Give me a break! Where does the hydrogen come from? Water.
Two main sources of water:
1) Rain water is split into oxygen and hydrogen => any hydrogen that recombines with oxygen becomes water => net LOSS of water from the atmosphere because most of that rain water would have just evaporated back to the atmosphere. All of the hydrogen released will NOT recombine to make water.
2) Ground water is split and hydrogen is released into atmosphere to recombine with oxygen to create water => no more water added to the atmosphere than if we were to use the groundwater for, say, drinking, watering our gardens, or whatever. The ground water is eventually recharged from atmospheric water.
As previously stated, the atmospheric lifetime of any particular water molecule is so short that it doesn't have time to absorb (and reradiate as heat) much solar energy.
Any other source of hydrogen is meaningless and too expensive to make sense as an economic source of hydrogen, by orders of magnitude.
Please, understand the entire problem before spreading this non-knowledge.
There is a large body of research looking into the possibility of panspermia. The impact is likely to destroy organisms on a large impactor (this is not guarenteed), but not necessarily on the rocks that are subsequently ejected into space (those rocks almost certainly DO NOT come from the original impactor). On the subsequent fall to the other planet, the rocks are small enough and moving "slow" enough that, on the whole, they don't actually heat up much (and in fact, parts of them may cool off).
The problem with getting rocks ejected from Venus is that the atmosphere is so dense that the "low velocity" spallation that gets normal, non-shocked rocks from Mars to Earth probably won't work at Venus. That's not to say we couldn't get rocks from Venus, but they'd probably be shocked and we wouldn't recognize them as being from Venus since all the atmospheric gases would have been removed during the impact and subsequent shock. . .
Shocked rock: A rock in which its particles have been accelerated to higher than the speed of sound (in the rock). This causes an irreversible (high entropy) change in the rock, and possibly causes melting.
So because we've done something for thousands and thousands of years we have to stay that way?
No, but to say something is "new" when it's the exact opposite is silly. Not watching TV is something that has been around much longer than watching TV. Watching television has been directly linked to ADD/ADHD in children Howard University (does this sound familiar to you?); it's been linked to obeisity (e.g., http://www.zonalatina.com/Zldata285.htm ), which is directly related to heart disease and other nasty things that kill you much earlier than you really need to die. I'm not interested in that--that's one of the reasons I don't watch TV. You are welcome to watch TV, I don't care what you do with your life./. is just a place to discuss things, so I'm discussing things.
TV is a technology built on our advanced (relatively) knowledge of the way the physical world works (and our ability to manipulate said world). However, just because something is new doesn't mean it should be used to the exclusion of everything else. If it's *better* than anything else, then there may be an argument that it should be used, but in my mind, TV is not better than sitting around a camp fire talking with my friends. I get outside, I hang out with my friends, I get to look up at the stars, there's little that's better than that. . .
TV is fine for some people, but I prefer interaction with other people. I prefer being outside, playing ball, walking, riding my bike, reading, talking, swimming, doing things that keep me healthy and happy.
Once you've seen all four seasons once, you've seen em all.
Now, I know you're a troll, but you're a sad, sad troll.
Real people and situations are sometimes interesting, but on television you have paid professionals dedicated to entertaining you.
If you really believe that everything on TV is entertaining, you really, really need to find an imagination. Once you've seen one crappy sitcom, you've seen them all. . .
Well, I tried, but I guess I can't expect to explain this to someone who finds real people less stimulating than contrived situations (!!!).
Where do you get the idea that no TV is, "new agey"? Humans have been around for tens of thousands of years, and TV has only been around for what, a little over 50 years? Hmm. . . I think you've got it backwards.
Malcontent? It seems to me that I'm quite content with my life and my place in life.
My street constantly changes, if not because of what the neighbors are doing, because of the seasonal change, what the birds bring and leave, what new neighbors move in, what neighbors have a new kid, who is moving, who is caring for their yard, who isn't, etc. I find real people and real life much more interesting than commercials and fake situations with laugh tracks.
What if your marriage isn't brilliantly stimulating? I'll garuntee you if you keep talking to your wife a lot you'll be divorced it will lead to divorce. TV has probably saved more marriages than anything else. If one person can't take the lack of attention it just proves they were incompatible.
