: you cannot actually judge observations by both paradigms on your own. All you can do is to repeat dogma taught in astrophysics classes and textbooks, completely indifferent to the history and philosophy of science issues associated with that strategy.

I recommend that you keep a very close eye on how these complex nebulae materialize before our eyes as our telescopes become more powerful. You're going to see that these supposed clouds are in fact composed of fine fil

The issue is large scale charge differences, which no one has observed, leaving a literally universe-sized hole in the electric universe theory.

You're not paying attention to what's happening. We have observed MANY things that could indicate large scale charge differences. Are you familiar with "Elephant Trunks"?

(Rotating elephant trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A...454..201G

(Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A%26A...332L...5C

(Formation of Twisted Elephant Trunks in the Rosette Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Ap%26SS.280..405C

(Theory of twisted trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A%26A...403..399C

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154..385R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007IAUS..237..188R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AAS...204.3309R

(Near-Infrared Study of M16: Star Formation in the Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565L..25S

(The young open cluster Stock 16 - an example of star formation in an elephant trunk?) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..148T

(The formation of elephant-trunk globules in the Rosette nebula - CO observations) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240...84S

(Systematic Motions in the Elephant-Trunk Globules of the Rosette) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979BAAS...11..714S

(On Elephant-Trunk Structures in the Region of O Associations.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954ApJ...120...18F

(The distance and mass of the large elephant trunk, a CO cloud pointing towards NGC 6231) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A%26A....48..187S

(Comet-tail structures in emission nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957AJ.....62S..28O

(Comet-Tail Structures in Emission Nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957ApJ...125..622O

(Bright Rims Around Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982iue..prop.1281E

(Tales of an Elephant's Trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..158..370B

Of particular note is the fact that protostars are being found within the "Elephant Trunks". If you have not read what the Electric Universe Theory states, then you will have no idea why this is important. It is the price that you pay for being pseudo-skeptical: you cannot actually judge observations by both paradigms on your own. All you can do is to repeat dogma taught in astrophysics classes and textbooks, completely indifferent to the history and philosophy of science issues associated with that strategy.

I recommend that you keep a very close eye on how these complex nebulae materialize before our eyes as our telescopes become more powerful. You're going to see that these supposed clouds are in fact composed of fine fil

The issue is large scale charge differences, which no one has observed, leaving a literally universe-sized hole in the electric universe theory.

You're not paying attention to what's happening. We have observed MANY things that could indicate large scale charge differences. Are you familiar with "Elephant Trunks"?

(Rotating elephant trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A...454..201G

(Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A%26A...332L...5C

(Formation of Twisted Elephant Trunks in the Rosette Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Ap%26SS.280..405C

(Theory of twisted trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A%26A...403..399C

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154..385R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007IAUS..237..188R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AAS...204.3309R

(Near-Infrared Study of M16: Star Formation in the Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565L..25S

(The young open cluster Stock 16 - an example of star formation in an elephant trunk?) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..148T

(The formation of elephant-trunk globules in the Rosette nebula - CO observations) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240...84S

(Systematic Motions in the Elephant-Trunk Globules of the Rosette) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979BAAS...11..714S

(On Elephant-Trunk Structures in the Region of O Associations.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954ApJ...120...18F

(The distance and mass of the large elephant trunk, a CO cloud pointing towards NGC 6231) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A%26A....48..187S

(Comet-tail structures in emission nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957AJ.....62S..28O

(Comet-Tail Structures in Emission Nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957ApJ...125..622O

(Bright Rims Around Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982iue..prop.1281E

(Tales of an Elephant's Trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..158..370B

Of particular note is the fact that protostars are being found within the "Elephant Trunks". If you have not read what the Electric Universe Theory states, then you will have no idea why this is important. It is the price that you pay for being pseudo-skeptical: you cannot actually judge observations by both paradigms on your own. All you can do is to repeat dogma taught in astrophysics classes and textbooks, completely indifferent to the history and philosophy of science issues associated with that strategy.

I recommend that you keep a very close eye on how these complex nebulae materialize before our eyes as our telescopes become more powerful. You're going to see that these supposed clouds are in fact composed of fine fil

The issue is large scale charge differences, which no one has observed, leaving a literally universe-sized hole in the electric universe theory.

