Van Der Waals forces... need dipole moment to generate them
"Van der Waals forces" is a vague, generic term that may refer to any of a variety of different intermolecular forces, many of which do not depend upon the presence of a permanent dipole moment.
it doesn't seem likely you are going to get much in the way of dipole moment from carbon-carbon bonds.
You are correct that carbon nanotubes lack a permanent dipole moment - only asymmetrical molecules can have one at all, and it can only be strong if the molecule is ionized or contains multiple elements of significantly different electronegativity. So, they cannot adhere to each other via the Keesom or Debye forces.
However, they are composed entirely of aromatic rings, so they should pi stack strongly. Moreover, the most famous Van der Waal force is the London dispersion force, which is present in all molecules and whose strength scales with a variety of factors, including the number of electrons involved. Carbon nanotubes are extremely large molecules with a shape that allows interaction across a huge surface area, so their London dispersion forces should be strong.
Van Der Waals forces are 1/100th or less strength of a carbon bond
Van der Waals forces are much weaker than covalent bonds (by how much depends on which kind) on a per atom basis, but how many atoms are involved here? The number of atoms that may contribute to the covalent bond strength in tension is limited by the cross-sectional area of the nanotube bundle, but the number of atoms that may contribute to the Van der Waals force strength can theoretically be increased to an arbitrarily high level simply by making the individual carbon nanotubes longer.
You simply assume (wrongly) that death equates to oblivion. The Bible speaks about "life" and "death" quite a lot, in various contexts; why don't we let the book explain itself?
The most important use of these words in the Bible is spiritual, not physical or existential. God calls the person who is in right relationship with Himself, "alive", but the person who is in rebellion against Him is called, "dead":
Jesus said, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:3
Likewise, Paul writes to the true believer: "And you hath he quickened (made alive), who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened (made alive) us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:1-10
This is not just a metaphor; it's a fundamental definition of "life" and "death", as far as God is concerned. The first mention of death anywhere in the whole Bible is using this definition: "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:16-17
Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in the very next chapter, and yet they did not cease to exist on that day, neither did they die physically. But, something immense and tragic did happen: their fellowship with God was broken, guilt and shame came upon them, and they fell from moral perfection into the same corrupt state that has plagued everyone (except one...) born since. This is truly death, according to God's definition.
The Bible also speaks often of ordinary physical death, the death of the body. (This is the "first death" which precedes the "second death" of which Revelation speaks.) But, does the body cease to exist at death? Certainly not!
The body decays and falls apart - "dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" Genesis 3:19 - but this condition is temporary. One of the central teachings of the Bible, is that God will (eventually) raise every person who ever lived back to life, bodily:
"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me." Job 19:25-27
"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." Daniel 12:2-4
"I think, therefore I am." I know that I have a soul - that is, an immaterial, self-aware mind, emotions, and will - because I am actually consciously experiencing this conversation.
The "sack of chemicals" theory of human nature does not justify, explain, or even describe my consciousness; it only posits a simulation of my body's activities. Assuming that you actually know what the word "soul" means, you are basically asserting that I (the real me) don't exist. That's not an argument you're going to win.:-)
You also have consciously experienced this conversation, and therefore already know that you have a soul. You don't just react to pain - you feel it. Your fingers don't just spasm out words, you think about what you want to say. You were created in the image of God, who (in his original, most essential nature) is pure spirit: self-aware mind, emotions, and will, not dependant upon any physical body for existence.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." John 1:1-5
"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." John 3:19-21
If given the choice, I would choose to be obliterated.
Why? What is so awful about the life which God freely offers to you through His Son Jesus Christ? Is there nothing which you enjoy - or once enjoyed - about life?
Life in this world can be very awful indeed, but that is entirely due to the effects of sin (not only yours, but also that of everyone else). Pain, disease, death, despair, hard labour, oppression, addiction, unsatisfied desire - all of these are present in our world only because of people (humans and angels) rebelling against God: they were not part of His original Creation, and will not be part of the New Creation that is soon to come, outside of Hell itself.
God is willing and able to breathe true life into even the most wretched person, and set you free from your slavery to your natural, insatiable desires. He can give your life joy, purpose, and eternal peace if only you will accept His gracious terms of surrender through Jesus Christ.
"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Matthew 11:28-30
The Bible never refers to Hell as being a place where souls continue to exist in endless torment.
While there are many individual passages which are ambiguous on this point, the Bible as a whole is clear that Hell is a place (* actually two places, but that's not important here) of conscious torment for the wicked:
"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, 'If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.'" Revelation 14:9-11
"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.'
But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.'
Then he said, 'I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.'
Abraham saith unto him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.'
And he said, 'Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.'
