Jump to content

SH3RL0CK

Senior Members
  • Posts

    701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SH3RL0CK

  1. Those stories do not sound at all remarkable to me. B.T.W. I happen to be the legitimate king of France. And Prussia. If I weren't so independently wealthy (I have a knack for picking the right lottery numbers), I would go back and reclaim what is rightfully mine. Plus, ruling France and Germany aren't worth the hassle... what would I personally gain by doing so? I suppose these stories would sound interesting, perhaps, to those who are less priviledged.
  2. Inside a battery there is a chemical reaction which causes an electomotive force http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromotive_force . This electromotive force is why a battery can deliver current to an electrical circuit. This will continue until the chemical reaction is completed at which point there is no more emf. For some chemical reactions used in batteries (specifically the rechargable batteries), when you force current to flow opposite the normal electromotive force of a battery, the chemical reaction reverses. Thus the battery has more energy available than previously. You should look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(electricity) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recharging_batteries for a basic overview of batteries.
  3. Surely if the situation is this unstable, isn't a collapse inevitable? I don't know why you say the reform of N. Korea would be a financial catastrophe for that part of the world. I would think reform could be a blessing, both financial and otherwise. Consider that about 50 years ago, China was in a similar situation to where N. Korea is today; and has (partially) reformed to the benefit of everyone. Why couldn't this be repeated with N. Korea? In either event, wouldn't the effects of reform would be less than that of a N. Korea collapse?
  4. Well, the definition of success is subjective. One could argue that sheer numbers (such as bacteria or insects) define "success." Another arguement would be largest habitat range. I would suggest a definition could be trophic level because this demonstrates the ability to congregate in large numbers in peace (no worries about your predators coming by to eat you, because you have none) leading to the possibility of a civilization. With the ability to develop civlization comes the technology to further modify the environment to further advantage. Where any other animals congregate in large numbers (large herds of buffalo for example) the predators follow and also multiply and there is always a balance of population. Granted that people are somewhat of an exception and aren't really the top of the food chain (but they could be because of the simple fact they are able to kill anything else). For one thing, people are omnivores and most top predators are not (though bears are also an exception). For another, people do not have the smaller numbers that top predators do (there are 6 billion people and most top predators number in the few hundreds of thousands). People are certainly not locked in to a certain type of food (try the various foods available in Japan sometime ), I'm sure there are other differences as well.
  5. Couldn't the most sucessful be the animal at the top of the food chain. AFAIK, humans are capable of hunting and eating any animal even animals like bears and alligators. Likewise, a properly equiped group of people need not fear being hunted (they can just find with night vision and shoot the tiger stalking them).
  6. I don't think humans will become extinct without some kind of mass extinction event (these do occur). Generalists which are able to adapt tend to survive these events the best. This does bode well for humans as they are very adaptable, but assuming not, then I would go with other wide-ranging, adaptable alternative species. My pick would be seagulls which are at home both at sea and on land in many climates and whose diet is quite varied.
  7. but the electron does pass on...if it does not you have no current flow and the electron does not leave the atom...therefore no ion either way. no, that is not right. If the battery contained an excess of electrons you could simply connect only the positive terminal to get current flow. But since you have to connect both the positive and negative terminals, it is clear the battery does not contain an excess of electrons. The chemical reaction in the battery tries to move electrons from one terminal to another within the battery. This movement does not happen until the electrical circuit is completed, at which time the electrons can move from one terminal to the other because the electrons get replenished at the negative terminal.
  8. link? The USA is soft on all illegal imigrants (as long as said immigrants don't make themselves noticed). I've known some (of hispanic origin - they only speak spanish) who have been in the country for years...they have daughters born in the USA who are now teenagers (we used to be neighbors). AFAIK, they've not had any problems with being able to stay despite their status.
  9. Interesting. And a bit scary. I hope you are wrong about your prediction, but sadly I find no fault in your logic... I wonder what is going on inside N. Korea (it is quite a closed society)? If there is to be a better resolution, I think it has to come from there.
  10. Nope. The number of electrons present remains the same. The distinction is that the electrons are moving when the current is induced (you might try to google Kirchoffs Current Law which states that the total current flow to and from a node is zero). For an atom to become an ion, it needs to not have an electron. While the induction causes an electron to leave the atom, this electron is immediately replaced by an electron from the next atom. The electron from the next atom is replaced by the electron from the atom next to it...and so forth until we get back to the original electron. Thus atoms do not become ions simply because of an induced current flow.
  11. Sure. But it is blocked on my work computer, and at home I usually use my work computer (I vary rarely use my home computer, even at home). Also, your links don't quite look like youtube, having an unusual address...if I really cannot be sure what is there (and you cannot with youtube BTW) I generally avoid the link. No matter, your argument does not seem to be based on the links...it seems to be based upon improper usage of words... If you have "law" then you do not have anarchy, by definition. Do I need to provide you a link showing the definition of definition? What you are describing is democracy, where everyone as a group defines the laws. Stop trying to use anarchy where you really should be saying democracy.
