WTF? I raised a perfectly valid question, given that I don't remember exactly why it's not possible to get more energy out of water molecule than it takes to split it into it's component parts. How does that make me gullible? You don't see me running off to buy a water-based car. I asked a question, got an answer from people who were far better at answering it than you, and now I'm more informed. I would imagine I'm not the only one who had this question, so by asking the question, I aided others as well by soliciting an answer from those in the know.
You seem to have mixed up molecule and atom in your comment.:P
Breaking water apart is a chemical process, not nuclear fission.
I think it's reasonably clear that I was drawing an analogy between splitting a molecule and splitting an atom, not mixing them up. My question, in a nutshell, was "is there more energy stored in the molecule than it takes to split it". The answer, as others have pointed out, is apparently no.
When it comes to actually producing energy, or moving a car etc this situation will never occur.
Doesn't it depend on how much energy is stored in the Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms? Is it more than the energy required to split the molecule? If I remember correctly, normally the answer is no, but adding the right catalyst can change that. If it requires X amount of energy to split the molecule, and the 2 Hydrogen atoms have 2X energy, then you have energy left over to drive your car. I mean, the process works with splitting the atom. It doesn't require a nuclear bomb worth of energy to split an atom...splitting an atom leaves a whole lot of excess energy.
Which is fine with me. People can believe what they want. Where I start to have problems is when they want to start forcing others to teach their personal beliefs in Science class.
they may not have considered what would happen to the other car should their SUV have an accident caused by a blowout, but I bet they considered what would happen to them if, say, a semi driver fell asleep at the wheel and crashed into the back of them on the freeway, as happens in my hometown of Chicago way too frequently. We recently had two semi drivers plow into the back of a traffic jam on the Edens, awhile ago, a truck actually hit a train station, and a friend of mine was rear-ended by a school bus. Our family Jeep may not get the best gas mileage, but it will hold up somewhat better than an Echo if hit by something big, and the 4-wheel drive keeps us on the road during snowy Chicago winters
they may come with the phone number of the sender, but that phone number could easily be the public fax machine at the local copy shop, or the fax number of some free Internet fax service. The phone number is no security.
Do I think we should break off all ties with China or India? Of course not. Diplomatic and Economic relations are probably the best road to peaceful relations between countries that don't see eye to eye. But that doesn't mean our corporations should actively help governments repress their people, either. And you're assuming that a censored Google is better than a censored Chinoogle or Indioogle. Are we really doing China that big a favor by allowing them to use censored versions of real search engines rather than just making their own censored search engines? What if Google had turned over the IP address to this man (who wasn't even the right person, by the way), and he'd been killed by the government? Is that still okay? What if Google turned over 1000 IP addresses, and they'd all been killed? What if Google turned over 1000 IP addresses every day for the last 5 years? What if we were talking about Iran or North Korea rather than India or China? Where exactly do you draw the line?
If refusing to give the IP address would've gotten them banned from providing service, then turning over the IP address may in fact have been the lesser of two evils.
Unless you're the guy who's recently been introduced to the concept of a combination Toilet / Food Bowl, thanks to Google's actions. Something tells me that the finer points of the benefits of a censored Google versus a censored Government-run search engine are lost on him.
And the problem is that India and China are huge countries. Google and Yahoo don't want to take a chance of being banned in a country of that size, so they do whatever the governments of these countries want.
Fine, then if all information is suspect, go ahead and debunk the government websites, reputable news sources, and Snopes.com with crazy right-wing propaganda emails.
roflmao... you really get facts from the government? really????
Oh, come on, there's plenty of government websites that just present basic factual information on various bills going through congress or existing laws or whatever. But yes, government websites, reputable news sources, Snopes, all of those.
I have a ton of conservative friends from disparate social circles who get the same types of "stupid liberals...tell your friends"
Those are fun. I used to get those from one particular friend until I started sending point-by-point responses with links to government websites that actually gave the real facts behind the conservative hype. He stopped sending them to me. Either he got the point, or didn't want facts to get in the way of hype. I don't know which.
For a true 4-dimensional Rubiks Cube, one that incorporates Time. Of course solving it will be incredibly disappointing, since after you do solve one, it turns out that it was solved all along.
I'm always happy when somebody comes out with a puzzle that nobody can solve (yet, I suppose). Makes me feel less stupid than not being able to solve the ones that tons of people can solve, like the Rubik's Cube.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't ask a question,
So the fact that the first two sentences in my post end in a question mark didn't clue you in?
WTF? I raised a perfectly valid question, given that I don't remember exactly why it's not possible to get more energy out of water molecule than it takes to split it into it's component parts. How does that make me gullible? You don't see me running off to buy a water-based car. I asked a question, got an answer from people who were far better at answering it than you, and now I'm more informed. I would imagine I'm not the only one who had this question, so by asking the question, I aided others as well by soliciting an answer from those in the know.
You don't remember correctly. In fact it appears that you never knew jack shit about physics or chemistry to start with.
