toastywombel

This is amazingly cool to me . I was staring at those rotating electrons for about a minute. It might distract readers from the forums though haha.

What specific measure did Bush present to deal with the .COM burst, can you tell me? I also would like to point out that citing the Heritage Foundation for facts is not a good tactic in trying to persuade anyone who is not right wing.

I will comment on this one after work.

That is understandable, but it seems like that can easily turn into a platform of nothing, because of course Republicans want government to have very little power. So simply their goal is to win elections and do nothing else? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I will concede that I think you are right on the above. There is a plethora of issues and many voters have a wide variety of opinions on each of these issues. So it is hard to classify the whole public under a certain ideology.

You failed to address the fact that a nuclear war that yielded around two megatons could lead to the destruction of the ozone layer. Tell me how are you going to go about going outside if the ozone layer is significantly damaged? Can you tell me of any biological agent that can do that. Not only that the destruction of the ozone layer would lead to the death of many oceanic creatures. This would cause a global food crisis. Hepafilters, masks, alcohol, and anti-bacterial soap are all easy and cheap ways to prevent the spread of biological agents. Also biological agents don't destroy infrastructure, and despite what everyone seems to be implying on here, it is highly unlikely that they would have a 90% mortality rate. I don't know of any airborne infectious disease that has a 90% mortality rate. The deadliest form of the Ebola virus has a mortality rate of 83%, however many other forms of Ebola have a mortality rate around 50%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola "The Zaire virus, formerly named Zaire Ebola Virus, has the highest case-fatality rate, up to 90% in some epidemics, with an average case fatality rate of approximately 83% over 27 years. There have been more outbreaks of Zaire ebolavirus than any other species. The first outbreak took place on 26 August 1976 in Yambuku. Mabalo Lokela, a 44-year-old schoolteacher, became the first recorded case. The symptoms resembled malaria, and subsequent patients received quinine. The initial transmission was believed to be due to reuse of the needle for Lokela's injection without sterilization. Subsequent transmission was also due to lack of barrier nursing and the traditional burial preparation method, which involves washing and gastrointestinal tract cleansing.[5] Sudan ebolavirus (SEBOV) The virus was the second species of Ebola emerging simultaneous with the Zaire virus. It was believed to have originated amongst cotton factory workers in Nzara, Sudan, with the first case reported as a worker exposed to a potential natural reservoir. Scientists tested all animals and insects in response to this; however, none tested positive for the virus. The carrier is still unknown. The lack of barrier nursing facilitated the spread of the disease. The most recent outbreak occurred in May 2004. 20 confirmed cases were reported in Yambio County, Sudan, with five deaths resulting. The average fatality rates for were 54% in 1976, 68% in 1979, and 53% in 2000 and 2001." The black plague wiped out only 1/3 of Europe, and that was before modern medicine. Here is something else interesting, "By making these data available to local public health officials in real time, most models of anthrax epidemics indicate that more than 80% of an exposed population can receive antibiotic treatment before becoming symptomatic, and thus avoid the moderately high mortality of the disease." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare On the other side there is not easy and cheap way to prevent hunger when there is no food, there is not easy and cheap way to protect yourself from a nuclear blast, no easy and cheap way to protect yourself from not having an ionosphere. There is no bioweapon as being described by many contributers to this topic that could do what a small scale nuclear war could do right here right now. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I agree, I think if we were attacked with a biological agent, the United States has the military capability and force to destroy nearly any target in the world without the use of nuclear bombs. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/weapons/l/aabombs1.htm Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well lets start A. I don't think there is any way a strain of smallpox could be introduced the entire population of the planet instantly. B. Smallpox, or any other disease of that nature, is very unlikely to have a 95% mortality rate, even if there was no medical infrastructure C. How would the virus be able to discriminate from the terrorist cell and the rest of humanity. I also question that any group would have the motive to kill 95% of the worlds population. Not only that if such a biological agent was dispersed all over the world simultaneous and was indeed that deadly, I don't think the terrorist cell would have much of a chance of being able to accomplish anything with such an infection, especially considering their medical capabilities are probably far more limited than a nation like the United States. D. Smallpox would not and did not kill 95% of the population on three continents. "V major produces a more serious disease and has an overall mortality rate of 30–35%." "Rarely, smallpox has been spread by virus carried in the air in enclosed settings such as buildings, buses, and trains.[18] The virus can cross the placenta, but the incidence of congenital smallpox is relatively low." "Smallpox is highly contagious, but generally spreads more slowly and less widely than some other viral diseases, perhaps because transmission requires close contact and occurs after the onset of the rash. The overall rate of infection is also affected by the short duration of the infectious stage." "Some estimates indicate case fatality rates of 80-90 % in Native American populations during smallpox epidemics.[44] Smallpox was introduced into Australia in 1789 and again in 1829 and caused devastation among the aborigines, but quickly died out on both occasions.[23]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox Another problem with bioweapons is they cannot be too deadly, because the infected people will die before the disease could even be transfered on a large level. And the reason the mortality rate for Native American populations was so high is because they were unable to have time to develop any immunity. Every human alive today has traits carried down from ancestors who did survive smallpox, so the situations are totally incomparable. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Zolar, really after all the evidence that has been presented to you, how can you say one biological agent could wipe out all of humanity? Remember, the higher the mortality rate of the virus, the less likely it is to spread. That is because the people infected die and are able to spread the disease only so far. Also diseases like ebola and smallpox are easy to spot in a person, thus making them hard to transfer. To create a bioweapon of such magnitude it would require that the disease lies dormant long enough to spread without killing the host, and after surviving in the human body for a long period of time be able to kill the host effectively with a 90% mortality rate. This to me seems highly unlikely. On the other hand nuclear war could break out at any time and we know exactly what the effects of such a nuclear war are. Please before you respond reference the wikipedia links above. Even the deadliest forms of ebola have a mortality rate of around 80% and many others around 50% as cited above. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged How do you intend to mix something like smallpox and Aids and get an effective disease? Furthermore, a virus like HIV would be too heavy to be transferable through the air. They are totally different, biology doesn't work this way. Its like saying what if we mixed a human with a shark and created a super powerful sharkman. Its just not likely at all. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged"Yes, I do recall reading about that many years ago. If a virus with the lethality time and incubation time of Ebola Zaire and airborne transmission were weaponized it'd be quite a bad situation." It would be a bad situation but not an global problem. Again, ebola has the problem with killing the host too quickly. That is why it has not spread on a large scale. Ebola is easily contained because the carriers of the disease die before they can transfer it to many people.