You're not paying attention to what's happening. We have observed MANY things that could indicate large scale charge differences. Are you familiar with "Elephant Trunks"?

(Rotating elephant trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A...454..201G

(Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A%26A...332L...5C

(Formation of Twisted Elephant Trunks in the Rosette Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Ap%26SS.280..405C

(Theory of twisted trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A%26A...403..399C

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154..385R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007IAUS..237..188R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AAS...204.3309R

(Near-Infrared Study of M16: Star Formation in the Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565L..25S

(The young open cluster Stock 16 - an example of star formation in an elephant trunk?) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..148T

(The formation of elephant-trunk globules in the Rosette nebula - CO observations) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240...84S

(Systematic Motions in the Elephant-Trunk Globules of the Rosette) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979BAAS...11..714S

(On Elephant-Trunk Structures in the Region of O Associations.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954ApJ...120...18F

(The distance and mass of the large elephant trunk, a CO cloud pointing towards NGC 6231) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A%26A....48..187S

(Comet-tail structures in emission nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957AJ.....62S..28O

(Comet-Tail Structures in Emission Nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957ApJ...125..622O

(Bright Rims Around Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982iue..prop.1281E

(Tales of an Elephant's Trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..158..370B

Of particular note is the fact that protostars are being found within the "Elephant Trunks". If you have not read what the Electric Universe Theory states, then you will have no idea why this is important. It is the price that you pay for being pseudo-skeptical: you cannot actually judge observations by both paradigms on your own. All you can do is to repeat dogma taught in astrophysics classes and textbooks, completely indifferent to the history and philosophy of science issues associated with that strategy.

I recommend that you keep a very close eye on how these complex nebulae materialize before our eyes as our telescopes become more powerful. You're going to see that these supposed clouds are in fact composed of fine fil

The issue is large scale charge differences, which no one has observed, leaving a literally universe-sized hole in the electric universe theory.

You're not paying attention to what's happening. We have observed MANY things that could indicate large scale charge differences. Are you familiar with "Elephant Trunks"?

(Rotating elephant trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A...454..201G

(Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A%26A...332L...5C

(Formation of Twisted Elephant Trunks in the Rosette Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Ap%26SS.280..405C

(Theory of twisted trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A%26A...403..399C

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154..385R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007IAUS..237..188R

(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AAS...204.3309R

(Near-Infrared Study of M16: Star Formation in the Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565L..25S

(The young open cluster Stock 16 - an example of star formation in an elephant trunk?) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..148T

(The formation of elephant-trunk globules in the Rosette nebula - CO observations) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240...84S

(Systematic Motions in the Elephant-Trunk Globules of the Rosette) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979BAAS...11..714S

(On Elephant-Trunk Structures in the Region of O Associations.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954ApJ...120...18F

(The distance and mass of the large elephant trunk, a CO cloud pointing towards NGC 6231) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A%26A....48..187S

(Comet-tail structures in emission nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957AJ.....62S..28O

(Comet-Tail Structures in Emission Nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957ApJ...125..622O

(Bright Rims Around Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982iue..prop.1281E

(Tales of an Elephant's Trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..158..370B

Of particular note is the fact that protostars are being found within the "Elephant Trunks". If you have not read what the Electric Universe Theory states, then you will have no idea why this is important. It is the price that you pay for being pseudo-skeptical: you cannot actually judge observations by both paradigms on your own. All you can do is to repeat dogma taught in astrophysics classes and textbooks, completely indifferent to the history and philosophy of science issues associated with that strategy.

I recommend that you keep a very close eye on how these complex nebulae materialize before our eyes as our telescopes become more powerful. You're going to see that these supposed clouds are in fact composed of fine fil

> Show me an intermediate result of SETI.

SETI systematically scans the entire sky in every direction, and even in failure to locate signals finds other astronomical events, and provides statistical upper bounds on the possible existence of broadcasting civilizations. An example:

http://seti.harvard.edu/oseti/targeted/results.htm

In addition, SETI is cheap, often piggybacking search onto the back of other funded projects, or using volunteers' time and resources (typically amateur radio and astronomers). It's tens of thousands of private dollars, not hundreds of billions of public dollars that the majority did not want to spend.

http://www.setileague.org/general/compare.htm

Who knows. Maybe SETI will spot an inbound asteroid 30 years in advance of impact and give us time to nudge it. They're the only ones trying to look at the whole sky. Someone should be looking. How embarrassing would it be if the aliens arrive great us, and no one answers?