If a marriage isn't at all stimulating, it's already lost--regardless of whether the people stay together. The TV you are talking about doesn't "save" marriages, it just provides an easy escape from marriage. Talking to my wife is likely the BEST way to keep my marriage intact and worthwhile.
If, in 16 years, my son wants to hang out with his friends instead of us, that's fine, as long as I've had some influence on his decision making skills, I'm fine with his decisions--I have a much better chance of influencing him if he doesn't watch TV and instead interacts with me.
Crossword puzzles are challenging. Walking isn't about a destination, it's about the walk--I can look at my neighbors' houses, I can say, "hi" to my neighbors, I can show my son the horses in the pasture nearby, I can do all of this and get exercise (!).
Why is spending a little bit of time doing something other than watching a mind-numbing array of television shows "regression"? Someone has to re-wicker that chair--either I pay for it or I do it myself. If I do it myself instead of watching TV, I've saved even more (didn't have to pay for the electricity to watch TV, and I saved on the chair).
Well, for one, reading encourages learning, not ADHD in young children. For two, reading is a much more interesting pass-time than watching something fed to me. I am *never* interrupted with some stupid commercial about some stupid person's vaginal itch. I don't have to change the volume of the book when I flip the page because some dumbass is yelling, "I'M A WILDMAN WHEN IT COMES TO CUTTING PRICES!!!"
I choose what I read and when I read it. TV *never* gives me more to imagine than a book. I imagine every little detail, no matter how it's described by the author. In a TV show, it's given to me with absolutely no choice as to what I see or hear. In a book, from the way a room is decorated to the facial expressions of the people in a conversation, to the sounds in whatever environment--it's all in *my* head. The author plants the seed and I do the rest.
Can you picture the way your favorite actor frowns? Can you now picture someone else frowning? say, a young woman with a cane? I didn't describe anything but that a female of moderate age, with a cane, was frowning--you filled in the rest. What color hair does she have? what color eyes? did she scowl or just frown? does she have a large or small nose? is her hair short or long? does she have her arms crossed? It's up to you!
What scene was your favorite actor in when s/he was frowning?
We read TO our son, we read WITH our son, and we read to each other-- you know, family interaction. . . Commercials don't allow us to do that. My family doesn't get boring, and if yours does, I sincerely pity you. My every-day life is never the same day-to-day, and I wouldn't presume my wife's is, so I ask her about it.
In the evenings, we play ball with our son, we rough house with our son, we color with our son, we go for walks, we talk to family and friends on the telephone, we listen to music and dance, in short, we spend time WITH each other, getting to know each other even more--not just sitting next to each other.
We also spend the odd Monday and Friday evenings playing D&D with our friends, which is another way to be imaginative and interactive without having every detail of something force-fed to us (and without loud, annoying commercials every few minutes).
We also listen to the radio on weekend mornings (NPR, usually since it's the only thing that's not terribly boring to listen to).
We read. After our son goes to bed, we will browse the web, look at dream houses for sale, whatever--spend time with each other, talking about life, our day, etc. . .
I convinced my wife to allow me to purchase a projector for watching movies in the living room. We decided that the TV would be better placed elsewhere in the house. I purposefully did not buy a TV tuner of any sort (VCR or otherwise) for the projection system. When we moved the TV, we never reconnected it. A week later, we discontinued our cable (which had been ordered only a few months earlier). A month later, we gave the TV to my wife's parents (and they gave us their tiny one, which now resides in the office).
Yesterday (about four months since buying the projector), my wife said, "I'm glad we don't have a TV any more. I tried watching 'Friends' last night and couldn't stand it--the commercials don't stay on one scene for more than two seconds, and everything is stupid."
It's great having our living room back. When we want to watch movies, the wall is the center of attention, but otherwise, we use our living room for living rather than watching TV. Our son (18 months) doesn't know what TV is, and doesn't care. When we watch movies, he's more interested in the projector than the movie. . .
So, the earth has gained 0.3 percent around the equator, and the glaciers are still retreating. This is in my eyes neither "rather frightening" nor "an alarming rate".
Do the math. Earth's radius: 6378 km (3963 miles).
