I don't know if fusion has radioactive waste since it deals with light elements, but, I found a business (watertorch.com) that says its product neutralizes radioactive waste. Why would we want to turn Hydrogen into Helium anyway, we can't remake it because it takes too high of temperatures. Therefore, we should stick with fission and neutralize the radioactive waste with the Water Torch.
I've got the cure on my website. Pluto is radioactive, stars are vortex. No threat of cosmic collision because the further out of the solar system, the heavier the atomic particle. This was evident when we witnessed two galaxies collide and everything was safe afterwards.
Since videos are like the ability to share the imagination of memories of an event, licensing videos violates free speech and is the same as licensing history itself. On the same note, are driver's licenses a license of a car or the driver? Therefore, licensing should be outlawed.
I will find another, mind you, since you can't give me anything to be ignorant about... "i don't believe any of Mr. Hovind's dragons appear anywhere in the fossil record," dinosaurs do take up a portion of the fossil record (before the word dinosaur was made, the word dragon was used for the same). Now that you can see that I am some source of knowledge, will you not continue to reason with me? And if I am not a source of knowledge, how is it that I am answering your inquiries? If this is an act of ignorance, please start enlightening me instead.
I don't see how you can even respond with that. Because that wasn't an argument. Obviously you have nothing to say, and I already knew that. Clearly you aren't one that knows much about evolution.
Thank you. "poorly written". Pft. At least it has more than hogwash. Fossils are my documented evidence--of the Flood. Any more fanciful claims that what I have provided isn't enough? I'll be happy to give you more and more.
Thank you for understanding my position. I may not be posting for your redemption, but in hope that someone may hear. You may check out drdino.com for more info on living dinosaurs, if you'd like. But I already know that even if you saw one, you'd dismiss the same.
All of the dating methods used in the scientific arena are faulty. For example, dating part of even a living thing can produce huge numbers that are added up to millions or billions of years, and dating another part of the same object will produce a radically different number. Then there is the geologic column. Did you know that evolutionists date fossils by the rocks, and the way to date the rocks is by the fossils? Circular reasoning is not rational. Hear and do this, when you here about even one place on earth that the dirt or rocks are aligned the same way as the geologic column, you should use your scientific skepticism. If you were to take some samples of the different soil in the earth, put it in a jar with some water, shook up the jar, and let it settle, you would end up with a miniature rock layer sample of the real world earth! I'll let you draw your own conclusions on that one, but I'll remind you that creationists believe that there was an event about 4000 years ago that they like to call the Flood.
"To a believer the answer "God made it that way" is sufficient." That is absolutely not true. There is not one Christian in the whole world that thinks that way. If one has said it, it is because they are uninterested in the matter. Science (not technology mind you) has only progressed by Christian people, them wanting to know the intricacies of their God's creations.
I like this comment. I, for one have found it in Christianity. By the way, atheism is also a religion. The thing with Christianity is that once someone finds the Truth and Way that we all seek, Christians label it as God's, or rather, God himself. You state, "Someone who lives in fear of an invisible man, and attempts to abide by a codified rule set lest they face an eternity of torture and punishment is not free." On the contrary, one is freed from punishment when they follow the rules of life. Jesus taught of these, if it has bad fruit, it is bad and if it brings good fruit, it is good. Fear means respect. I am not afraid of torture and punishment because I live in the faith of Jesus Christ, only good comes from the Truth.
I wouldn't want to play with a dinosaur, that is why there are so few now, man killed them as they moved out because they are so dangerous. There are some still alive though (such as pterodactyls and pleisiosaurs), but that won't make it on the liberal controlled American news stations to try to not offend people, now would it.
Eating of the tree was not the sin, hiding from God was. You have good logic though, but you should join Christianity so that you'll give more effort to complete the process.
Yeah, I'll go with the laser TV. I've known about Brightside for a few weeks now and realized that it is not needed at all. I don't know how bright my 27" mid 2004 SD CRT gets, but I experience the bloom effect (images so bright there appears a kind of glare around the image) with it. TV sets are bright enough, its the dynamic range (Brightside's referral of contrast ratio) that's important. This laser TV has an infinite contrast ratio (contrast ratio: brightest part of the TV divided by the darkest point) because the lasers at the sub pixels can turn off, which means black, no light at all. I've read a comment about SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display), that it's like making the leap from standard def to high def all over again. You've gotta ask, why? The same is said about Brightside, and if that's the only difference, once we cover what that difference is, then you don't need the brightness that the Brightside offers, but the contrast ratio. Contrast ratio is the figurative leap from low def to high def all over again. So, if a set has, say, over 100,000:1 contrast ratio you should be ok. I'm not sure whether the SED's contrast ratio is measured passively or actively (whether they measured the different brightnesses from a white screen to a "black" screen, or whether they were measured while displayed at the same time, like a checkerboard pattern, which gives a more real world ratio), either way, I'm going with the laser TV, no doubt there. Brightside has 200000:1 contrast ratio and painful brightness, and the laser TV has infinite contrast ratio and lots of colors!
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if fusion has radioactive waste since it deals with light elements, but, I found a business (watertorch.com) that says its product neutralizes radioactive waste. Why would we want to turn Hydrogen into Helium anyway, we can't remake it because it takes too high of temperatures. Therefore, we should stick with fission and neutralize the radioactive waste with the Water Torch.
