Indeed. What's scary about this, however, is not that it's being labeled as a theory (which it is, along with everything else in science), but that it's being done so for purely religious/ideological reasons. Once you allow such decisions to be made on the basis of anything other than fact, you knock out the support beams of NASA as a scientific agency.
There has been no concrete explanation for the forming of the universe by evolutionists
No, but that doesn't stop scientists from looking for natural explanations for such. There are, at present, a number of theories awaiting sufficient observational data. The ID folks would just say "it's too complex, so don't bother".
I'd like to point out that they are both religions
No. Those who are postulating various naturalistic origins for the universe are generating genuine hypotheses that can be disproven. The religious viewpoint never can be.
and therefore should not be subsidized by the government as absolute truth to be taught in public schools.
I think that they both should be taught. One as science, the other as philosophy. Niether of which deal with "absolute truths".
the phrase "separation of church and state" wasn't even in the Constitution
Not in so many words, though Jefferson does so in his writings. Nevertheless, I believe that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" is pretty clear on that point.
Agreed that he's rather nutty. I got to see him speak in Lindau a little over a year ago, and even got to ask him some questions later on. An interesting guy, to say the least, but he's a nice person and pretty much harmless.
Besides, you never know, he might even be right about one of those things. If you throw enough darts you might just hit something.
They pump the Oxygen and the Hydrogen thus derived into the combustion chamber. The Extra O2 makes all (as opposed to most) of the diesel fuel burn, and gets a little kick from the H2. Nearly all the benefit, however, comes from burning diesel that would otherwise be part of the exhaust.
The experts recommended surgical masks for flu patients and health workers exposed to those patients. For the healthy, hand washing offers more protection than wearing masks in public, because people can be exposed to the virus at home, at work and by touching contaminated surfaces--including the surface of a mask.
I guess it's time to stock up on hand sanitizer...
Another thing:
In the U.S., where states have primary responsibility for their residents' health, the Trust for America's Health (TFAH) estimates that a "severe" pandemic virus sickening 25 percent of the population could translate into 4.7 million Americans needing hospitalization. The TFAH notes that the country currently has fewer than one million staffed hospital beds.
Yes, it sucks, but the country's population is about 300 million, so that's about 1.6 percent needing to go to the hospital. Not all of those will die. Even at the ~50% fatality rate that the article mentions, we'd "only" lose 0.8% of the U.S.
Worse than any single natural disaster, to be sure, but the odds for the individual wouldn't be too bad, it seems.
Mind explaining to me how the Apple hardware is somehow "crippled"? It'll run anything you want, including Windows. All Apple's doing is making sure that ONLY their hardware will run their OS. As they make both, that is their right.
It also tends not to stay in the atmosphere very long before precipitating out - literally. If H2O vapor in the air caused heating, it would have happened long ago. As I recall, most of this planet (i.e. oceans, lakes, vegetation) is actively venting the stuff into the air all the time.
The regining of aluminium, and likely the other metals, consumes very large amounts of electricity which likely came from burning fossil fuels.
Yes, but as an energy storage medium, it looks like it may have promise. Not as energy-dense as gas, certianly, but it has the advantage of being reprocessable into usable fuel. And there's always nuclear power available to provide that, if we run out of oil/get concerned about global warming.
On top of that the metal coils are going to use more fuel to distribute because they are heavier than the amount of gas required to produce the same amount of energy.
Yes, we've established that it's not as efficient as gas. It does, however, have the advantage of being reprocessable, and not producing greenhouse gases. Seems like a fair trade to me.
If you believe this is viable, I have a cute perpetual motion machine for sale.
I do, and I'm not interested in your machine. Of course it moves the energy production elsewhere. I think that this is a good step.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. What's scary about this, however, is not that it's being labeled as a theory (which it is, along with everything else in science), but that it's being done so for purely religious/ideological reasons. Once you allow such decisions to be made on the basis of anything other than fact, you knock out the support beams of NASA as a scientific agency.
He's also a rather regular contributor to sci.space.policy, FWIW
...it lets me get FP anytime, anywhere. In fact, I'm posting this with it right now...
I remember them. I was in 6th grade and thought they were the coolest ads ever. The motif was copied by Smith Barney several years later, IIRC.
I think they should go back to the moon instead.
Have you looked at the NASA webpage lately?
Send an unmanned mission first maybe
You mean like the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter?
There has been no concrete explanation for the forming of the universe by evolutionists
No, but that doesn't stop scientists from looking for natural explanations for such. There are, at present, a number of theories awaiting sufficient observational data. The ID folks would just say "it's too complex, so don't bother".