If I may suggest some more modern papers, then I would point to these ...

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...454..201G

These are Birkeland Currents in space -- where the mainstream says they should not be.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/9/8/263/njp7_8_263.pdf

The idea that DNA might have electrical roots is nothing new to EU Theory. In fact, it's to be expected within their theory.

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2504&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

This is actually a validation of one of Hannes Alfven's predictions, from what I've been told.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12652-milky-way-keeps-a-light-grip-on-speedy-neighbours.html

These galaxies are quite filamentary.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_060106.html

Another filament where we didn't expect it.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7155/abs/nature06003.html

Once again, a filament. You know, there is more than one way to make a repeating flash of light, as happens for pulsars. Is it a rotating beacon with a bowshock? Or, is it two stars electrically connected? People need to think very carefully about what holds these filaments together. Also, how does the filament remain illuminated for 30,000 continuous light years all at once?

There are multiple explanations for these things that people are not taking into consideration ...

If I may suggest some more modern papers, then I would point to these ...

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...454..201G

These are Birkeland Currents in space -- where the mainstream says they should not be.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/9/8/263/njp7_8_263.pdf

The idea that DNA might have electrical roots is nothing new to EU Theory. In fact, it's to be expected within their theory.

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2504&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

This is actually a validation of one of Hannes Alfven's predictions, from what I've been told.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12652-milky-way-keeps-a-light-grip-on-speedy-neighbours.html

These galaxies are quite filamentary.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_060106.html

Another filament where we didn't expect it.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7155/abs/nature06003.html

Once again, a filament. You know, there is more than one way to make a repeating flash of light, as happens for pulsars. Is it a rotating beacon with a bowshock? Or, is it two stars electrically connected? People need to think very carefully about what holds these filaments together. Also, how does the filament remain illuminated for 30,000 continuous light years all at once?

There are multiple explanations for these things that people are not taking into consideration ...

Try reading this:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/WARGAM.html

I got a copy for free, and it's the most annoying book I've ever read.

This still isn't right. ALL trademarks are with respect to a particular sector of the market initially, although it is possible for a company to register the same mark in multiple market sectors. This is true whether or not the word is a real word or something made up like "Kodak" or "Xerox". Furthermore, some marks come to apply across the board, not just to single sectors, under the "famous mark" provisions. "Beretta" is probably still available as a mark for a line of towels, but "Sears" isn't, even if Sears doesn't have its own line of towels, because "Sears" is so well known and has trademarks for such a range of products that it qualifies as a "famous mark". Marks that are made up from scratch are safer because nobody has used them before and, having no descriptive content, nobody is motivated to, but they don't have some sort of absolute privilege over regular words.

Furthermore, it is not true that a regular word may not be a mark for something "related", that is, something of which it may be construed as descriptive. I think you've got a somewhat garbled version of the status of what are called "generic" marks, to which it is impossible to acquire exclusive rights, and "descriptive" marks, to which it is possible to acquire exclusive rights, but harder than for "arbitrary" and "suggestive" marks. There's a good summary of this here.

Kodak's Spin Physics division introduced, I believe in 1986, the Ektapro 1000 high speed scientific imaging system, with an NMOS sensor.

"Staring focal plane array" (FPA) systems (typically infrared) for military use probably pre-date this and are comparable to digital cameras. Scanning FPA systems are earlier and might also qualify, depending upon where you care to draw the line.

Researchers have constructed the equivalent of the old vacuum tube triode using carbon nanotubes. I haven't read the entire paper on the nanotube radio so I don't know if this is how they went about it, but a simple nanotube diode could detect and demodulate a radio signal but not amplify. Using a single nanotube triode one might be able to construct a nanoscale version of a regenerative reciever.

These *were* designed to run for many rotations. The design specs for the SARJ (Solar Alpha Rotary Joint) were that the 10.5'x2.5', 2,500lb structure would rotate at 4 degrees per minute without imparting vibration to the laboratories that would mess up the microgravity experiments, for a minimum of 15 years. They also have to transfer 60kW of power at 160V while rotating through a "roll ring". These were the design specs, and they were engineered around that; this break was not supposed to happen. That's why this is considered an anomalous event. It's not a case of an insufficient design goal.