And he said unto him, 'If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.'" Luke 16:19-31
"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Mark 9:42-48
The above passages each speak directly and literally about Hell as a place of conscious torment. Many of Jesus' parables also say the same thing, indirectly:
"And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 25:30
"And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So
Oblivion (eternal unconsciousness or annihilation) is not an option. It's like a person who feels offended by gravity declaring, "I choose levitation." These are your only options:
"And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Revelation 21:4-5
"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:" Matthew 25:41
I never asked to be created.
Yes, and just as He didn't seek your approval before creating you, He also won't seek your approval before condemning you to eternal conscious torment. "Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." Psalm 115:3
Don't be a fool: "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" Romans 9:20
"Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil." Proverbs 3:7
Even then, I will never willingly submit to some bastard who's only tenet is "love me, or suffer."
Whether you like it or not, you have been born into a world where your actions affect others, and ours affect you. You have no right to harm your neighbours, either by neglect or by abuse, without consequences.
God's wisdom, knowledge, and understanding are infinite, and His love, justice, and mercy are perfect. Obviously, ours are not. It follows logically from this that we are required to submit to His perfect standard, rather than being allowed to invent our own: the alternative is the awful chaos with which humanity's rebellion has filled the Earth to this day.
Moreover, we certainly have no right to despise our Creator and just do our own (destructive, blasphemous) thing: He made us for a purpose. He gives us life, knowledge, pleasure, and many other wonderful things; will you bite the hand that feeds you? Are you stronger than God?
"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Revelation 4:11
Love extracted at the end of a sword is not love.
This is true. The Bible has a word for the person who "loves" God only out of fear of punishment, or a selfish hope for reward: hypocrite - literally, an actor.
"Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:7-9
God well knows that fallen humanity has such an evil heart that, on our own, we are incapable of true gratitude toward our Creator: "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Romans 3:10-12 "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 8:7
But, the Good News is that God's goodness is greater than our wickedness. He is able to change our hearts and set us free from our hard bondage to the madness of sin:
"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Chri
Roughly half the population approves of Trump(*). ...
(*) You can extend the vote results to cover the entire country because it's a large enough sample.
Ahem. The largest block of voters in the country is the one that did not give approval to either Trump or Clinton. They each received the explicit support of less than 30% of the eligible voters, rather than the nearly 50% which you imply.
Garbage about it being our "civic duty" to support one of the awful candidates offered to us, it should at least be acknowledged that the other 40+% of us exist, even if you approve of the republocrat/demopublican duopoly and don't think we deserve any actual political power.
Even among those who voted for Trump or Clinton, many (most? this election was worse than usual) were holding their noses while they did it, and hardly "approve" of either one. If you do a survey asking people whether they'd prefer to be hanged or drowned, you'll get an answer - that doesn't mean that people "approve" of the winner, though...
Again, that's a bogus number. It doesn't fully account for the substantial wear-and-tear on the very expensive gun and its power supply, which is certainly more than $100 per shot.
In terms of the overheating issues (which is what wears the rail down)
No. It's not "overheating" in the ordinary sense; it's erosion which occurs for each and every shot individually, regardless of how much time the rails are given to cool down in between.
There is a tremendous electrical current passing from one rail, through the projectile, to the other rail. If the projectile fits tightly against the rails, erosion occurs because of the tremendous friction forces generated by two solid surfaces sliding past each other at hypersonic speeds. If it doesn't fit tightly, then the current must jump the gap via electrical arcing which creates a plasma far hotter than the boiling point of any known metal. Either way, the heat builds up to damaging levels basically instantaneously; the thermal conductivity of the parts involved is just too low to prevent that even with active cooling.
The DOD has made real progress in mitigating these issues, otherwise they wouldn't continue the program. (Early hypersonic railguns had to replace the rails after every full power shot.) Nevertheless, the erosion must still be significant; the rails will have to be replaced fairly often: the Navy is aiming for (but has not yet achieved) a rail life of 1000 shots (but not necessarily full-power ones). Given how hard it is to make rails that can withstand multiple shots in the first place, as well as their sheer size and connection to high-voltage electrical equipment, you can bet that replacing them isn't cheap.
That's just the rails, anyway; capacitors, switches, and voltage converters don't last forever under such extreme and intermittent loads, either.
Not a chance. The real cost per shot must not only account for the ammunition expended and fuel burned, but also for the wear-and-tear on the very expensive gun and power supply.
Also, the Navy plans to use guided projectiles in their railguns just like they tried to for the conventional gun on the Zumwalt, at a price of at least $25,000 per round. (That's just a pre-production estimate, and could well prove inaccurate just like the $80,000 estimate did for the LRLAP.)
