SH3RL0CK

As long as China (and other nations) props up the dollar by, among other things pegging their currency artificially low relative to the dollar, the dollar won't be destroyed. It will have value, at least in China. The Euro will become strong relative to the dollar, but this too will be limited as otherwise people will find ways to trade currency for a profit. The question then becomes, if/when/how/why does China (and others) stop doing this?

Can't say it is really any different. Is a high temperature today of 50F (10C ) really any different than 52F (11C) - either way I am still wearing a coat when I go outside. If you assume the average temperature has risen a couple of degrees, how would you even notice it via human perception (which is much less accurate than instruments)? Clearly the world is warmer than in the past via anecdotal evidence (putting aside more precise methods) as rivers which used to freeze over at winter do so no longer, growing seasons are a bit longer, various animals have migrated to the poles, etc. This, to me, is the only evidence of global warming that our senses can detect at this time. But even these will tend to rely on observations made by our parents and grandparents.

To second Mr. Skeptic, sometimes it is desirable to do things which results in a decline of your condition and the condition of the greatest number of citizens. There are principles that many people would even die for. Usually (but not always) this is a sacrifice of the short-term for a potential long-term gain. For example, see the US revolutionary war, the US civil war, etc. Which leads to my question, how would anyone scientifically decide, for others, when to take such decisions?

Yes, absolutely. How to do this is based upon the formulas found here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_optics I don't know any specific computer programs which can reverse a deformation, although I am sure it is possible. Perhaps photoshop?

Why not simply insert a stainless steel screen at the end of the tube? Then there will be less surface area contacting the bottle and (hopefully) the bottle will no longer stick in the tube.

I have a fireplace, so here is my advice. You should really talk with people who sell these units as well as someone who can take a look at the chimney to be sure it is safe. Depending on the function of how things are now ducted, and the current condition, it could be unsafe to connect a wood stove. Even older fireplaces provide more heat than gets removed by the airflow, and modern units are actually quite efficient. A duct from outside would be even more efficient, but at a cost, so look into the pricing and consider how often you will be using the stove. Don't try to add one to a stove not designed for it, thats probably asking for trouble. Since the smoke goes up the chimney, the smoke detector should never go off. Ours never does. Fumes are generally not a problem as long as you only burn paper or wood (never burn plastic). Just be sure to not open the door with the damper closed and you won't ahve a problem. A CO detector is a good idea, but whether or not it is mandatory probably depends on the local codes. They are pretty cheap compared to the installation of a fireplace or wood stove so you should get one anyway.

From your link to wikipedia,

Well, that is quite a problem. Doesn't seem to be worth losing sleep over however.

You state that the children, in addition to not needing sleep also became more intelligent. But does the book state any downside to this? After all, we really do not know why we sleep, except that we do. As such, there is probably a good reason for this, though we don't know what it is. The presumption of course, is that the genetic modification addressed at least the major issues, but without several million years of evolution to work out the kinks with a genetic change, can we be sure that unexpected problems won't also arise? Perhaps the genetic modification results in very early dementia, at age 30 for example. I would not do it until there had been a couple of generations of lifecycles (i.e. over 160 years as people live to be about 80 these days) to demonstrate this does not result in unexpected problems.

You have certainly provided a large amount of text, I presume from your links. Yet in your text, there isn't a single equation or formula to justify the claims. It would seem to me that if there were a mathematical explaination, you would have included it for scrutiny. The only justification provided in your text seems to come from statements such as on top of the outlandish claims which violate the known laws of physics as has been pointed out. Since you went to the trouble of making your posts as large as you did, but didn't include any real data, I assumed the links you must have read did not contain data. On top of a reluctance to click on unusual links (both at work and home), I don't have the time to research all your links and try to find something there that you apparently couldn't find. If you are looking for an answer here, it might be helpful if you could post something from your links that is actually informative and can be quantified rather than a bunch of vague claims. I don't need to go beyond my statement that gravity and magnetism are fundamentally different forces to claim this is a bogus idea. That IS the hard look at this idea you are asking for. And being convinced it is bogus, and not being provided with a reasonable explaination, why should I look into it further? I do have better things to do with my time. Also, there is no reason to go beyond saying there is nothing on these websites (as Swansont states) if indeed there is nothing there.