0.003*6378km=19.13km. 19 km! I didn't read the science article, but if what you read indicated a 0.3 percent growth in the radius of the Earth, then we have some major problems. Mount Everest, the tallest mountain on Earth, is only 8.9 km above sea level. We're all dead.
A root compromise and a Trojan horse were discovered on gnuftp.gnu.org, the FTP server of the GNU project. The machine appears to have been cracked in March 2003, but we only very recently discovered the crack. The modus operandi of the cracker shows that (s)he was interested primarily in using gnuftp to collect passwords and as a launching point to attack other machines. It appears that the machine was cracked using a ptrace exploit immediately after the exploit was posted on bugtraq.
(For the ptrace bug, an root-shell exploit available on 17 March 2003, and
a working fix was not available on linux-kernel until the following week.
Evidence found on the machine indicates that were cracked during that
week.)
Given the nature of the compromise and the length of time the machine was compromised, we have spent the last few weeks verifying the integrity of the GNU source code stored on gnuftp. Most of this work is done, and the remaining work is primarily for files that were uploaded since early 2003, as our backups from that period could also theoretically be compromised.
Slashdot Mirror
Give me a break! Where does the hydrogen come from?
Water.
Two main sources of water:
1) Rain water is split into oxygen and hydrogen => any hydrogen that recombines with oxygen becomes water => net LOSS of water from the atmosphere because most of that rain water would have just evaporated back to the atmosphere. All of the hydrogen released will NOT recombine to make water.
2) Ground water is split and hydrogen is released into atmosphere to recombine with oxygen to create water => no more water added to the atmosphere than if we were to use the groundwater for, say, drinking, watering our gardens, or whatever. The ground water is eventually recharged from atmospheric water.
As previously stated, the atmospheric lifetime of any particular water molecule is so short that it doesn't have time to absorb (and reradiate as heat) much solar energy.
Any other source of hydrogen is meaningless and too expensive to make sense as an economic source of hydrogen, by orders of magnitude.
Please, understand the entire problem before spreading this non-knowledge.
There is a large body of research looking into the possibility of panspermia. The impact is likely to destroy organisms on a large impactor (this is not guarenteed), but not necessarily on the rocks that are subsequently ejected into space (those rocks almost certainly DO NOT come from the original impactor). On the subsequent fall to the other planet, the rocks are small enough and moving "slow" enough that, on the whole, they don't actually heat up much (and in fact, parts of them may cool off).
Shocked rock: A rock in which its particles have been accelerated to higher than the speed of sound (in the rock). This causes an irreversible (high entropy) change in the rock, and possibly causes melting.
TV is a technology built on our advanced (relatively) knowledge of the way the physical world works (and our ability to manipulate said world). However, just because something is new doesn't mean it should be used to the exclusion of everything else. If it's *better* than anything else, then there may be an argument that it should be used, but in my mind, TV is not better than sitting around a camp fire talking with my friends. I get outside, I hang out with my friends, I get to look up at the stars, there's little that's better than that. . .
TV is fine for some people, but I prefer interaction with other people. I prefer being outside, playing ball, walking, riding my bike, reading, talking, swimming, doing things that keep me healthy and happy.
Now, I know you're a troll, but you're a sad, sad troll. If you really believe that everything on TV is entertaining, you really, really need to find an imagination. Once you've seen one crappy sitcom, you've seen them all. . .Have fun watching TV. I'm going back to my life.
Where do you get the idea that no TV is, "new agey"? Humans have been around for tens of thousands of years, and TV has only been around for what, a little over 50 years? Hmm. . . I think you've got it backwards.
Malcontent? It seems to me that I'm quite content with my life and my place in life.
My street constantly changes, if not because of what the neighbors are doing, because of the seasonal change, what the birds bring and leave, what new neighbors move in, what neighbors have a new kid, who is moving, who is caring for their yard, who isn't, etc. I find real people and real life much more interesting than commercials and fake situations with laugh tracks.
If a marriage isn't at all stimulating, it's already lost--regardless of whether the people stay together. The TV you are talking about doesn't "save" marriages, it just provides an easy escape from marriage. Talking to my wife is likely the BEST way to keep my marriage intact and worthwhile.
If, in 16 years, my son wants to hang out with his friends instead of us, that's fine, as long as I've had some influence on his decision making skills, I'm fine with his decisions--I have a much better chance of influencing him if he doesn't watch TV and instead interacts with me.
