Sayonara

Sounds like the minimum focal length might be the problem rather than the maximum zoom.

Here we go: http://linuxshop.ru/linuxbegin/win-lin-soft-en/table.shtml That list will tell you what to get. The RPM finder site I posted a link for will let you find the packages.

Why not have a look instead of hoping one of the few people who read this thread will happen to know? RPMs are (essentially) the Linux equivalent of an installation pack under Windows. There's a big list of Windows and equivalent Linux packages somewhere - I will dig it out for you.

I ignored the science right from the start, and I still found it tedious, banal and predictable.

See! The 'science' in The Core is so bad that just reading its name corrupts our ability to think clearly

No it doesn't.

It melts below 0c because the salt has lowered its melting (or rather 'freezing' in this case) and boiling points, as Swansont already stated.

Does it involve the word "YEEEEEEEEEEEE-HAH!"?

I presume by "physical energy" he means some sort of dynamo arrangement (although I have no idea what "kickstarting a battery" might involve), in which case isn't he taking energy from outside the system?

Isn't this pretty much the same as your other thread? http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4345

I used the term "non sequitur" in the correct fashion, and the correct context, in common with the intended use of the term in modern English. If you don't like it, it's your problem. See above. It can be considered a noun. That has nothing to do with how it is apllied to an argument. That's up to you.

How do you define "over-use"? Unless it's something along the lines of "using the correct terms to describe something", then you probably are the only one. It's in the nature of members in a science and debate community to identify such problems with proposals and arguments. The reason straw man and tautology come up so much is because they are used that much. Non sequitur quite literally is one of the most common occurences in cause-and-effect discussions.

Errr... I think that's the point. That's why "...without invoking divine miracles" is tacked on the end.

It's not the same point at all. Creationism is not a passive transfer of information; it's an active attempt to "prove" A by refuting B, which is non sequitur logic. Creationism removes freedom of choice and also defeats the purpose of faith. Quite (well, with the exception that creationism goes beyond "telling people a story".)

Or to point out that: 1) Most of the factors have incorrect probabilities, 2) Most of the factors are irrelevant, 3) The factors that are relevant are for a planet that is IDENTICAL to Earth in virtually every way, and not an "Earth-like" planet. That calc is wishful thinking.

Not really - if people want to believe in Genesis, they will do regardless of anything else. It's more for people who wish to believe that religious stories must exclude any other possibility. What the modern advocates of creationism are trying to do is show that nothing science says can apply, because of their interpretations of a particular bit of text they like and the avoidance of any other. This is a non-sustainable movement.

What's the reasoning for that number? (I am not signing up to that site, no way.) He must realise that is a horribly, horribly biased source for ANY kind of information.

Either Bohm or Feynman. I'd flip a coin but the outcome might not be reliable.

Ask him if he knows what road gritters are for.

It's more unscientific of him to unilaterally rule it out tbh, particularly if his reasoning only involves derivations of religious texts. Knowledge.com has an excellent database of resources.

Does it need to be total vacuum (insofar as that's possible in engineering)? Why a cube? I ask because a cube is not a very strong shape when you evacuate it.

You don't want to KNOW what my thoughts are on The Core.

Probably osmosis moving water into the cells. If the cells under the skin expand, the epidermal layer will become more convoluted.

This page is the first result of this search, which took me about 3 seconds to perform.

The kernel has the same origins, but the hardware architecture is totally different. An OS can't be run on hardware it doesn't understand.