Slashdot Mirror

There is a related form for leaving the country.

I was never asked the question of how much cash I'm carrying. Nor have I ever — in 20+ years of being an American — been made aware of having to declare such sums.

withdrawing more than $10k in cash from a bank

What if it is simply my savings — stored in a jar?

if that money ends up as part of a money laundering scheme, the feds can find you

That's a good argument to have one's DNA registered — at birth. In case it ever ends up inside a rape victim or on a murder scene, you know... Somehow, that has not persuaded Americans to mandate DNA-registration. Not yet, anyway. But, as I said, personal assets are not protected anywhere near as well by our laws, as the persons themselves...

It's time for religion to be closed out from the scientific debate altogether

That doesn't go far enough. It should be treated as a mental disease, since it doesn't only look exactly like a psychosis, it also frequently motivates affected people towards antisocial and dangerous behavior, so society needs to be protected from it. Unsurprisingly, it is also not uncommon for psychotics/schizophreniacs to display strong religious delusions.

Discussion thread including math for why heavier objects fall faster because of earth gravity (normally imperceptible except with massive objects):

http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/8/2/006

How quantum mechanics says that heavy objects fall faster:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=39234

In any case, whether heavy objects fall faster than light ones is tangential to the story. Many studies are wrong, some are pointless, but most have some relation to objective reality even if they can only simulate or deal with analagous cases. In order to meet my biological goals, I now know not to flail my arms and legs, so the study has value to me.

For a thorough discussion of QM vs SR you may read my thoughts on it in the following thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=91001

is haliburton export US technologies? http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=77754

http://www.sciforums.com/Race-based-medicine-t-42289.html

the Ark of the Covenant? Give me a break. It's not a gadget. It's a box. A decorated box.

OK, first I have to get past the oxymoronic idea of multiple universes.

But let's say this is right and universes form from the shards of a previously exploded universe. Over time universes which did this well would be selected for. Maybe universes capable of evolving life both intelligent and crazy enough to go hacking around at the subatomic level reproduce better because they get blowed up real good :-).

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=48 dated 11-22-00, 10:15 PM. Just Google for 'buckyballs Breaks Pentagon Rules' ... ;-]

Funny thing is that searching Google News for 'buckyballs Breaks Pentagon Rules' has the link http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=368 (Slashdotted?) mentioned in the article as its one and only result.

I used homicide as a parallel for death due to war as a civilian casualty.

Why? Whatever makes you think they're equivalent? Homicide is a much narrower definition than that used by www.iraqbodycount.net, which counts all deaths indirectly related to the occupation.

Here's a link that reference Iraq being safer than DC: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55283

Phunny photo. nasawatch.com had the infamous "Mars Hydro and Marina" picture today.

There's one problem with this ever-continuing quest for water: The Viking probes confirmed the existence of massive water reserves in the north polar caps. That was 30 years ago. A recently released image, emargoed for a couple of decades, clearly shows Vallis Marineris with dense fogbanks from wall to wall. I think the real question is what are we going to do with all that water?

image:
http://sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3 999

Here is the technique let yourself invisible, try it yourself: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=439508

Some people in the scientific community believe that black holes were invented by more advanced civilizations in order to act as a cloaking device for their areas of space.

From your link:

Here is a killer ! Please read this para 10 times as all humans on this planet r victims of alien brain wash to stop us inventing warp drive.

Do you really think this guy counts as a member of the scientific community?

And I quote, from Science Frontiers in March 1988 in a story about black holes: "The long history of science teaches us that all theories are eventually displaced by more accurate, more all-inclusive formulations." The observations made in the virtual observatory may allow the incredible boffins to establish the aforementioned formulations.

Further: Among the observations that hint at the reality of black holes are the X-ray binaries. In a typical X-ray binary, prodigious, flickering fluxes of X-rays reveal the presence of an ultradense star and an orbiting companion. The rapid orbital motion of the companion star tells us that the central X-ray star has a mass of more than three suns. General Relativity assures us that such a star can only collapse further to form a black hole. Therefore, black holes must exist.

However, this speculation may merely be an accessory to a grotesque mythology surrounding the aforementioned black holes. Some people in the scientific community believe that black holes were invented by more advanced civilizations in order to act as a cloaking device for their areas of space.

I am personally of the belief that black holes do not exist, as they suffer from the 'tree falling in the forest' syndrome. If you cannot see it, it does not exist. This applies to everything. So if you wish to exist, please reply to my diatribe.. alternatively, if you haven't even read this far, mod me up as Insightful or Informative.

Well, I was apparently not the only one with this idea. Someone proposed essentially the same thing here.

That having been said, I think the theory has merit. It basically says that the universe is inherently fuzzy, in the sense that all measurements are approximations, and hence not discrete. This last is the big sticking point, since quantum mechanical calculations rely basically on projecting a vector in a "state space" onto a particular axis and seeing what value comes out. If the axes are 'fuzzy', it becomes much harder to do the math. In fact, this theory would require the addition of a 'measurement scale' to pretty much every equation and variable in physics! This isn't a conceptual problem for most physicists, but it's a royal headache, and doesn't really give more accurate results for 99% of the problems out there. The only thing this theory might be useful for is our conceptual understanding. It's not going to change the nuts-and-bolts of physical calculation.

Disclaimer: IANAP, but I did take two years of physics at Feynman's university, one quarter of which was from Kip Thorne.

That's rather presumptuous. I guess it's easier to pretend that there's no-one to debate against than actually consider entering into a debate in the first place. If it's so easy, then do it.

