He's not asking you or your grandmother to invest your life savings into these things. He's asking you to keep an open mind that there MAY be unexpected phenomena out there.
Let me try to explain this as simply as possible. The Laws of Thermodynamics have been the bedrock of physics for well over a century. The rewriting of physics books by relativity and quantum mechanics didn't change them a whit; they just provided a more indepth explanation for them (along with a lot of other interesting results not directly related to Thermodynamics). If they were overthrown it would be biggest single event in theoretical physics ever; Einstein would be a piker in comparison. And it wouldn't be announced by some joker peddling a water-fueled car.
An open mind is good, but not so open that your brain falls out.
If you've got a long enough cable to reach from the computer to the TV, can you run another cable next to it for your keyboard?
The second sentence of the freakin' *summary* says:
I've acquired some gear to send PC audio and video wirelessly (over the 5.8GHz range), so that's all good.
He's got no wires, and he wants to keep it no wires. Personally, I tend to prefer sticking to wired connections when possible (such as with two fixed points in the same home) but it's his stuff and if he wants to do it wirelessly, I wish him good luck.
So water may not be the only thing fueling this car. They use a chemical reaction to crack the water, and then use the hydrogen from the water and oxygen from the air to run a fuel cell. The real questions are: What is in these membranes? How long do they last? What does it cost to renew the membranes?
The water-to-hydrogen+oxygen-to-water cycle *cannot*, by the laws of thermodynamics, be supplying the car's energy. Therefore, assuming it works at all (which I greatly doubt), then your hypothesis means that the car is essentially fuelled by the membranes, since that's the only place the energy can come from. In which case, the answer to your "real questions" must be: the actual fuel for the device must be in these membranes, they won't last long at all (replaced every few days at best), and they will cost for the energy they must contain.
But it *doesn't* apply to such militia who intentionally camouflage themselves as non-combatants, which also applies to the vast majority of the prisoners in Guantanamo.
I'm really not seeing how they can have it both ways, but then again I'm not a lawyer -- just a human (usually an exclusive option).
I'm not going to defend everything this administration has done, but in fact, it's the other side trying to have things both ways. Those who do not abide by the Geneva Convention are not entitled to protection under it, by its own terms. Being captured while engaged in acts of war but not wearing a uniform that marks one as a combatant means you are *not* a prisoner of war and *not* entitled to protection under the Convention, as specified in the Convention itself. Curiously, this point seems to be ignored by most media reports.
Really? Let's look at the last chance he got. In New Hapmshire, he got 1.4% of the vote, even after they gave him the recount he demanded. Then he quit before the next primary was held.
Yes, of course it does. When there's all of three congressmen on the House floor, no votes can be taken, no business can be done. You can, however, make meaningless little speeches that nobody will hear so that they can be written into the Congressional Record where nobody will read them.
Some people like the smell of tar and some hate it. There cannot be a universal law that says "tar smells bad."
Very true.
And just because an observation can't be explained correctly with the current state of knowledge doesn't mean it isn't science.
Bzzzt! I'm sorry, that answer is incorrect. Vanna, tell him about his wonderful consolation prizes. The inability to provide an explanation is *exactly* what makes it not science. When you can formulate practical theories as to why some people like the smell of tar and some don't, and test those theories, then you have science. Not before.
And, when push comes to shove on the highway, we will survive while the Civic drive bites the dust. Too many hot rod kids out there driving like assholes. I plan to walk away from the head-on.
Actually, when you look at the actual death rates on the highway, you're more likely to die in an SUV than a Civic. Because a) they're not maneuverable, b) their truck construction means they're actually not that safe in a crash (minivans are much safer) and c) people drive them like they're invulnerable.
SUVs aren't safe. They just make you feel like you're safe.
Which is what prevents D&D characters from having weaknesses. If characters can't get some sort of advantage from having weaknesses, they won't have them.
"Current rules" on cloture have been changed exactly twice in the existence of the US Senate. The ones in place now have been in place for over forty years. The Senate takes its procedural rules very seriously and they won't be changed on a whim. There has been occassional talk of loosening it, but it never goes anywheres, and there's no real prospect of it changing in the near future. If someone was contemplating becoming Obama's VP because of the thought of somebody changing cloture making the tiebreaking vote potentially important, all I can say is, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Because Hillary voluntarily agreed that they should--until it turned out that keeping that agreement was inconvenient? Because Obama, pursuant to that agreement, wasn't even *on the ballot* in Michigan?
Please report to remedial civics class, immediately. The real responsibility of the vice president is to cast the tie breaking vote in the Senate. When the vote on a contentious issue comes down to a tie among senators this power of the VP is VERY important and makes him (her?) the most powerful player, even more powerful than the prez, that day.
