meteors don't necessarily slow down to a terminal velocity. It could happen, but it's not likely
Unlikely, my ass. The majority of meteorites DO slow to terminal velocity. It's usually only the very large ones which do not.
That's why they are so hot
Except that they're not. That's just a popular myth - meteorites can be either cold or warm to the touch depending on their composition, but they are never hot. Some are even cold enough to form frost on their surface after impact.
From the analysis of his device that I read, what he specifically claimed was that he'd found a way to replicate hydrogen atoms.
And you find that to be MORE plausible? Are you insane?
He may well have been a lunatic, a fraud, or both.
There's no "may" involved - he was without any doubt at least one of the above.
It's just odd (and a little coincidental) that he winds up dying only a few years after he's also claimed that he was offered $10 billion to sit on his work and not do anything further with it, don't you think?
Oh yeah, that happens all the time. Just yesterday I was offered 15 quintillion dollars to cover up my discovery of anti-gravity technology using magnets, mangoes, and custard. You think maybe I should be watching out for assassination attempts?
Well, that's true enough. What makes it perpetual motion is that numbnuts claimed that he could get more energy out of his mixture than he put into creating it from water. Look, I'll only explain this to you once, so pay attention:
Splitting apart a water molecule requires energy. The amount of energy isn't important for the example, so we'll refer to it as X. When you burn the resultant hydrogen gas, the hydrogen atoms recombine with oxygen atoms to form water, which release Y amount of energy. Since the molecules you started with are exactly the same as the molecules you ended up with, the amount of energy released can not exceed the amount of energy you started with. X can only ever be equal to Y, never greater. In practice, X is always less than Y, because of the inefficiencies in the conversion process - both the splitting and the recombining of the water molecules results in waste heat, light, and/or noise being generated by your apparatus.
Now using some catalysts allows you to reduce (or eliminate) the amount of electrical energy required to split the molecules, but the extra energy has to come from somewhere. That's why all such catalysts are used up in the conversion process - because the total energy value of the system can not increase. In other words, the catalyst which you are using is giving up it's own energy to the water molecules in order to split them, and in the process is turning into a lower-energy substance. In that case, the real fuel in your system is the catalyst because it requires replenishment - water/hydrogen would just be the medium used to deliver the energy to your engine. And where do you get the catalyst from? You either make it - which, again, requires more energy than what you'll get out of the system - or you dig it out of the ground - which makes it a limited resource, and in which case you have to do a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether the system is cost-effective. Stanley Meyer did none of the above - he just said "Look, I can make energy from water!", and hundreds of gullible and uneducated individuals believed him.
Clear as mud?
Hydrogen can, however, make a fairly powerful bang when channeled in the right way
I believe the word you're looking for is "ignited". Channeling is what mediums claim to do.
Yes, hydrogen can "make a powerful bang", but that has nothing to do with the fact that Stanley Mayer was either a lunatic or a fraud, and that the "invention" he created not only failed to work as advertised but COULD not work without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Interestingly enough, he was even ordered to pay out $20,000 to people he scammed, after his "invention" was examined by experts and the evidence presented in a court of law. You'd have to be pretty damn ignorant in order to continue believing his claims. Also, if you seriously believe the conspiracy theories surrounding his death, you've probably got a screw loose yourself.
(or at least stop murdering [waterfuelcell.org] scientists who try)
I was with you, right up until I clicked that link. Seeing as how you're apparently a proponent of perpetual motion, I hereby demand that you surrender all rights to comment on future science-based discussions.
What part of "I ignore all quotes on principle" did you not understand?
For the record, though, the quote you chose is taken out of context, and is a vast oversimplification. Smith was talking about past systems when he made that statement, and left out the obvious fact that property laws in modern society protect anyone who owns anything. Only a fool would see it as an endorsement of the abolishment of property laws. And, as I try to limit how much time I spend talking to fools, I'm out. Peace.
I don't hate anyone, I hate an ideology that has been demonstrated to lead to less liberty.
Oh, you hate communism? Ok, we're on the same page there.
I noticed you ignored the Adam Smith quote, so I'll repeat it here
I ignore all quotes on principle; they're useless without context, and are an appeal to authority even when context is provided. People only use quotes when they lack facts.
By definition, libertarianism is government dedicated to protecting the property of the rich from the poor.
Getting rid of child labor, worker safety, and minimum wage laws will help people who own factories, but it will hurt the people who work in them.
