Wow you're full of shit. Let's deconstruct this piece by piece.
Such as the atmosphere being C02, CH4, H20, NH3 with no free 02. At our distance from the sun, this atmosphere is absurd. Why? Because the hard UV that would be coming in without any ozone layer (no O2 in the atmosphere, no ozone layer) would dissociate the NH3 rapidly into N2 and H2, as it would CH4 into more complex oils.
Yeah, except that H2O, CH4, and NH3 block UV light. CH4 is a very stable element. It's methane. It is in the atmopheres of several planets. Ammonia is also stable. It can only be cracked into H2 and N2 with very high temperature furnaces, typically. And the sludge they did produce was mostly tar (a term used by organic chemists to mean the sludge left behind when you can't extract anything useful from it). In fact it was 85% tar, 13.0% carboxylic acids (many of which would destroy life before it could get started), 1.05% glycine (the simplest amino acid) and 0.85% alanine (the second simplest amino acid). There were also trace amounts of glutamic, aspartic, valine, leucine, serine, proline, and treonine.
Laboratory simulations of primitive earth have produced all 20 amino acids used by life, as well as ATP and the 4 dna bases. If you have those 20 amino acids, you can form any protein in existence.
Of course you need to be able form something with all of those chemicals. Have you heard of protocells? These are structures that can be formed very easily with a few amino acids. In fact, if you have a few chemicals, you can make them quite easily at home. Anyway, they don't have DNA, but are capable of budding, metabolizing, using ATP, and non-darwinian chemical evolution.
As for your link to to Cremesti. That's a well known very biased creationist site. And that essay took quotes by many scientists way out of context. The classic creationist tactic of making debate about the specifics of a theory sound like the scientist is attacking the entire general theory.
Question: The article mentions having a cable some 100,000 kms long. Uh, wouldn't that lap the planet a few times? What would keep (or cause) a Gary Larsonesque tragedy from occuring?
Seriously, don't you think they would have considered things like that before heavily funding this space elevator?
Google AdWords? They found -advertising- that -doesn't suck-. Yeesh. What does it take to impress you?... based on that, they're up to something that bears close attention. I can't speak to the -profitability- of it, but they're still here, at least.
AdWords is exceedingly profitable. One of the highest click through rates in the industry. I guess they have discovered that targetted, non annoying text ads get more customers than huge annoying flash adverts.
Yes.. but energy *is* mass.. just another form of it. What I am speculating on is that the energy *forms* mass during the decompositon, somewhat the counterpart of what happens during a nuclear detonation when mass disappears to form energy.
The energy is just photons. The matter that was sucked into the black hole is being outputted as energy. No mass.
I do wonder if a black hole could "explode"... I'm not aware of any sort of explosion that could escape a black hole. however, black holes do slowly decay and radiate away mass as hawking showed... anyway I should prolly just read more of the thread
And when the escape velocity becomes less than that of light, it explodes.
I still want to know.. if the universe is ever expanding, what is it expanding into? There has to be something on the other side for it to be expanding into. And hypeothetically speaking, what happens if you were to reach the end? Is there a way to get to the other side?
There isn't anything else. The universe is actually a closed geometry. If you travel far enough, you come back to where you came from. Picture the expanding universe like an inflating (4 dimensional) balloon. We are on the surface of the ballon, and since it is expanding we are getting farthur apart.
But when the hole detonates, there would really be nothing there but subatomic particles, which would rapidly coalesce to what we know as hydrogen..
Sorry, TANSTAAFL. When a black hole explodes, it emits only energy, no subatomic particles or anything.. Granted, it's a fucking huge amount of energy, but it still won't make much of a difference a trillion years down the road. It won't start fusion off again.
Let me make this perfectly clear - every X Box sold (no matter what you use it for) is used as propoganda to convince developers to write for it, which puts more developers under the thumb of MS, and makes money for MS so they can oppress and harass free software developers.
Repeat after me: "Microsoft is a for-profit company."
Microsoft's goal in life is to make money. That is the goal of all companies. They sell the Xbox cheaply so they can take more market share away from the PS2 and the GameCube and eventually make more money in the long term. They aren't doing it specifically to harass OSS developers.
Microsoft does not like Linux and OSS developers because they compete with microsoft. Typically, competing companies aren't on the best terms with each other, and they always try to take each other's market share away.
Microsoft doesn't encourage the use of Linux for the same reason Ford doesn't encourage people to buy Chevies. Microsoft is not the spawn of Satan. They are just a company.
