I believe there is something wrong when any large group of people take murder so lightly. People of Slashdot! What is wrong with you? This man was murdered. It's not right. It's not funny. Who cares what he did. This reminds me a lot of this article: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/12/134 259&tid=172
In which slashdotters also seemed to take the idea of killing hackers lightly. Should there be punnishment? Yes, but it should fit the crime.
Interesting to note is:
When a satellite parked at L4 or L5 starts to roll off the hill it picks up speed. At this point the Coriolis force comes into play - the same force that causes hurricanes to spin up on the earth - and sends the satellite into a stable orbit around the Lagrange point.
So perhaps it's possible to share L4 & L5 as a kind of virtual gravitational body.
This man is seriously morally depraved. Since when was it "ok" to decide who lives or dies based on their monetary value? By the same judgment we should also sentence elderly and disabled children to death. Really, John Tierney deserves the death sentence for encouraging such evil practices which could cause the death of relatively innocent individuals in the future.
This isn't cold fusion, in the region where the fusion occurs there are very high temperatures. This basically just increases the hydrogen gas pressure in a very small region thus "emulating conditions in the sun" by using electric forces rather than gravitational or magnetic. It's very cool, but it's not cold.
From experince, nerds have more fun. I dressed up for the first of the new SW movies and it was a lot of fun. I was even on the news AND I got made fun of by Bob and Tom on the radio. It was fun. Unfortunately, I was quite dissapointed with the movie so I couldn't bring myself to dress up for the next ones, but I also had a lot less fun.
But seriously, you who mock them, when was the last time you actually had fun? Where you weren't constantly watching your "friends" reations to your jokes or witty comments praying that they will accept you. Simply, some people feel free enough to have fun, others just don't have fun and don't want anyone else to either.
Now, I'm certain most everyone has heard of the evil number 666... well just... read. Not that I'm saying this card is "the mark," but it's amazing how close the mark as described in Revelation resembles some of the technologies for tracking people that are being proposed today.
Revelation 13:
16He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
18This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.
You're right and it bothers me as well. It's the fear issue which is on both sides. Neither side wants to be the one that loses. If both sides practiced real tolerance it wouldn't happen. However, that would require rational thought, which both sides seem to be lacking.
I think one of the greatest statements one can make in science is "maybe." Such as, "maybe this apple fell for a reason." I mean, aren't scientists supposed to be objective and willing to look at all possibilities while dismissing social pressures? On both sides, materialistic scientists and those who are more spiritual there is fear, mocking and slander. What's the point? Why not just stop for a second and say, "maybe?"
I believe God created everything, but I don't know how he did it. Despite what many fundamentalists(I am a fundamentalist) think, Genesis 1 is rather vague and is probably symbolic of some deeper spiritual reality. Some aspects of evolution are compelling, but I still hear athiest scientists marvel at how wonderful the design of life is. They often times don't notice that they had just used the word "design," but since I'm a creationist I do.
Often times children think they understand everything. "It's so obvious." However, as so many have said, the more you know the more you realize you don't know. I think the more scientific a person becomes the more they will say "maybe."
There is a lot of bad blood on both sides of the debate. We've all made mistakes, myself included. However, it doesn't mean that we're all wrong, nor is it likely any of us are completely right. I have a theory that if we don't mock each other maybe things would be a little better.
Thanks for the polite response. Of course I'd like to talk more about the subject. I reccomend you go back and look at the post I made responding to the many responses.
Regarding ID contradicting evolution... perhaps you're right, but it depends on your definition of evolution. First cell? Speicies level? Sub-species, etc... The way I see it, evolution on some level has been observed(bacteria, sickle cell, dog breeds). I am personally a creationist, but I'm open to the idea that God can do whatever he wants and that I could perhaps(gasp!) interpret scripture incorrectly. I don't really find the evolution-creationism debate interesting. Something happened, we're here and I believe in God.
Most of your other comments have been addressed in a comment I made at the same thread-depth as your comment.
I am Christian and I clearly stated that I was talking about the God named by YHWH. If you read the article, "fundimentalist" refered to Christian Fundimentalists. Regarding ID theory, I was basing my statements off of the most basic understanding of ID, which does not directly refer to God. Some believe aliens did it. I didn't go so far as to talk about why ONLY the bible was correct, nor did I attempt to prove anything. I simply stated my beliefs and of course I think I'm right.