One thing that a lot of people don't realize is that there's still a tremendous amount of stuff that we don't know about living and operating things in space. It's deceptively similar to our world; just picturing it being like an Earth where you can't breathe and you can have enough velocity to fall in a circle simply doesn't cut it.

Example: TSS-1R. Space Shuttle Columbia deployed this as part of NASA's series of experiments with orbital tethers (for "hanging" craft from other craft and for raising and lowering orbits). When the tether was 19.7km out of the desired 20.7km deployed, it snapped. Evidence suggested arcing and burning in the tether. Why? The tether was at -3500VDC compared to the orbiter, with no current flowing through it. A minor defect in the tether's insulation left the conductive core exposed to space. Unexpected trapped gas in the insulation bubbled out in the vaccuum of space. This gas created a path for conduction to the orbiter, creating a plasma arc that burned away at the tether until the remaining strands failed under the strain.

In hindsight, it's easy to look at this and say, "Oh, we should have had a short-detection system." However, hindsight is 20-20. We've learned a great deal from past experiences, which unfortunately means that systems have to get more complicated. For example: where does the heat from running the drive motor for the arrays go? Why, it goes all over the place! It took an entire design study just to figure out where it would be going and what to do with it. Now picture unexpected current draws (creating more heat) from the metal shavings thrown into the mix, and what that will do for heat load, or what the metal shavings themselves could get into or allow to conduct unexpectedly. Things get tricky fast.

Too many people seem too eager to see a "finished product" in space. It's important that things like the ISS be seen foremost as learning experiences. In this case, I'm sure we'll see the same thing.

One of these skills is keyboarding, and honestly, how many typing training packages have you seen on 'nix? Or even Mac?

That is a valid point. The point should not mean every computer capible of running Windows needs a copy. How many copies of KStars have you seen in the science lab? There is no reason to have every computer a clone of each other. A keyboarding class is OK to license some machines to run educational software. The license should not exclude other very fine educational software simply because it is not Open Source. Schools having kids play Where in the world is Carman and The Oregon Trail because it might have some valid history or geography is no replacement for real educational software, much of which does not run on Windows.

There is a place for Kickstart software. There is also a place for Linux chemestry, astronomy and physics software.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/genchemlab/
http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~noel/linux4chemistry/
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004APS..MARW38008R
http://www.mathlab.cornell.edu/support/m434_support/gap_info/
http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/whatsnew.html
http://edu.kde.org/kstars/
http://edu.kde.org/

Some of the above can run on Windows, but it is not a requirement. The valid complaint is the requirement to license all Windows capible machines, even those without Windows, or even needing Windows. It's like getting a pre-paid Texaco credit card for your kid's car and they require you to buy a Texaco license for any hardware you have that is capible of burning gasoline including your weed eater, hedge trimmer, chain saw, your boat, and all other cars. Maybe you want to run Flex Fuel on your PT Cruiser.

Your comment that restoring the non-maxwellian velocity distribution will require energy is oversimplified. You only need to maintain the non-maxwellian distribution long enough for the ions to fuse before they maxwellianize. Thermalization in the outer edge dominates the coulomb interactions from the core more than the collisions dominate the fusion rates. Those are the conditions that allow fusion to occur faster than maxwellianization. No magic, no violation of physics, just a beneficial design that Rider and Nevins both overlooked in their assumptions.

Uh, are t-shirts considered "dirty", "commie", or "hippie"? Whatever.

John Gilmore has been known to wear interesting clothing, too, but I don't think anybody would claim he's any of the above.

Q: "Do people have a hard time paying attention when you are not in a suit and tie?"

JG: "... At an international conference, I would not expect cultured people to stare at unfamiliar costumes. ... I can never figure out the singular fascination that people have for what fibers other people wrap around their bodies. It gives small minds something to gossip about, and provides endless simple fun in tweaking them."

http://science.harvard.edu/node/7582

I hate to keep copying/pasting the same thing here, but this might actually help someone. Check out the following as it may help you:

I cured what I thought was "RSI" using this "mindbody" approach:
http://www.rsi.deas.harvard.edu/handout.doc
(Coincidental that Harvard is hosting this document, maybe the researchers should look at it themselves)

Here is the Google cache for those who don't want to open a .doc.

