mooeypoo

Why do you insist on giving me more and more arguments? Clearly, you have no proof. You keep ignoring the request to SUPPLY IT. I don't need more explanations on your TERMS, I need more PROOF! The video doesn't prove ether, it explains Cerenkov Radiation. Light *can pass through vacuum*. It doesn't require a MEDIUM to travel through. Ether is not necessary for the passing of light "waves". Furthermore, and for the thirtieth time, Aether was proven NOT TO EXIST. Through experimentation. NOT. TO. EXIST. If you want to claim it does exist you need to PROVE it, and then explain why the experiment proving it wrong resulted the way it did. I'm dropping this stupidity, for reasons of noncooperative debate. Have a nice day.

Stop preaching and start answering questions. I'm not going to waste my time reading the entire book if you can't even answer the most BASIC questions I ask about the FIRST CHAPTER! Please. If you want to be taken seriously, substantiate your claims. It shouldn't be a problem to post a BRIEF summary of PROOFS for the existence of Ether. You can't SERIOUSLY expect people to read through the entire book and sift through it to find your proofs. If you don't have them straight before your assumption that it exists, something's either wrong with your theory, or wrong with your writing style. Be concise, it's part of being scientific. ~moo

"Her". mooeypoo is a her Friend, he just equated you to CREATIONISTS.. are you even reading the links supplied?? "her" You didn't even BEGIN to prove that there's an Ether, or Aether, or any sort or kind of atmosphere to the universe. What, exactly, am I missing? You just stated that there IS an atmosphere and based your theory on it. That's not science, it's wishful thinking. HER, and aparanly I'm not the only one. You, however, don't READ the claims I put up. Why won't you start by going ONE BY ONE and answering my post? That would be a good start. Notice I put up "prove your arguments" quite a LOT; you haven't proved ANYTHING - not here, and not in your book. Stop condecending. I am not stupid. I am putting more time than what I normally allow myself to put on a quite seriously FLAWED set of arguments, and I do that so we can keep debating. If you keep avoiding my points and keep preaching your dogmatic no-proof ideas, you will get nowhere. Holy hell. Alright listen very carefully: Before you can show what a particle of the aether's mass is, you need to prove that the particle EXISTS. That's first step. First you prove it exists. Then you calculate mass. Then you do whatever you want with that particle, and keep infering and hypothesizing. If you just CLAIM there is a particle, then calculating its MASS is insanely void. It's ridiculous! PROVE IT EXISTS FIRST. I can show mathematically that the nose of the invisible unicorn is 14 inches long. That makes absolutely no friggin sense unless I prove the unicorn exists, and that it has a nose. Understand? You still fail to make any sort of point. Please read my post and try to answer point by point and bring at the very least a SUMMARY (points!) of your PROOFS. PROOFS. Not claims, not wishful thinking... PROOF. Please. You're very frustrating. I'm trying to understand and think about what you're saying, and you are ignoring any and every request for proof. It's not SCIENCE without a PROOF. ~moo

Hm.. I'm researching cocaine now, but I want something more "INTENTIONALLY hurtful".. something a group, or government, took advantage of to do harm. It's for the purpose of the story, setting the grounds for the ethical debate of the plot. That's why I'm very specific That said, everything raised here is REALLY interesting. I'm having lots of fun researching these. Thanks ~moo

Yo uknow what? I think that if he goes to hell, he should find that there are *NO* gays in hell. At all. They're ALL in heaven. And he's forced to look at them for eternity having fun and spending their time in heaven while he's in hell. That's poetic justice, right there. Gosh, I'm almost ready to believe in God for that...

