I set up a URL like the one shown in the advisory and when regardless of whether I paste it to the URL bar or click it in a webpage, Firefox changes the link to "keyword:---[...]" and takes me to a page that explains the operation of the Google "I Feel Lucky" function. I was expecting the browser to crash....
Well, my information dated from the era before there was a DARE program, but your point is well-taken. Excellent links. Thanks.
I was a bit disapointed by the conclusions, though - it means that neither my own psychotic and sociopathic behaviour nor my childrens' extrordinary abilities can be attributed directly to any particular chemical ingenstion that may or may not have been a part of my past. While many people could consider that a Good Thing(tm), I find, rather, that it leaves me with a feeling of emptiness - a sort of directionless meaninglessness. In short, it's depressing - and (as the reassearch has shown) not even LSD will provide permenant relief. *sigh* I hope I don't get as dependent on LSD as I am on coffee (I know, I know, coffee is a physical dependency, but still - body/mind/spirit, you know?)...
Right? I mean, they kept telling us that that it cause "chromosone damage" - then they quit talking aobut that suddenly. Now it's just illegal. Like human cloning. Huh.
In any case, we're a couple generations out, now, from that first generation whose parents "tripped", and the tracking of those "Firestarter" kids is *still* a 'black proect' that nobody wants to talk about. Mutants are a reality - it just remains to define the mutations.
But I think there must be some way to burn up the really energetic stuff even before we move down to this level.
Almost certainly. Research money should be applied here.
A lot of what we throw away is perfectly good reactor fuel, sacrificed because of some mystical connection between known nuclear powers reprocessing spent fuel and development of nuclear explosives by the have-nots.
I think the Fear surrounding used nuclear power plant fuel pre-dates the present day focus on Terror. The main problem that is known to have occured surrounding used nuclear fuel - afaik - is increased cancer rates among populations that are exposed to it - that are exposed to increased background radiation levels, in general, actually.
I myself find it conconcievable that we still don't seem to have any practical way of using that radiation - it is, after all, energy in one of its most basic forms. Is there no such thing as a photo-voltaic-type cell that could produce current from the radiation from this fuel as it decays?
.... . There are a lot of uses for radioactive material that don't involve big bangs or boiling water by the kiloton. Primitive societies know how to use every scrap of an animal they've taken. We need to think seriously about how to do the same with industrial processes.
I agree with you in principle - that there's really no such thing as "waste" - only things we haven't figured out yet. However, I'm not entirely convinced that the uses that have been found for spent nueclear fuel so far - I.E. irraditating food products (pork in particular) - are a good idea.
The tree huggers of this world like to think that we can supply hydrogen with windmills, solar, and tidal power.
That statement is soooo 20th century.
Now while these alternate energy sources certainly merit investment we are a looong way from being able to produce anywhere near the energy needed to supply millions of autos with hydrogen.
Only if you continue to think in terms of centralized power sources and distribution networks, I think. Nevertheless, there a megawatts of electrical and wind generation facilities coming online a increasingly frequent intervals. I think it's very short-sighted to claim that we're anywhere close to seeing inadequacy to demand from these sources. Obviously, this will continue to be an arguing point, but I think even the most skeptical observers should be stopping short of ruling the possiblity out, at this point.
We'll call them hydrocarbons, so that Susie Homemaker won't immediately pick up on the problem that hydrocarbons are foreign oil.
Hmmm. I'm no chemist, but isn't methane a hydrocarbon? See the article at http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/stor y?id=32730 for an article about producing hydrogen from methane at dump sites. And of course, methane is widely available at sites like the massive factory farms in the midwestern US.
Btw, Susie is pissed that you don't think she knows what hydrocarbons are - she says it's Joe (Sixpack) that was not in class that day, but I'll let her deal with you personally about that...
Ad hominen attacks only serve to prove you can't handle a content based debate on the issues.
Again your mechanist pseudo-logic circles back upon itself. Your own ad hominem attack proves you can provide no such debate.
About all I can say is your User ID is pretty much your IQ.
140863? Hmmm. Isn't that rather high for an IQ? Perhaps you were refering to my username, but I'll let that go for the time being...
To summarize: See my previous response; you add nothing to the discussion, and should eliminate yourself from this and all others. Piss off, fuckwit. Fuck off and die. Etc.
Well, if this "diamond nanotube" combination is not a semiconductor, what is it? The diamond doesn't conduct, right? And the nanotubes do conduct, as you say. If we can't refer to the diamond as being "doped" w/ the nanotubes, then apparently it's a mixture on a larger scale. Perhaps the nanotubes could be arranged into circuits within a diamond substrate. Not sure if that would provide any particular advantage over e.g. sapphire chips...
I suggest you go elsewhere. Folks like you are NOT a help to your race, in fact that are not a help to the HUMAN race.
That about sums up your position, doesn't it: Somebody doesn't do as you demand, doesn't conform to your idea of How It Should Be you relegate them to... where? You think you own/., or something ? You think you speak for the human race? You think the individual you are responding to should... what, just die? Sounds like you're right in there with the people described by the woman yelling/crying "they just don't care about us" outside the NOLA convention center as seen on TV.
Come back when you can deal in facts not emotions.
Fuck you. Piss off and die, inhuman loser. You piece of shit. You are scum of the worst sort. Emotion is the very essence of humanity. Therefore, you're own argument is illogical. It's shit. Just like you.
