A solution is just...well, it's a solution. If you dissolve salt in water, you don't end up with a chemical reaction between the salt and the water; you just get Na+ and Cl- ions floating around between the water molecules.
So you can have C02 and O2 dissolved in a chemically inert liquid just fine. No chemical reaction is necessary to get a solution. In fact, if there is a chemical reaction, you don't have a solution; you have a compound.
Not to mention there's no replication going on. Evolution occurs when errors in replication are operated on by some kind of selection pressure. This seems more like "learning" than evolution.
The Very Definition of Hackneyed
on
Review: Kung Pow
·
· Score: 1
I had no urge whatsoever to see this movie. Well, I might have, but the cow scenes in the trailer purged any of those urges from me.
The Matrix came out in 1999. Bullet-time spoofs stopped being funny shortly thereafter. In 2002, they're actually anti-funny; if you're laughing at another funny joke, and you see one, you suddenly stop laughing.
Over-unity claims are a dime a dozen; you can hardly take a peek into the sci.physics.* hierarchy without having about 3 or 4 fall onto your disk. It's standard crankish crackpottery, and these claims have been being made for many decades now. Nobody can produce something that actually does what it claims, the claims are in direct contravention of the laws of thermodynamics, and they're just simply old hat. *Thousands* of people make these groundless claims.
So what makes this one so different that Reuters felt compelled to run an article on it? Why are they ignoring all the other over-unity freaks? Did this one give them free beer?
It's the job of Reuters to only print stories that are actually worth reading. This one doesn't qualify, except that a reporter was taken in by a demonstration in which 3 light bulbs were driven with car batteries.
But on the same time, science demands that we ask "what if this is true?"
No, science demands nothing of the sort. Science operates not by proving, by confirming beyond the shadow of a doubt, but by disproving, by testing to failure. When presented with an extraordinary claim, science demands we ask, "How do we prove that this is false?"
In this case, I'd say that proof might have something to do with the fact that he needs 4 12-volt car batteries of at least 60 amp-hours each to provide the 50 amp-hours required to drive a 300 watt load for two hours. Hell, I can do the same thing just by plugging the light bulbs into my wall, but nobody claims that's an over-unity device.
There are three main grades of Kevlar available: 29, 49, and 149. Respectively, they have tensile moduluses of 62 GPa, 131 GPa, and 186 GPa, and tensile strengths of 2.76 GPa, 3.6-4.1 GPa, and 3.4 GPa. There's also Kevlar Edge, but I don't know nothin' from nothin' about that.
Spectra 900 has a tensile modules of 117 GPa and Spectra 1000 has 172.0 GPa. Their tensile strengths are, respectively, 2.59 and 3.27.
Sounds pretty comparable to me, and I certainly wouldn't call it "mediocre." I also don't think Spectra is as susceptible to degradation from ultraviolet exposure, but I could be very wrong on that point. It does creep, though, which I guess could be a bad thing in sails.
All I can find on Vectran claims that its modulus and strength is similar to Kevlar-29.
It's even better than that. Regarding "Can I copy this CD to my hard drive?"
We recognize that many consumers enjoy storing music on their PCs and we are currently working on new systems to allow for this capability. To listen to the CD on your PC, use the media player included in the CD.
So we developed a CD copy prevention technology that prevents you from copying the CD to your hard drive or making mp3s from it, but we're working on including the techology to let you copy it to your hard drive and making mp3s on it.
I think I have an idea that could save them tens of thousands of dollars in R&D.
This is no different from multipage ad inserts that frequently crop up in Newsweek, Time, and a variety of other "news" publications. You'll see several pages near the center of the magazine, organized in the same columnar layout, the same style of headlines and photo captions, and sometimes even the same fonts as the rest of the magazine, but they'll be stories about the Horrors of an Unclean Bowl or the Heartbreak of Psoriasis or the like, instead of real news like Clinton's new three-breasted intern. And in small type, somewhere on each page, will be the word "ADVERTISEMENT," in order to allow the reader to differentiate it from all the "real" news on the rest of the rag's full-color pages.
The fragments won't just spread of their own accord because you happened to set a bomb off near the asteroid; the energy to get them to spread needs to come from somewhere. So now you're not only talking about imparting enough energy to the asteroid to break it up into chunks, but also imparting enough energy to get those chunks to fly apart.
That's a good deal more energy than is required to just break it up. Certainly theoretically possible, but if you're talking about intercepting it far away, then intercept it far enough away that you can just give it a sufficient nudge to point its vector on a non-collision course.