http://www.fripro.com/AIDE.html A reading of chapter 1: "The Scientific Controversy". Particularly, reading of #1: "Does the Universe have an ether atmosphere (dark matter, dark energy, particles)?" ----- Note: Please notice the repeating "theme" here. Specifically the bright RED theme. I marked it bold red for you to notice. Please. Pretty please. ----- You are not being scientific. You are jumping from an unproven hypothesis to a claim and to a theory, stating "Ah! then it's true." The point, however, is that if your FIRST claim is unproven, then the rest of your theory - that is built upon it - is void. Here's YOUR logic and how it is illogical: "This seems to infer that some background galaxies are on the surface of a transparent globe." Not necessarily.. The universe is seen in three dimentions. How is the tilt of random galaxies proof of GLOBE is beyond me. You can't make a claim and just DECIDE it's true. Prove your statements. "This globe probably is rotating; however, because of its size, perception of the rotational movement on Earth, in our Milky Way galaxy, is impossible to measure." You already decided it's a globe (without PROVING it), now you continue to state what you seem to think is obvious, and is COMPLETELY NOT. Rotating!? Why!? Because that's what you know from earth? Earth's rotation is due to external forces (gravity / orbit / etc).. why would the universe -- EVEN if it is globular -- rotate? Prove your statements. "Of course the Hubble camera was looking in one direction, so where are we with respect to the globe?" Of Course. Are you so sure it's a globe? Prove your statements. Egh. This is painful. Okay, the red shift shows how fast the specific celestial object is moving away from us. It does *NOT* show curvature of space. It does *NOT* imply rotation. How.. would this imply rotation!? Prove your statements. I don't see it...? You lost me.. what see-through effect? The "blank" spot you claim the picture has? I don't see an empty place in the picture; and an empty spot wouldn't have suggested what you claim, but.. since I don't even see it, I guess I can't begin to claim THAT.. yet.. Your claims jump from one assumption to the next, with NO SUBSTANTIATION. You make a claim - that's IT. "it may indicate" and then you rely on what it *may* indicate. Without saying WHY you think this is what it TRULY indicates. You are NOT providing proofs, you are simply repeating your ideas. So, please. Prove your statements. Yes, of course scientists are HESITANT! They require *proof* in order to change the existing theories, because the existing theories *work well*. If I would tell you that gravity is bunk, and instead there's a little invisible lepricon pushing down on objects causing them to fall, scientists would be HESITANT TO CHANGE the theory of gravity! But when Einstein changed the theory of gravity from Newton's idea, scientists were HESITANTS, but CHANGED. Do you even know what the scientific method is? You seem to not quite understand empirical methods. or Inference methods. Now, then you just go on to state that Einstein may have been wrong (which is more than possible, considering the fact Quantum Mechanicts and the Theory of Relativity don't fit much), but you supply ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF as to why *your theory* answers that paradox. this, however, is a gem: WHAT UNIVERSE ATMOSPHERE!? You just decided -- out of nowhere! -- that the universe has an atmosphere. Prove your statements. I am going to stop now, because this is giving me a headache. I did read the rest of the chapter but I have no patience to write it up here, seriously. You have absolutely no proofs or evidence for NOTHING. It's ridiculous. Seeing as my attempts to get you to supply evidence failed, allow me to try a new method here, something I pick up from my other hobby - programming. I feel like I'm talking on a loop anyways: while (evidence<=0) { echo "SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIMS!"; } In short, and in plain english -- 'till you supply evidence (EMPIRICAL evidence, or OBSERVATIONAL *evidence*) and step-by-step explanations for your wild assumptions, I am NOT going to take this seriously. When you do, I promise to think about it seriously. Deal? ~moo

I think there's a limit (or should be) for free speech. Inciting people to commit murder should be a limit, for instance. Calling people to kill gays - or suggesting that dead people (the fact they are soldiers matter, but isn't relevant for the 'free speech' argument) are gays, burning in hell, and people will continue dying if gays continue being accepted in society - means that people should go around bashing gays. that's inciteful. It should be illegal, at least in my opinion. And yes, I am aware of the fact that there is a thin line in all matters free-speech'y.. I'm stating a utopia world, I guess. Where this line is clear. In our world? I think the litigation should've been HARASSMENT and not free speech based. In any case, I think no matter what, Phelps deserves *EVERYTHING* he could possibly get. I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for him or the decision. Too bad it's only 10 million. I'd make sure he lives in the streets, selling his body for food. That would be poetic revenge, if not poetic justice. ~moo