[citation needed]
The only way to achieve liberty in a libertarian system would be to level the playing field completely before moving to such a system
Complete nonsense. Such an approach wouldn't create liberty but rather an artificial equality. It wouldn't matter in the long run, though, because a few decades down the road everything would be the same again. That's because we as individuals are not equal. Some people create while others destroy, some invent while others suppress. Even a single year after your forced equalization plan, you'd once again have people who are homeless and destitute.
Your definition of "liberty" is also unclear. Personal possessions have nothing to do with liberty. I can live in the forest with nothing but the clothes on my back, and I'll still be free. Or I can live a pampered life as the personal pool-boy of the local princess, and still have no liberty. You seem to be one of those pseudo-commie dinks who associate any inequality in income as slavery - a view which is, in my opinion, is a symptom of psychosis.
Maybe that isn't the story that libertarians tell themselves, but their greedy, selfish subconscious minds understand full well what they are working towards
Yeah! And those fucking Jews control everything, right? White pow... err, I mean ANARCHIST POWER! YEAH!
You need help. It's not healthy to have so much hatred towards anyone, let alone towards a political ideology whose sole goal is to limit government interference in the lives of men.
The difference between me and you is that, even though I know that your particular political ideal is very likely to create the kind of harm you're attributing to libertarianism, I would never ascribe such motives to you. I know that you're simply a poor, deluded fool, who wants only the best for himself and for mankind as a whole. The fact that you're completely wrong about everything is irrelevant; you're not evil, you're just a guy with some really stupid political ideas.
I know what the word means. I just don't see how in the world you could come to a conclusion like:
the obvious outcome of American style libertarianism is slavery
That's insane. You're arguing that an increase in individual rights will result in the taking of individuals rights. What do you do for an encore? Claim that the obvious outcome of democracy is a dictatorship? That the obvious outcome of fire is water?
I'm convinced most of them know this, and figure the 'man' is keeping them down, out of their natural position as Overlord.
[citation needed]
As we non-libertarian anarchists say here, "Libertarians want just enough government to police their slaves."
That's about as accurate as saying that anarchists just want to break things and rape and pillage. I'm sure that you probably think you're being quite clever, but you're coming across as bigoted and petulant.
That's what I'm worried about. If you were just trolling I wouldn't have responded, but knowing that you probably believe that stuff... you need help, man. Anyone who equated libertarianism with slavery is either completely ignorant, massively brainwashed, or completely irrational. It's rather like claiming that Hitler was a Rabbi.
These libertarians want to do away with all regulation, which would allow them to buy and sell slaves for their sweatshops; keep people in extreme poverty so they had to accept slavery; and practice their evil brand of economic oppression unhindered.
Yes, and smoking Marijuana makes you rape nuns and kill babies. What planet are you from, anyway?
I have - I volunteered at a shelter for a while, and every day there were empty beds and leftover food. Of course, the situation may be different from city to city (and country to country).
It might be worthwhile pointing out that the reason you can produce so much food is because you don't have the "hey let's redistribute everything!" mentality.
Besides which, with the abundance of soup kitchens and charity groups out there, I find it difficult to believe than anyone has to go dumpster diving for food. People who do so usually have some mental issues, and wish to avoid the social interactions which are involved with seeking charity.
Considering i have a 38.4MBps connection to the 'net supplemented by a backup connection (from another ISP) of 2Mbps, both of which are NOT throttled in any way, and i have...
Well I guess you have to have SOME way to make up for your tiny penis...
And you added me to your enemies list! Ouch! I'm hurt:( I think I'll go cry myself to sleep while hugging my USRobotics 2400 baud modem.
Oh yeah. Any religion that sells magical underwear (+15 defense, +25 fire protection), claims god lives on another planet, and the Garden of Eden is in Missouri... why, they've GOT to be completely legit! They've even got the Muslims beat - Mormons get their 72 virgins BEFORE they die.
Please. Mormonism is just Scientology without the blinking gizmos.
I didn't catch all that... but, just to clarify, I'm rather upset over the governments constant kowtowing to Big Water over the DHMO threat. Maybe before worrying about what bottles are made of, we should worry about what's in them! People are putting this stuff INTO THEIR BODIES, and all because politicians keep bowing to pressure from lobbyists. It's gotta stop!