And who are you to try to ban emotion in a public forum, anyway? Fuck you. Fuck off and die. I really mean that. I think the world would be a better place if you did. You really don't qualify as human in any operational sense of the word.
And no, I am not the poster you were responding to. I would, though, prefer that posters content on/. than your pseudo-intellectional baiting, whining, bullshit.
TFA:
Diamond has its drawbacks, however. Diamond is a brittle material and is normally not electrically conducting. Nanotubes, on the other hand, are incredibly strong and are also great electrical conductors
It's been a long time since that lecture on P and N dopings, but isn't the combination of a conducting and a non-conducting material useful in semiconductors? Something about Si not being a conductor until it's doped? Are there diode junctions in this stuff?
Your comment seems excessively angry and insulting,
I'm sure you wish that my anger was "excessive", but I'm quite sure you know better - you know what you are...
I don't think I even mentioned the idea of any conspiracies
Oh, so you conciously didn't use the word. Bully for you. You're passive-agressive to boot, eh? Are you a neo-con, as well? Figures. "Coward" would be a better term for it, like your spiritual brethern.
especially for a third party not involved inthe discussion.
Yes, I'm sure you would prefer that no one step in while you're engaged in mocking and name calling your intended victim. Perhaps you should choose a more private forum to indulge your indiscretions in the future. After all, who the fuck are *yoU* to have commented as you did in the context? You believe you are somehow more entitled than anyone else to express your opinions, here? A doctor? You should off in some cess-pit picking your sores, not prowling around here looking for new victims...
Do you have a personal reason/experience for the hatred of the medical community - I'm just curious.
If I did, why the hell would I provide *you* with that information, shit head?
As far as a cure for cancer putting me out of business goes, then I would be happy.
Uh huh. Sure you would, buddy...
I would gladly switch my talents to fixing up trauma patients, since trying to keep 12 year kids alive can be emotionally difficult.
Yeah, it can. Especially in Africa. But I guess there's a reason you're pursuing oncology instead of something that you already *know* can be cured by clean water. Cancer's where the big bux are, eh? By the time you've been in practice a year, you'll never have to deal with the underclasses again, eh? I mean, it's not like *they* can afford your treatments, right? No, I think if wanted to save the lives of 12-year-olds you'd be in quite a different field. The oncology field seems to mostly involve timing the death of the patient to coincide as precisely as possible with that patients final inability to pay an more medical fees. Or perhaps you'd like to try to convince me you didn't notice that when you were picking a speciality.
As far as suing widows and orphans - doctors don't sue people - at least I've never even heard of any.
Okay, I'll give you that. I was careless. It's not the doctors themselves that sue the widows and orphans of their victims, it's the insurance companies, the hospitals, and the collection agencies that the doctors hire squeeze blood from those particular stones.
Fwiw, I consider that with such agents in your employ, you are as responsible as they are for the damage they/you do.
Just what would a doctor "sue" them for?
MONEY, dumbass - the money to recarpet the upstairs of the mansions, or paint the yacht - the money to roll into more pharmaceutical company stock - whatever. You'd know better what you do with your blood money than I, certainly.
If doctoring were a reputable profession, you'd get paid like the rest of us - when you do a good job. As is you're just a toll collector on the road to the grave, a shill for the pharmaceutical companies and insurance conglomerates.
Or maybe you're not in the US? If that's the case, I still find it difficult that you manage to work in the health industry and yet have never heard what's going on here.
I encourage you again (more strongly, this time) to go buy yourself a clue. Moraelin. I'm not claiming that anything I'm saying is here new or even particularly imaginative, but you - you're beating a horse that's been dead so long it smells...
I am not now, nor have I even been, trying to prove anything to you, much less any of the things you keep demanding that I prove to your satisfaction.
You can kid yourself that I'm trolling, if that makes you feel better, but I'm not. We're just speaking different languages. I know yours and don't feel like using it. You don't know mine, and want to abuse me for prefering it. Piss off.
And if it will make you feel any better: I'm not superior to you, or more reasoned, or any of that stuff. You simply have no idea at all what you're going on about, and berating me isn't going to improve your self-image, no matter how entertaining I may find it that you have chosen this way in which to prove beyond any possible doubt that you are completely a brainwashed tool of the system.
crazy drunk young guys challenging each other to eat something that they'd normally not eat
Aye, I understand - I was just pointing out the implication that alcohol had to be invented and its use become established *before* some of these things became food. Something that came up earlier in another thread when someone asserted that alcohol was somehow not "natural"...
Of course, we're still left wondering what all these youngsters were eating for sustenance while they were waiting for [whatever] to ferment into beer in order that they could get plastered and discover new types of food:D
I've willingly eaten all sorts of animal innards (e.g. gizzards, intestines, stomach, kidney, liver, heart, lungs, fish eyeballs etc) [...] I've eaten at McDs more than a few times
LoL. Okay, *that* was nicely done - thank-you, I needed a laugh:)
I believe they are until/unless they are at least soaked throughly in water and then rinsed. Something about tannic acid. I think they may not be deadly poisonous, but would make you sick if you just picked them and ate them. I used to have a link about this...
I personally wonder who was the first one to prepare and eat tofu (doesn't seem like an obvious process). Or century eggs. Go check out some of the other chinese foods;)...