  12. That is incorrect. I provided the definition of anarchy in post 13, but to repeat it here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy "Law" and "rules" are synonyms; therefore I believe anarchy is the correct usage for meaning "no rules". http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/synonym FYI, anomie means the following: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anomie I really do not understand your point for this thread (using the correct words would certainly help me). Are you advocating anarchy as a superior form of "government"? If so, then you need to address the "warlord" problems in the earlier posts. Are you advocating democracy (which you have used interchangably with anarchy) as a superior form of government? I haven't looked at the links; I am not convinced that I should do so. I am cautious about spyware, spam, viruses, NSFW, etc., and I haven't been given a compelling reason to do so.
  13. And from Baby Astronaut: Improvision, Please help me out, I don't understand you when you use the wrong word. I provided a bunch of definitions to help clarify the meaning of words that you are using incorrectly. Please use the correct word for what you are trying to say; for example, please don't use "anarchy" when you mean "democracy" or "government".
  14. The same total energy in the water is lost from both reservoirs. In the case where there are turbines, this energy went to a form that can be used by people. In the case where there are no turbines, this energy went elsewhere... I think perhaps you misunderstand "potential energy" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/potential%20energy Notice how position and arrangement is important. In the case of the reserviors, the final stage is lower than the first stage and thus at a lower potential energy. I'm loving dictionary.com today...
  15. yes. In theory, yes. In practice, I would say no. Not true. In a democracy, people have the option to vote. There is also always the option of immigrating to where there is a different government. Rebellion is also an option. True. See the definition of democracy above. But aren't you seeking a form of government that provides peace? Both a democracy and a dictatorship can (in theory) provide peace. As can anarchy (in theory). In practice, peace is much more difficult (especially under anarchy) to obtain as touched upon earlier in this thread.
  16. Yes, you have correctly stated the definition of government and provided an example of government working. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/government
  17. Not true. The potential energy stored at the top of the dam is converted into kinetic energy in the waterfall. This kinetic energy is converted into heat (by friction) and mechanical energy (by moving things such as sand, rocks, or a turbine). With the inclusion of a turbine, we minimize the heat and maximize the mechanical energy to our advantage.
  18. True, in a democracy, the people has the power over the government. What you are describing is somethin akin to a dictatorship http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dictatorship or perhaps a monarchy http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monarchy You can read about various forms of government here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government
  19. No, a democracy is when everyone is the governing body. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy In the United States and Europe, people actually live in a republic http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic Anarchy, dy definition, has no governing at all. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy
  20. Yes, anarchy and stability do not go together. I agree there has to be some centralized governing body to maintain order.
  21. There is energy in the waterfall regardless of the presence of a turbine. Where do you suppose this energy goes? It get converted into heat (by the friction of the water on the surrounding concrete) and mechanical energy. When a turbine is in place, some of the energy that heats up the surrounding concrete and some of the mechanical energy of the flowing water turns the turbine.
  22. Really? I was under the impression that Piracy was quite profitable (for the pirates) in the waters around Somalia. If the warlords have the guns, they can just take whatever they want from whomever has the money and the merchants can't really do anything about it. Seriously, how will the merchants, peasants, etc. prevent the warlords from taking their belongings? Their only option is to hire "protection" from other warlords (until such time as they run out of money of course). You do see that is the same thing as having the warlords simply take their stuff?
  23. Another way to look at it is by the conservation of energy (energy cannot be created or destroyed, only moved). The energy starts by the sunlight evaporating water vapor from the ocean to re-form in clouds. This results in rain falling, eventually returning back to the ocean. When the water is at a high(er) altitude, it has a lot of potential energy. As it flows down the river, it converts this into kinetic energy (i.e. the river has a current flow). When you place a turbine into this flow, the turbine will spin and the current flow slows down a bit to maintain the conservation of energy. Much of the stream also flows outside the turbine. Now that we are getting power from the river (by slowing down the water current), how do we maximize the energy into the turbine? Lets stop the river flow altogether so that it all must flow through the turbine, thus increasing the efficiency. A good way to do this is with a dam so that all the potential energy is captured. A second dam (or larger dam) can capture more of the potential energy. The maximum theoretical (and impractical) dam would be from the cloud tops to sea level so that all the energy that the sun provided to evaporate the ocean water would be recaptured as the water returns to the sea.
  24. Well, you seem determined to huff this gas as if it were paint thinner. I still strongly advise you to not do so. Follow President Clinton's advice and don't inhale. There are real risks associated with this that are completely unnecessary for you to take. This is also the hallmark of a poor scientist or chemist; safety should always be first, you should never take an unnecessary risk such as this. I hope you will be ok. For what it is worth, I can think of lots of better ways to demonstrate H2 is the lightest gas (i.e. a balloon ) than to inhale and listen to your temporarily high-pitched voice; assuming you are able to speak and/or scream after inhaling. Next time, when you make an alkaline or acidic vapor (whether intentionally or not), are you going to inhale it to demonstrate it really is corrosive?
  25. That is a good point. However, a good teacher will have a more meaningful impact than any actor for lots of reasons. How does the length of a typical movie (2 hours) compare to 7 hours a day, every day? How much more influence is possible with direct interaction compared to perhaps an infomercial? Think about the people who have made a real difference in your life...I'll bet none of them are hollywood actors. If I were a teacher, I would counter your arguement by stating that the impact is orders of magnitude more meaningful to the listeners.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.