For each incoming ton of asteroid-dust, you're going to end up with the rough equivalent of about 200 tons of TNT released as thermal energy in the upper atmosphere.
For smaller asteroids, this is, as you say, not a big deal. But then those smaller ones aren't exactly civilization-enders anyway.
But for a dinosaur-killer? You're talking about several trillion tons. That's a lot kilotons of TNT equivalent, all going off in one localized portion of the atmosphere, all at once.
That will be a more than a "local temperature spike." It will flash-ignite entire forests, melt glaciers, and bake cities like they were in a kiln. Everything under it, for reasonable values of "under", will be appropriately crispy, dead, or on fire, or perhaps all three at once.
I reiterate: you want to worry about nudging them enough to steer them off-course, not about pulverizing them. If you start early enough, the nudge takes less energy than the hammer-blow anyway. It's starting early enough that's tricky.
Mass of spherical 300 meter diameter chondrite: ~4g/cc * 1.4E13cc ~= 5.6E10kg
Velocity: ~20000mps
Kinetic Energy of asteroid: 1.13E19 J
One megaton = 4.19E15 J
Energy of a 100 megaton bomb as a fraction of the kinetic energy of this asteroid: 1/27th
Hardly a bitch-slap. More of an abject whine.
Then there's the little matter of actually getting the Tsar Bomba to the asteroid. Hopefully in enough time to actually be able to steer the asteroid away, instead of fragmenting it into 5 chunks each of about 1E10 kg.
Problem is that all the kinetic energy still ends up in our system. One big piece is bad. Split that one big piece into several smaller pieces, and it's even worse. But take things to an arbitrary limit, where you pulverize the entire asteroid down to dust.
Now all that dust impacts the atmosphere, heats to incandescence, and vaporizes. Do *you* want to be in the hemisphere where *that* happens? Imagine New York City under the glare of 70 trillion E-Z-Bake Ovens.
If the asteroid's big enough to have a significant negative impact on human civilization, breaking it up/pulverizing it will not help us. It must be diverted so that it doesn't intersect Earth at all.
Making a rocket or shell shiny is easy. Keeping a rocket or shell shiny after it's been transported, unloaded, loaded into a weapon, and fired through the air at high velocities, is not.
1. Ejection parachutes are not steerable parasails; there is no assurance that an ejecting pilot will have the physical capability of manipulating parasail controls. He could be unconscious, have broken arms, etc. Additionally, parasails have higher landing velocities than parachutes, with higher risk of injuries as a result; this would also be contraindicated for a possibly-already-injured pilot.
2. Explosions, even those from little antiperonnel landmines, cannot be outrun.
3. It's an interesting chain of command that places a tinhorn French NATO admiral in apparent command of a United States Carrier Vessel Battle Group. Unbelieveable, even. In real life, there is roughly zero chance that Reichert would take orders from a foreign power; if his commanding officers wanted him to leave the navigator to die on foreign soil, and not make a rescue attempt because of treaty concerns, they'd damn well tell him that personally.
4. Same goes for interference with the rescue once it had been okayed. Those French commandoes aren't even allowed to be on the carrier at all without the CO's permission, but they can commandeer the rescue op without it?
5. Nobody with even a modicum of training would carry an AK-47 sideways like some punk with a 9 in a John Woo movie.
6. The navigator did absolutely everything wrong. His first step upon landing was to run downhill, shouting at the top of his lungs. He did not move his wounded pilot to any sort of cover, but left him lying on the ground next to his *brightly colored parasail*. He seemed to intentionally search out ridgelines to silhouette himself against, and only learned not to sit out in the open on high ground once he'd been *shot at*. Real evasion doesn't entail running full speed from place to place, because noise is going to give you away far more readily than vision. You move *quietly*. Wilson's character either forgot or intentionally disregarded just about every single bit of his training.
7. When was the last time Marines flew UH-1s off of nuclear carriers? For an extraction, they'd be going on H-53s.
8. When facing a hostile force of armored vehicles with large-caliber automatic weapons, the last place you want to be is *hovering* at close range in a helicopter. Minigun or no minigun.
9. The extraction was nothing like an extraction would be. You put a helicopter on the ground, many Marines exit the helicopter, grab the pilot, disarm the pilot, and drag him on board. He would not be *allowed* to return to his ejection seat, which for some reason contained important recording equipment. You would not send one Marine on a rappel to dangle in midair to catch the pilot when he makes a death-defying leap. If the pilot was in contact with enemy forces, well, that's one reason why those A-6s were visible on the flight deck early in the movie; they'd have been used.