Or that it's been 10 years since I've taken a Chemistry class. We can't all remember everything about everything, mr. friendly.
You seem to have mixed up molecule and atom in your comment. :P
Breaking water apart is a chemical process, not nuclear fission.
I think it's reasonably clear that I was drawing an analogy between splitting a molecule and splitting an atom, not mixing them up. My question, in a nutshell, was "is there more energy stored in the molecule than it takes to split it". The answer, as others have pointed out, is apparently no.
When it comes to actually producing energy, or moving a car etc this situation will never occur.
Doesn't it depend on how much energy is stored in the Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms? Is it more than the energy required to split the molecule? If I remember correctly, normally the answer is no, but adding the right catalyst can change that. If it requires X amount of energy to split the molecule, and the 2 Hydrogen atoms have 2X energy, then you have energy left over to drive your car. I mean, the process works with splitting the atom. It doesn't require a nuclear bomb worth of energy to split an atom...splitting an atom leaves a whole lot of excess energy.
Which is fine with me. People can believe what they want. Where I start to have problems is when they want to start forcing others to teach their personal beliefs in Science class.
they may not have considered what would happen to the other car should their SUV have an accident caused by a blowout, but I bet they considered what would happen to them if, say, a semi driver fell asleep at the wheel and crashed into the back of them on the freeway, as happens in my hometown of Chicago way too frequently. We recently had two semi drivers plow into the back of a traffic jam on the Edens, awhile ago, a truck actually hit a train station, and a friend of mine was rear-ended by a school bus. Our family Jeep may not get the best gas mileage, but it will hold up somewhat better than an Echo if hit by something big, and the 4-wheel drive keeps us on the road during snowy Chicago winters
whoosh!
they may come with the phone number of the sender, but that phone number could easily be the public fax machine at the local copy shop, or the fax number of some free Internet fax service. The phone number is no security.
Well, what if they intercepted the information, and then waited for 100 years or so, and brute-forced it with their cybernetic implant...
Do I think we should break off all ties with China or India? Of course not. Diplomatic and Economic relations are probably the best road to peaceful relations between countries that don't see eye to eye. But that doesn't mean our corporations should actively help governments repress their people, either. And you're assuming that a censored Google is better than a censored Chinoogle or Indioogle. Are we really doing China that big a favor by allowing them to use censored versions of real search engines rather than just making their own censored search engines? What if Google had turned over the IP address to this man (who wasn't even the right person, by the way), and he'd been killed by the government? Is that still okay? What if Google turned over 1000 IP addresses, and they'd all been killed? What if Google turned over 1000 IP addresses every day for the last 5 years? What if we were talking about Iran or North Korea rather than India or China? Where exactly do you draw the line?
If refusing to give the IP address would've gotten them banned from providing service, then turning over the IP address may in fact have been the lesser of two evils.
Unless you're the guy who's recently been introduced to the concept of a combination Toilet / Food Bowl, thanks to Google's actions. Something tells me that the finer points of the benefits of a censored Google versus a censored Government-run search engine are lost on him.
I'm having this problem in FF3 RC1, but I didn't have the problem in the previous version (FF3 Beta 5).
And the problem is that India and China are huge countries. Google and Yahoo don't want to take a chance of being banned in a country of that size, so they do whatever the governments of these countries want.
Next, they will make a super big magnet in space and be able to make an entire continent shut up....
Then I won't look so silly in my tin-foil hat, now will I?
So you're saying (if you read the article) that Bell can find a way to saturate their bandwidth by the end of the month?
New Program: Free internet for all! Get it while it's hot!
And liberal hype?
Should be fact-checked before forwarding, just like conservative hype.
Fine, then if all information is suspect, go ahead and debunk the government websites, reputable news sources, and Snopes.com with crazy right-wing propaganda emails.
roflmao... you really get facts from the government? really????
Oh, come on, there's plenty of government websites that just present basic factual information on various bills going through congress or existing laws or whatever. But yes, government websites, reputable news sources, Snopes, all of those.
I have a ton of conservative friends from disparate social circles who get the same types of "stupid liberals...tell your friends"
Those are fun. I used to get those from one particular friend until I started sending point-by-point responses with links to government websites that actually gave the real facts behind the conservative hype. He stopped sending them to me. Either he got the point, or didn't want facts to get in the way of hype. I don't know which.
What? African or European?
it's a perfectly cromulent word
I'm sorry to inform you that several people already have. [gravitation3d.com]
That's not the same puzzle...the page clearly states, "Magic120Cell hasn't been solved yet, but rest assured it is solvable"
For a true 4-dimensional Rubiks Cube, one that incorporates Time. Of course solving it will be incredibly disappointing, since after you do solve one, it turns out that it was solved all along.
Here you go, it's already been invented: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/rubik.s-cube/the-idiots-cube-256889.php
I'm always happy when somebody comes out with a puzzle that nobody can solve (yet, I suppose). Makes me feel less stupid than not being able to solve the ones that tons of people can solve, like the Rubik's Cube.