Ok, so I'm gonna try to reply to a number of comments, but my time is limited. So, here goes:
Anonymous Coward: I disagree with you on this. The ID theory, as espoused by its biggest advocates (I'm thinking of Dembski, Behe, and Johnson, specifically) constitutes an attack on evolution.
Me: Dembski, Behe and Johnson perhaps stretch the concept further than it should be taken.
Anonymous Coward: I would also like to address the issue of fossils. Except you did not. Where did those fossils actually come from?
Me: The fossils came from animals... often times big ones. I do often ask myself how does my understanding of fossils fit into my understanding of the age of the earth as recorded in the bible. It doesn't so one of my understandings is flawed, but I tend to believe my understanding of fossils is the one that is flawed. An interesting note is the discovery of soft tissue inside a T-Rex thigh-bone. That discovery has caused many scientists to realize their understanding of fossils is flawed as well.
tgibbs: objections to ID and "god did it"
me: ID doesn't go so far as to say, "God did it." There are many who believe, "aliens did it," who are also proponents of ID.
tjstork: There is a lot of those who use intelligent design to say silly things
me: A lot of people say silly things.:)
Verteiron: If more religious fundamentalists were as rational in the presentation of their beliefs as you are here, there would be fewer problems in the world. I disagree with you on almost every point you bring up, but it is your right to believe what you want. Thanks for presenting your point of view while respecting _my_ right to believe what I want.
Me: Thanks and thanks for respecting me. I agree. Really the issue comes down to fear. There is fear on both sides, which causes much of the irrationality. If you respond calmly, sometimes others will calm down as well.
VernonNemitz and hesiod: "Unchanging" defines a pretty static situation. As in "unable to Create", because some sort of Change must occur within the Creator for that Act to happen.
Me: This is a sort of fun thing to think about. I borrow my understanding from flatworld explorers(please google it). If the physical galaxy including time is 4D(or perhaps higher), then God being of a higher dimension than time could create it all at once essentially creating all time and all space at once. In fact it's possible that all time and all space are simply an expression of a timeless God and there could be and likely are many more aspects to God which will never be seen.
Sorry if my spelling or grammar is off... I'm kinda rushing through this. I'm also sorry if I offended anyone or wrote too harshly. Please know that I intended no insult.
Frymaster, good thoughts. I think though, that your view is limited. I'll do my best to represent God in this case without saying something incorrect, but please realize that my understanding is limited as well.
First, I would say that life and death must be viewed from a different perspective. From Isaiah 57 it is seen that, for some, death is not a punnishment, but a realease from the hardship of life. The point being is that our typical view of death does not fit God's view of death. The way God sees the world and the way we see the world is entierly different.
Therefore, since the way we see the world is limited, because we lack information and understanding, we should be careful when judging God who sees all things.
Another example is, that from God's view he would be completely justified if he decided to destroy the entire world. Yet he hasn't done it... yet. Men are the most evil kind of creatures. Those children aren't starving because there is not enough food in the world, but because some have too much and are unwilling to give to those in need. They are starving because men want power and money(Sudan for example). In 1st Peter we can read that God is patient, giving everyone the fullest chance to come to him and not be destroyed. From that view, he is kind if he only allows us to continue to live and does nothing to help or end oppression, hunger, injustice and so on.
However, in his kindness and wisdom he chooses to be involved in this world in a way we understand as good, for our sake, that we would understand that he is good. He provides a way for us to be with him despite the fact that we deserve to be destroyed. That way is through Christ. He has provided for many who hate him their entire life. Why? Because he is kind.
Think about children who often times(mostly in their teenage years) believe their parents are the most evil hateful people on the planet, but their parents are really doing the most loving and kind things they know how. They may not understand, perhaps they can't understand, but their parents still love them and care for thim. God is a much more loving father than any human father. We just often times can't see or understand what he's doing so we're angry.
I hope that this clears up any confusion. Again, I am by no means skilled enough to represent God in a way that is complete, but I hope that what I've said is sufficient.
As a fundimentalist I think perhaps my views could be valuable. First, intellegent design does not contradict evolution. Intellegent design does not support evolution. It simply states that there probably was some intellegence involved in this phenominon we call "life." It does not go so far as to state where the intellegence resides, whether it is in God or mice.
Secondly, regarding God needing a creator. Most fundimentalists consider God to be even outside time. Unchanging, simply existing. In fact the name given by God, which Israel was to refer to him by means something similar to "He who exists." This name is often times refered to as the tetragrammon, which is often times translated as Yahweh or Yehovah(YHWH), but no one really knows how it should be translated. Anyway, the point is that a God which simply exists, which is timeless and unchanging could not be created. Since the term "created" implies both change and some dependence on time. God therefore could not "spring" into existance, because "springing" implies some sort of change and dependence on time. He simply exists, timeless and unchanging.