Most of the time when I scroll down a long article with hundreds of responses, the little rating selection boxes leave graphic artifacts all over the place.
I've seen Slash do that to. Just to IE. With phoenix it's no problem. Everything looks fucked up in IE.
Dude, this MSN page looks pretty messed up in *any* browser. How's that for cross-browser compatibility eh?
msn.com is the pinnacle of shitty design. Why does anybody care about this Opera thing anyway? MSN is such a shitty site, that no one reads it anyway, except for IE users who don't know how to reset their home page. The site is basically advertisements for microsoft products, or other paid advertisements. And the actual stories that are on the site look like they came out of a woman's fashion magazine.
Nobody smart enough to use Opera or Moz visits MSN. There are better newssites, like news.google.com or the Guardian.
The agreement is expected to give states a new source of revenue to battle historic budget deficits.
Ok, there's this other solution that doesn't involve taking more money away from middle class people. IT'S CALLED CUTTING SPENDING!!
I live in Washington. We've been having extreme budget troubles for the past 2 years, as well as a poor economy (we've been harder hit by the recession)
During the late 90's, our state had a HUGE surplus. Gigantic, billions of dollars. You'd assume that the state would save it up for lean times, right? No, of course not! Government spending doesn't work like that! No, they spent it on worthless programs. The money was gone amazingly fast. Now, due to their short sightedness, I have to give them more money.
Teach all your computer illiterate friends and relatives to use broadband. If you can.
What I don't understand, is why some people (both noobs and geeks) have this idea that broadband is harder to use than AOL. I really don't undestand that. AOL's browser, while horrible, is not really different than any other web browser out there. All browsers have a few basic elements, address bar, back, forward, reload, stop. I really can't see how Moz or IE is harder to use than AOL.
Of course with most non-aol isps you have to use normal SMTP and POP mail. But these are very, very easy to set up. The ISP can simply just give the users a few instructions to follow. If they don't have a terminally softened brain, it should be fairly easy. Or, they can just use Yahoo mail or something.
AOL is popular because of a few things: 1. Many people started out with it. (I did, because early on it was the only ISP in my area. I ditched it 5 years ago when we got a good local isp. Now I have cable) People are used to it.
2. Marketing. Holy shit to they market a lot.
3. "Features." I know people who won't switch to a better service because they can't use AIM on another service (Obviously you can get aim for free, but anyway), and, of course, other services are too hard. The perception of other services being hard to use is what keeps a lot of people on AOL.
You could still use the thing against people. If it's going to penetrate tank armor, it will definitely destroy the person that takes a direct hit.
What about the splash damage, though? As rockets move at appoximately 25 miles per hour, the enemy could easily dodge it. I'd hope that it would have a large splash damage radius, taking at least 30 health points away.
Obvious troll, but I'll bite. The army developed a special type of thermonuclear bomb during the cold war called the neutron bomb. This bomb has had a lot of bad press but it really isn't as bad as some of the alternatives (napalm, carpet bombing, regular nukes)
These neutron bombs were intended to take out invading troops. They emitted lots of beta radiation, but they didn't have a huge blast and didn't leave much lasting radioactivity. Say, for example, if the Soviets invaded W. Germany during the cold war, we could detonate a neutron bomb over the invading troops. They would be killed by the intense amount of beta radiation from the bomb. All of the trees, grass, and most living things in the vicinity would die. However, hopefully the civilians would be protected, if they were in a fallout shelter or bunker. Due to the small blast, their buildings would remain intact.
There are other examples of anti personel bombs as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow you're full of shit. Let's deconstruct this piece by piece.
Such as the atmosphere being C02, CH4, H20, NH3 with no free 02. At our distance from the sun, this atmosphere is absurd. Why? Because the hard UV that would be coming in without any ozone layer (no O2 in the atmosphere, no ozone layer) would dissociate the NH3 rapidly into N2 and H2, as it would CH4 into more complex oils.
Yeah, except that H2O, CH4, and NH3 block UV light. CH4 is a very stable element. It's methane. It is in the atmopheres of several planets. Ammonia is also stable. It can only be cracked into H2 and N2 with very high temperature furnaces, typically.
And the sludge they did produce was mostly tar (a term used by organic chemists to mean the sludge left behind when you can't extract anything useful from it). In fact it was 85% tar, 13.0% carboxylic acids (many of which would destroy life before it could get started), 1.05% glycine (the simplest amino acid) and 0.85% alanine (the second simplest amino acid). There were also trace amounts of glutamic, aspartic, valine, leucine, serine, proline, and treonine.