The proven advantages of railguns are higher projectile speed (which in turn increases range and makes them harder to evade or intercept) and safer ammunition storage (since the dawn of naval explosives, many ships have been lost to a chain reaction in their ammunition stores). Any costs savings are purely theoretical, and (as with any brand-new technology) should not be trusted until at least one system has been successfully mass-produced and deployed operationally.
There are certainly instances of price gouging for medical goods whose R&D is long since paid for (like the Epipen). But, do you have any specific evidence to offer that such cases are really a major component of MediCare's overall costs? Have you calculated or looked up how much the MediCare program would save if all such corruption were eliminated?
This is the military equivalent of claiming that long-distance communication is impossible without a smartphone. Just because big, vulnerable attack/surveillance drones like the Reaper are trendy right now doesn't mean that there are no other options. Otherwise, how did people manage to hit anything before drones were invented?
A few troops on the ground, concealed in elevated locations, can often do the job with the aide of some binoculars and a radio. Or, spy satellites can be trained on the target. Or, small (as in too small to carry bombs or missiles), stealthy drones can be used which are much more difficult to detect or target, and cheaper to replace if they are shot down. Or, an aircraft (maybe even just a balloon) can be flown directly over the attacking ship, high enough to see over the horizon, without actually getting within weapons range of the target. Or, a manned submarine or stealth aircraft can be moved closer to the target, such that it can safely observe, but cannot actually attack without revealing its position.
Of those options, the first (ground observers) is actually still the preferred method in many cases, even when aerial surveillance is available. Being on the ground nearby often gives a better perspective - especially if the purpose of the strike is to aid those same troops.
Drones are good for smaller, precise stuff... I believe that these are supposed to have more penetrating power
Drones can be built smaller than manned aircraft, but they certainly don't have to be.
The MQ-9 Reaper drone is still kind of small, but it can carry two 500 lb bombs, giving it explosive power equivalent to a 10 round LRLAP salvo. A full-size strike fighter can carry over ten times as much, and a heavy bomber even more. Combined with the fact that the Circular Error Probable for modern laser- or GPS- guided bombs is more like 10m than 50m, it would not be difficult to design a strike drone whose destructive power would put the Zumwalt's gun to shame.
... and generally would be pretty difficult to shoot down versus a drone.
This is true: a drone - or even a glide bomb dropped from many kilometers away - is a much larger, slower moving target than many small, supersonic LRLAP shells. Also, a ship can afford to carry the extra weight of active defences like CIWS batteries.
Actually, for pharma companies selling drugs for 1000x times or more it takes to produce them.
Are you accounting for the cost of researching dozens of dead-end candidate drugs before finding something that seems to work, running expensive, time-consuming (time is money) and dangerous clinical trials to find out that some of those which work have unacceptable side-effects, and finally going to market with the small percentage that make it all the way through the process to FDA approval?
I'm not saying that pharma companies always price things fairly, but claims of "1000x" on an industry-wide level are a gross exaggeration - cynical anti-capitalist propaganda targeting the ignorant. The industry's profits are nowhere even vaguely close to being that high. If you want to make accusations, keep them factual; it's not like it's hard to cite real evidence of corruption and greed...
Ok, so... did you read what you linked? You do know that it includes statements saying the guy you're arguing with is right.
Isara's concern, above, was about the legislature being forced to televise meetings that it doesn't want to. kenh incorrectly implied that the proposed law has nothing to do with that.
If the legislature was actually comfortable with recordings of every public meeting being freely available, they wouldn't have imposed a sweeping (and probably unconstitutional) ban on some of their most important uses:
No television signal generated by the Assembly shall be used
for any political or commercial purpose, including, but not
limited to, any campaign for elective public office or any
campaign supporting or opposing a ballot proposition
submitted to the electors.
Have you ever been to visit your representative?... The argument here is typical of the petty politics of my state.
You're rambling in this paragraph. I can't tell what your point really is, or who you're criticizing. The provisions of Prop 54 relating to the recordings of public meetings make up a majority of its non-boilerplate text, and I don't see what's "petty" about wanting their existence acknowledged.
...because you have these foreign interfaces which only Apple is adopting.
Again, this is not true. DisplayPort has been pushed by other companies (NVIDIA, AMD, Dell, probably others) for years now; they just don't subscribe to Apple's "all or nothing" approach. My household has multiple DisplayPort systems, none of which include any Apple components. DisplayPort is favored by the computer industry because it's royalty-free and technically superior. Momentum and home theatre equipment are what keep HDMI alive.
Likewise, USB-C is not "foregin"; it's the official next-generation USB connector, which will eventually be used everywhere. It started appearing on high-end Android (not Apple!) phones last year.
USB-C does not replace or supercede or do what HDMI and Ethernet connectors do, however.
Although the MacBook Pro does not implement this feature (and thus should indeed have included an HDMI port), USB-C is actually electrically compatible with HDMI, just like it is with DisplayPort. It is intended to eliminate the need for separate dedicated video ports in the interest of compactness (crucial for phones) and simplicity.