Tofu is another good example, but the beans are not toxic before you start the process. There are some foods in the local chinese grocery that I haven't been able to identify yet - some that I am not completely convinced are food, for that matter;).
Maybe young guys and lots of alcohol were involved in the creation of such foods:).
Clearly the alcohol occurred quite reasonably, though, right?
Re:ah, more talking out of the arse, eh?
on
Coffee A Health Drink?
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
*Zing!* That was the sound of my (admittedly obscure) little funny whizzing over your close-shorn, pointy little head, "Dude".
Heh. Dude, seriously, go look up "fallacy" in a dictionary. It has nothing to do with "phalus" or "phalic" (btw, that's how that's written, not "fallic", but I digress.)
Heh. Dude. Er, dude, yeah, uh, dude. Go look up "sense of humour" or maybe "taking yourself less seriously" - I'd give you a link, but I don't seem to have one handy - maybe you could search Google under "clue, get one".
Seriously, you really need to lighten up - I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your shrill whine of self-importance. You need to get out and have some fun, not sit around trying to impress a completely apathetic couch potato with your l33t s0ph0m0ric deb4te 5killz... get a life. You are downright laffable as posted...
These are the ingredients for Coffeemate: CORN SYRUP SOLIDS, PARTIALLY HYDROGENATED CANOLA OIL, DIPOTASSIUM PHOSPHATE, SODIUM CASEINATE**, TITANIUM DIOXIDE, MONO- AND DIGLYCERIDES, SODIUM ALUMINOSILICATE, SUGAR, ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, ANNATTO COLOR. Not the most natural set of ingredients but if it stops you yearning for cream, go for it, as it's probably a better alternative.
Thanks for going to the trouble to list those. High levels of blood serums in my cholesteral due to ingestion of extreme levels of half-and-half ("what's the other half?") have caused me to start hallucinating while simultaneously making me extremely lethargic, hence I didn't do it myself...
You have to remember that up until 100 years ago the human digestive system didn't consume artifical ingredients. It hasn't adapted in 5 generations to cope with the amount of fat, salt and sugar we consume in processed foods today. The more natural, the better.
This is a really interesting point - or points - you make, there.
I've often wondered just how the first humans to eat meat wound up doing so - likewise, who was the first human to figure out e.g. how to prepare acorns as food - entire villages must have been wiped out in those first trial and error efforts...
As for "natural is better" - I don't know that we've shown that. It could be argued that the rapid progress of humans in the last 100 years is due to the ingestion of man-made substances.
One thing we have shown pretty conclusively, I think, is that half-assed engineering of man-made substances for human consumption is a Bad Idea. But that doesn't equate to "Natural is Good". Most "food poisoning" type bacteria and a whole host of diseases and conditions are quite "natural" as well...
I particularly like the acorn example because humans processed something inedible into a staple food. Is that natural? If so, is it natural because it was done with minimal technological requirements, or because it was done in a stone age society? Do we draw the line encompassing "natural" at "man-made" or what?
I consider it entirely plausible that humans could manufacture a wholly fabricated food that would as good or better than what we now consume as "natural" - won't happen this generation, of course, but with some enlightened eco-engineering, perhaps...
Is this something unique to Finns, do you think? Just asking, I don't know much about Finnish people, but would not have thought there were as many milch cows per capita there as, say, Denmark or even the UK. Perhaps my perceptions of these regions is a bit dated...
because of the hormone burst 1.5 hours after falling to sleep
My god, that sounds dangerous! Most of the people I know looking for those kinds of effects (bodybuilding and burst effects) use methamphetimines - of course, they age incredibly fast and die, but... well, maybe milk is better, now that I think about it.
milk tends to slow down the speed which protein gets to the body
Interesting. I've been known to mix vodka with milk for the same kind of "timed release" effect.
Cream has lots of fat and cholesterol compared to milk so I suggest not to use cream on anything.
Well, I have an issue with that, actually. I *like* cream. In fact, I've found that in most animal product "foods", it is the fat that gives the food its savor. Of course, as anyone who has ever tried to eat a clump of under-cooked pork fat can tell you, there is such a thing as "too much" and it definitely needs to be cooked properly...
Still, I think all this hype about cholesterol being "bad" is just that, hype. I mean, the only people whose word we have for it are those same people who benefit the most by the population being less than healthy. Of course, that gets into the whole disagreement I have with that alleged doctor, so I'll leave that out of this...
In general, though, I think things that taste bad tend to be worse for you than things that taste good. Not scientific, maybe, but I'm not dead yet, either.
But trust me, you don't want to mix sour milk with coffey:)
Actually, I've done that (not intentionally *wince*)
[endless blather claiming science and moral equivalency nonsense]
I'm sorry, what exactly was your point?
you haven't presented _any_ evidence,
Duh. I didn't claim to, nor did I set out to. Again: What's your point? Are you trying to prove something here? Do you want to be able to use some of these purported "facts" I haven't produced? Perhaps you should re-read my previous post a bit more thoroughly on that score.
much less established anything as "obvious".