And you can't put up a few points on it here? You don't have to paste the entire thing to give a brief summary of your points... This means nothing... man knows a *LOT* about the universe. Not all, perhaps, but we do QUITE WELL with what we have. Quite frankly, you are suggesting we drop everything we know and replace it with oyur theory, and I don't see why we should bother yet... what questions is your theory answering that the current theories *aren't* answering?? I don't SEE intelligence in the universe, quite frankly. I see random phenomena with a set of physical rules (Astrophysics has most of the answers, and at the very least a VERY GOOD set of rules how to get more answers). What you are proposing seems to me to be completely unneeded, before the fact that it's not substantiated at ALL. And Fripro, I wouldn't thank Fred56 yet: (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Complexity,_Information_and_Design) The Executive Director of this group - William A. Dembski - is a creationist. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dembski) It doesn't sound like it's something you should link yourself to. ~moo

I've done some basic research --- I can't see an obvious connection between the discovery of Prussian Blue (1704) and the transference of it to a poison... The idea of cyanide in general is interesting, though. I will go on researching that more.. if oyu have any links or references, I'd appreciate it Thanks! ~moo Further investigation gave this: http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/summer/scor/articles/scor176.htm Full link between "Prussian Blue" and Hydrogen Cyanide. Thanks john

I don't think it's invalid, i think there are not enough evidence to consider it valid. That's the way things work, my friend. And you keep AVOIDING PROOF. It's getting rather tiresome. What you're using now is the nice fallacy of arguing from emotion -- it LOOKS magnificent, so it MUST be alive.. or something of this sort. It's a fallacy nontheless, and it is - fallacy or not -- not proven. I didn't say your theory is impossible, i said it's implausible, and that the burden of proof is on YOU. Proving, however, is not just stating things. It's actually going step by step and showing your logic in your claim. You have YET to do that. So I am not convinced. My goodness, for the eleventh time, please try to read this intently and carefully, you are being quite frustrating about this: IT WAS PROVEN THAT THE UNIVERSE HAS NO ETHER ATMOSPHERE. If you think this proof is wrong, you need to PROVE OTHERWISE. I shall therefore - from now on - ignore ALL AND ANY CLAIMS you make about the ether, until you manage to PROVE TO US that it EXISTS. You cannot pluck a claim out of thin air, and just suppose it's true. Out of nothing. Well.. I suppose you can - but that's not SCIENCE. Substantiate, or stop talking about the stupid ether already. If you don't, I'm afraid I'm going to have to file this theory under my "insane mambojumbo" file cabinet and never look back. Really.. if you are *that sure* that your theory is correct, you should have absolutely NO PROBLEMS proving it. Poking holes (or.. TRYING to) in existing scientific theories DOES NOT prove your theory. It merely points out what current theories have no answer for (if even). Suggesting that since science may be wrong YOUR theory is certainly right is NO DIFFERENT than religious dogmatic ID proponents; they claim the same, and it's the SAME FALLACY (I believe it's called "False Continuum"). I didn't take it back to religion. If you keep claiming Ether is the medium through which light travels through - and supply no proof, or explanations whatsoever - then I would claim you are not a physicist either. Supply Proof, for heaven's sakes; I am not saying your theory is DEFINITELY WRONG, I'm saying I'm not convinced and I *CANNOT BE CONVINCED* until you supply PROOF. You are being most frustrating. ~moo

I had no idea that's where they came from... that's awesome, thanks Btw.. uhm, you have any references? Wikipedia's explanation of the history starts with the first tank and says nothing of farm tractors... Thanks ~moo