A fast, reliable, wired Ethernet port is always a good thing to have, but is unfortunately incompatible with Apple's endless quest for "thin". I don't personally think that a "Pro" laptop actually ought to prioritize "thin" over functionality - but then, I don't buy Macs anyway...
Prop 54 does not make every meeting public. It just says that if a meeting is open to the public, then it must also be recorded and posted online, with no bizarre, unconstitutional restrictions on what people can do with the video.
You might try spending 30 seconds looking up Prop 54 on Google before becoming "pretty sure". It does more than one thing:
Key Changes That Would Happen if Proposition 54 Passes:... The legislature would have to ensure that all of its public meetings were recorded, with videos posted on the Internet within 24 hours.
there are a good number of things I can think of where a 72 hour waiting period might be inappropriate such as disaster relief
The author(s) of Prop 54 agree. From the text of the proposed law (section 3, part c; emphasis mine):
To give us, the people, and our representatives the
necessary time to carefully evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of the final version of a bill before a vote by
imposing a 72-hour public notice period between the time
that the final version is made available to the Legislature
and the public, and the time that a vote is taken, except in
cases of a true emergency declared by the Governor.
As I said to the AC above, "multiple orbits" is not the same as "multiple orbital planes". The launch you reference did nothing which could not have been done by pretty much any launch system with a restartable engine on the upper stage.
All of the satellites on that launch for which I was able to find orbital parameters have the same inclination (98 degrees). I'm sure they have approximately the same longitude of the ascending node, as well.
LM-5 (25T to LEO) orbits satellite, while SpaceX Falcon 9 ( 10T to LEO) explodes on launch pad.
1) China - like every launch provider - has their own launch failures. When it happens they do their best to fix the problem and move on, just like SpaceX does.
2) The latest Falcon 9 is way more powerful than the original, and has an expendable LEO capacity of 22.8 tons, not 10. It's also got a reusable first stage...
USB hasn't gone anywhere. The new MacBook Pro still fully supports USB; it's just using the new Type C connector standard designed by the USB Implementers Forum, not Apple. Everyone will be using Type C in a few years, but until then you can use a cheap, reliable, passive adapter; electrically it's fully compatible with the old standards.
It is, however, true that they really did drop the SD card reader.
I'm not sure about HDMI; the Type C connector and the Thunderbolt 3 controller are supposed to be compatible, so you should be able to just use a cheap passive adapter. However, Apple makes no mention of this anywere in their specs and they want a whopping $50 for the adapter, which makes me suspicious that they cheaped out and didn't actually include that functionality, even though they presumably could have done so quite easily. On the other hand, Apple accessories are often horribly overpriced, so perhaps a cheap third party passive adapter would work just fine.
they use proprietary ports instead of industry standard ports
While Thunderbolt 3 is proprietary (but to Intel, not Apple), its use is completely optional on the new Macs. USB-C, USB 3.1, and DisplayPort are all industry standards which all major PC vendors are adopting; Apple is just ahead of the curve.
Adapters are required because the USB-C connector is too new, not because it is proprietary. In two to five years, most new peripherals will not require the adapter, regardless of which company made them. The real issue is that by the time the adapters aren't needed anymore, this year's crop of MacBook Pros will be starting to wear out.
There is a big difference between "multiple orbits" and "multiple orbital planes". Any rocket with a restartable upper stage can deposit payloads at multiple orbital altitudes, but it is obvious from its specifications that the PSLV doesn't have enough deltaV to reach many widely separated orbital planes in a single launch (and neither does any other present-day launch system).
...from shoebox-sized climate-monitoring devices to Samsung's plan to use thousands of micro-satellites to provide global internet access.
Those are both way smaller than the PSLV's LEO payload capacity of 3.8 tons, or even its GTO payload capacity of 1.4 tons. Even a shoebox-sized gold brick (~250 kg) doesn't weight nearly that much.
So, the PSLV has the same fundamental problem for such missions as U.S. commercial launchers: it's too expensive to launch tiny satellites one at a time on a huge rocket, which means they have to be launched in batches. But, satellites launched in batches are all deposited in the same orbital plane. That's problematic because different missions require different orbital planes, and making large plane changes after achieving orbit is very, very expensive - especially in LEO.
So, I'm not sure what problem the author thinks the PSLV solves for people launching micro-satellites - it's actually sized for launching medium or mini satellites.
Slashdot Mirror
Van Der Waals forces ... need dipole moment to generate them
"Van der Waals forces" is a vague, generic term that may refer to any of a variety of different intermolecular forces, many of which do not depend upon the presence of a permanent dipole moment.
it doesn't seem likely you are going to get much in the way of dipole moment from carbon-carbon bonds.
