insane_alien

yeah, that'll be a really bad side reaction.

i had the shotglass chess set but most of the shot glasses have since been broken for one reason or another so now we just play with normal pieces and have the shot glasses off to the side now. or we take a swig of the bottle. rules have remained the same.

does drinking chess count? i tend to play that more than normal chess now. i'm not very good at either anyway. i can get the upper hand early in the game but when it comes to finishing it off i start losing concentration. unless i have a rook and a queen i find it impossible.

by the time the sun goes up whatever species we'll have evolved into will be drastically different to what we are now. it took us less time to go from a chemical soup to what we are now. that is assuming we survive. there'll probably even be different species of future humans if we spread out around the galaxy especially if we never develop a ftl method of travelling.

you could have another carbon in there and only produce CO with no CO2 at all and it would be valid. i would imagine that in the real world reaction of that then this reaction would also occur as the carbon would likely be in excess. alternatively you could have one less carbon and produce 2 moles of CO2 which would probably also occur but the question does not ask about this. but the point is, tweaking the amount of carbon can tweak the CO2:CO ratio produced.

you only encounter that problem if you think of time as a spatial dimension.you can have dimensions which are not spatial. a way to think of time is by taking a tv cartoon, print off all the frames and stack them in order.in this case the z axis would be time for the cartoon universe and in reality it would not be so discrete, there would be a continuous flow of frames with many more thousands of billions than you printed off.

better than basic anyway

i think the vacuum is just going to draw up more water vapour than increase efficiency of hydrogen production.

i take it liberty basic is based on basic? if it is, i'd avaoid it. basic is bad. it breeds bad habits like karl breeds syphilis.

see, we told you.

yet you don't even work with bombs. the things you work on are explicitly designed to not blow up, ever. even if it goes majorly wrong.

because they are reflective in the IR range. simple as that. the reflect because they are reflective.

care to show us how you arrived at that conclusion? feel free to show the mahematical model you used as well.

big concave mirror+sun will do the trick. might take more than a thousand watts.

okay, then, just use a really long (2-3m) bit of normal wire then

or you could just short them with some resistor wire and they'll be done in seconds.

actually, the new processors should be more efficient as they have smaller transistors and run a bit cooler. they also have more power saving features like stepping where the clock frequency is variable also, older laptop processors were basicallyjust desktop processors squashed down a bit. modern ones are designed to have low poer consumptions and so on.

yeah, i learnt C++ befor python, it was hellish. python was pretty easy to get to grips with.

i predict it will not work, at all. it requires perpetual motion(that you can extract energ from) which is impossible. the energy comes from nowhere. this is impossible.

yes you can make mathematical programs out of it. though you need to be careful with the way it handles division. try 2/3 and see what i mean. to get the propper answer 2.0/3 should be used. also, all programs can be written in something like windows notpad if you really wanted to do it that way. there ain't nothing primitive about it. i use Gedit to make python programs. and C++ programs, and bash scripts and so on and so forth. anything with syntax highlighting is good. and why shouldn't programming be simple?

both. i have a bunch that are basically just scripts(for mass file convertions) and i have made a few little card game applications.

Snail, superman was saying he had though of a design where gravity is always present(as if this was a major departure from normality). i was saying this happens in every process. this is how gravity came into it. i think he has took this illusion a little to seriously to be honest,

python would be a good place to start. it isn't as fast as the others(it is primarily an interpreted language) but it is veryeasy to pick up on. i use it for prototyping(and occasionally a proper program if how fast it runs is not a priority) just search up 'python tutorial' on google and you'll have a huge number of easy to follow tutorials to tell you how to do everything on it.

i was reffering to this part specifically

gravity is constantly present either way still no continuous energy production.