Laboratory simulations of primitive earth have produced all 20 amino acids used by life, as well as ATP and the 4 dna bases. If you have those 20 amino acids, you can form any protein in existence.
Of course you need to be able form something with all of those chemicals. Have you heard of protocells? These are structures that can be formed very easily with a few amino acids. In fact, if you have a few chemicals, you can make them quite easily at home. Anyway, they don't have DNA, but are capable of budding, metabolizing, using ATP, and non-darwinian chemical evolution.
As for your link to to Cremesti. That's a well known very biased creationist site. And that essay took quotes by many scientists way out of context. The classic creationist tactic of making debate about the specifics of a theory sound like the scientist is attacking the entire general theory.
Question: The article mentions having a cable some 100,000 kms long. Uh, wouldn't that lap the planet a few times? What would keep (or cause) a Gary Larsonesque tragedy from occuring?
Seriously, don't you think they would have considered things like that before heavily funding this space elevator?
Google AdWords? They found -advertising- that -doesn't suck-. Yeesh. What does it take to impress you? ... based on that, they're up to something that bears close attention. I can't speak to the -profitability- of it, but they're still here, at least.
AdWords is exceedingly profitable. One of the highest click through rates in the industry. I guess they have discovered that targetted, non annoying text ads get more customers than huge annoying flash adverts.
They also patented the first post!
Wow! Good thing you didn't get FP, or you might have gotten sued!
Yes.. but energy *is* mass.. just another form of it. What I am speculating on is that the energy *forms* mass during the decompositon, somewhat the counterpart of what happens during a nuclear detonation when mass disappears to form energy.
The energy is just photons. The matter that was sucked into the black hole is being outputted as energy. No mass.
I do wonder if a black hole could "explode"... I'm not aware of any sort of explosion that could escape a black hole. however, black holes do slowly decay and radiate away mass as hawking showed... anyway I should prolly just read more of the thread
And when the escape velocity becomes less than that of light, it explodes.
I still want to know.. if the universe is ever expanding, what is it expanding into? There has to be something on the other side for it to be expanding into. And hypeothetically speaking, what happens if you were to reach the end? Is there a way to get to the other side?
There isn't anything else. The universe is actually a closed geometry. If you travel far enough, you come back to where you came from. Picture the expanding universe like an inflating (4 dimensional) balloon. We are on the surface of the ballon, and since it is expanding we are getting farthur apart.
But when the hole detonates, there would really be nothing there but subatomic particles, which would rapidly coalesce to what we know as hydrogen..
Sorry, TANSTAAFL. When a black hole explodes, it emits only energy, no subatomic particles or anything.. Granted, it's a fucking huge amount of energy, but it still won't make much of a difference a trillion years down the road. It won't start fusion off again.
In addition, I don't see how banning 'team sports' helps your argument.
Do you know how expensive team sports are? They teach nothing.
Let me make this perfectly clear - every X Box sold (no matter what you use it for) is used as propoganda to convince developers to write for it, which puts more developers under the thumb of MS, and makes money for MS so they can oppress and harass free software developers.
Repeat after me: "Microsoft is a for-profit company."
Microsoft's goal in life is to make money. That is the goal of all companies. They sell the Xbox cheaply so they can take more market share away from the PS2 and the GameCube and eventually make more money in the long term. They aren't doing it specifically to harass OSS developers.
Microsoft does not like Linux and OSS developers because they compete with microsoft. Typically, competing companies aren't on the best terms with each other, and they always try to take each other's market share away.
Microsoft doesn't encourage the use of Linux for the same reason Ford doesn't encourage people to buy Chevies. Microsoft is not the spawn of Satan. They are just a company.
So I put my computer in the oven,
and it was like "crackle, crackle crackle"
And then, like, half of my computer was gone,
And I was like "unhh"
I thought this was a story about some bizarre genetic engineering experiment.
Most of the time when I scroll down a long article with hundreds of responses, the little rating selection boxes leave graphic artifacts all over the place.
I've seen Slash do that to. Just to IE. With phoenix it's no problem. Everything looks fucked up in IE.