You are correct that carbon nanotubes lack a permanent dipole moment - only asymmetrical molecules can have one at all, and it can only be strong if the molecule is ionized or contains multiple elements of significantly different electronegativity. So, they cannot adhere to each other via the Keesom or Debye forces.
However, they are composed entirely of aromatic rings, so they should pi stack strongly. Moreover, the most famous Van der Waal force is the London dispersion force, which is present in all molecules and whose strength scales with a variety of factors, including the number of electrons involved. Carbon nanotubes are extremely large molecules with a shape that allows interaction across a huge surface area, so their London dispersion forces should be strong.
Van Der Waals forces are 1/100th or less strength of a carbon bond
Van der Waals forces are much weaker than covalent bonds (by how much depends on which kind) on a per atom basis, but how many atoms are involved here? The number of atoms that may contribute to the covalent bond strength in tension is limited by the cross-sectional area of the nanotube bundle, but the number of atoms that may contribute to the Van der Waals force strength can theoretically be increased to an arbitrarily high level simply by making the individual carbon nanotubes longer.
You simply assume (wrongly) that death equates to oblivion. The Bible speaks about "life" and "death" quite a lot, in various contexts; why don't we let the book explain itself?
The most important use of these words in the Bible is spiritual, not physical or existential. God calls the person who is in right relationship with Himself, "alive", but the person who is in rebellion against Him is called, "dead":
Jesus said, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:3
Likewise, Paul writes to the true believer: "And you hath he quickened (made alive), who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened (made alive) us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:1-10
This is not just a metaphor; it's a fundamental definition of "life" and "death", as far as God is concerned. The first mention of death anywhere in the whole Bible is using this definition: "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:16-17
Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in the very next chapter, and yet they did not cease to exist on that day, neither did they die physically. But, something immense and tragic did happen: their fellowship with God was broken, guilt and shame came upon them, and they fell from moral perfection into the same corrupt state that has plagued everyone (except one...) born since. This is truly death, according to God's definition.
The Bible also speaks often of ordinary physical death, the death of the body. (This is the "first death" which precedes the "second death" of which Revelation speaks.) But, does the body cease to exist at death? Certainly not!
The body decays and falls apart - "dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" Genesis 3:19 - but this condition is temporary. One of the central teachings of the Bible, is that God will (eventually) raise every person who ever lived back to life, bodily:
"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me." Job 19:25-27
"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." Daniel 12:2-4
"Marvel not at thi
there's no such thing as a soul
"I think, therefore I am." I know that I have a soul - that is, an immaterial, self-aware mind, emotions, and will - because I am actually consciously experiencing this conversation.
The "sack of chemicals" theory of human nature does not justify, explain, or even describe my consciousness; it only posits a simulation of my body's activities. Assuming that you actually know what the word "soul" means, you are basically asserting that I (the real me) don't exist. That's not an argument you're going to win. :-)
You also have consciously experienced this conversation, and therefore already know that you have a soul. You don't just react to pain - you feel it. Your fingers don't just spasm out words, you think about what you want to say. You were created in the image of God, who (in his original, most essential nature) is pure spirit: self-aware mind, emotions, and will, not dependant upon any physical body for existence.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." John 1:1-5
"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." John 3:19-21
If given the choice, I would choose to be obliterated.
Why? What is so awful about the life which God freely offers to you through His Son Jesus Christ? Is there nothing which you enjoy - or once enjoyed - about life?
Life in this world can be very awful indeed, but that is entirely due to the effects of sin (not only yours, but also that of everyone else). Pain, disease, death, despair, hard labour, oppression, addiction, unsatisfied desire - all of these are present in our world only because of people (humans and angels) rebelling against God: they were not part of His original Creation, and will not be part of the New Creation that is soon to come, outside of Hell itself.
God is willing and able to breathe true life into even the most wretched person, and set you free from your slavery to your natural, insatiable desires. He can give your life joy, purpose, and eternal peace if only you will accept His gracious terms of surrender through Jesus Christ.
"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Matthew 11:28-30
The Bible never refers to Hell as being a place where souls continue to exist in endless torment.
While there are many individual passages which are ambiguous on this point, the Bible as a whole is clear that Hell is a place (* actually two places, but that's not important here) of conscious torment for the wicked:
"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, 'If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.'" Revelation 14:9-11
"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.'
But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.'
Then he said, 'I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.'
Abraham saith unto him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.'
And he said, 'Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.'
And he said unto him, 'If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.'" Luke 16:19-31
"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. " Mark 9:42-48
The above passages each speak directly and literally about Hell as a place of conscious torment. Many of Jesus' parables also say the same thing, indirectly:
"And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 25:30
"And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So
I choose oblivion.