I suffered for 1.5 years (where I didn't work because I didn't think I could) before I found that my cure was a completely psychological approach. From my research of CTS (as well as what my doctor told me), it is completely unrelated to typing. And from my experience with "RSI" and understanding what it actually was, I no longer believe you can actually hurt yourself from typing too much.

I now type sometimes all day long without taking many breaks. I play guitar, bass, and drums. I don't worry about posture at all. Ergonomics are only a way for me to get comfortable, not to avoid injury. I have no pain at all, and don't worry about ever having "RSI" again. It's been 5 years since I cured myself.

Please read up on the approach I'm talking about here before you flame me. It actually makes sense once you put all the pieces together. You can also search for "sarno tms" to find more info.

Read the book "The Mindbody Prescription" by John E. Sarno if you can, its really the best source for an explanation of this.

Before you go for surgery, check out the following just in case it works for you:

I cured what I thought was "RSI" using this "mindbody" approach:
http://www.rsi.deas.harvard.edu/handout.doc
(Coincidental that Harvard is hosting this document, maybe the researchers should look at it themselves)

Here is the Google cache for those who don't want to open a .doc.

Read the book "The Mindbody Prescription" by John E. Sarno if you can.

The following might explain what RSI really is (which is different than CTS, which I don't think is caused by computer use or repetitive strain at all). I am pretty much copying and pasting what I wrote the last time there was a Harvard research article about this subject:

I cured what I thought was "RSI" using this "mindbody" approach:
http://www.rsi.deas.harvard.edu/handout.doc
(Coincidental that Harvard is hosting this document, maybe the researchers should look at it themselves)

Here is the Google cache for those who don't want to open a .doc.

I suffered for 1.5 years (where I didn't work because I didn't think I could) before I found that my cure was a completely psychological approach. From my research of CTS (as well as what my doctor told me), it is completely unrelated to typing. And from my experience with "RSI" and understanding what it actually was, I no longer believe you can actually hurt yourself from typing too much.

I now type sometimes all day long without taking many breaks. I play guitar, bass, and drums. I don't worry about posture at all. Ergonomics are only a way for me to get comfortable, not to avoid injury. I have no pain at all, and don't worry about ever having "RSI" again. It's been 3 years since I cured myself.

Please read up on the approach I'm talking about here before you flame me. It actually makes sense once you put all the pieces together. You can also search for "sarno tms" to find more info.

Read the book "The Mindbody Prescription" by John E. Sarno if you can.

Sigh. This is slashdot. Geeks are supposed to be well-informed. I learned about this little thing called "lambda/D" in high school.

Lets see what the beam angle might be for, oh 10cm microwaves focused by a 1Km aperture transmitting antenna. That would be 1e-4. And at 40000km that spot diameter on the ground would be, 4km. So for a 100Mw beam the energy density would be a blistering 8W/M^2. A full 1.2% increase over direct sunlight. Phe4r Me! BAH.

The ground-based rectenna is a fundamental part of the power transmission system. (handwave) Think of the combination of the powersat and the rectenna as a far-field-coupled transformer, if you like (/handwave). No multi-acre rectenna, no beam. No house full of popcorn, no tango torches. Not A Weapon.

(from http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ntc.....3...48S)

The phase control system is the fundamental element in the forming, steering and control of the solar power satellite (SPS) microwave power beam. This system must in essence automatically adjust the phase at each of the transmitter's 101,552 power amplifiers to compensate for differences in transmission path lengths to the earth-based receiving antenna (rectenna). SPS phase control system requirements are discussed, taking into account system concepts, a reference system description, reference system performance, ground based phase control concepts, and ionosphere considerations. It is pointed out that the importance of determining the ionospheric effects cannot be overemphasized. The permissable power density limit through the ionosphere is a critical SPS sizing factor and the phase control system must be able to accommodate errors induced by a heated ionosphere.

--
phunctor

[f]irst, the product or service in question must be one not readily identifiable without use of the trademark; second, only so much of the mark or marks may be used as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service; and third, the user must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder.