8. A 2-star would not ride along on the lead aircraft. If these events played out IRL, *that* is why he'd have lost his command. Not for the rescue, but for the ride-along.
9. Missiles are not evaded in that fashion. If you have a SAM launched at you, it's over in one way or the other in 20 seconds. Missiles smart enough to ignore your flares are not going to home in on the decidedly un-planelike signature of burning kerosene.
That is all. Entertaining movie nonetheless, but *boy*.
While that's all very true, it's not tremendously *relevant* here. While you can't break even, you *can* get arbitrarily close to breaking even. Nobody's claiming that thermionics allows you to build an over-unity device, or violate the 2nd law.
What this does do is allow us to design more efficient processes than before. That's a cost savings, a resources savings, and quite allowed by Carnot.
Re:Is it really time to do this?
on
Mining On The Moon
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
How, exactly, does one go about "screwing up" a lifeless and airless hunk of rock?
Man brings bag of anthrax in pants pocket(or even better, crotch it) to show. He breaks in to the maintenence room, spreads it in to the outlet duct of the HVAC system.
If that's the scenario, than these announced new security procedures would accomplish precisely dick in the way of stopping it. About the only thing that would stop that is a full pat-down search of everyone entering the event, which is a practical difficulty if nothing else.
I like the fact that they're at least trying to do something though.
Why do you like the fact that they're wasting everybody's time and restricting everybody's freedom to do stuff that won't do a damn thing to prevent the stuff you're afraid of anyway?
Don't knock Europe in this regard. They might not be very good at defending Chezchoslovakia against invasion, but they have the capability to be far, far harsher to MS than the US has ever been.
First off all, it's a trade commission issue over there, not a years-long court case. They can even use Jackson's original FOF as evidence, and expand the scope of the ruling to consider MS's more recent behavior that the US court case was unable to consider. Then, they can just make a decision, and implement it. And, they've already figured out what.NET is supposed to do, and they don't like it one bit. Heck, WSJ had some EU drafts a week or so ago, and the EU was talking about fining MS 2 billion dollars/year unless they unbundle Media Player, and stopped using their OSes to promote MSN.
EU Trade Law Fun Fact: Under some circumstances, bundling is just flat-out illegal. If you have Product A and B, you are allowed to bundle them, but if you do, you also have to make them available as separate products, and you can't charge drastically more for the separates. The French are making noises about going after MS for bundling DOS 7 with Win95, and under French trade law, that bundling actually constitutes fraud and actual executives actually do actual jail time for that kind of thing in France.
Another consideration for Europe is that MS is overwhelmingly American in structure. About 90% of their structure exists purely in the US, and their profits therefore go mainly to feeding the US economy, and not Europe. It'll be a lot easier for the EU to dick MS than it would be for them to screw with GM or Ford.
Yes, I know how they work. But the point remains: any form of EO will have a certain failure rate, and leave explosive bits laying around for future consumption by random passersby. You can still find unexploded, and very dangerous, artillery shells throughout France and Germany, for example, and they'll still kill people dead.
So I'm just curious why your judgement of "evil" is reserved for cluster bombs and their use. Is someone blown up by an old 155 round less dead?
Yes, I could program a "universal remote", but it would lack the necesary buttons.
Not if you get a good one. Get thee hence to Marantz's home page and check out their RC5000i programmable remote. It does a lot more than a $20 generic you pick up at Best Buy.
Dud rounds might detonate at a later time, just like artillery shells, 20mm cannon shells, hand grenades, rifle grenades, 40mm grenades, general-purpose bombs, cruise missile warheads, ATGM warheads, and anything else that goes *boom*.
Anyone can put up a web page and claim anything they want. If you go to http://whosiwhatsis.com, Professor Smartypants claims that it's alien experiments which are causing these effects in whales, and not the USN at all.
I therefore find it extremely suspicious that dreamweaving.com links to or mentions articles in the popular press, which hardly has a good track record on scientific matters, and hasn't a clue what "epistemology means," and not one obvious link to Nature or some other peer-review scientific journal in which this evidence is directly provided.
Slashdot Mirror
A solution is just...well, it's a solution. If you dissolve salt in water, you don't end up with a chemical reaction between the salt and the water; you just get Na+ and Cl- ions floating around between the water molecules.