Interesting topic, that hasn't been brought up. I personally would not make a clone of myself for any purpose, let alone the listed two. Something about cloning weirds be out, this opinion isn't based on anything scientifically though. I don't think I would be in favor of it catching on though, simply because sexual reproduction is key in producing fitter offspring.

Since you did not read earlier. The following aren't about killing everyone on the planet, but this may give you an idea. "A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 found that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (about 15 kiloton each) on major populated centers, the researchers estimated as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years and could be "catastrophic" according to the researchers.[4][5]" "A 2008 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that a nuclear weapons exchange between Pakistan and India using their current arsenals could create a near- global ozone hole, triggering human health problems and wreaking environmental havoc for at least a decade.[6] The computer-modeling study looked at a nuclear war between the two countries involving 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices on each side, producing massive urban fires and lofting as much as five million metric tons of soot about 50 miles (80 km) into the stratosphere. The soot would absorb enough solar radiation to heat surrounding gases, setting in motion a series of chemical reactions that would break down the stratospheric ozone layer protecting Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation." "A minor nuclear war with each country using 50 Hiroshima-sized atom bombs as airbursts on urban areas, could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. A nuclear war between the United States and Russia today could produce nuclear winter, with temperatures plunging below freezing in the summer in major agricultural regions, threatening the food supply for most of the planet. The climatic effects of the smoke from burning cities and industrial areas would last for several years, much longer than previously thought. New climate model simulations, that are said to have the capability of including the entire atmosphere and oceans, show that the smoke would be lofted by solar heating to the upper stratosphere, where it would remain for years." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter 100 20 kiloton bombs is equal to 2 megatons. There is some of the math for you. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Could you please tell me what defenses we have against radiation other than giant slabs of lead. Our capabilities of protecting ourselves against airborne pathogens are cheaper and more effective than our capabilities of protecting against radiation and nuclear blasts. Last I checked Hepa Filters and alcohol do pretty well with germs and they are much cheaper than the bunker you are describing above.

It is not reasonable to assume you can live in a society with complete freedom. I don't think that Howard Stern should be on public radio. And the FCC is obviously kind enough to let people like Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh stay on the air so I don't think it is as bad as you are making it out to be. It is also good to keep in mind that the premium packages you cite as being caused by government action are a multi-billion dollar industry that employs thousands of people across the United States. It is also good to note people often pay for satellite radio because they're are less ads and far greater selection. I doubt local radio stations or local television stations could ever offer the type of selection seen by satellite, satellite radio, and cable even if there were no FCC laws at all.