I'd like to point out that they are both religions
No. Those who are postulating various naturalistic origins for the universe are generating genuine hypotheses that can be disproven. The religious viewpoint never can be.
and therefore should not be subsidized by the government as absolute truth to be taught in public schools.
I think that they both should be taught. One as science, the other as philosophy. Niether of which deal with "absolute truths".
the phrase "separation of church and state" wasn't even in the Constitution
Not in so many words, though Jefferson does so in his writings. Nevertheless, I believe that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" is pretty clear on that point.
Vigilant hand washing is actually MUCH more effective than wearing a facemask, according to Scientific American.
It's also much harder to enforce.
Just FYI.
What the hell kind of country do you live in that has no patent office? Somalia?
Agreed that he's rather nutty. I got to see him speak in Lindau a little over a year ago, and even got to ask him some questions later on. An interesting guy, to say the least, but he's a nice person and pretty much harmless.
Besides, you never know, he might even be right about one of those things. If you throw enough darts you might just hit something.
They pump the Oxygen and the Hydrogen thus derived into the combustion chamber. The Extra O2 makes all (as opposed to most) of the diesel fuel burn, and gets a little kick from the H2. Nearly all the benefit, however, comes from burning diesel that would otherwise be part of the exhaust.
Fine, but as parent mentioned, as soon as the engine starts powering the electrolysis you'll be below break-even.
The experts recommended surgical masks for flu patients and health workers exposed to those patients. For the healthy, hand washing offers more protection than wearing masks in public, because people can be exposed to the virus at home, at work and by touching contaminated surfaces--including the surface of a mask.
I guess it's time to stock up on hand sanitizer...
Another thing:
In the U.S., where states have primary responsibility for their residents' health, the Trust for America's Health (TFAH) estimates that a "severe" pandemic virus sickening 25 percent of the population could translate into 4.7 million Americans needing hospitalization. The TFAH notes that the country currently has fewer than one million staffed hospital beds.
Yes, it sucks, but the country's population is about 300 million, so that's about 1.6 percent needing to go to the hospital. Not all of those will die. Even at the ~50% fatality rate that the article mentions, we'd "only" lose 0.8% of the U.S.
Worse than any single natural disaster, to be sure, but the odds for the individual wouldn't be too bad, it seems.
For God's sakes mod parent up! I so wish I hadn't squandered mine earler today. The kid was an idiot - case closed.
IIRC, there's a Talmudic reference to Moses writing that part with his tears or something...I'd get my Jewish study Bible out, but I'm too lazy.
Mind explaining to me how the Apple hardware is somehow "crippled"? It'll run anything you want, including Windows. All Apple's doing is making sure that ONLY their hardware will run their OS. As they make both, that is their right.
tying software to your hardware when it could otherwise run on any other hardware is illegal.
And Apple is somehow completely ignorant that their entire corporate roadmap for the next decade is a criminal act?
Puh-lease.
Personally, I prefer your mom :P
Oh boy, if only I had mod points to give you...this makes a whole lot of sense.
It also tends not to stay in the atmosphere very long before precipitating out - literally. If H2O vapor in the air caused heating, it would have happened long ago. As I recall, most of this planet (i.e. oceans, lakes, vegetation) is actively venting the stuff into the air all the time.
Whenever I hear the word activist, I reach for my revolver.
Personally, I prefer activism to terrorism.
The regining of aluminium, and likely the other metals, consumes very large amounts of electricity which likely came from burning fossil fuels.
Yes, but as an energy storage medium, it looks like it may have promise. Not as energy-dense as gas, certianly, but it has the advantage of being reprocessable into usable fuel. And there's always nuclear power available to provide that, if we run out of oil/get concerned about global warming.
On top of that the metal coils are going to use more fuel to distribute because they are heavier than the amount of gas required to produce the same amount of energy.
Yes, we've established that it's not as efficient as gas. It does, however, have the advantage of being reprocessable, and not producing greenhouse gases. Seems like a fair trade to me.
If you believe this is viable, I have a cute perpetual motion machine for sale.
I do, and I'm not interested in your machine. Of course it moves the energy production elsewhere. I think that this is a good step.
Only up to Iron. After that they're all made in supernovae, as iron fusion is endothermic.
True, that. I'm glad I'm not working at JPL these days...
Umm...NASA's budget has actually increased with respect to inflation for the first time in recent memory.
No.