So you can have C02 and O2 dissolved in a chemically inert liquid just fine. No chemical reaction is necessary to get a solution. In fact, if there is a chemical reaction, you don't have a solution; you have a compound.
Not to mention there's no replication going on. Evolution occurs when errors in replication are operated on by some kind of selection pressure. This seems more like "learning" than evolution.
I had no urge whatsoever to see this movie. Well, I might have, but the cow scenes in the trailer purged any of those urges from me.
The Matrix came out in 1999. Bullet-time spoofs stopped being funny shortly thereafter. In 2002, they're actually anti-funny; if you're laughing at another funny joke, and you see one, you suddenly stop laughing.
It is however their position to report the claim.
How do you figure?
Over-unity claims are a dime a dozen; you can hardly take a peek into the sci.physics.* hierarchy without having about 3 or 4 fall onto your disk. It's standard crankish crackpottery, and these claims have been being made for many decades now. Nobody can produce something that actually does what it claims, the claims are in direct contravention of the laws of thermodynamics, and they're just simply old hat. *Thousands* of people make these groundless claims.
So what makes this one so different that Reuters felt compelled to run an article on it? Why are they ignoring all the other over-unity freaks? Did this one give them free beer?
It's the job of Reuters to only print stories that are actually worth reading. This one doesn't qualify, except that a reporter was taken in by a demonstration in which 3 light bulbs were driven with car batteries.
But on the same time, science demands that we ask "what if this is true?"
No, science demands nothing of the sort. Science operates not by proving, by confirming beyond the shadow of a doubt, but by disproving, by testing to failure. When presented with an extraordinary claim, science demands we ask, "How do we prove that this is false?"
In this case, I'd say that proof might have something to do with the fact that he needs 4 12-volt car batteries of at least 60 amp-hours each to provide the 50 amp-hours required to drive a 300 watt load for two hours. Hell, I can do the same thing just by plugging the light bulbs into my wall, but nobody claims that's an over-unity device.
I got all excited about this software that catches Counterstrike cheaters. Something really needs to be done about those bastards.
Uh...really?
There are three main grades of Kevlar available: 29, 49, and 149. Respectively, they have tensile moduluses of 62 GPa, 131 GPa, and 186 GPa, and tensile strengths of 2.76 GPa, 3.6-4.1 GPa, and 3.4 GPa. There's also Kevlar Edge, but I don't know nothin' from nothin' about that.
Spectra 900 has a tensile modules of 117 GPa and Spectra 1000 has 172.0 GPa. Their tensile strengths are, respectively, 2.59 and 3.27.
Sounds pretty comparable to me, and I certainly wouldn't call it "mediocre." I also don't think Spectra is as susceptible to degradation from ultraviolet exposure, but I could be very wrong on that point. It does creep, though, which I guess could be a bad thing in sails.
All I can find on Vectran claims that its modulus and strength is similar to Kevlar-29.
It's even better than that. Regarding "Can I copy this CD to my hard drive?"
We recognize that many consumers enjoy storing music on their PCs and we are currently working on new systems to allow for this capability. To listen to the CD on your PC, use the media player included in the CD.
So we developed a CD copy prevention technology that prevents you from copying the CD to your hard drive or making mp3s from it, but we're working on including the techology to let you copy it to your hard drive and making mp3s on it.
I think I have an idea that could save them tens of thousands of dollars in R&D.
This is no different from multipage ad inserts that frequently crop up in Newsweek, Time, and a variety of other "news" publications. You'll see several pages near the center of the magazine, organized in the same columnar layout, the same style of headlines and photo captions, and sometimes even the same fonts as the rest of the magazine, but they'll be stories about the Horrors of an Unclean Bowl or the Heartbreak of Psoriasis or the like, instead of real news like Clinton's new three-breasted intern. And in small type, somewhere on each page, will be the word "ADVERTISEMENT," in order to allow the reader to differentiate it from all the "real" news on the rest of the rag's full-color pages.
So this is nothing really new.
Velocity: ~20000mps
.107c eh?
Um, no. c is 300,000,000mps. You're off a few orders of magnitude.
The fragments won't just spread of their own accord because you happened to set a bomb off near the asteroid; the energy to get them to spread needs to come from somewhere. So now you're not only talking about imparting enough energy to the asteroid to break it up into chunks, but also imparting enough energy to get those chunks to fly apart.