Oblivion (eternal unconsciousness or annihilation) is not an option. It's like a person who feels offended by gravity declaring, "I choose levitation." These are your only options:
"And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Revelation 21:4-5
"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:" Matthew 25:41
I never asked to be created.
Yes, and just as He didn't seek your approval before creating you, He also won't seek your approval before condemning you to eternal conscious torment. "Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." Psalm 115:3
Don't be a fool: "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" Romans 9:20
"Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil." Proverbs 3:7
Even then, I will never willingly submit to some bastard who's only tenet is "love me, or suffer."
Whether you like it or not, you have been born into a world where your actions affect others, and ours affect you. You have no right to harm your neighbours, either by neglect or by abuse, without consequences.
God's wisdom, knowledge, and understanding are infinite, and His love, justice, and mercy are perfect. Obviously, ours are not. It follows logically from this that we are required to submit to His perfect standard, rather than being allowed to invent our own: the alternative is the awful chaos with which humanity's rebellion has filled the Earth to this day.
Moreover, we certainly have no right to despise our Creator and just do our own (destructive, blasphemous) thing: He made us for a purpose. He gives us life, knowledge, pleasure, and many other wonderful things; will you bite the hand that feeds you? Are you stronger than God?
"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Revelation 4:11
Love extracted at the end of a sword is not love.
This is true. The Bible has a word for the person who "loves" God only out of fear of punishment, or a selfish hope for reward: hypocrite - literally, an actor.
"Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:7-9
God well knows that fallen humanity has such an evil heart that, on our own, we are incapable of true gratitude toward our Creator: "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Romans 3:10-12 "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 8:7
But, the Good News is that God's goodness is greater than our wickedness. He is able to change our hearts and set us free from our hard bondage to the madness of sin:
"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Chri
Roughly half the population approves of Trump(*).
...
(*) You can extend the vote results to cover the entire country because it's a large enough sample.
Ahem. The largest block of voters in the country is the one that did not give approval to either Trump or Clinton. They each received the explicit support of less than 30% of the eligible voters, rather than the nearly 50% which you imply.
Garbage about it being our "civic duty" to support one of the awful candidates offered to us, it should at least be acknowledged that the other 40+% of us exist, even if you approve of the republocrat/demopublican duopoly and don't think we deserve any actual political power.
Even among those who voted for Trump or Clinton, many (most? this election was worse than usual) were holding their noses while they did it, and hardly "approve" of either one. If you do a survey asking people whether they'd prefer to be hanged or drowned, you'll get an answer - that doesn't mean that people "approve" of the winner, though...
The 100 / shot is for the dumb loads.
Again, that's a bogus number. It doesn't fully account for the substantial wear-and-tear on the very expensive gun and its power supply, which is certainly more than $100 per shot.
In terms of the overheating issues (which is what wears the rail down)
No. It's not "overheating" in the ordinary sense; it's erosion which occurs for each and every shot individually, regardless of how much time the rails are given to cool down in between.
There is a tremendous electrical current passing from one rail, through the projectile, to the other rail. If the projectile fits tightly against the rails, erosion occurs because of the tremendous friction forces generated by two solid surfaces sliding past each other at hypersonic speeds. If it doesn't fit tightly, then the current must jump the gap via electrical arcing which creates a plasma far hotter than the boiling point of any known metal. Either way, the heat builds up to damaging levels basically instantaneously; the thermal conductivity of the parts involved is just too low to prevent that even with active cooling.
The DOD has made real progress in mitigating these issues, otherwise they wouldn't continue the program. (Early hypersonic railguns had to replace the rails after every full power shot.) Nevertheless, the erosion must still be significant; the rails will have to be replaced fairly often: the Navy is aiming for (but has not yet achieved) a rail life of 1000 shots (but not necessarily full-power ones). Given how hard it is to make rails that can withstand multiple shots in the first place, as well as their sheer size and connection to high-voltage electrical equipment, you can bet that replacing them isn't cheap.
That's just the rails, anyway; capacitors, switches, and voltage converters don't last forever under such extreme and intermittent loads, either.
These only costs less than $100 / shot.
Not a chance. The real cost per shot must not only account for the ammunition expended and fuel burned, but also for the wear-and-tear on the very expensive gun and power supply.
Also, the Navy plans to use guided projectiles in their railguns just like they tried to for the conventional gun on the Zumwalt, at a price of at least $25,000 per round. (That's just a pre-production estimate, and could well prove inaccurate just like the $80,000 estimate did for the LRLAP.)
The proven advantages of railguns are higher projectile speed (which in turn increases range and makes them harder to evade or intercept) and safer ammunition storage (since the dawn of naval explosives, many ships have been lost to a chain reaction in their ammunition stores). Any costs savings are purely theoretical, and (as with any brand-new technology) should not be trusted until at least one system has been successfully mass-produced and deployed operationally.