I'm sorry, I didn't look it up, but the nature of "obvious" (as I understand it) is such that I typically don't feel a need to support something which can be so described. If you don't agree that something is obvious, you may contend that it is not, but you can't practically expect me to provide support for it until you convince me that it is, in fact, not obvious. [clue: calling me a "crackpot" or wailing about "no evidence" is not convincing in this instance]
A couple things you don't seem to have gotten out of the assigned reading material:
I'm a bit more paranoid than you seem to give me credit for
I did not claim I wasn't hallucinating - in fact, I commend it to you as a possible theraputic measure which may help relieve your current condition
[nice list of fallic conventions] Look them up on Wikipedia, I can't be arsed to link to them this time.
Trust me, I won't arse you. Besides, I have my own sources that don't depend on any Wiki posters' Freudian tendancies...
Not because of being brainwashed
Of all your bluster, I would choose this one statement to challenge. Show me - no, screw that, prove it to yourself, never mind me - that you're not brainwashed. Prove it. Scientifically, etc; Never mind that I'm a whacko nutjob - I'll give you all the points you're trying for in your post, there - just do your best.
Most of the people in the world can't drink milk [...] if your stomach can't tolerate lactose then it's bad.
I understand the problems for lactose intolerant persons, and persons who simply can't get milk, but the previous poster (to whom I was replying) implied that there was some negative health effect - to the point that milk and cream in coffee should be avoided. I was just wondering about that... To persons who consume milk with apparent ill effects, is there any particular reason milk products should be avoided when cosuming ones daily dosage(s) of caffeine?
Re:Dehydration causes cancer?? I think not.
on
Coffee A Health Drink?
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
What the hell are you talking about?
I was just flaming on some one who claimed to be a surgeon (of the oconological persuasion) for calling names against someone else who made the assertion that dehydration is a major cause of cancer.
The irrational popularity of that fraud Kevin Trudeau's "Natural Cures 'They' Don't Want You To Know About" has gotten me interested in this paranoid stuff.
Well, I'm not familiar with Trudeau's book execpt for having endured almost 15 minutes of an infomercial for it, but I hardly think the appeal is "irrational". Think about it: Most of us know the medical industry is lying to us in a myriad of ways both big and small, and most of us don't have medical care due to lack of medical "insurance". Both these situations are due to one thing and one thing only: The avarice of the medical industry. Trudeau is presenting himself as an alternative, and it is not only very rational that people would be interested, it's not particularly paranoid unless you have undergone some sort of brainwashing that makes you believe that doctors and insurance companies are somehow immune to basic human behaviours like greed and the killing of large numbers of people in order to improve corporate and personal finnancial bottom lines.
The evidence that the medical industry is both over-valued and increasingly powerful is everywhere. That says nothing at all about the relative merits of "Natural Cures" - but that means nothing for and nothing against.
I found it very instructive that an admitted member of the industry - that is and admitted murderer and scam artist, by my lights - started yelling "conspiracy theory" over a simple statement made by someone else in an entirely different context. That can mean only one thing: That the purported "doctor" is afraid that there might be some truth to it (the assertion that there is a link between dehydration and cancer). Which leads me to believe that the good "doctor" has a dedicated purpose: Cleanse the networks of any possible documentation of that link.
So, as is my practice, I called 'em as I saw 'em. He'll generate more support for the theory he's arguing against by arguing against it than currently exists, would be my guess, since he's clearly supporting an effort to eliminate such evidence - for obvious (fiscally beneficial) reasons.
So whattaya think? Do I get the Tinfoil Hat of the Week award?
cut back on the sugar, cream, whole milk and doughnuts (donuts) that may accompany the caffeine intake.
I can understand the need to reduce sugar and donuts, but cream and milk? There was a time when milk was considered "good for you"? Also, what about "non-dairy creamers" (Coffeemate[tm])?
Re:Dehydration causes cancer?? I think not.
on
Coffee A Health Drink?
·
· Score: -1, Troll
I'd like to see some documentation for that statement that you seemed to pull out from under your tin-foil hat.
I'll just bet you would, at that. If, as you claim...
I am an oncology surgeon.
... then a known cause for cancer has the potential to put you right out of business, doesn't it?
And why the hell would anyone "deign to argue" with you - an admitted scumbag memeber of the so-called "health" profession - when you open with assertions that the other individual is some kind of crack-pot consipiracy theorist for a simple statement?
You want to argue with a conspiracy theorist, fuckwit, argue with me... you haven't even scratched the surface of the unsupported logical assertions I can heap on your travesty of a claimed profession... Go roll some pills and sue a few more widows and orphans to cover the outrageous fees you demand for your so-called services - half-baked theories and un-informed desire to cut up living human beings - you murderous freak.
alcohol isn't a natural product, so it is harmful for you
WtF? Alcohol is definitely a "natural" substance - that is, it occurs at least as "naturally" as coffee, tea, etc - I can prove that by the jar of grape juice I left opened in the cupboard all summer... did they not cover such things in your high school chem class? Perhaps they feared that the students would figure out just how easy it really his to follow in the footsteps of every civilization ever known and make BEER...
Furthermore, what "product" is "natural"? A Big Mac?
America needs an enemy. American always requires a new threat if you havent seen the pattern by now.
While you are mostly right about this, you have limited the temporal scope of the point, I think, in order to focus on the US. Fact is, many (most?) world power nations have had this same problem - they require external enemies in order to thrive. This is 19th Century politics, I think (I hope), but that remains to be seen...
America = capitalism.