I would also like to address the issue of fossils. It's wrong to suppose that God created fossils to test men's faith. God is not cruel or deceptive. Many fundimentalists do not understand the nature of God as described in the scriptures, but rather the nature of God as described by poorly trained teachers. God is described as providing plenty of evidence for his existance, such that no man is without excuse to be without faith(Romans 1). Therefore, God's nature is quite the opposite. He is revealing the truth of himself, which men choose to ignore. We are the ones who are deceptive. God tests men's hearts by providing every reason to believe.
I hope this clears things up a bit. My purpose was not to argue or refute anyone, but simply to provide an accurate understanding of what Christian Fundimentalists believe.
The other ones didn't produce neutrons at any detectable level. This is why they used deturium instead of hydrogen. The purpose of this is not to create energy, but to create neutrons. Neutrons are quite useful and neutron sources are generally expensive and dangerious. This is pretty cool. Using neutrons it's possible to detect explosives hidden in a suitcase by looking at the EM emissions from a neutron colliding with nitrogen.
Ok, I've kept pretty silent about the whole DRM issue for a long time, because it doesn't really affect me. Since when was the "right to be entertained" a fundimental human right? I'm tired of hearing people whine, "I should be able to do whatever I want with my DVD." You bought a liscense, because that is what was sold to you. Just because I buy a book does not mean I can "do whatever I want with it." I can't copy it 50,000 times and sell it. I can't distribute it all over the internet. If you don't like what you're buying, stop buying it. Stop it with the childish ranting which is really rooted in your inability to break the entertainment-addiction.
most of you sound something like this, "my entertainment dealer won't let me steal entertainment(drugs) from him for myself or to give to my friends. So, I'm really mad at him and I'm gonna find all sorts of creative ways to steal from him anyway."
Whew, that said, I'm all for the freedom to develop and test new technologies. I just think there are better ways to stop DRM. Don't buy their liscenses. Don't buy anything from them until they sell exactly what you want. Otherwise, don't whine.
Palladium isn't that difficult to get ahold of. Have a crown?(for your teeth) It probably has palladium. Ever swam in the ocean? Oops, you've got a bit of deturium in you. Seems like you've got all you need! Into the cold fusion plant you go!
There is a huge difference though. Most fusion research focuses on the plasma state of the fuel, cold fusion focuses on the liquid state. I don't think anyone is saying that the electric forces do not need to be overcome, but that the probability of overcomming them is great in a liquid. Essentially, imagine 3 people in a 10'X10'x10' room running and jumping around blindfolded as fast as they can. That's "hot fusion". Then imagine 100 people being piled into a 10'x10'x10' room maybe they don't run fast, but there is a lot greater chance one of them is going to get a bloody nose. That's "cold fusion". It doesn't mean it's cold, it just means it's not plasma. Aside from that, the charges balance out in cold fusion thus effectively removing the need to add energy for the majority of the collision path, once the nuclei get close enough the cancelling effect becomes very small and then you need to increase the pressure... which is exactly what the electricity is doing.
Yeah, I think those people are actually extroverts. As an introvert living in an extrovert world I've come to see extroverts as rude attention starved kids that don't give a damn about anyone else but themselves. Yeah they're funny sometimes, but it tends to be at the expense of others or as a cover-up for their lack of intellegence... Just my two cents.;-)
The way I see it, let the environmentalists keep whining about CO2 and whatnot. Anything that stops the heart of petrolium dependency is good in my eyes. the US wouldn't meddle in the middle east. Iraqis and Iranian governments would have no reason to hate us. In the past the major life bringing arteries of the world were filled with fresh water, these days they are filled with black goo. I think the symbolism is ironc.
Yah, but if the martian atmosphere could be more dense I think it would be. Perhaps I'm just an idiot, but my theory is that the atmosphere density is dependent on the mass of the planet. So in order to increase the density of the atmosphere, according to my theory, an actual increase in the density of the planet would have to take place. Perhaps the solution is to guide some asteriods into the planet.:) Or start dumping our depleted fission products there, now that would assist terraforming... I'm such a sm@ie.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe there is something wrong when any large group of people take murder so lightly. People of Slashdot! What is wrong with you? This man was murdered. It's not right. It's not funny. Who cares what he did. This reminds me a lot of this article:4 259&tid=172
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/12/13
In which slashdotters also seemed to take the idea of killing hackers lightly. Should there be punnishment? Yes, but it should fit the crime.