That's a good deal more energy than is required to just break it up. Certainly theoretically possible, but if you're talking about intercepting it far away, then intercept it far enough away that you can just give it a sufficient nudge to point its vector on a non-collision course.
For each incoming ton of asteroid-dust, you're going to end up with the rough equivalent of about 200 tons of TNT released as thermal energy in the upper atmosphere.
For smaller asteroids, this is, as you say, not a big deal. But then those smaller ones aren't exactly civilization-enders anyway.
But for a dinosaur-killer? You're talking about several trillion tons. That's a lot kilotons of TNT equivalent, all going off in one localized portion of the atmosphere, all at once.
That will be a more than a "local temperature spike." It will flash-ignite entire forests, melt glaciers, and bake cities like they were in a kiln. Everything under it, for reasonable values of "under", will be appropriately crispy, dead, or on fire, or perhaps all three at once.
I reiterate: you want to worry about nudging them enough to steer them off-course, not about pulverizing them. If you start early enough, the nudge takes less energy than the hammer-blow anyway. It's starting early enough that's tricky.
Feh.
Mass of spherical 300 meter diameter chondrite: ~4g/cc * 1.4E13cc ~= 5.6E10kg
Velocity: ~20000mps
Kinetic Energy of asteroid: 1.13E19 J
One megaton = 4.19E15 J
Energy of a 100 megaton bomb as a fraction of the kinetic energy of this asteroid: 1/27th
Hardly a bitch-slap. More of an abject whine.
Then there's the little matter of actually getting the Tsar Bomba to the asteroid. Hopefully in enough time to actually be able to steer the asteroid away, instead of fragmenting it into 5 chunks each of about 1E10 kg.
Nice theory.
Problem is that all the kinetic energy still ends up in our system. One big piece is bad. Split that one big piece into several smaller pieces, and it's even worse. But take things to an arbitrary limit, where you pulverize the entire asteroid down to dust.
Now all that dust impacts the atmosphere, heats to incandescence, and vaporizes. Do *you* want to be in the hemisphere where *that* happens? Imagine New York City under the glare of 70 trillion E-Z-Bake Ovens.
If the asteroid's big enough to have a significant negative impact on human civilization, breaking it up/pulverizing it will not help us. It must be diverted so that it doesn't intersect Earth at all.
Making a rocket or shell shiny is easy. Keeping a rocket or shell shiny after it's been transported, unloaded, loaded into a weapon, and fired through the air at high velocities, is not.
1. Ejection parachutes are not steerable parasails; there is no assurance that an ejecting pilot will have the physical capability of manipulating parasail controls. He could be unconscious, have broken arms, etc. Additionally, parasails have higher landing velocities than parachutes, with higher risk of injuries as a result; this would also be contraindicated for a possibly-already-injured pilot.
2. Explosions, even those from little antiperonnel landmines, cannot be outrun.
3. It's an interesting chain of command that places a tinhorn French NATO admiral in apparent command of a United States Carrier Vessel Battle Group. Unbelieveable, even. In real life, there is roughly zero chance that Reichert would take orders from a foreign power; if his commanding officers wanted him to leave the navigator to die on foreign soil, and not make a rescue attempt because of treaty concerns, they'd damn well tell him that personally.
4. Same goes for interference with the rescue once it had been okayed. Those French commandoes aren't even allowed to be on the carrier at all without the CO's permission, but they can commandeer the rescue op without it?
5. Nobody with even a modicum of training would carry an AK-47 sideways like some punk with a 9 in a John Woo movie.
6. The navigator did absolutely everything wrong. His first step upon landing was to run downhill, shouting at the top of his lungs. He did not move his wounded pilot to any sort of cover, but left him lying on the ground next to his *brightly colored parasail*. He seemed to intentionally search out ridgelines to silhouette himself against, and only learned not to sit out in the open on high ground once he'd been *shot at*. Real evasion doesn't entail running full speed from place to place, because noise is going to give you away far more readily than vision. You move *quietly*. Wilson's character either forgot or intentionally disregarded just about every single bit of his training.
7. When was the last time Marines flew UH-1s off of nuclear carriers? For an extraction, they'd be going on H-53s.
8. When facing a hostile force of armored vehicles with large-caliber automatic weapons, the last place you want to be is *hovering* at close range in a helicopter. Minigun or no minigun.