Your statement here represents a fond dream for some, and an overwhelming fear for others. However, it is simply not the case. The US has adopted some capitalist principles, but so have most other nations that have progressed beyond basic agricultural economies. Capitalism is not a form of government - it might be considered a sociological phenomenon, but it definitely economics, and while Economics and Politics are related, they are not precisely the same thing. The US is hybrid of a number of things - it has some Capitalist genetic heritage, but it is hardly synonymous with Capitalism. An obvious support of this idea is the dominance of monopolistic and trans-national corporations in the US economy. There is almost no economic competition within the US - there is a great deal of price fixing and monopolistic practice. That doesn't support your assertion of a "need for competition".
I will give you that in order for the monopolies to appear capitalist there must be a perception of competition, but that's an entirely different matter than Capitalism in a true sense.
I think its stupid for any American to think that America can exist without a global threat when America has been fighting threats sinces the very beginning.
Well, I hope you're wrong - I happen to be one American who believes that America can and will exist without endless hot or cold wars and manufactured threats against its security. In fact, I believe that it must take that path into the future or it will cease to exist.
I view this principle you are outlining as something I call "The Myth of the Perpetually Expanding Market". It is the (fallacious) idea that Capitalism is a short term proposition that involves nothing more than market growth.
As you say: The US has ever had a threat to deal with. From the very beginning. That's true, as far as it goes, but remember that the US is an infant in terms of national political and ideological maturity. Well, maybe an adolescent - I'm not really enough of a Historian to say - but the fact is that the US is a young nation. If we go to other nations in history and examine their growth (and in some cases, decline) we find that many nations have survived this particular phase of national development not by seeking out new, better, bigger, or more winnable wars, but by re-examining this concept of unlimited growth - the "Myth of Perpetually Expanding Markets".
The Europeans have done it. The Chinese have, as well (I think - I'm not an expert on China). For China, it the reason they have continued to survive for longer than most Americans can even imagine, let alone plan for.
. We either fight the threats overseas or we will start fighting them here at home, and I'd rather it be overseas.
Fair enough, if you assume that we must fight in order to either survive or progress. You should realize, though, that that assumption can only lead (ultimately) to the annihilation of one of the warring parties - the US has got by so far by being a very efficient killing machine. But then, there are examples throughout history of societies (nations) that tried to hold on to that "fastest gun in the west" status against the rest of the world. They have all failed. If you examine it dispassionately, it becomes evident that any nation that tries to hold onto that "best fighters
Slashdot Mirror
I set up a URL like the one shown in the advisory and when regardless of whether I paste it to the URL bar or click it in a webpage, Firefox changes the link to "keyword:---[...]" and takes me to a page that explains the operation of the Google "I Feel Lucky" function. I was expecting the browser to crash....
This is Firefox 1.0.6 under SuSE 9.2 (patched),
Well, my information dated from the era before there was a DARE program, but your point is well-taken. Excellent links. Thanks. I was a bit disapointed by the conclusions, though - it means that neither my own psychotic and sociopathic behaviour nor my childrens' extrordinary abilities can be attributed directly to any particular chemical ingenstion that may or may not have been a part of my past. While many people could consider that a Good Thing(tm), I find, rather, that it leaves me with a feeling of emptiness - a sort of directionless meaninglessness. In short, it's depressing - and (as the reassearch has shown) not even LSD will provide permenant relief. *sigh* I hope I don't get as dependent on LSD as I am on coffee (I know, I know, coffee is a physical dependency, but still - body/mind/spirit, you know?) ...
Right? I mean, they kept telling us that that it cause "chromosone damage" - then they quit talking aobut that suddenly. Now it's just illegal. Like human cloning. Huh.
In any case, we're a couple generations out, now, from that first generation whose parents "tripped", and the tracking of those "Firestarter" kids is *still* a 'black proect' that nobody wants to talk about. Mutants are a reality - it just remains to define the mutations.
Almost certainly. Research money should be applied here.
I think the Fear surrounding used nuclear power plant fuel pre-dates the present day focus on Terror. The main problem that is known to have occured surrounding used nuclear fuel - afaik - is increased cancer rates among populations that are exposed to it - that are exposed to increased background radiation levels, in general, actually.
I myself find it conconcievable that we still don't seem to have any practical way of using that radiation - it is, after all, energy in one of its most basic forms. Is there no such thing as a photo-voltaic-type cell that could produce current from the radiation from this fuel as it decays?
I agree with you in principle - that there's really no such thing as "waste" - only things we haven't figured out yet. However, I'm not entirely convinced that the uses that have been found for spent nueclear fuel so far - I.E. irraditating food products (pork in particular) - are a good idea.
That statement is soooo 20th century.
Only if you continue to think in terms of centralized power sources and distribution networks, I think. Nevertheless, there a megawatts of electrical and wind generation facilities coming online a increasingly frequent intervals. I think it's very short-sighted to claim that we're anywhere close to seeing inadequacy to demand from these sources. Obviously, this will continue to be an arguing point, but I think even the most skeptical observers should be stopping short of ruling the possiblity out, at this point.
Hmmm. I'm no chemist, but isn't methane a hydrocarbon? See the article at http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/stor y?id=32730 for an article about producing hydrogen from methane at dump sites. And of course, methane is widely available at sites like the massive factory farms in the midwestern US.