Who read:
U.S. House Votes to Extend Parannoid Act?
I'm downloading Firefox with Firefox...
http://www.physics.montana.edu/faculty/cornish/lag range.html
Interesting to note is:
When a satellite parked at L4 or L5 starts to roll off the hill it picks up speed. At this point the Coriolis force comes into play - the same force that causes hurricanes to spin up on the earth - and sends the satellite into a stable orbit around the Lagrange point.
So perhaps it's possible to share L4 & L5 as a kind of virtual gravitational body.
Some things aren't funny.
This man is seriously morally depraved. Since when was it "ok" to decide who lives or dies based on their monetary value? By the same judgment we should also sentence elderly and disabled children to death. Really, John Tierney deserves the death sentence for encouraging such evil practices which could cause the death of relatively innocent individuals in the future.
You, sir, are definitely not neighborly.
This isn't cold fusion, in the region where the fusion occurs there are very high temperatures. This basically just increases the hydrogen gas pressure in a very small region thus "emulating conditions in the sun" by using electric forces rather than gravitational or magnetic. It's very cool, but it's not cold.
From experince, nerds have more fun. I dressed up for the first of the new SW movies and it was a lot of fun. I was even on the news AND I got made fun of by Bob and Tom on the radio. It was fun. Unfortunately, I was quite dissapointed with the movie so I couldn't bring myself to dress up for the next ones, but I also had a lot less fun.
But seriously, you who mock them, when was the last time you actually had fun? Where you weren't constantly watching your "friends" reations to your jokes or witty comments praying that they will accept you. Simply, some people feel free enough to have fun, others just don't have fun and don't want anyone else to either.
Now, I'm certain most everyone has heard of the evil number 666... well just... read. Not that I'm saying this card is "the mark," but it's amazing how close the mark as described in Revelation resembles some of the technologies for tracking people that are being proposed today.
Revelation 13:
16He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
18This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.
You're right and it bothers me as well. It's the fear issue which is on both sides. Neither side wants to be the one that loses. If both sides practiced real tolerance it wouldn't happen. However, that would require rational thought, which both sides seem to be lacking.
I think one of the greatest statements one can make in science is "maybe." Such as, "maybe this apple fell for a reason." I mean, aren't scientists supposed to be objective and willing to look at all possibilities while dismissing social pressures? On both sides, materialistic scientists and those who are more spiritual there is fear, mocking and slander. What's the point? Why not just stop for a second and say, "maybe?"
I believe God created everything, but I don't know how he did it. Despite what many fundamentalists(I am a fundamentalist) think, Genesis 1 is rather vague and is probably symbolic of some deeper spiritual reality. Some aspects of evolution are compelling, but I still hear athiest scientists marvel at how wonderful the design of life is. They often times don't notice that they had just used the word "design," but since I'm a creationist I do.
Often times children think they understand everything. "It's so obvious." However, as so many have said, the more you know the more you realize you don't know. I think the more scientific a person becomes the more they will say "maybe."
There is a lot of bad blood on both sides of the debate. We've all made mistakes, myself included. However, it doesn't mean that we're all wrong, nor is it likely any of us are completely right. I have a theory that if we don't mock each other maybe things would be a little better.
-peace
Thanks for the polite response. Of course I'd like to talk more about the subject. I reccomend you go back and look at the post I made responding to the many responses.
Regarding ID contradicting evolution... perhaps you're right, but it depends on your definition of evolution. First cell? Speicies level? Sub-species, etc... The way I see it, evolution on some level has been observed(bacteria, sickle cell, dog breeds). I am personally a creationist, but I'm open to the idea that God can do whatever he wants and that I could perhaps(gasp!) interpret scripture incorrectly. I don't really find the evolution-creationism debate interesting. Something happened, we're here and I believe in God.
Most of your other comments have been addressed in a comment I made at the same thread-depth as your comment.
I am Christian and I clearly stated that I was talking about the God named by YHWH. If you read the article, "fundimentalist" refered to Christian Fundimentalists. Regarding ID theory, I was basing my statements off of the most basic understanding of ID, which does not directly refer to God. Some believe aliens did it. I didn't go so far as to talk about why ONLY the bible was correct, nor did I attempt to prove anything. I simply stated my beliefs and of course I think I'm right.