For the same reason that african american citizens still get regularly handed hateful scorn by racist morons who clearly weren't alive before the Emancipation Act?
There's a difference though - blacks are visibly different, and many adopt the speech-patterns and behavior of a distinct sub-culture which is associated with crime and violence. That makes discrimination against them at least somewhat understandable, even if it is completely illogical and counterproductive. Whereas in the case of this Japanese discrimination, the member being discriminated against cannot be distinguished from the rest of society in any way.
This would be more akin to, say, white Americans discriminating against other white Americans whose great-grandparents were slave owners. You don't see too much of that going around.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlikely, my ass. The majority of meteorites DO slow to terminal velocity. It's usually only the very large ones which do not.
Except that they're not. That's just a popular myth - meteorites can be either cold or warm to the touch depending on their composition, but they are never hot. Some are even cold enough to form frost on their surface after impact.
And you find that to be MORE plausible? Are you insane?
There's no "may" involved - he was without any doubt at least one of the above.
Oh yeah, that happens all the time. Just yesterday I was offered 15 quintillion dollars to cover up my discovery of anti-gravity technology using magnets, mangoes, and custard. You think maybe I should be watching out for assassination attempts?
Well, that's true enough. What makes it perpetual motion is that numbnuts claimed that he could get more energy out of his mixture than he put into creating it from water. Look, I'll only explain this to you once, so pay attention:
Splitting apart a water molecule requires energy. The amount of energy isn't important for the example, so we'll refer to it as X. When you burn the resultant hydrogen gas, the hydrogen atoms recombine with oxygen atoms to form water, which release Y amount of energy. Since the molecules you started with are exactly the same as the molecules you ended up with, the amount of energy released can not exceed the amount of energy you started with. X can only ever be equal to Y, never greater. In practice, X is always less than Y, because of the inefficiencies in the conversion process - both the splitting and the recombining of the water molecules results in waste heat, light, and/or noise being generated by your apparatus.
Now using some catalysts allows you to reduce (or eliminate) the amount of electrical energy required to split the molecules, but the extra energy has to come from somewhere. That's why all such catalysts are used up in the conversion process - because the total energy value of the system can not increase. In other words, the catalyst which you are using is giving up it's own energy to the water molecules in order to split them, and in the process is turning into a lower-energy substance. In that case, the real fuel in your system is the catalyst because it requires replenishment - water/hydrogen would just be the medium used to deliver the energy to your engine. And where do you get the catalyst from? You either make it - which, again, requires more energy than what you'll get out of the system - or you dig it out of the ground - which makes it a limited resource, and in which case you have to do a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether the system is cost-effective. Stanley Meyer did none of the above - he just said "Look, I can make energy from water!", and hundreds of gullible and uneducated individuals believed him.
Clear as mud?
I believe the word you're looking for is "ignited". Channeling is what mediums claim to do.
Yes, hydrogen can "make a powerful bang", but that has nothing to do with the fact that Stanley Mayer was either a lunatic or a fraud, and that the "invention" he created not only failed to work as advertised but COULD not work without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Interestingly enough, he was even ordered to pay out $20,000 to people he scammed, after his "invention" was examined by experts and the evidence presented in a court of law. You'd have to be pretty damn ignorant in order to continue believing his claims. Also, if you seriously believe the conspiracy theories surrounding his death, you've probably got a screw loose yourself.
I was with you, right up until I clicked that link. Seeing as how you're apparently a proponent of perpetual motion, I hereby demand that you surrender all rights to comment on future science-based discussions.
Screw that. Do you really want an element called Microsoftium?
And your point is .... ?
Computer processors come from silicon, but you can't surf for porn with a bucket of sand or a block of quartz.
What part of "I ignore all quotes on principle" did you not understand?
For the record, though, the quote you chose is taken out of context, and is a vast oversimplification. Smith was talking about past systems when he made that statement, and left out the obvious fact that property laws in modern society protect anyone who owns anything. Only a fool would see it as an endorsement of the abolishment of property laws. And, as I try to limit how much time I spend talking to fools, I'm out. Peace.
Oh, you hate communism? Ok, we're on the same page there.
I ignore all quotes on principle; they're useless without context, and are an appeal to authority even when context is provided. People only use quotes when they lack facts.