Btw, Susie is pissed that you don't think she knows what hydrocarbons are - she says it's Joe (Sixpack) that was not in class that day, but I'll let her deal with you personally about that...
Again your mechanist pseudo-logic circles back upon itself. Your own ad hominem attack proves you can provide no such debate.
140863? Hmmm. Isn't that rather high for an IQ? Perhaps you were refering to my username, but I'll let that go for the time being...
To summarize: See my previous response; you add nothing to the discussion, and should eliminate yourself from this and all others. Piss off, fuckwit. Fuck off and die. Etc.
Well, if this "diamond nanotube" combination is not a semiconductor, what is it? The diamond doesn't conduct, right? And the nanotubes do conduct, as you say. If we can't refer to the diamond as being "doped" w/ the nanotubes, then apparently it's a mixture on a larger scale. Perhaps the nanotubes could be arranged into circuits within a diamond substrate. Not sure if that would provide any particular advantage over e.g. sapphire chips...
That about sums up your position, doesn't it: Somebody doesn't do as you demand, doesn't conform to your idea of How It Should Be you relegate them to ... where? You think you own /., or something ? You think you speak for the human race? You think the individual you are responding to should ... what, just die? Sounds like you're right in there with the people described by the woman yelling/crying "they just don't care about us" outside the NOLA convention center as seen on TV.
Fuck you. Piss off and die, inhuman loser. You piece of shit. You are scum of the worst sort. Emotion is the very essence of humanity. Therefore, you're own argument is illogical. It's shit. Just like you.
And who are you to try to ban emotion in a public forum, anyway? Fuck you. Fuck off and die. I really mean that. I think the world would be a better place if you did. You really don't qualify as human in any operational sense of the word.
And no, I am not the poster you were responding to. I would, though, prefer that posters content on /. than your pseudo-intellectional baiting, whining, bullshit.
It's been a long time since that lecture on P and N dopings, but isn't the combination of a conducting and a non-conducting material useful in semiconductors? Something about Si not being a conductor until it's doped? Are there diode junctions in this stuff?
I'm sure you wish that my anger was "excessive", but I'm quite sure you know better - you know what you are...
Oh, so you conciously didn't use the word. Bully for you. You're passive-agressive to boot, eh? Are you a neo-con, as well? Figures. "Coward" would be a better term for it, like your spiritual brethern.
Yes, I'm sure you would prefer that no one step in while you're engaged in mocking and name calling your intended victim. Perhaps you should choose a more private forum to indulge your indiscretions in the future. After all, who the fuck are *yoU* to have commented as you did in the context? You believe you are somehow more entitled than anyone else to express your opinions, here? A doctor? You should off in some cess-pit picking your sores, not prowling around here looking for new victims...
If I did, why the hell would I provide *you* with that information, shit head?
Uh huh. Sure you would, buddy ...
Yeah, it can. Especially in Africa. But I guess there's a reason you're pursuing oncology instead of something that you already *know* can be cured by clean water. Cancer's where the big bux are, eh? By the time you've been in practice a year, you'll never have to deal with the underclasses again, eh? I mean, it's not like *they* can afford your treatments, right? No, I think if wanted to save the lives of 12-year-olds you'd be in quite a different field. The oncology field seems to mostly involve timing the death of the patient to coincide as precisely as possible with that patients final inability to pay an more medical fees. Or perhaps you'd like to try to convince me you didn't notice that when you were picking a speciality.
Okay, I'll give you that. I was careless. It's not the doctors themselves that sue the widows and orphans of their victims, it's the insurance companies, the hospitals, and the collection agencies that the doctors hire squeeze blood from those particular stones.
Fwiw, I consider that with such agents in your employ, you are as responsible as they are for the damage they/you do.
MONEY, dumbass - the money to recarpet the upstairs of the mansions, or paint the yacht - the money to roll into more pharmaceutical company stock - whatever. You'd know better what you do with your blood money than I, certainly.
If doctoring were a reputable profession, you'd get paid like the rest of us - when you do a good job. As is you're just a toll collector on the road to the grave, a shill for the pharmaceutical companies and insurance conglomerates.
Or maybe you're not in the US? If that's the case, I still find it difficult that you manage to work in the health industry and yet have never heard what's going on here.
I encourage you again (more strongly, this time) to go buy yourself a clue. Moraelin. I'm not claiming that anything I'm saying is here new or even particularly imaginative, but you - you're beating a horse that's been dead so long it smells...
I am not now, nor have I even been, trying to prove anything to you, much less any of the things you keep demanding that I prove to your satisfaction.
You can kid yourself that I'm trolling, if that makes you feel better, but I'm not. We're just speaking different languages. I know yours and don't feel like using it. You don't know mine, and want to abuse me for prefering it. Piss off.
And if it will make you feel any better: I'm not superior to you, or more reasoned, or any of that stuff. You simply have no idea at all what you're going on about, and berating me isn't going to improve your self-image, no matter how entertaining I may find it that you have chosen this way in which to prove beyond any possible doubt that you are completely a brainwashed tool of the system.
Aye, I understand - I was just pointing out the implication that alcohol had to be invented and its use become established *before* some of these things became food. Something that came up earlier in another thread when someone asserted that alcohol was somehow not "natural"...