Really it is impossible to answer this question, because if someone dies in their sleep, you can't ask them if they were dreaming afterwards and what they were dreaming about. I would tend to think not, their is no scientific evidence, that I know of, that would lead me to the conclusion that you are more likely to die if you are having a dream bout dying. In fact the stages of sleep in which dreaming occurs is known to be very good for the body and mind. I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Here are some links related to the topic of dreaming you may want to check out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep http://www.asdreams.org/idxjournal.htm

I agree, I do not understand the logic of some people who think that preemptive war is a good way to spend money but healthcare for everyone, which makes us a healthier, safer society is just outrageous. In a sense they would rather have their taxpayer dollars go towards destruction rather than promotion of health. This also implies that many tea party groups find that hurting their enemies is a greater priority than helping their friends. This type of individualism is quite ignorant, many of the individuals don't seem to understand that their whole quality of life and survival is dependent on other fellow citizens.

So you believe all people should have equally free speech, except for people who own telecom companies. They have free-er speech and the right to regulate others speech because they operate the phone lines? This way of looking at it promotes the idea that the spread of one's voice or speech is directly proportional to how much money one has. The truth is there would be no internet for the telecom companies to profit from if it was not for the users who generate its content, and continue to generate content all the time. The telecom companies are using the information that is created primarily by the general public who by the way pay the telecom companies for their service, and then simply because the telecom companies own the phone lines/ fiber optic lines they should be able to regulate the content, much of which they didn't even create? According to that logic, it should be okay with you for the telecom companies to also regulate who you can call? Because of course, it is their equipment that gives you the ability to make any calls, so it is their right to regulate who you can talk to.

Okay, well it seems you refuse to accept the facts that I cited above. The Tsar bomba was actually 50 megatons, not sixty, and it was originally designed to yield 100 megatons, the test bomb was downgraded. The Tsar Bomba was also not a very old inefficient weapon. It is the most powerful piece of weaponry ever designed and it operates the same exact way that modern nuclear bombs do. Also again you seem to not understand, the point of a nuclear bomb is to create radiation, that is how the blast is created. As I stated above 45% of the blast is caused by thermal radiation. And again, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were about 20 kilotons. Modern Nuclear weapons are in the range of several hundred kilotons to megatons. Check out the following chart, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield

All powerful, all knowing God vs. Satan, what is God waiting for?

I believe String Theory is simply a broad term used to reference unification theories that will unify the force of gravity with the other forces it does not attempt to explain everything, furthermore this topic is about string theory, and the poster had specific questions about string theory. If you want to debunk string theory start you might want to start your own post.

So I take it you haven't edited this book yet? I would also like to note that this post is complete garbage. Do you have any math to support your theory? With ridiculous statements from your 'book' like this, I seriously doubt it.

Well lets ignore the fact that you seem to not know that lack of fallout from a nuclear explosion as opposed to a fission explosion is the result of the energy being released primarily by the blast and shot up into the atmosphere. And that 45% of the blast itself, which is about 50% of the energy released, is caused by thermo-radiation. So while we may not have fallout we face nuclear winter. It is also good to point out modern nuclear warheads range can yield 20 megatons to 100 megatons. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 20-21 kilotons. So while the percentage of energy converted into nuclear fallout decreases with modern nuclear weapons, they are much stronger. Do you think that nuclear weapons should be used as a response to a massive biological attack? Also let me pose this hypothetical. Say for some reason Mexico designed released chemical/biological agents into London. Disease spread and it had a 50%-60% fatality rate after the first few months. Would it be okay with you, if you were a resident of Los Angeles, if the UK had dropped a thermonuclear bomb on Northern Mexico as a response? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged It wasn't a fallacy, it was a question. Yes, that could happen, and a disease may spread, but again a nuclear weapon could destroy a city in twenty minutes from launch right here right now. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAlso I would like to add this, "A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 found that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (about 15 kiloton each) on major populated centers, the researchers estimated as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years and could be "catastrophic" according to the researchers.[4][5]" "A 2008 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that a nuclear weapons exchange between Pakistan and India using their current arsenals could create a near- global ozone hole, triggering human health problems and wreaking environmental havoc for at least a decade.[6] The computer-modeling study looked at a nuclear war between the two countries involving 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices on each side, producing massive urban fires and lofting as much as five million metric tons of soot about 50 miles (80 km) into the stratosphere. The soot would absorb enough solar radiation to heat surrounding gases, setting in motion a series of chemical reactions that would break down the stratospheric ozone layer protecting Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation." "A minor nuclear war with each country using 50 Hiroshima-sized atom bombs as airbursts on urban areas, could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. A nuclear war between the United States and Russia today could produce nuclear winter, with temperatures plunging below freezing in the summer in major agricultural regions, threatening the food supply for most of the planet. The climatic effects of the smoke from burning cities and industrial areas would last for several years, much longer than previously thought. New climate model simulations, that are said to have the capability of including the entire atmosphere and oceans, show that the smoke would be lofted by solar heating to the upper stratosphere, where it would remain for years." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

I would also like to note, if chemical agents were truly a greater threat than nuclear weapons. Why are the nations who have active nuclear weapons considered the superpowers, while the nations who have active chemical/biological weapons aren't?