Ok, so I'm gonna try to reply to a number of comments, but my time is limited. So, here goes:
:)
Anonymous Coward: I disagree with you on this. The ID theory, as espoused by its biggest advocates (I'm thinking of Dembski, Behe, and Johnson, specifically) constitutes an attack on evolution.
Me: Dembski, Behe and Johnson perhaps stretch the concept further than it should be taken.
Anonymous Coward: I would also like to address the issue of fossils. Except you did not. Where did those fossils actually come from?
Me: The fossils came from animals... often times big ones. I do often ask myself how does my understanding of fossils fit into my understanding of the age of the earth as recorded in the bible. It doesn't so one of my understandings is flawed, but I tend to believe my understanding of fossils is the one that is flawed. An interesting note is the discovery of soft tissue inside a T-Rex thigh-bone. That discovery has caused many scientists to realize their understanding of fossils is flawed as well.
tgibbs: objections to ID and "god did it"
me: ID doesn't go so far as to say, "God did it." There are many who believe, "aliens did it," who are also proponents of ID.
tjstork: There is a lot of those who use intelligent design to say silly things
me: A lot of people say silly things.
Verteiron: If more religious fundamentalists were as rational in the presentation of their beliefs as you are here, there would be fewer problems in the world. I disagree with you on almost every point you bring up, but it is your right to believe what you want. Thanks for presenting your point of view while respecting _my_ right to believe what I want.
Me: Thanks and thanks for respecting me. I agree. Really the issue comes down to fear. There is fear on both sides, which causes much of the irrationality. If you respond calmly, sometimes others will calm down as well.
VernonNemitz and hesiod: "Unchanging" defines a pretty static situation. As in "unable to Create", because some sort of Change must occur within the Creator for that Act to happen.
Me: This is a sort of fun thing to think about. I borrow my understanding from flatworld explorers(please google it). If the physical galaxy including time is 4D(or perhaps higher), then God being of a higher dimension than time could create it all at once essentially creating all time and all space at once. In fact it's possible that all time and all space are simply an expression of a timeless God and there could be and likely are many more aspects to God which will never be seen.
Sorry if my spelling or grammar is off... I'm kinda rushing through this. I'm also sorry if I offended anyone or wrote too harshly. Please know that I intended no insult.
Frymaster, good thoughts. I think though, that your view is limited. I'll do my best to represent God in this case without saying something incorrect, but please realize that my understanding is limited as well.
First, I would say that life and death must be viewed from a different perspective. From Isaiah 57 it is seen that, for some, death is not a punnishment, but a realease from the hardship of life. The point being is that our typical view of death does not fit God's view of death. The way God sees the world and the way we see the world is entierly different.
Therefore, since the way we see the world is limited, because we lack information and understanding, we should be careful when judging God who sees all things.
Another example is, that from God's view he would be completely justified if he decided to destroy the entire world. Yet he hasn't done it... yet. Men are the most evil kind of creatures. Those children aren't starving because there is not enough food in the world, but because some have too much and are unwilling to give to those in need. They are starving because men want power and money(Sudan for example). In 1st Peter we can read that God is patient, giving everyone the fullest chance to come to him and not be destroyed. From that view, he is kind if he only allows us to continue to live and does nothing to help or end oppression, hunger, injustice and so on.
However, in his kindness and wisdom he chooses to be involved in this world in a way we understand as good, for our sake, that we would understand that he is good. He provides a way for us to be with him despite the fact that we deserve to be destroyed. That way is through Christ. He has provided for many who hate him their entire life. Why? Because he is kind.
Think about children who often times(mostly in their teenage years) believe their parents are the most evil hateful people on the planet, but their parents are really doing the most loving and kind things they know how. They may not understand, perhaps they can't understand, but their parents still love them and care for thim. God is a much more loving father than any human father. We just often times can't see or understand what he's doing so we're angry.
I hope that this clears up any confusion. Again, I am by no means skilled enough to represent God in a way that is complete, but I hope that what I've said is sufficient.
As a fundimentalist I think perhaps my views could be valuable. First, intellegent design does not contradict evolution. Intellegent design does not support evolution. It simply states that there probably was some intellegence involved in this phenominon we call "life." It does not go so far as to state where the intellegence resides, whether it is in God or mice.