Of course, we're still left wondering what all these youngsters were eating for sustenance while they were waiting for [whatever] to ferment into beer in order that they could get plastered and discover new types of food :D
LoL. Okay, *that* was nicely done - thank-you, I needed a laugh :)
I believe they are until/unless they are at least soaked throughly in water and then rinsed. Something about tannic acid. I think they may not be deadly poisonous, but would make you sick if you just picked them and ate them. I used to have a link about this...
Tofu is another good example, but the beans are not toxic before you start the process. There are some foods in the local chinese grocery that I haven't been able to identify yet - some that I am not completely convinced are food, for that matter ;).
Clearly the alcohol occurred quite reasonably, though, right?
*Zing!* That was the sound of my (admittedly obscure) little funny whizzing over your close-shorn, pointy little head, "Dude".
Heh. Dude. Er, dude, yeah, uh, dude. Go look up "sense of humour" or maybe "taking yourself less seriously" - I'd give you a link, but I don't seem to have one handy - maybe you could search Google under "clue, get one".
Seriously, you really need to lighten up - I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your shrill whine of self-importance. You need to get out and have some fun, not sit around trying to impress a completely apathetic couch potato with your l33t s0ph0m0ric deb4te 5killz ... get a life. You are downright laffable as posted...
"Expect nothing; you'll never be disapointed."
Thanks for going to the trouble to list those. High levels of blood serums in my cholesteral due to ingestion of extreme levels of half-and-half ("what's the other half?") have caused me to start hallucinating while simultaneously making me extremely lethargic, hence I didn't do it myself...
This is a really interesting point - or points - you make, there.
I've often wondered just how the first humans to eat meat wound up doing so - likewise, who was the first human to figure out e.g. how to prepare acorns as food - entire villages must have been wiped out in those first trial and error efforts ...
As for "natural is better" - I don't know that we've shown that. It could be argued that the rapid progress of humans in the last 100 years is due to the ingestion of man-made substances.
One thing we have shown pretty conclusively, I think, is that half-assed engineering of man-made substances for human consumption is a Bad Idea. But that doesn't equate to "Natural is Good". Most "food poisoning" type bacteria and a whole host of diseases and conditions are quite "natural" as well...
I particularly like the acorn example because humans processed something inedible into a staple food. Is that natural? If so, is it natural because it was done with minimal technological requirements, or because it was done in a stone age society? Do we draw the line encompassing "natural" at "man-made" or what?
I consider it entirely plausible that humans could manufacture a wholly fabricated food that would as good or better than what we now consume as "natural" - won't happen this generation, of course, but with some enlightened eco-engineering, perhaps...
So you see, there is really only one option after all ;)
Is this something unique to Finns, do you think? Just asking, I don't know much about Finnish people, but would not have thought there were as many milch cows per capita there as, say, Denmark or even the UK. Perhaps my perceptions of these regions is a bit dated...
My god, that sounds dangerous! Most of the people I know looking for those kinds of effects (bodybuilding and burst effects) use methamphetimines - of course, they age incredibly fast and die, but ... well, maybe milk is better, now that I think about it.
Interesting. I've been known to mix vodka with milk for the same kind of "timed release" effect.
Well, I have an issue with that, actually. I *like* cream. In fact, I've found that in most animal product "foods", it is the fat that gives the food its savor. Of course, as anyone who has ever tried to eat a clump of under-cooked pork fat can tell you, there is such a thing as "too much" and it definitely needs to be cooked properly...
Still, I think all this hype about cholesterol being "bad" is just that, hype. I mean, the only people whose word we have for it are those same people who benefit the most by the population being less than healthy. Of course, that gets into the whole disagreement I have with that alleged doctor, so I'll leave that out of this...
In general, though, I think things that taste bad tend to be worse for you than things that taste good. Not scientific, maybe, but I'm not dead yet, either.
Actually, I've done that (not intentionally *wince*)
I'm sorry, what exactly was your point?
Duh. I didn't claim to, nor did I set out to. Again: What's your point? Are you trying to prove something here? Do you want to be able to use some of these purported "facts" I haven't produced? Perhaps you should re-read my previous post a bit more thoroughly on that score.
I'm sorry, I didn't look it up, but the nature of "obvious" (as I understand it) is such that I typically don't feel a need to support something which can be so described. If you don't agree that something is obvious, you may contend that it is not, but you can't practically expect me to provide support for it until you convince me that it is, in fact, not obvious. [clue: calling me a "crackpot" or wailing about "no evidence" is not convincing in this instance]
A couple things you don't seem to have gotten out of the assigned reading material:
Trust me, I won't arse you. Besides, I have my own sources that don't depend on any Wiki posters' Freudian tendancies...
Of all your bluster, I would choose this one statement to challenge. Show me - no, screw that, prove it to yourself, never mind me - that you're not brainwashed. Prove it. Scientifically, etc; Never mind that I'm a whacko nutjob - I'll give you all the points you're trying for in your post, there - just do your best.
I understand the problems for lactose intolerant persons, and persons who simply can't get milk, but the previous poster (to whom I was replying) implied that there was some negative health effect - to the point that milk and cream in coffee should be avoided. I was just wondering about that... To persons who consume milk with apparent ill effects, is there any particular reason milk products should be avoided when cosuming ones daily dosage(s) of caffeine?
I was just flaming on some one who claimed to be a surgeon (of the oconological persuasion) for calling names against someone else who made the assertion that dehydration is a major cause of cancer.