I've read Rider's papers and thesis. He basically goes through the various ways of creating a non-Maxwellian electron/ion distribution, and shows that there are significant problems with those concepts.

I've been through Rider's paper too. He essientially claims that ALL IEC devices of any sort can not maintain a non-maxwellian distribution. However, there is no basis for using the math models of particle distributions that he uses other than that they make the math easier. Read Rostoker .et al for better detail than I can provide. The short quote from the abstract follows:
A distribution function like f(v) does not apply to the CBFR, nor to any reactor concept that we are aware of.
Basically calling Rider's model flat wrong, just like Bussard.

If you look closer at Yoshikawa's papers after measuring the double well look close and you will notice he makes mentions of "potential for power generation" in the conclusions of the effects the well has on fusion output.

And as I mention in my prior post, MIT has a very recent paper that also supports Bussard's assertion that non-maxwellian distributions can be naturally maintained. Go here for more. Key quote from it is:
Further, this synchronization appears to modify the particle distribution so as to maintain the non-maxwellian, beam-like energy profile within a bunch.

There has been a resurgence of interest in IEC lately and it's not just Bussard who thought Rider's model and sweeping assertions where just wrong. Considering his stage in life his "fastest" proof was to just build the thing. Unfortunately for him, he didn't even have that much time. If Rider's paper is as bullet proof as many critics claim, why are so many fusion physicists investigating power generation with IEC? Clearly they aught to know better and be familiar with Rider's work. Rider even includes Bussard in his paper's credits because he consulted him for help in getting a model of polywell function. Bussard would have to have been quite nutty/senile to continue his research after Rider "proved" him wrong. Unless of course Bussard understood IEC better than a grad student new to the subject and was right to call Rider's model wrong.

As for the Polywell design:
I simply don't see how cusp losses can be overcome, nor the collisional dumping of energy from the ions to the electrons.
The loses are overcome by using an open, recirculating design. Electrons get out the cusps, and are drawn back in by holding the magnetic coils at a high positive potential. The cusps just need to make the electron density sufficiently higher inside than outside. The outside electrons need a low enough density that they don't arc out. The internal electrons need a high enough density to accelerate ions to fusion speeds. A simple enough design, but Bussard's team wasted a long time trying to design a closed mirroring version which they later demonstrated could never achieve low enough loses. A big reason for testing with non-recirculating designs was the easier engineering since they're budget was so small.

Probably a typo, but the Sun has a circular orbit velocity of ~220 km/s, not 20.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986MNRAS.221.1023K

I'm writing my astrophysics thesis right now, so I have all kinds of literature references at my fingertips! Anyone want to know how to calculate the cross section of a neutralino and a sulphur atom? Hey, where did everyone go?

If Berkley was really serious about SETI, they'd have fitted a META (MillionChannel, Extra-Terrestrial Array - http://seti.harvard.edu/seti/meta.html) or a BETA (BillionChannel Extra-Terrestrial Array - http://seti.harvard.edu/seti/setihist.html) to process it. It actually takes about as much hardware for a META as is needed for the backend of the BOINC client.

SERENDIP, META, and BETA are essentially simple FFT processors, with BETA essentially being four 80 million channel analyzers. That is proof that to an astronomer 240 million is equal to a billion. SERENDIP IV (the last one deployed) was a 168 million channel analyzer. Both had channel widths of about 0.5 Hz (0.5 Hz for BETA, 0.6 Hz for SERENDIP). The channel width limits the sensitivity. Simple FFT analyzers cannot go to narrower channels without correcting for Doppler drift which will chirp the signal out of the channel in less than the integration time, and because the Doppler drift depends upon the properties of the transmitter in addition to the motion of the Earth, it's not a simple process that can be done on the fly.

SETI@home implements coherent dechirping which allows for channel widths of 0.075 Hz or less. In essence you are changing maximum coherent integration time on a signal from 2 seconds to (in SETI@home) about 13 seconds for simple (single time bin) signals. In addition SETI@home searches at higher sensitivity for multi-time-bin signals with up to 107 seconds integration. SETI@home also searches for repeated (fixed period) pulsed signals, which none of the special purpose instruments can do.