Secondly, regarding God needing a creator. Most fundimentalists consider God to be even outside time. Unchanging, simply existing. In fact the name given by God, which Israel was to refer to him by means something similar to "He who exists." This name is often times refered to as the tetragrammon, which is often times translated as Yahweh or Yehovah(YHWH), but no one really knows how it should be translated. Anyway, the point is that a God which simply exists, which is timeless and unchanging could not be created. Since the term "created" implies both change and some dependence on time. God therefore could not "spring" into existance, because "springing" implies some sort of change and dependence on time. He simply exists, timeless and unchanging.
I would also like to address the issue of fossils. It's wrong to suppose that God created fossils to test men's faith. God is not cruel or deceptive. Many fundimentalists do not understand the nature of God as described in the scriptures, but rather the nature of God as described by poorly trained teachers. God is described as providing plenty of evidence for his existance, such that no man is without excuse to be without faith(Romans 1). Therefore, God's nature is quite the opposite. He is revealing the truth of himself, which men choose to ignore. We are the ones who are deceptive. God tests men's hearts by providing every reason to believe.
I hope this clears things up a bit. My purpose was not to argue or refute anyone, but simply to provide an accurate understanding of what Christian Fundimentalists believe.
The other ones didn't produce neutrons at any detectable level. This is why they used deturium instead of hydrogen. The purpose of this is not to create energy, but to create neutrons. Neutrons are quite useful and neutron sources are generally expensive and dangerious. This is pretty cool. Using neutrons it's possible to detect explosives hidden in a suitcase by looking at the EM emissions from a neutron colliding with nitrogen.
Ok, I've kept pretty silent about the whole DRM issue for a long time, because it doesn't really affect me. Since when was the "right to be entertained" a fundimental human right? I'm tired of hearing people whine, "I should be able to do whatever I want with my DVD." You bought a liscense, because that is what was sold to you. Just because I buy a book does not mean I can "do whatever I want with it." I can't copy it 50,000 times and sell it. I can't distribute it all over the internet. If you don't like what you're buying, stop buying it. Stop it with the childish ranting which is really rooted in your inability to break the entertainment-addiction.
most of you sound something like this, "my entertainment dealer won't let me steal entertainment(drugs) from him for myself or to give to my friends. So, I'm really mad at him and I'm gonna find all sorts of creative ways to steal from him anyway."
Whew, that said, I'm all for the freedom to develop and test new technologies. I just think there are better ways to stop DRM. Don't buy their liscenses. Don't buy anything from them until they sell exactly what you want. Otherwise, don't whine.
Palladium isn't that difficult to get ahold of. Have a crown?(for your teeth) It probably has palladium. Ever swam in the ocean? Oops, you've got a bit of deturium in you. Seems like you've got all you need! Into the cold fusion plant you go!
There is a huge difference though. Most fusion research focuses on the plasma state of the fuel, cold fusion focuses on the liquid state. I don't think anyone is saying that the electric forces do not need to be overcome, but that the probability of overcomming them is great in a liquid. Essentially, imagine 3 people in a 10'X10'x10' room running and jumping around blindfolded as fast as they can. That's "hot fusion". Then imagine 100 people being piled into a 10'x10'x10' room maybe they don't run fast, but there is a lot greater chance one of them is going to get a bloody nose. That's "cold fusion". It doesn't mean it's cold, it just means it's not plasma.
Aside from that, the charges balance out in cold fusion thus effectively removing the need to add energy for the majority of the collision path, once the nuclei get close enough the cancelling effect becomes very small and then you need to increase the pressure... which is exactly what the electricity is doing.
Yeah, I think those people are actually extroverts. As an introvert living in an extrovert world I've come to see extroverts as rude attention starved kids that don't give a damn about anyone else but themselves. Yeah they're funny sometimes, but it tends to be at the expense of others or as a cover-up for their lack of intellegence... Just my two cents. ;-)
The way I see it, let the environmentalists keep whining about CO2 and whatnot. Anything that stops the heart of petrolium dependency is good in my eyes. the US wouldn't meddle in the middle east. Iraqis and Iranian governments would have no reason to hate us. In the past the major life bringing arteries of the world were filled with fresh water, these days they are filled with black goo. I think the symbolism is ironc.
Never ever, take your best friend's girlfriend.
Yah, but if the martian atmosphere could be more dense I think it would be. Perhaps I'm just an idiot, but my theory is that the atmosphere density is dependent on the mass of the planet. So in order to increase the density of the atmosphere, according to my theory, an actual increase in the density of the planet would have to take place. Perhaps the solution is to guide some asteriods into the planet. :) Or start dumping our depleted fission products there, now that would assist terraforming... I'm such a sm@ie.