Crossword puzzles are challenging. Walking isn't about a destination, it's about the walk--I can look at my neighbors' houses, I can say, "hi" to my neighbors, I can show my son the horses in the pasture nearby, I can do all of this and get exercise (!).
Why is spending a little bit of time doing something other than watching a mind-numbing array of television shows "regression"? Someone has to re-wicker that chair--either I pay for it or I do it myself. If I do it myself instead of watching TV, I've saved even more (didn't have to pay for the electricity to watch TV, and I saved on the chair).
I choose what I read and when I read it. TV *never* gives me more to imagine than a book. I imagine every little detail, no matter how it's described by the author. In a TV show, it's given to me with absolutely no choice as to what I see or hear. In a book, from the way a room is decorated to the facial expressions of the people in a conversation, to the sounds in whatever environment--it's all in *my* head. The author plants the seed and I do the rest.
Can you picture the way your favorite actor frowns? Can you now picture someone else frowning? say, a young woman with a cane? I didn't describe anything but that a female of moderate age, with a cane, was frowning--you filled in the rest. What color hair does she have? what color eyes? did she scowl or just frown? does she have a large or small nose? is her hair short or long? does she have her arms crossed? It's up to you! What scene was your favorite actor in when s/he was frowning?
We read TO our son, we read WITH our son, and we read to each other-- you know, family interaction. . . Commercials don't allow us to do that. My family doesn't get boring, and if yours does, I sincerely pity you. My every-day life is never the same day-to-day, and I wouldn't presume my wife's is, so I ask her about it.
In the evenings, we play ball with our son, we rough house with our son, we color with our son, we go for walks, we talk to family and friends on the telephone, we listen to music and dance, in short, we spend time WITH each other, getting to know each other even more--not just sitting next to each other.
We also spend the odd Monday and Friday evenings playing D&D with our friends, which is another way to be imaginative and interactive without having every detail of something force-fed to us (and without loud, annoying commercials every few minutes).
We also listen to the radio on weekend mornings (NPR, usually since it's the only thing that's not terribly boring to listen to).
We read. After our son goes to bed, we will browse the web, look at dream houses for sale, whatever--spend time with each other, talking about life, our day, etc. . .
Yesterday (about four months since buying the projector), my wife said, "I'm glad we don't have a TV any more. I tried watching 'Friends' last night and couldn't stand it--the commercials don't stay on one scene for more than two seconds, and everything is stupid."
It's great having our living room back. When we want to watch movies, the wall is the center of attention, but otherwise, we use our living room for living rather than watching TV. Our son (18 months) doesn't know what TV is, and doesn't care. When we watch movies, he's more interested in the projector than the movie. . .
So, the earth has gained 0.3 percent around the equator, and the glaciers are still retreating. This is in my eyes neither "rather frightening" nor "an alarming rate".
Do the math. Earth's radius: 6378 km (3963 miles).
0.003*6378km=19.13km. 19 km! I didn't read the science article, but if what you read indicated a 0.3 percent growth in the radius of the Earth, then we have some major problems.
Mount Everest, the tallest mountain on Earth, is only 8.9 km above sea level. We're all dead.
From the MISSING-FILES.README on ftp.gnu.org:
Events Concerning Cracking of Gnuftp
A root compromise and a Trojan horse were discovered on gnuftp.gnu.org,
the FTP server of the GNU project. The machine appears to have been
cracked in March 2003, but we only very recently discovered the crack.
The modus operandi of the cracker shows that (s)he was interested
primarily in using gnuftp to collect passwords and as a launching point to
attack other machines. It appears that the machine was cracked using a
ptrace exploit immediately after the exploit was posted on bugtraq.
(For the ptrace bug, an root-shell exploit available on 17 March 2003, and
a working fix was not available on linux-kernel until the following week.
Evidence found on the machine indicates that were cracked during that
week.)
Given the nature of the compromise and the length of time the machine was
compromised, we have spent the last few weeks verifying the integrity of
the GNU source code stored on gnuftp. Most of this work is done, and the
remaining work is primarily for files that were uploaded since early 2003,
as our backups from that period could also theoretically be compromised.