Christians have a habit of avoiding anything that contradicts their worldview. The fact that you have seemingly never heard of the more popular websites or read any of them leads me to believe you are of the same sheepish ilk.

Given your distinct lack of sources/evidence I suspect that I'm rather better versed in this field than you.

As I correctly guessed, you would ignore my statement that there are literally thousands of resources at your fingertips. Why should I reiterate all of it when a simple Google search will provide you the information? I don't desire to argue with you because I know your belief system is one of circular logic and self-fulfilling prophecy, and so nothing I can say will convince you. But the materials out there will at least point out the factual errors and inconsistencies inherent in the Christian religion.

There are so many resources. Hell, of the top of my head, there is the most well-known mistranslation, that of "virgin," which was a mistranslation of the Greek word:

"Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)

The original Hebrew version uses the word "almah" which means "young woman" which may or may not refer to a virgin. Of course the context of the original Hebrew Isaiah does not refer to a virgin at all, as scholars the world over agree, but only refers to a young woman.

Later, the author of Matthew 1:22-23, quoted from the mistranslated Isaiah version, and thus the error turned into a world-wide belief.

Today a few of the modern bibles such as the Revised Standard Version, have corrected this mistranslation and have replaced the word virgin with "young woman." (Isaiah 7:14, RSV)

Apparently either your god makes errors or the Bible does not come from your god, but rather from fallible men.

Of course, it's quite likely that this is another of your trolling experiments, but I'd like to think there's a chance you might want to engage in intelligent debate some time.

I told you where to find the material. If you can't even be bothered to do a simple Google search to bring up simple places like this, this, and more, it shows me you are unwilling to seek out the information and therefore unwilling to crank open that closed steel trap of a Christian-diseased mind you've got there. The fact that the Bible isn't so straightforward as you claim is a testament to the fact that it is a monumental failure as a medium for the word of your god.

'Many 'words of the Lord', attributed to the historical Jesus are in fact utterances....'transmitted' through Christian prophets. Of the twenty-seven New Testament writings, only the authentic Pauline epistles are strictly speaking, the testimony of an apostolic witness. And even Paul was not a witness of the historical Jesus. Since the earliest witnesses wrote nothing, there is not a single writing in the New Testament which is the direct work of an eyewitness of the historical Jesus'.
-- Professor R. H. Fuller A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, pp.103,197.

And what exactly what this 'fiasco' entail?

The fact that the original Hebrew texts referred to an ancient Babylonian king. Lucifer is a Latin name--how do you think it got in there? Freaking READ something other than that black book they raised you on:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml

Heck, even the Christian idea is paradoxical. Supposedly, Lucifer was a perfect creation, and his perversion was not put there by a god but by himself. But that would inva

While you also ignore a few facts of your own...

1. Animal experiments are very expensive. If there is really a way to do an experiment without animals, it will be done. With animals, you have to keep them comfortable, fed, watered, and pay staff to care for them.
2. All animal experiments have to have special approval. You cannot proceed without it.
3. There are very tight regulations related to the treatment of animals in experiments. Pretty much any procedure more invasive than a simple injection requires anesthesia.
4. No one does these experiments to be cruel or evil. Experiments are done with the intention of learning something important. This is not the laboratory equivalent of a 7 year-old pulling the wings off flies.

Neurological experiments absolutely cannot be performed on anything other than a living biological organism. The idea here isn't just to create remote controlled rats, but to discover how we can advance new technologies related to the brain. Modern probes that can monitor the firing patterns of 4 individual neurons simultaneously? The idea that we can now partially enable the blind to see? Do you think that the experiments required to pull this off were performed on neurons in a petri dish? Of course not, and it wouldn't even be possible. Perhaps one day in the future if, heaven forbid!, you are ever tragically paralyzed in an accident, you will perhaps thank the researchers who come up with remote control technology. I know if it were to happen to me, I'd be very glad to have a way to communicate with my family, or take care of myself instead of being a complete burden.

Especially since there's no critical look at whether full-fledged robots could be developed to perform these functions.

Many researchers devote their time to developing small-scale robotics, but nothing is close to being anywhere near as agile as a biological organism. But again, the research isn't just about controlling rats; it's also a way to figure out how to interface with the brain. Given the paralysis scenario, what good would a robotic "supplemental" body be if you couldn't control the damn thing? When that kind of technology comes about for general use, you'll have researchers, rats, and monkeys to thank for it.

The sad thing is that I'm probably going to be modded down for raising these concerns.

Well, I've got one point left, but I chose to reply instead. Besides, I don't mod down. ;)

Einstein is well known for opposing theories of black holes and quantum physics (his famous quote about deities not throwing dice comes immediately to mind), and Hawking has spent the greater part of the second half of the twentieth century and now the twenty first century exploring black holes.

But of course Hawking might be making the same mistake Einstein made in opposing black hole theory, this time regarding gravistar theory. The jury is still out on gravistars, but the potential for undoing all the "discoveries" Hawking has spent his life pursuing is real.

It's a cautionary note, and one Hawking would be loathe to ignore. Certainly, we remember Einstein for his theories of relativity, but how many remember anything he accomplished in the second half of his career? The short answer is he accomplished very little, spending his days sailing his little boat around instead of charting new scientific milestones.

Hawking has the very real potential to be relegated to the dustbin of history as a great scientific mind led astray on fruitless theoretical paths. It'd be a shame, but there it is. Let's hope that unlike Einstein, Hawking is better prepared to adapt to whatever the future holds.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=15005939 4ffd628fa19e5ebdb0150148&threadid=2709