There are certainly instances of price gouging for medical goods whose R&D is long since paid for (like the Epipen). But, do you have any specific evidence to offer that such cases are really a major component of MediCare's overall costs? Have you calculated or looked up how much the MediCare program would save if all such corruption were eliminated?
This is the military equivalent of claiming that long-distance communication is impossible without a smartphone. Just because big, vulnerable attack/surveillance drones like the Reaper are trendy right now doesn't mean that there are no other options. Otherwise, how did people manage to hit anything before drones were invented?
A few troops on the ground, concealed in elevated locations, can often do the job with the aide of some binoculars and a radio. Or, spy satellites can be trained on the target. Or, small (as in too small to carry bombs or missiles), stealthy drones can be used which are much more difficult to detect or target, and cheaper to replace if they are shot down. Or, an aircraft (maybe even just a balloon) can be flown directly over the attacking ship, high enough to see over the horizon, without actually getting within weapons range of the target. Or, a manned submarine or stealth aircraft can be moved closer to the target, such that it can safely observe, but cannot actually attack without revealing its position.
Of those options, the first (ground observers) is actually still the preferred method in many cases, even when aerial surveillance is available. Being on the ground nearby often gives a better perspective - especially if the purpose of the strike is to aid those same troops.
Drones are good for smaller, precise stuff ... I believe that these are supposed to have more penetrating power
Drones can be built smaller than manned aircraft, but they certainly don't have to be.
The MQ-9 Reaper drone is still kind of small, but it can carry two 500 lb bombs, giving it explosive power equivalent to a 10 round LRLAP salvo. A full-size strike fighter can carry over ten times as much, and a heavy bomber even more. Combined with the fact that the Circular Error Probable for modern laser- or GPS- guided bombs is more like 10m than 50m, it would not be difficult to design a strike drone whose destructive power would put the Zumwalt's gun to shame.
... and generally would be pretty difficult to shoot down versus a drone.
This is true: a drone - or even a glide bomb dropped from many kilometers away - is a much larger, slower moving target than many small, supersonic LRLAP shells. Also, a ship can afford to carry the extra weight of active defences like CIWS batteries.
Actually, for pharma companies selling drugs for 1000x times or more it takes to produce them.
Are you accounting for the cost of researching dozens of dead-end candidate drugs before finding something that seems to work, running expensive, time-consuming (time is money) and dangerous clinical trials to find out that some of those which work have unacceptable side-effects, and finally going to market with the small percentage that make it all the way through the process to FDA approval?
I'm not saying that pharma companies always price things fairly, but claims of "1000x" on an industry-wide level are a gross exaggeration - cynical anti-capitalist propaganda targeting the ignorant. The industry's profits are nowhere even vaguely close to being that high. If you want to make accusations, keep them factual; it's not like it's hard to cite real evidence of corruption and greed...
Ok, so... did you read what you linked? You do know that it includes statements saying the guy you're arguing with is right.
Isara's concern, above, was about the legislature being forced to televise meetings that it doesn't want to. kenh incorrectly implied that the proposed law has nothing to do with that.
If the legislature was actually comfortable with recordings of every public meeting being freely available, they wouldn't have imposed a sweeping (and probably unconstitutional) ban on some of their most important uses:
No television signal generated by the Assembly shall be used for any political or commercial purpose, including, but not limited to, any campaign for elective public office or any campaign supporting or opposing a ballot proposition submitted to the electors.
Have you ever been to visit your representative? ... The argument here is typical of the petty politics of my state.
You're rambling in this paragraph. I can't tell what your point really is, or who you're criticizing. The provisions of Prop 54 relating to the recordings of public meetings make up a majority of its non-boilerplate text, and I don't see what's "petty" about wanting their existence acknowledged.
...because you have these foreign interfaces which only Apple is adopting.
Again, this is not true. DisplayPort has been pushed by other companies (NVIDIA, AMD, Dell, probably others) for years now; they just don't subscribe to Apple's "all or nothing" approach. My household has multiple DisplayPort systems, none of which include any Apple components. DisplayPort is favored by the computer industry because it's royalty-free and technically superior. Momentum and home theatre equipment are what keep HDMI alive.
Likewise, USB-C is not "foregin"; it's the official next-generation USB connector, which will eventually be used everywhere. It started appearing on high-end Android (not Apple!) phones last year.
USB-C does not replace or supercede or do what HDMI and Ethernet connectors do, however.
Although the MacBook Pro does not implement this feature (and thus should indeed have included an HDMI port), USB-C is actually electrically compatible with HDMI, just like it is with DisplayPort. It is intended to eliminate the need for separate dedicated video ports in the interest of compactness (crucial for phones) and simplicity.