Now add the consideration that SETI@home (and the Berkeley SERENDIP instruments) uses a telescope with a collecting area 140 times as large as the telescope used by BETA.

If you calculate the maximum value of the processing power of BETA, (a 240 million point FFT every 2 seconds) you get 16 GFLOPS. That's an overestimate because a) it's not a floating point processor, but an integer processor, and b) it's implemented as sixty three 4 million point tranforms.

SETI@home, on the other hand, currently cannot handle real-time data from the ALFA instrument because it only has about 1/3 of the 1.2 PFLOPS it needs to process at that rate. In other words to do the same processing as SETI@home does, you need to build 75000 BETAs.

That's not to say BETA (and the SERENDIPs on which it was based) wasn't worth the effort. At the time it was among the best. SERENDIP V will eventually take over where SERENDIP IV left off, so the age of the SETI hardware based spectrometer isn't over.

If Berkley was really serious about SETI, they'd have fitted a META (MillionChannel, Extra-Terrestrial Array - http://seti.harvard.edu/seti/meta.html) or a BETA (BillionChannel Extra-Terrestrial Array - http://seti.harvard.edu/seti/setihist.html) to process it. It actually takes about as much hardware for a META as is needed for the backend of the BOINC client.

SERENDIP, META, and BETA are essentially simple FFT processors, with BETA essentially being four 80 million channel analyzers. That is proof that to an astronomer 240 million is equal to a billion. SERENDIP IV (the last one deployed) was a 168 million channel analyzer. Both had channel widths of about 0.5 Hz (0.5 Hz for BETA, 0.6 Hz for SERENDIP). The channel width limits the sensitivity. Simple FFT analyzers cannot go to narrower channels without correcting for Doppler drift which will chirp the signal out of the channel in less than the integration time, and because the Doppler drift depends upon the properties of the transmitter in addition to the motion of the Earth, it's not a simple process that can be done on the fly.

SETI@home implements coherent dechirping which allows for channel widths of 0.075 Hz or less. In essence you are changing maximum coherent integration time on a signal from 2 seconds to (in SETI@home) about 13 seconds for simple (single time bin) signals. In addition SETI@home searches at higher sensitivity for multi-time-bin signals with up to 107 seconds integration. SETI@home also searches for repeated (fixed period) pulsed signals, which none of the special purpose instruments can do.

Now add the consideration that SETI@home (and the Berkeley SERENDIP instruments) uses a telescope with a collecting area 140 times as large as the telescope used by BETA.

If you calculate the maximum value of the processing power of BETA, (a 240 million point FFT every 2 seconds) you get 16 GFLOPS. That's an overestimate because a) it's not a floating point processor, but an integer processor, and b) it's implemented as sixty three 4 million point tranforms.

SETI@home, on the other hand, currently cannot handle real-time data from the ALFA instrument because it only has about 1/3 of the 1.2 PFLOPS it needs to process at that rate. In other words to do the same processing as SETI@home does, you need to build 75000 BETAs.

That's not to say BETA (and the SERENDIPs on which it was based) wasn't worth the effort. At the time it was among the best. SERENDIP V will eventually take over where SERENDIP IV left off, so the age of the SETI hardware based spectrometer isn't over.

Hardly. SETI@home is not 'SETI' - it is one small subgroup of it. If anything, it's more of a publicity stunt than serious science. As i've posted elsewhere, the processing power of SETI@home is dwarfed by a system Harvard retired in 1995, for a more powerfull system. The other problem is that the Aracebo telescope is not the best scope to be using for SETI work. It's not very steerable, it's a fixed dish in a depresion in Puerto Rico - the only aiming that can be done is by moving the receiver (the bit they fought on in GoldenEye)

If Berkley was really serious about SETI, they'd have fitted a META (MillionChannel, Extra-Terrestrial Array - http://seti.harvard.edu/seti/meta.html) or a BETA (BillionChannel Extra-Terrestrial Array - http://seti.harvard.edu/seti/setihist.html) to process it. It actually takes about as much hardware for a META as is needed for the backend of the BOINC client.

If you really want to help space exploration, and science, and communication, you'd be better off with a project like the Muon1 DPAD (http://stephenbrooks.org/muon1/ ), working on the Neutreno, which may be a viable communicative method when understood, as it appears to not generally interact with matter. imagine Europe-Japan communication direct, beamed through the earth, rather than via satelites, or cables run on the surface/ocean floor.

