Sayonara

I'm guessing SS has a unique point of view on this.

You don't have to lash out any more, homosexuality has been legalised in your state.

I'm sure you'd get a very interesting discussion at http://www.somethingawful.com Or, if you want a very long discussion with lots of smart people (and the occasional comedy drop-out of course) you could always submit an article to http://www.slashdot.org

No, I think it's safe to say the joke is on you.

We have a joke here too: Do'mekla thjall qweui? Asu marr'th ajan ta-thjall! Merr teiaru nesu Kedasi verul! Ha ha ha

Well, that's a complete contradiction for a start. Unless you take energy away, which is what you are proposing. It takes a force to move something in space too. Crudely correct. Which you are, but won't accept It is. Because it's the easiest and cheapest way. NASA and ESA aren't in the business of burning money (except where things explode on the launch-pad obviously). Their experiment may have proved successful, but you have failed to provide evidence of this. Even if you do, you then need to demonstrate that their experiment provided energy from nowhere in order to "make us all wrong". URL fixed btw. Did you look at the link I posted Re: that satellite? I'm guessing no. That article you posted describes a planned launch in ultimately vague detail that in no way whatsoever proves that NASA have magical "break the laws of thermodynamics" powers. No. It is not cheap launching a satellite for a start, and solar panels earn back their cost in a tiny amount of time. I don't see how an experiment conducted in 1996 -- which has produced no commercially viable technology after 7 years -- suddenly means we have the capacity to produce infinite free energy, but we're "just not using it" because all the physicists at NASA are more stupid than you. Read the replies. Your claim that this article makes your deluded ranting "right" is like me saying that the Pope is a homosexual then pointing to an article on the Vatican's recent onslaught against gay marriage as proof.

If you have given the humans any technology, the Alliance will not be pleased.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/metaguide/index.shtml

By "Hahnemann cured chronic diseases" I take it you mean in individuals and not across the planet? It's all very well to dismiss the claims of people who turn their noses up at homeopathy because they just don't like it - in fact, I'd encourage it. I mean, what do they know? However you should not simply dismiss the results of all the clinical trials that have been performed on homeopathic remedies. We know now that some things work 'as advertised', some appear to work, and some claims are just silly (half a pigeon on the head for migraine, etc). As with any field related to biochemistry, it's not an "all or nothing" event.

I believe he is referring to insurance, inheritance rights etc.

Who is narrating in those passages?

What exactly does the bible say about it? And is the exact text of the methodist bible any different to, say, the anglican bible? I think it's important we know what it says before we start the whole "oh but that's not what it says in the bible!" argument thing again.

Now that's in a diagram form it makes me think of a donkey in space, with a carrot dangled in front of it. Where does the thrust come from?

'George' is a homosexual name, he's just like that pink hippo.

Fairly easily, as you demonstrated earlier. All you need is to establish or assume the minimum possible level of information and understanding a person has in a particular field, and then attempt to educate them using more basic information. Like this: 'All-seeing' refers to my user status, not my intelligence. I may be a twat but I'm not that arrogant. ps - nicely correct use of 'whom' pps - Blike, I really hate that new GIANT quote box

Apparently you are not talking about the same mission as the one I was thinking of. Here is more info on the satellite you were talking about: http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Shuttle/STS-75/tss-1r/tss-1r.html As you can see it has sod all to do with power generation.

Yes they have. This has been mentioned in fact in the physics forum, some time ago, and discussed by the people who are arguing with you. The fact that they are carrying out that experiment does not (a) improve your appalling grasp of simple physics, and (b) does not imply 100% efficiency, which is by definition impossible even if you only go as far as accounting for the energy used in making the machine in the first place. ps - "the Europeans", lol.

Oooh this is exciting

We'd have to nail his upper eyelids to the top of his monitor casing just to be sure. He may resist.

Look again, lol.

Earth was the successor to Deep Thought, designed by the super computer to divine the question that led him to the answer 42.

And if you're going to assume any of that is true, then we never will - since the Earth was demolished to make way for a hyperspace bypass a couple of decades ago

It was the computer Deep Thought's answer to the question of Life, The Universe and Everything in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Some people think that this means something because it was funny at the time.

Then don't patronise me.