I am going to reply to you, but please do me a favour: When you are replying to a long thread, you should mark your responses by putting "/quote" after MY QUOTE and before your answer and continue with "quote=mooeypoo" before my next claim. Both should be encapsulated in square brackets. I'm sorry if this sounds petty, but I keep sifting through your posts to find my arguments and your responses -- it's confusing. You've obviously missed the point. The experiment proved that Ether did not exist. If my claim that it was Einstein who proved it wrong was mistaken, I apologized, it is what I remembered, nevertheless, be it Einstein or others, it *WAS PROVEN WRONG*. Avoiding the evidence is childish. And annoying. Please stop. Alright, I'll make it simpler: Words have meaning, and words have conontations. There are people who are employed in book-publishing firms that have the entire sole job to FIND WORDS and TERMS that mean something to people, or raise certain conotations. Intelligent Design has a SPECIFIC CONOTATION. You need to understand that by calling your theory Intelligent Design, people approach it *AS an intelligent design argument*. Intelligent Design means SOMETHING WAS DESIGNED. Design means intention. Intelligence. Hence: Intelligent Design. The universe is a PLACE.. a "location".. a name for what we consider the space we live in that encompasses the phenomenas around us. IT DOES NOT HAVE AN INTELLIGENCE. It does not have an intention. It does NOT "design" per sae. If you want to say "what a lovely thing was created" then the word you need is NOT design. I am not sure what it is, but the conotation AND meaning of design (specifically an intelligent one) is *NOT* what the way to describe the universe. I can give you a googleplex amount of examples of UNINTELLIGENT designs of space phenomena, too. It doesn't make the universe "STUPID". I wouldn't THINK anything like that. If I would like to make a claim, I would SUBSTANTIATE IT. Go check the dictionary about substantiation. Or about a way to create a proper convincing argument. And about the empirical method. And about the scientific method. Your way of ignoring them (or.. not knowing about them? which is it?) is quite frustrating. You're not going to convince anyone, even if people do treat you seriously, if you don't stop preaching dogmas (dogmas are not necessarily religious, you know) and start putting some proof and explanations and logical thought-pathways behind your quite extravagant argument. So far, there's NOTHING you said that could POSSIBLY convince me -- or anyone with the slightest bit of scientific knowledge, of that matter -- that your theory of intelligent universe has any merit. NOTHING. You could, however, start substantiating. I'm willing to wait for it patiently for proof. Take your time. ~moo