Well, I'm not familiar with Trudeau's book execpt for having endured almost 15 minutes of an infomercial for it, but I hardly think the appeal is "irrational". Think about it: Most of us know the medical industry is lying to us in a myriad of ways both big and small, and most of us don't have medical care due to lack of medical "insurance". Both these situations are due to one thing and one thing only: The avarice of the medical industry. Trudeau is presenting himself as an alternative, and it is not only very rational that people would be interested, it's not particularly paranoid unless you have undergone some sort of brainwashing that makes you believe that doctors and insurance companies are somehow immune to basic human behaviours like greed and the killing of large numbers of people in order to improve corporate and personal finnancial bottom lines.
The evidence that the medical industry is both over-valued and increasingly powerful is everywhere. That says nothing at all about the relative merits of "Natural Cures" - but that means nothing for and nothing against.
I found it very instructive that an admitted member of the industry - that is and admitted murderer and scam artist, by my lights - started yelling "conspiracy theory" over a simple statement made by someone else in an entirely different context. That can mean only one thing: That the purported "doctor" is afraid that there might be some truth to it (the assertion that there is a link between dehydration and cancer). Which leads me to believe that the good "doctor" has a dedicated purpose: Cleanse the networks of any possible documentation of that link.
So, as is my practice, I called 'em as I saw 'em. He'll generate more support for the theory he's arguing against by arguing against it than currently exists, would be my guess, since he's clearly supporting an effort to eliminate such evidence - for obvious (fiscally beneficial) reasons.
So whattaya think? Do I get the Tinfoil Hat of the Week award?
I can understand the need to reduce sugar and donuts, but cream and milk? There was a time when milk was considered "good for you"? Also, what about "non-dairy creamers" (Coffeemate[tm])?
I'll just bet you would, at that. If, as you claim ...
... then a known cause for cancer has the potential to put you right out of business, doesn't it?
And why the hell would anyone "deign to argue" with you - an admitted scumbag memeber of the so-called "health" profession - when you open with assertions that the other individual is some kind of crack-pot consipiracy theorist for a simple statement?
You want to argue with a conspiracy theorist, fuckwit, argue with me ... you haven't even scratched the surface of the unsupported logical assertions I can heap on your travesty of a claimed profession... Go roll some pills and sue a few more widows and orphans to cover the outrageous fees you demand for your so-called services - half-baked theories and un-informed desire to cut up living human beings - you murderous freak.
WtF? Alcohol is definitely a "natural" substance - that is, it occurs at least as "naturally" as coffee, tea, etc - I can prove that by the jar of grape juice I left opened in the cupboard all summer ... did they not cover such things in your high school chem class? Perhaps they feared that the students would figure out just how easy it really his to follow in the footsteps of every civilization ever known and make BEER...
Furthermore, what "product" is "natural"? A Big Mac?
While you are mostly right about this, you have limited the temporal scope of the point, I think, in order to focus on the US. Fact is, many (most?) world power nations have had this same problem - they require external enemies in order to thrive. This is 19th Century politics, I think (I hope), but that remains to be seen...
Your statement here represents a fond dream for some, and an overwhelming fear for others. However, it is simply not the case. The US has adopted some capitalist principles, but so have most other nations that have progressed beyond basic agricultural economies. Capitalism is not a form of government - it might be considered a sociological phenomenon, but it definitely economics, and while Economics and Politics are related, they are not precisely the same thing. The US is hybrid of a number of things - it has some Capitalist genetic heritage, but it is hardly synonymous with Capitalism. An obvious support of this idea is the dominance of monopolistic and trans-national corporations in the US economy. There is almost no economic competition within the US - there is a great deal of price fixing and monopolistic practice. That doesn't support your assertion of a "need for competition".
I will give you that in order for the monopolies to appear capitalist there must be a perception of competition, but that's an entirely different matter than Capitalism in a true sense.
Well, I hope you're wrong - I happen to be one American who believes that America can and will exist without endless hot or cold wars and manufactured threats against its security. In fact, I believe that it must take that path into the future or it will cease to exist.
I view this principle you are outlining as something I call "The Myth of the Perpetually Expanding Market". It is the (fallacious) idea that Capitalism is a short term proposition that involves nothing more than market growth.
As you say: The US has ever had a threat to deal with. From the very beginning. That's true, as far as it goes, but remember that the US is an infant in terms of national political and ideological maturity. Well, maybe an adolescent - I'm not really enough of a Historian to say - but the fact is that the US is a young nation. If we go to other nations in history and examine their growth (and in some cases, decline) we find that many nations have survived this particular phase of national development not by seeking out new, better, bigger, or more winnable wars, but by re-examining this concept of unlimited growth - the "Myth of Perpetually Expanding Markets".
The Europeans have done it. The Chinese have, as well (I think - I'm not an expert on China). For China, it the reason they have continued to survive for longer than most Americans can even imagine, let alone plan for.
Fair enough, if you assume that we must fight in order to either survive or progress. You should realize, though, that that assumption can only lead (ultimately) to the annihilation of one of the warring parties - the US has got by so far by being a very efficient killing machine. But then, there are examples throughout history of societies (nations) that tried to hold on to that "fastest gun in the west" status against the rest of the world. They have all failed. If you examine it dispassionately, it becomes evident that any nation that tries to hold onto that "best fighters