What is alive has a nervous system. Did I just make the rules?
I've got the cure on my website. Pluto is radioactive, stars are vortex. No threat of cosmic collision because the further out of the solar system, the heavier the atomic particle. This was evident when we witnessed two galaxies collide and everything was safe afterwards.
When will they grow dinosaurs on chips?
Since videos are like the ability to share the imagination of memories of an event, licensing videos violates free speech and is the same as licensing history itself. On the same note, are driver's licenses a license of a car or the driver? Therefore, licensing should be outlawed.
The U.S. shouldn't convert to the metric system, but the duodecimal system.
So that's what PRAM is for!
This does not have to do with evolution, nor does it support the imagination.
I will find another, mind you, since you can't give me anything to be ignorant about... "i don't believe any of Mr. Hovind's dragons appear anywhere in the fossil record," dinosaurs do take up a portion of the fossil record (before the word dinosaur was made, the word dragon was used for the same). Now that you can see that I am some source of knowledge, will you not continue to reason with me? And if I am not a source of knowledge, how is it that I am answering your inquiries? If this is an act of ignorance, please start enlightening me instead.
What did they evolve into this time, perhaps a bee?
I don't see how you can even respond with that. Because that wasn't an argument. Obviously you have nothing to say, and I already knew that. Clearly you aren't one that knows much about evolution.
Thank you. "poorly written". Pft. At least it has more than hogwash. Fossils are my documented evidence--of the Flood. Any more fanciful claims that what I have provided isn't enough? I'll be happy to give you more and more.
Thank you for understanding my position. I may not be posting for your redemption, but in hope that someone may hear. You may check out drdino.com for more info on living dinosaurs, if you'd like. But I already know that even if you saw one, you'd dismiss the same.
All of the dating methods used in the scientific arena are faulty. For example, dating part of even a living thing can produce huge numbers that are added up to millions or billions of years, and dating another part of the same object will produce a radically different number. Then there is the geologic column. Did you know that evolutionists date fossils by the rocks, and the way to date the rocks is by the fossils? Circular reasoning is not rational. Hear and do this, when you here about even one place on earth that the dirt or rocks are aligned the same way as the geologic column, you should use your scientific skepticism. If you were to take some samples of the different soil in the earth, put it in a jar with some water, shook up the jar, and let it settle, you would end up with a miniature rock layer sample of the real world earth! I'll let you draw your own conclusions on that one, but I'll remind you that creationists believe that there was an event about 4000 years ago that they like to call the Flood.
"To a believer the answer "God made it that way" is sufficient." That is absolutely not true. There is not one Christian in the whole world that thinks that way. If one has said it, it is because they are uninterested in the matter. Science (not technology mind you) has only progressed by Christian people, them wanting to know the intricacies of their God's creations.
I like this comment. I, for one have found it in Christianity. By the way, atheism is also a religion. The thing with Christianity is that once someone finds the Truth and Way that we all seek, Christians label it as God's, or rather, God himself. You state, "Someone who lives in fear of an invisible man, and attempts to abide by a codified rule set lest they face an eternity of torture and punishment is not free." On the contrary, one is freed from punishment when they follow the rules of life. Jesus taught of these, if it has bad fruit, it is bad and if it brings good fruit, it is good. Fear means respect. I am not afraid of torture and punishment because I live in the faith of Jesus Christ, only good comes from the Truth.
I wouldn't want to play with a dinosaur, that is why there are so few now, man killed them as they moved out because they are so dangerous. There are some still alive though (such as pterodactyls and pleisiosaurs), but that won't make it on the liberal controlled American news stations to try to not offend people, now would it.
Eating of the tree was not the sin, hiding from God was. You have good logic though, but you should join Christianity so that you'll give more effort to complete the process.
Saddam Hussein is still alive? I thought he hung himself!
How about buying the secrets of the ufo phenomena from the government.
Is this what people were thinking about, that Google was going to enter the PC market?
I think that TV doesn't cause autism, but autistic kids like/watch TV more.
Yeah, I'll go with the laser TV. I've known about Brightside for a few weeks now and realized that it is not needed at all. I don't know how bright my 27" mid 2004 SD CRT gets, but I experience the bloom effect (images so bright there appears a kind of glare around the image) with it. TV sets are bright enough, its the dynamic range (Brightside's referral of contrast ratio) that's important. This laser TV has an infinite contrast ratio (contrast ratio: brightest part of the TV divided by the darkest point) because the lasers at the sub pixels can turn off, which means black, no light at all. I've read a comment about SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display), that it's like making the leap from standard def to high def all over again. You've gotta ask, why? The same is said about Brightside, and if that's the only difference, once we cover what that difference is, then you don't need the brightness that the Brightside offers, but the contrast ratio. Contrast ratio is the figurative leap from low def to high def all over again. So, if a set has, say, over 100,000:1 contrast ratio you should be ok. I'm not sure whether the SED's contrast ratio is measured passively or actively (whether they measured the different brightnesses from a white screen to a "black" screen, or whether they were measured while displayed at the same time, like a checkerboard pattern, which gives a more real world ratio), either way, I'm going with the laser TV, no doubt there. Brightside has 200000:1 contrast ratio and painful brightness, and the laser TV has infinite contrast ratio and lots of colors!