A fast, reliable, wired Ethernet port is always a good thing to have, but is unfortunately incompatible with Apple's endless quest for "thin". I don't personally think that a "Pro" laptop actually ought to prioritize "thin" over functionality - but then, I don't buy Macs anyway...
Apple's adapters are NOT cheap.
Why would you buy Apple's adapters? USB is an industry standard; there are a zillion other vendors offering Type C adapters.
And for the price of the Macbook Pro, you should be able to choose one you want up front FOR FREE.
True.
if every meeting is public and recorded
Prop 54 does not make every meeting public. It just says that if a meeting is open to the public, then it must also be recorded and posted online, with no bizarre, unconstitutional restrictions on what people can do with the video.
You might try spending 30 seconds looking up Prop 54 on Google before becoming "pretty sure". It does more than one thing:
Key Changes That Would Happen if Proposition 54 Passes: ... The legislature would have to ensure that all of its public meetings were recorded, with videos posted on the Internet within 24 hours.
there are a good number of things I can think of where a 72 hour waiting period might be inappropriate such as disaster relief
The author(s) of Prop 54 agree. From the text of the proposed law (section 3, part c; emphasis mine):
To give us, the people, and our representatives the necessary time to carefully evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the final version of a bill before a vote by imposing a 72-hour public notice period between the time that the final version is made available to the Legislature and the public, and the time that a vote is taken, except in cases of a true emergency declared by the Governor.
As I said to the AC above, "multiple orbits" is not the same as "multiple orbital planes". The launch you reference did nothing which could not have been done by pretty much any launch system with a restartable engine on the upper stage.
All of the satellites on that launch for which I was able to find orbital parameters have the same inclination (98 degrees). I'm sure they have approximately the same longitude of the ascending node, as well.
LM-5 (25T to LEO) orbits satellite, while SpaceX Falcon 9 ( 10T to LEO) explodes on launch pad.
1) China - like every launch provider - has their own launch failures. When it happens they do their best to fix the problem and move on, just like SpaceX does.
2) The latest Falcon 9 is way more powerful than the original, and has an expendable LEO capacity of 22.8 tons, not 10. It's also got a reusable first stage...
HDMI, USB, and SD cards are legacy? Seriously?
USB hasn't gone anywhere. The new MacBook Pro still fully supports USB; it's just using the new Type C connector standard designed by the USB Implementers Forum, not Apple. Everyone will be using Type C in a few years, but until then you can use a cheap, reliable, passive adapter; electrically it's fully compatible with the old standards.
It is, however, true that they really did drop the SD card reader.
I'm not sure about HDMI; the Type C connector and the Thunderbolt 3 controller are supposed to be compatible, so you should be able to just use a cheap passive adapter. However, Apple makes no mention of this anywere in their specs and they want a whopping $50 for the adapter, which makes me suspicious that they cheaped out and didn't actually include that functionality, even though they presumably could have done so quite easily. On the other hand, Apple accessories are often horribly overpriced, so perhaps a cheap third party passive adapter would work just fine.
they use proprietary ports instead of industry standard ports
While Thunderbolt 3 is proprietary (but to Intel, not Apple), its use is completely optional on the new Macs. USB-C, USB 3.1, and DisplayPort are all industry standards which all major PC vendors are adopting; Apple is just ahead of the curve.
Adapters are required because the USB-C connector is too new, not because it is proprietary. In two to five years, most new peripherals will not require the adapter, regardless of which company made them. The real issue is that by the time the adapters aren't needed anymore, this year's crop of MacBook Pros will be starting to wear out.
It has the capacity to launch in multiple orbits.
There is a big difference between "multiple orbits" and "multiple orbital planes". Any rocket with a restartable upper stage can deposit payloads at multiple orbital altitudes, but it is obvious from its specifications that the PSLV doesn't have enough deltaV to reach many widely separated orbital planes in a single launch (and neither does any other present-day launch system).
...from shoebox-sized climate-monitoring devices to Samsung's plan to use thousands of micro-satellites to provide global internet access.
Those are both way smaller than the PSLV's LEO payload capacity of 3.8 tons, or even its GTO payload capacity of 1.4 tons. Even a shoebox-sized gold brick (~250 kg) doesn't weight nearly that much.
So, the PSLV has the same fundamental problem for such missions as U.S. commercial launchers: it's too expensive to launch tiny satellites one at a time on a huge rocket, which means they have to be launched in batches. But, satellites launched in batches are all deposited in the same orbital plane. That's problematic because different missions require different orbital planes, and making large plane changes after achieving orbit is very, very expensive - especially in LEO.
So, I'm not sure what problem the author thinks the PSLV solves for people launching micro-satellites - it's actually sized for launching medium or mini satellites.