What particle could me more elementary than a single protron (hydrogen)? A quark? Quarks do not normally exist by themselves and require much greater temperatures and pressures than required by fusion processes in order to even study them. Other than creating quarks from normal matter by extreme conditions, they do not exist in a free form.

Ok, first allow me to state I haven't looked at the links, I avoid sites that are not mainstream when I am at work, for obvious reasons. A hard look at what? What science is involved? Your posting on thishas a lot of nebulous claims, but no hard math. It is stated that the mass is reduced to 11% of original, but without a good explaination. Without any math, I don't have anything I can disprove. The best explaination I have on exactly what this is supposed to do is which is not possible. Magnetism and gravity are two very different fundamental forces. Otherwise, you need to explain why a magnet will pick up a steel nail but not a wood toothpick. The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim. This claim, that there exists an aircraft of this nature, is not sufficiently supported for me to accept. Not that I think the US military doesn't have exceptional aircraft, I am sure they do - just within the laws of physics. I say this concept is rubbish.

Genecks, with all due respect it seems to me that the desire to sue stems from your frustration that the medical community has been unable to cure your ailment, yes? That said, doctors are human, not gods. In your case, unfortunately, they have so far been apparently stumped. But that does not make them at fault for whatever it is that you have, so I don't see any cause to take legal action. At this point, you are certainly better off trying to work with them than against them. I think all you can do is keep trying different treatments and different doctors until (hopefully) something works. Do other things to improve you health in general (exercise several times a week, eat well, etc.). And unless you know otherwise, assume good faith on the part of the doctors as you discuss this with them as that will be more constructive than getting upset with them. This is because the doctors should be thinking about how best to treat your problem than how to keep from getting sued by you. I wish you good health.

I had kind of thought all interactions stopped as the entropy winds down, but thank you for telling me otherwise. Is it that the interactions simply take an ever-increasing amount of time (i.e. the limit is approached by never actually reached in a finite amount of time)?

There isn't a lack of children needing to be adopted and there isn't a lack of people willing to adopt. The problem is our adoption system is broken which causes incredible pain (by the lengthy legal process) for all parties. Adoption is a very difficult thing, at least for the couple who wants to do so, I know by experience. We have adopted two children and while we would like more children, we aren't sure we are up for the pain to do it again. Technology won't fix anything as the problems are not due to insufficient technology.

As a pro-life individual, I have absolutely no problem with the coverage of this type of procedure. In fact, I will be upset if it isn't included. This is a clear illustration of the complexities of abortion politics. Very few people are 100% pro-choice or 100% pro life. There are lots of "hard cases" where a good answer does not exist and there are a lot of grey areas where a hard and fast line cannot be drawn.

thank you for your kind words. I am also happy to debate, as long as it is friendly and professional. However, this is all too often not the case with regards to this issue. What usually happens is the thread degenerates. Myself, I've decided to only participate when I think it can be constructive. That would be when either I can learn something, or when it appears the other poster seriously wants to hear my point of view. At this point I see very few constructive posts in this thread...which is why I stepped out. I find that when I listen to the views of people I disagree with, sometimes I end up changing my mind and agreeing with them. In the abortion debates, however, I have heard and considered many viewpoints many times so it should not be surprising to anyone that I believe I am unlikely to have a major change of heart in this matter. Likewise, I recognize that Mokele, for example, is unlikely to become prolife on the basis of anything I might say. And it should be ok to disagree as long as we all respect each other.

Time is (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/time) Or in my own words, some kind of observable change in something. But heat death of the universe ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe ) might not be physically impossible. In fact, it might be inevitable. Granted the time scales become truely immense before this would happen. Although this seems a moot point as, if this is the case it is impossible that we would still be around, I would say the whole concept of time would then become meaningless as change no longer is possible.