9. The extraction was nothing like an extraction would be. You put a helicopter on the ground, many Marines exit the helicopter, grab the pilot, disarm the pilot, and drag him on board. He would not be *allowed* to return to his ejection seat, which for some reason contained important recording equipment. You would not send one Marine on a rappel to dangle in midair to catch the pilot when he makes a death-defying leap. If the pilot was in contact with enemy forces, well, that's one reason why those A-6s were visible on the flight deck early in the movie; they'd have been used.
8. A 2-star would not ride along on the lead aircraft. If these events played out IRL, *that* is why he'd have lost his command. Not for the rescue, but for the ride-along.
9. Missiles are not evaded in that fashion. If you have a SAM launched at you, it's over in one way or the other in 20 seconds. Missiles smart enough to ignore your flares are not going to home in on the decidedly un-planelike signature of burning kerosene.
That is all. Entertaining movie nonetheless, but *boy*.
While that's all very true, it's not tremendously *relevant* here. While you can't break even, you *can* get arbitrarily close to breaking even. Nobody's claiming that thermionics allows you to build an over-unity device, or violate the 2nd law.
What this does do is allow us to design more efficient processes than before. That's a cost savings, a resources savings, and quite allowed by Carnot.
How, exactly, does one go about "screwing up" a lifeless and airless hunk of rock?
Man brings bag of anthrax in pants pocket(or even better, crotch it) to show. He breaks in to the maintenence room, spreads it in to the outlet duct of the HVAC system.
If that's the scenario, than these announced new security procedures would accomplish precisely dick in the way of stopping it. About the only thing that would stop that is a full pat-down search of everyone entering the event, which is a practical difficulty if nothing else.
I like the fact that they're at least trying to do something though.
Why do you like the fact that they're wasting everybody's time and restricting everybody's freedom to do stuff that won't do a damn thing to prevent the stuff you're afraid of anyway?
Don't knock Europe in this regard. They might not be very good at defending Chezchoslovakia against invasion, but they have the capability to be far, far harsher to MS than the US has ever been.
.NET is supposed to do, and they don't like it one bit. Heck, WSJ had some EU drafts a week or so ago, and the EU was talking about fining MS 2 billion dollars/year unless they unbundle Media Player, and stopped using their OSes to promote MSN.
First off all, it's a trade commission issue over there, not a years-long court case. They can even use Jackson's original FOF as evidence, and expand the scope of the ruling to consider MS's more recent behavior that the US court case was unable to consider. Then, they can just make a decision, and implement it. And, they've already figured out what
EU Trade Law Fun Fact: Under some circumstances, bundling is just flat-out illegal. If you have Product A and B, you are allowed to bundle them, but if you do, you also have to make them available as separate products, and you can't charge drastically more for the separates. The French are making noises about going after MS for bundling DOS 7 with Win95, and under French trade law, that bundling actually constitutes fraud and actual executives actually do actual jail time for that kind of thing in France.
Another consideration for Europe is that MS is overwhelmingly American in structure. About 90% of their structure exists purely in the US, and their profits therefore go mainly to feeding the US economy, and not Europe. It'll be a lot easier for the EU to dick MS than it would be for them to screw with GM or Ford.
Yes, because Galactic Civilizations is the game that made OS/2 such a success.
Yes, I know how they work. But the point remains: any form of EO will have a certain failure rate, and leave explosive bits laying around for future consumption by random passersby. You can still find unexploded, and very dangerous, artillery shells throughout France and Germany, for example, and they'll still kill people dead.
So I'm just curious why your judgement of "evil" is reserved for cluster bombs and their use. Is someone blown up by an old 155 round less dead?
Yes, I could program a "universal remote", but it would lack the necesary buttons.
Not if you get a good one. Get thee hence to Marantz's home page and check out their RC5000i programmable remote. It does a lot more than a $20 generic you pick up at Best Buy.
What happens to the unexploded ordnance?
Dud rounds might detonate at a later time, just like artillery shells, 20mm cannon shells, hand grenades, rifle grenades, 40mm grenades, general-purpose bombs, cruise missile warheads, ATGM warheads, and anything else that goes *boom*.
So why reserve your judgement for cluster bombs?
Anyone can put up a web page and claim anything they want. If you go to http://whosiwhatsis.com, Professor Smartypants claims that it's alien experiments which are causing these effects in whales, and not the USN at all.
I therefore find it extremely suspicious that dreamweaving.com links to or mentions articles in the popular press, which hardly has a good track record on scientific matters, and hasn't a clue what "epistemology means," and not one obvious link to Nature or some other peer-review scientific journal in which this evidence is directly provided.