Wrong. Go educate yourself
[citation needed]
Complete nonsense. Such an approach wouldn't create liberty but rather an artificial equality. It wouldn't matter in the long run, though, because a few decades down the road everything would be the same again. That's because we as individuals are not equal. Some people create while others destroy, some invent while others suppress. Even a single year after your forced equalization plan, you'd once again have people who are homeless and destitute.
Your definition of "liberty" is also unclear. Personal possessions have nothing to do with liberty. I can live in the forest with nothing but the clothes on my back, and I'll still be free. Or I can live a pampered life as the personal pool-boy of the local princess, and still have no liberty. You seem to be one of those pseudo-commie dinks who associate any inequality in income as slavery - a view which is, in my opinion, is a symptom of psychosis.
Yeah! And those fucking Jews control everything, right? White pow ... err, I mean ANARCHIST POWER! YEAH!
You need help. It's not healthy to have so much hatred towards anyone, let alone towards a political ideology whose sole goal is to limit government interference in the lives of men.
The difference between me and you is that, even though I know that your particular political ideal is very likely to create the kind of harm you're attributing to libertarianism, I would never ascribe such motives to you. I know that you're simply a poor, deluded fool, who wants only the best for himself and for mankind as a whole. The fact that you're completely wrong about everything is irrelevant; you're not evil, you're just a guy with some really stupid political ideas.
I know what the word means. I just don't see how in the world you could come to a conclusion like:
That's insane. You're arguing that an increase in individual rights will result in the taking of individuals rights. What do you do for an encore? Claim that the obvious outcome of democracy is a dictatorship? That the obvious outcome of fire is water?
[citation needed]
That's about as accurate as saying that anarchists just want to break things and rape and pillage. I'm sure that you probably think you're being quite clever, but you're coming across as bigoted and petulant.
That's what I'm worried about. If you were just trolling I wouldn't have responded, but knowing that you probably believe that stuff ... you need help, man. Anyone who equated libertarianism with slavery is either completely ignorant, massively brainwashed, or completely irrational. It's rather like claiming that Hitler was a Rabbi.
Yes, and smoking Marijuana makes you rape nuns and kill babies. What planet are you from, anyway?
whoosh
It's right beside the "Scientology should be the official state religion +82,773" idea.
They sounded so frigging awful that people went out of their way to destroy them?
I have - I volunteered at a shelter for a while, and every day there were empty beds and leftover food. Of course, the situation may be different from city to city (and country to country).
It might be worthwhile pointing out that the reason you can produce so much food is because you don't have the "hey let's redistribute everything!" mentality.
Besides which, with the abundance of soup kitchens and charity groups out there, I find it difficult to believe than anyone has to go dumpster diving for food. People who do so usually have some mental issues, and wish to avoid the social interactions which are involved with seeking charity.
Well I guess you have to have SOME way to make up for your tiny penis ...
And you added me to your enemies list! Ouch! I'm hurt :( I think I'll go cry myself to sleep while hugging my USRobotics 2400 baud modem.
Well apparently he's from India, so Age of Empires might be brand new for him ...
Oh yeah. Any religion that sells magical underwear (+15 defense, +25 fire protection), claims god lives on another planet, and the Garden of Eden is in Missouri ... why, they've GOT to be completely legit! They've even got the Muslims beat - Mormons get their 72 virgins BEFORE they die.
Please. Mormonism is just Scientology without the blinking gizmos.
You might want to try Irn Bru then. It's supposed to have a "citrus flavour" but I swear it tastes just like bubble-gum.
Who done the what now?
I didn't catch all that ... but, just to clarify, I'm rather upset over the governments constant kowtowing to Big Water over the DHMO threat. Maybe before worrying about what bottles are made of, we should worry about what's in them! People are putting this stuff INTO THEIR BODIES, and all because politicians keep bowing to pressure from lobbyists. It's gotta stop!
There's a difference though - blacks are visibly different, and many adopt the speech-patterns and behavior of a distinct sub-culture which is associated with crime and violence. That makes discrimination against them at least somewhat understandable, even if it is completely illogical and counterproductive. Whereas in the case of this Japanese discrimination, the member being discriminated against cannot be distinguished from the rest of society in any way.
This would be more akin to, say, white Americans discriminating against other white Americans whose great-grandparents were slave owners. You don't see too much of that going around.
I know, eh?? For fucks sake, they haven't even banned dihydrogen monoxide yet!! Bunch of anti-science weirdos, if you ask me ...
Um. You do realize that beastiality is illegal in most countries, right?