... No.. the universe does *not* have an ether, this was proven wrong by einstein. If you claim it's right, you should *PROVE IT*, not just claim it. If your entire theory is based on Ether, I would say you have a very big problem. Substantiation? Proof? You might want to start with that, if you want anyone to take you seriously. If you treat Darkmatter as "Ether" (interesting..) then your definition that Ether is what light travels through is plain wrong.. Dark matter exists, but it isn't consistent throughout space. --EDIT:-- Here is an article about the so called Ether: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment Prove why Ether exists; otherwise it was proven NOT to exist. At least not as a "Universe Atmosphere". Light is proven to go through strict vacuum, so ether is not NEEDED for it (unlike sound waves, that will not travel through vacuum). Your theory is based on a strawman. The burden of proof is on you, not us. --------- Again you're making a claim without substantiating it. I am not saying you are definitely wrong, I am saying you are definitely not automatically correct. Substantiate your claims. Supply proof. Actually, *most* scientists "believe", not "some", but okay, I'll work with that. And scientists do NOT claim the big bang (It is actually more correct to call it "INFLATION THEORY" btw.. big bang was a term invented to ridicule the theory) occured out of nothing. Perhaps you should read more about what is currently thought of about the big bang before you set off to disprove it and build an alternative theory. This is what I meant by "SEPARATING religion and science". The question of God itself has no place in scientific theory because God is OUTSIDE the laws of nature, and Science deals STRICTLY with the laws of nature. By placing a question about God (specifically calling it "scientific controversy" -- WHICH IT IS NOT) is mixing the two subjects. I must tell you -- Intelligent Design is a theory that states the universe was *DESIGNED* intelligently. Creationists claim it is God (who is outside the laws of nature). You claim you don't call it god.. but then -- what do you call it? Intelligent Design specifically talks about an intelligent *DESIGNER*. Who is this designer? WOW. Okay...... WHAT!? Earth is a living organism!?!?! The fact earth has living organisms *ON IT* does not make Earth *a living organism*. This fallacy is like claiming a bucket is water because it contains water.. it makes no sense. Earth is not a living organism. It is a planet supporting life as we know it. Ces-tout. I still don't understand what the heck you're calling ID here.. the universe IS "ID" !?? The universe is intelligent? What.. the heck are you saying. It's... an organism? An "intelligence"? You have to start putting FACTS and EXPLANATIONS to substantiate what you are saying, otherwise don't be surprise you are not taken seriously. STOP MAKING CLAIMS YOU CANNOT (and apparantly WILL NOT) PROVE. This is a science-oriented forum. Empirical evidence and observations are required for hypotheses and you must start substantiating your extravagant claims before relying on them to make a hypothesis. I already explained that above. Take into account that ID is ID, no matter how you put it, and if you're not refering to the ID we all know and love (NOT) then perhaps you should change the title. And I still require an answer as to why you call your theory ID if you don't haave an intelligent designer. It's not Intelligent D(d)esign without a D(d)esigner. Explain please. You make no sense. Read my above claims and answer them. Your hypothesis is based on unsubstantiated assumptions; you CANNOT build a theory based on no-proof and then expect people to take it seriously. You're seeking to change what science knows (or what you *think* it knows) about the universe. You need to work on convincing people by giving proper substantiating arguments. So far, none was given. You started your argument with a claim that was long ago proven to be false, whether you changed its name or not (Ether vs. Dark matter...??) and you just decide it must be right -- from there, you make a hypothesis. That's not the way science works. The equivalent of your method would be if I claim fish are monkeys because evolution claims we came from the same organism (strawman, over-simplification, among other fallacies) and from there state that therefore fish are capable of understanding our speech and communicate with us on a daily basis. Then, I will give the example of my own personal goldfish, who i promise you talked to me when I was very tired yesterday and cheered me up. case made. That wasn't science, and I wouldn't expect ANYONE to take the theory seriously. If you want to claim something - specifically something that overturns CURRENT scientific theories - you need to prove EVERYTHING, from the beginning claim to the last claim and only THEN make a hypothesis and a theory about it. Again: I didn't know there *was* a separation. I would be glad to hear what you mean by it.. Intelligent Design suggests there is an Intelligent Designer behind the "design". If it isn't your meaning, I would suggest changing the name... I'm not trying to be a pain about this, I'm simply trying to state that what you choose as your title has the reader assume certain things in advance. It's only natural. Cheers, ~moo

Yea not conventional creationism but the 'eternal matter energy power' stuff. I know. All irrational people are the same to me. ~moo

Hey guys! A friend sent me this: http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/2007_10_21/modFreeFlight.mpg It looks AWESOME as hell. I was wondering if you heard anything about the plan to make another "X-Prize" thing with lunar landers, and if NASA is going to purchase the lander from a contractor, or keep being all secrety-hushhush and do its own projects..? Anyhoos, it's a cute movie regardless. ~moo ---- EDIT: ---- Right. Okay. Uhm.. http://www.space.com/news/071028-armadillo-aerospace-failure.html So.. yeah. This won't be it, apparantly. I should really learn to read *EVERYTHING* before being all happy. But in any case, I also found the 'X Prize" site, so today I'm officially an idiot. Here it is: http://www.space.com/xprizecup/video/ I couldn't find out if this was over, though, and who won. And I can't help but wonder if Virgin Galactic would buy that winner too (http://www.virgingalactic.com/) ~moo