Hardly. SETI@home is not 'SETI' - it is one small subgroup of it. If anything, it's more of a publicity stunt than serious science. As i've posted elsewhere, the processing power of SETI@home is dwarfed by a system Harvard retired in 1995, for a more powerfull system. The other problem is that the Aracebo telescope is not the best scope to be using for SETI work. It's not very steerable, it's a fixed dish in a depresion in Puerto Rico - the only aiming that can be done is by moving the receiver (the bit they fought on in GoldenEye)

If Berkley was really serious about SETI, they'd have fitted a META (MillionChannel, Extra-Terrestrial Array - http://seti.harvard.edu/seti/meta.html) or a BETA (BillionChannel Extra-Terrestrial Array - http://seti.harvard.edu/seti/setihist.html) to process it. It actually takes about as much hardware for a META as is needed for the backend of the BOINC client.

If you really want to help space exploration, and science, and communication, you'd be better off with a project like the Muon1 DPAD (http://stephenbrooks.org/muon1/ ), working on the Neutreno, which may be a viable communicative method when understood, as it appears to not generally interact with matter. imagine Europe-Japan communication direct, beamed through the earth, rather than via satelites, or cables run on the surface/ocean floor.

Here's a neat bit of trivia: When she was an undergraduate at Harvard, Natalie Portman (birth name Natalie Hershlag) in 2002 was the co-author on a paper in the journal NeuroImage, titled Frontal Lobe Activation during Object Permanence: Data from Near-Infrared Spectroscopy. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIR) is the same technique Jacob et al. (the researchers in the summary article) will be using to take measurements for adjusting user interfaces. Here's the abstract from Natalie Portman's paper:

The ability to create and hold a mental schema of an object is one of the milestones in cognitive development. Developmental scientists have named the behavioral manifestation of this competence object permanence. Convergent evidence indicates that frontal lobe maturation plays a critical role in the display of object permanence, but methodological and ethical constrains have made it difficult to collect neurophysiological evidence from awake, behaving infants. Near-infrared spectroscopy provides a noninvasive assessment of changes in oxy- and deoxyhemoglobin and total hemoglobin concentration within a prescribed region. The evidence described in this report reveals that the emergence of object permanence is related to an increase in hemoglobin concentration in frontal cortex.

you can't by definition break US law.

Sure you can and you can be sued in a US court as well for acts in other nations. There's a little known law in the US that allows people in other countries to sue those in the US for different things, the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789. For instance in Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co Shell Oil is being sued in a US court for supporting the Nigerian government while the government executed Ken Saro Wiwa and killed some people in Nigeria. However the Bush admin is trying to gut the law so his buddies like Shell and Exxon Mobil Corporation can get away with supporting murderers and human right violators.

A Senate report emphasizes the consumer rights aspect of the law, by stating that the purpose of the statute is to protect the right of consumers to make recordings of copyrighted music for private, noncommercial use. See 102 S. Rpt. 294. A House report speaks of the need to "remove[] the legal cloud over home copying of prerecorded music in the most proconsumer way possible." 138 CONG. REC. H9029 (daily ed. September 22, 1992).

Sony manufactures devices and software for ripping CDs. If this is violating copyright, then isn't Sony potentially liable under the DMCA? Since this Sony representative has stated her opinion that such copying is illegal, then they would seem to be knowingly manufacturing devices and software whose purpose is to enable copyright infringement, and theft. Just a thought. IANAL and all that.

See DMCA [1201(b)].

Sony BMG wants music to be easily transferable to any device that supports secure music. Currently, music from our protected CDs may be transferred to hundreds of such devices, as both Microsoft and Sony have assisted to make the user experience on our discs as seamless as possible with their secure formats.

Unfortunately, in order to directly and smoothly rip content into iTunes it requires the assistance of Apple. To date, Apple has not been willing to cooperate with our protection vendors to make ripping to iTunes and to the iPod a simple experience.

If you believe that you should be able to easily move tracks from your protected CD to your iPod then we encourage you to use the following link to contact Apple directly and tell them so. http://www.apple.com/feedback/ipod.html