Again, I think if someone or some government really wants to release a chemical/biological weapon into the United States, a nuclear deterrent is not going to stop them. Furthermore, an easy way for a country to bypass this whole thing is to contract out to regular people. Surely you don't think a country who attacks us with a biological agent would admit to it?

Agreed, not only can thermonuclear weapons cause large blasts they can also cause Electromagnetic Pulse Firestorms Earthquakes Ionizing Radiation Flash Blindness/Fire Thermal Radiation I also would like anyone to point out a biological or chemical weapon that can totally destroy anything within a thirty kilometer radius in a few seconds and knock out communications, cause firestorms, damage buildings. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged What if the country is North Korea? The people cannot really tell their government anything, and they most likely would be un-aware of anything going on outside of their local world. And even if accidentally some country designs a weapon that turns into something deadly like that, again what good does detonating a nuclear device do? How would that help solve the problem at hand? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Within just a few generations the smallpox took its toll on the Native Americans. In about twenty minutes we could destroy practically our whole civilization with nuclear weapons. That is the difference between biological/chemical agents and Nuclear Weapons. And while biological agents linger in an environment, radiation from a nuclear blast doesn't? Furthermore, you can prevent infection from biological agents, hell you may even be able to find cures to biological agents. You cannot prevent radiation from passing through your body. With a biological/chemical weapon at least it is possible for humanity to survive is my point. Nuclear bombs in mass can block out the sun, destroy our cities, knock out our electrical grid, contaminate water supplies, cause radiation poisoning all within a few minutes. Biological/ Chemical weapons simply cannot deliver that kind of damage in that short of time.

"What harm would it do though, if humanity is doomed anyways? What if a biochemical weapon turns out to be more deadly/infectious than its creator anticipated? Why should we tell them that we won't nuke them even if they wipe out our country? Best to discourage them from trying." If it would do no harm, then why send the nuke? I'm sorry but I don't attest to the ideology, if I am going to die, then everyone is going to die. Also, If someone is creating a biochemical weapon of that magnitude, I doubt that telling them we will nuke you is much a deterrent. If they have the capability of making such a weapon, I would guess they have the mental capability of knowing it would destroy humanity as we know it. And, if it were by chance an accident like you were saying, I still don't see how nuking them would accomplish anything but decrease the chances for humanity to survive. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnd I really don't agree with this deterrent thing. Yeah, I am sure rogue states are saying, "Hey, did you hear the United States just changed their policy on nuclear weapons? Now if we attack them they wont nuke us, lets do it!" And I'm being accused of not being in the real world. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAlso, why is it so unrealistic to believe in a world without nuclear weapons? I simply hate the phrase, "It's just not possible." Ten years ago people would have said the same about a black president Fifty years ago people would have said the same about the cold war ever ending without world destruction A hundred years ago people would have said the same thing about going to the moon I mean you guys are saying a nuclear bomb free world is not practical, the only reason it is not practical because people with similar mindsets keep saying it is not practical.

Don't you think there is a point though, where if someone devises a chemical/biological weapon that threatens humanity, what good is it going to do to threaten humanity even more with a nuclear strike? Its like I said before, If someone throws a grenade at you in a crowded room, what good does it do to throw a grenade back at them? Sure it may teach a lesson, but what good does a lesson do if everyone is dead.

What I am saying is that it is a stupid question, "Is Obama limiting Nukes too much?" I believe there should be no nukes at all. I am not talking about biased here I am talking about plain stupidity. Responding to any kind of attack with Nuclear weapons is simply counter-productive to any goal one might have, because nuclear weapons have the capability of killing everyone on the planet in a relatively short period of time.

Also, why aren't nuclear devices considered a chemical weapon? Radiation fallout is a chemical that serves as weapon is it not?

Energy can be exchanged through strings connected to the same brane, or in the same dimension, but the idea is that only gravity can move through dimensions. This is one explanation as to why gravity is appears much weaker than all the other forces. As for closed strings gaining or losing energy, I don't think so, not sure I would have to do more reading, but I don't think so. But if a string exists in a dimension, then it is open from my understanding.

So DH, if you poison me, I am justified to douse you in gasoline and light you on fire? And Pangloss I feel that Fox is implying that nuclear weapons should be left on the table as an option for defense. If one nuclear device is detonated, regardless of the reason, it has the potential to harm/kill many if not everyone on the planet, and I feel as if Fox is legitimizing that.