These are not controversies. #1 was a MISCONCEPTION - a hypothesis that was discovered to be false. #2 is a question in need of elaboration. Since the "big bang" is hypothesized to be what *created* time itself, there is no meaning to the term "before" the big bang. Does that still mean it is "eternal"? #3 is a plain old strawman. The Big Bang theory does *NOT* state the universe started out of nothing. Taht's something creationists state way too often to confuse ignorant people. #4 is an irrelevant question to science. Which God? Define God.. even if we take the Christian God, the entire point of it is that it's "Outside" the laws of physics. This automatically takes it AWAY from proper dealing of science and into emotion. #5 is in further need of elaboration as well: What life? Plant life, single-celled? intelligent life? What would you define as intelligent? What would you define as a beginning.. etc. "Origin of life" has some hypotheses in science, and they're actually quite substantiated (amino-acid created... all that.. I'm not extremely well versed in them, but I'm sure you can find out in a simple Google search). I am not sure if this is out of experience or out of paranoia, but your "arguments" sound like they're building towards a trap. Either that, or you don't *quite* understand what controversies are, or what the scientific method is. No offense, but you should separate between logical fallacies and true scientific controversies. And don't mix religion, belief, and SCIENCE together (God has nothing to do with science. Nothing. By definition.) Specifically not in a SCIENCE forum. ~moo Apparantly - my gut feeling *was* out of experience. Not surprised at *all*. Fripro, I don't mind debating with you (I'm arguing creationist/intelligent-design-proponents very often) but you will have to avoid logical fallacies first. And probably move this debate to the religion forums.. that's not my call, though... it's the moderators'. I'm not sure what is up with religion/vs/science arguments I just know they've moved from this forum. Or.. correct me if I'm wrong..? Oh.. yes, one more thing: Fripro, you need to understand that when you post a thread with the term "Intelligent Design" on it, you are BOUND to have people go at it with the "WTF" attitide. You are in a *SCIENCE* forums, not religion forums or mythological-storytelling forum, and we are not as silly as to approach intelligent design arguments without suspicion. For years creationists(oh.. sorry.. "intelligent designers".. whatever) twisted what scientists SAY (hence 'strawman'), the experiments or results and denied empirical proofs to use logical fallacies on the unsuspecting, lay-man masses to blatantly LIE to them about science. Don't expect any rational scientific-minded individual to come hugging this subject. Really. With all due respect. I wouldn't. ~moo

Holy hell I barely recognized Leslie Nielsen... BTW.. I'm ordering that movie.. I know it's classified "a classic" but I have never heard about it before.... Ah, btw, *finally* I see where Paris from Startrek:Voyager took the robot from...

Ironically -- that's brilliant! I'm so gonna use it.. seriously.. I didn't even think about it. That's true. My story, btw, has a certain ethical discussion to it along with the sci-fi stuff. Anyways, I am not sure if it did, but even so, the entire point is the price and the fact that because of the A-Bomb, people in our world automatically link Nuclear Power with death instead of energy which.. well.. stops progress quite substantially in that aspect. Good point, though. And yes, it is most weapons. Though I loved the fire idea, and Dynamite too.. I guess gun powder too. Thanks guys

These are good for cross-site scripting.. what about SQL injection? Or.. maybe another method I am not aware of? I only learned that SQL injection exists because that of that guy.. I'm hoping to learn *before* him. So --- uhm --- what other hacks should I worry about?