Nope, sorry. If it's important and contentious, then the side that wants to block it will fillibuster. You need *sixty* votes to get cloture and force the important votes through, and the VP is meaningless.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me try to explain this as simply as possible. The Laws of Thermodynamics have been the bedrock of physics for well over a century. The rewriting of physics books by relativity and quantum mechanics didn't change them a whit; they just provided a more indepth explanation for them (along with a lot of other interesting results not directly related to Thermodynamics). If they were overthrown it would be biggest single event in theoretical physics ever; Einstein would be a piker in comparison. And it wouldn't be announced by some joker peddling a water-fueled car.
An open mind is good, but not so open that your brain falls out.
Don't forget that child pornography is often sent by email. I trust Verizon will be halting all email service across its network immediately.
The second sentence of the freakin' *summary* says:
He's got no wires, and he wants to keep it no wires. Personally, I tend to prefer sticking to wired connections when possible (such as with two fixed points in the same home) but it's his stuff and if he wants to do it wirelessly, I wish him good luck.
The water-to-hydrogen+oxygen-to-water cycle *cannot*, by the laws of thermodynamics, be supplying the car's energy. Therefore, assuming it works at all (which I greatly doubt), then your hypothesis means that the car is essentially fuelled by the membranes, since that's the only place the energy can come from. In which case, the answer to your "real questions" must be: the actual fuel for the device must be in these membranes, they won't last long at all (replaced every few days at best), and they will cost for the energy they must contain.
I would assume "Genepax" is pronounced "jean-packs", so you only have four syllables in your last line.
Cap'n, I canna
Break the laws o' phyics, but
it seems genepax can
But it *doesn't* apply to such militia who intentionally camouflage themselves as non-combatants, which also applies to the vast majority of the prisoners in Guantanamo.
I'm not going to defend everything this administration has done, but in fact, it's the other side trying to have things both ways. Those who do not abide by the Geneva Convention are not entitled to protection under it, by its own terms. Being captured while engaged in acts of war but not wearing a uniform that marks one as a combatant means you are *not* a prisoner of war and *not* entitled to protection under the Convention, as specified in the Convention itself. Curiously, this point seems to be ignored by most media reports.
You are Harvey Dent and I claim my five pounds.
The classic answer to this question is, of course, an Herman Miller Aeron chair. Be forewarned; they ain't cheap. $500 to $1000, depending on model.
You mean you aren't getting them yet? I get a recorded ad on my answering machine almost every day.
Really? Let's look at the last chance he got. In New Hapmshire, he got 1.4% of the vote, even after they gave him the recount he demanded. Then he quit before the next primary was held.
Yes, of course it does. When there's all of three congressmen on the House floor, no votes can be taken, no business can be done. You can, however, make meaningless little speeches that nobody will hear so that they can be written into the Congressional Record where nobody will read them.
Lot of benefits? The community?
Sorry, no. None of that makes any difference. I believe in something, or not, because it is *true*, or not.
Very true.
Bzzzt! I'm sorry, that answer is incorrect. Vanna, tell him about his wonderful consolation prizes. The inability to provide an explanation is *exactly* what makes it not science. When you can formulate practical theories as to why some people like the smell of tar and some don't, and test those theories, then you have science. Not before.
De accent gave you away, mon.
Actually, when you look at the actual death rates on the highway, you're more likely to die in an SUV than a Civic. Because a) they're not maneuverable, b) their truck construction means they're actually not that safe in a crash (minivans are much safer) and c) people drive them like they're invulnerable.
SUVs aren't safe. They just make you feel like you're safe.
dr
It's OK. He's got his own.
Which is what prevents D&D characters from having weaknesses. If characters can't get some sort of advantage from having weaknesses, they won't have them.
Me Grimlock, you insensitive clod!
"Current rules" on cloture have been changed exactly twice in the existence of the US Senate. The ones in place now have been in place for over forty years. The Senate takes its procedural rules very seriously and they won't be changed on a whim. There has been occassional talk of loosening it, but it never goes anywheres, and there's no real prospect of it changing in the near future. If someone was contemplating becoming Obama's VP because of the thought of somebody changing cloture making the tiebreaking vote potentially important, all I can say is, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Because Hillary voluntarily agreed that they should--until it turned out that keeping that agreement was inconvenient? Because Obama, pursuant to that agreement, wasn't even *on the ballot* in Michigan?
Nope, sorry. If it's important and contentious, then the side that wants to block it will fillibuster. You need *sixty* votes to get cloture and force the important votes through, and the VP is meaningless.
Because he really, really wants Bill wandering around the White House. Yeah.
Multiplying by 0.5 is still multiplying, right?