Dude, this MSN page looks pretty messed up in *any* browser. How's that for cross-browser compatibility eh?
msn.com is the pinnacle of shitty design. Why does anybody care about this Opera thing anyway? MSN is such a shitty site, that no one reads it anyway, except for IE users who don't know how to reset their home page. The site is basically advertisements for microsoft products, or other paid advertisements. And the actual stories that are on the site look like they came out of a woman's fashion magazine.
Nobody smart enough to use Opera or Moz visits MSN. There are better newssites, like news.google.com or the Guardian.
The agreement is expected to give states a new source of revenue to battle historic budget deficits.
Ok, there's this other solution that doesn't involve taking more money away from middle class people. IT'S CALLED CUTTING SPENDING!!
I live in Washington. We've been having extreme budget troubles for the past 2 years, as well as a poor economy (we've been harder hit by the recession)
During the late 90's, our state had a HUGE surplus. Gigantic, billions of dollars. You'd assume that the state would save it up for lean times, right? No, of course not! Government spending doesn't work like that! No, they spent it on worthless programs. The money was gone amazingly fast. Now, due to their short sightedness, I have to give them more money.
Yeah, but CF isn't completely standard with all computers, like USB is. USB pen drives are better. Anyway, CF is losing ground to SD.
His mom has a better vid card, memory, etc. Why not just get a P2?
Um. Of course they don't move at 25 mph. On UT, they do however. Notice how I said "taking at least 30 health points away"?
Teach all your computer illiterate friends and relatives to use broadband. If you can.
What I don't understand, is why some people (both noobs and geeks) have this idea that broadband is harder to use than AOL. I really don't undestand that. AOL's browser, while horrible, is not really different than any other web browser out there. All browsers have a few basic elements, address bar, back, forward, reload, stop. I really can't see how Moz or IE is harder to use than AOL.
Of course with most non-aol isps you have to use normal SMTP and POP mail. But these are very, very easy to set up. The ISP can simply just give the users a few instructions to follow. If they don't have a terminally softened brain, it should be fairly easy. Or, they can just use Yahoo mail or something.
AOL is popular because of a few things:
1. Many people started out with it. (I did, because early on it was the only ISP in my area. I ditched it 5 years ago when we got a good local isp. Now I have cable) People are used to it.
2. Marketing. Holy shit to they market a lot.
3. "Features." I know people who won't switch to a better service because they can't use AIM on another service (Obviously you can get aim for free, but anyway), and, of course, other services are too hard. The perception of other services being hard to use is what keeps a lot of people on AOL.
I know I'd love to be able to download stuff like that from any of the P2P networks... maybe I should finally get around to buying a DVD-ROM drive...
Why not just burn'em to SVCD? Laserdisc quality. Most of the stuff on P2P isn't anywhere near DVD quality anyway.
You could still use the thing against people. If it's going to penetrate tank armor, it will definitely destroy the person that takes a direct hit.
What about the splash damage, though? As rockets move at appoximately 25 miles per hour, the enemy could easily dodge it. I'd hope that it would have a large splash damage radius, taking at least 30 health points away.
Antipersonnel NUKES?. you on crack?
Obvious troll, but I'll bite. The army developed a special type of thermonuclear bomb during the cold war called the neutron bomb. This bomb has had a lot of bad press but it really isn't as bad as some of the alternatives (napalm, carpet bombing, regular nukes)
These neutron bombs were intended to take out invading troops. They emitted lots of beta radiation, but they didn't have a huge blast and didn't leave much lasting radioactivity. Say, for example, if the Soviets invaded W. Germany during the cold war, we could detonate a neutron bomb over the invading troops. They would be killed by the intense amount of beta radiation from the bomb. All of the trees, grass, and most living things in the vicinity would die. However, hopefully the civilians would be protected, if they were in a fallout shelter or bunker. Due to the small blast, their buildings would remain intact.
There are other examples of anti personel bombs as well.
And overclock it! $50 1700+'s clock up to 2400+ speeds and beyond. It's like magic! Oh, and get an nForce2 based motherboard. It's a great chipset.
You can't overclock'em that much, barring LN2 or mineral oil submersion cooling. You can usually give them another 300+ of rating. Or about 200 mhz.
You should be able to get hold of them a bit cheaper than one of those videocards, and it even looks better.
Real life could in no way imitate the wonderful pixel and vertex shaders in Doom III. It has better graphics than real life.
It's called SLAPP. Do a google and learn something new. Aren't there antiSLAPP laws in the US (none in Canada, AFAIK)...
A few states are instuting them, but most have no anti-SLAPP laws on the books.