Ahoy. Well. I've had the unfortunate experience the other day; some idiot kid tried to add himself to my skype contacts. When I (quite politely, I must add.. he's an ass) refused, he stated he is going to hack into my website. I'm a PHP/mySQL programmer, so I know a thing or two about servers. I wasn't all *that* worried about the actual code (server access is not really something he could acquire, at least not in his very low level, as I was convinced he has later on). But I figured I probably *should* do some reading and improve my security. My website is just an example of what I can do in PHP/mySQL for potential customers or just people who want me to program something for them, so most of the modules are harmless to the site (I have 2 "modes" -- realsite and 'playmode'. Playmode is harmless, goes to a completely different table and not affecting the actual website). But still, it's communicating with the database. Reading a bit about SQL injection, I added some measures of security. I made these major steps in a generic function for all inputs. The function, generally, does this: 1. adds slashes (addslashes() function) just for extra measure to avoid " or ' in the injection. 2. Replaces < with < and > with &gt just in case. 3. uses the generic php function --> mysql_real_escape_string() with the input text I also added a CAPTCHA script. I only have 3 potentially "hazardous" scripts in my site: guestbook.php (not really supposed to hold info, I'm deleting it periodically, it's just an example of a very simple one), News Module, and Registration. So far the idiot has went into my guestbook.php page and inserted auto-load links (javascript and <a hrefs>) so when I visited my own guestbook.php it refered me to microsoft.com. I fixed that with the security measures above, which caused his attacks to just APPEAR in the text (instead of being actual links, they just showed <a href> in the comment box, which is quite harmless). I must say - I tried to build a regex to recognize javascript/a href fields in the guestbook comment input, but something wasn't right -- the script kept telling me the regex was bad (I tested it in a regex-simulator, and it was fine.. so.. weird). So. Here's my request for help: I am not very well versed in total security, so whatever knowledge i have right now came from my limited google search and studying SQL injection. Anyone has any suggestions? Anyone knows what other attacks on the db I should anticipate for? I created a dummy table called " tDummyUsers " to experiment on; So far 2 people tried to drop it, but failed. Anyhoo, my site is here: http://moriel.schottlender.net/ The guestbook and news module is under "Modules" (under PHP Programming). (EDIT: I will also paste the REGEX string with the code I tried to recognize with, right now I can't find it and I need to get off to school soon... it didn't work, though, so suggestions about *that* would be great too.) Suggestions would be appreciated. ~moo

Yeah these are awesome. Thanks I think I should specify why i'm looking for specifically "potentially awesome discoveries turned bad" types -- you know how in all those scifi movies and books, an advanced civilizations stops by, and when humans ask to share technology, the aliens won't because humans may 'destroy' themselves with it? Well my story is quite different (I'm not *that* predictable ) but this part is on the same note. So usually the obvious example given is the A-Bomb, but i was looking for more, perhaps less obvious or less known ones. Also remember I'm not an american originally -- some of these examples are completely obvious to you, but for me, it was the first time I heard about them anyways, I'm going to conduct some research on these suggestions. But if you have any more, I'll be happy to hear Thanks!! ~moo

Hm. Okay. Good point. This is good, btw. But for shock-effect, I'm looking for something that was *intentionally* misused.. penicillin's side effect (that you described) isn't intentional.. it's not like doctors intentionally gave it away to make diseases stronger. I'm looking for an intentional twist to a scientific advancement. I am looking for more immediate horrible effects. Weapons, mainly. Human kind has a violent side to it.. Nuclear power can't be the only thing we misused to create a weapon.... ? ~moo

Why is penicillin an example? what bad cause was it used for? I thought it was only used to heal disease...? I'm looking for something great that turned into something horrible. Think "ABomb" and project manhattan... ~moo

Hey guys, In the spirit of the writer I am attempting to be (and the story I am desperately attempting to write 'realistically', as much as I can), I am looking for Scientific discoveries that were used for the not-intended and *bad* use. Example: Atomic energy --> could bring to a new age in energy production, but --> used as atomic bomb. Any more examples? Please... I've been looking up online, and couldn't find anything (I am not sure *what* to look for, actually).. It would be great great help. And a nice discussion, too, potentially Thanks! ~moo

by the way, there are REALLY helpful resources online: http://www.astronomycast.com <-- This is my favorite podcast. It explains astronomical issues VERY simply but does go into depth. It's cool, you should try it out. http://www.badastronomy.com (great blog about astronomy and misconceptions about astronomy) (EDIT:) And I forgot this one: http://www.jodcast.net/amp/index.html it's a collection of Astronomy lectures and podcasts. Go to "Courses" to pick vid and audio lectures about astronomy, or just pick a general podcast for help. And, roaming around in itunes podcast "store" (podcasts are free) you can find a lot of actual lectures from university courses (berkley, MIT, etc) - maybe you can find similar to your course and listen to lecture with videos and visual aids that will help you understand the material. Out of experience, they're all very helpful. Good luck ~moo