That isn't at all my point (nor what I believe) - you seem to be letting emotions get in the way of logic and from seeing differing viewpoints. Many people, myself included, say with equal conviction that you are wrong. Quite simply wrong. I'd like the opportunity to review the evidence with you, but you aren't listening to me. And yet parents are responsible for making medical decisions for their children. A 13 year old should not solely bear the burden of a complicated medical decision and a medical doctor will never perform a procedure without the input and agreement of the parents (or a court order). Show me any other medical procedure where a medical doctor would ignore the parents... my point is that the father needs to be taken into consideration. Really? I certainly can find cases where the father did not want the abortion, that would be so trivial I won't even waste my time bothering. But then, in your world the father isn't at all important, is it? Not at all true. How about protecting life? How about protecting women from the consequences of an abortion? Here you completely deny any positive motivation from the pro-life side. And what do you say about the many women who are pro-life, is this also misogyny? It isn't at all that simple. If it were, there wouldn't have been such a heated political debate for the past 40 years. I should have known by your original closed statements that your mind is made up on this issue. There is no point in debating someone with a closed mind. So I'm finished with this thread. Call it a victory if you like, but I think everyone loses.

That is a very strong statement to make, and the fact you do not at all acknowledge other viewpoints makes me believe you really haven't considered the pro-life viewpoint; nor considered what really is a human "right". I would suggest you reconsider this statement in light of the real world difficulties that often accompany this medical procedure. There are many, many problems with your position here mostly due to what I see is an uncompromising position... Is it really that absolutely, completely unreasonable to consider the baby as a different person because s/he has a completely differing genetic makeup than the mother? And after about 5 months of pregnancy could even survive without the mother at all (if absolutely necessary)? Would you say that there is never ever a reasonable restriction on an abortion? Would you say that parents have no say and no rights to even be notified if their minor were getting an abortion? That abortion providers need not or even shall not notify authorities of suspected child sexual abuse on the part of, say, a step father? What if it is clear that said father is basically forcing the underage girl to have the abortion against her will? Would you say that a woman has a right to abort a fetus at the 9-month stage simply because she wants to hurt her ex (i.e. no medical reason to do so)? When does the father have any say (if at all)? Suffice it to say that I strongly disagree with this strong of a pro-choice stand and though I am in general pro-life, I do acknowledge the many valid points from those who are pro-choice. I do believe that there are valid reasons for an abortion, but surely you will agree that there can be valid reasons to deny or restrict this medical procedure as well.

There would also remain the question of whether or not to fight the Japanese in the vast amounts of territory they still controlled. The best way to avoid fighting there to liberate these areas was for a Japanese surrender.

I fail to see why the lack of a sense of humor on the part of FOX news relates to the question of whether or not they are a news organization.

I think Padren did a good job of this in regards to continuing the war, see his previous post Now my point regarding Nanking is to demonstrate my belief that letting the Japanese have what they want (option D) - which they actually had in regards to Nanking, also resulted in more deaths than the atomic bomb droppings. This is my estimate for Option D, Bascule. This happened before the US and Japanese were at war. And Japanese war crimes weren't limited to just the Chinese in Nanking. Isn't it likely that had the Japanese invaded other Chinse cities, and perhaps Australian and American cities, similar atrocities would have been committed? If we had not fought at all, might there have been a "rape of Los Angeles" at some point? I think so. I really do not see the possibility that TBK states as being realistic. No, I'm not laughing at his suggestion. I simply think that this level of effort would have been fruitless in stopping the Japanese invasion of China (and WWII in the Pacific).

You are forgeting a few other options. C. If they don't surrender, keep killing them until they do. Or until there aren't any left. A failing plan B fits well with this as a nuke is much more powerful than conventional weapons. However, keep in mind there is always: D. Stop fighting. Let them have whatever they want. I'm sure the Chinese citizens of Nainking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_nanking) have a few thoughts on this. Truely WWII was brutal. As has previously been stated, every conceivable option results in an extremely brutal outcome. As such, I agree with Padren's view - why not try the new technology? In light of how little they understood, at least it held the potential for fewer deaths. In this case it appears to me to have actually worked as I find his estimates for the alternatives realistic.

I see your point. But then, the companies with these contracts might not proceed with the construction projects (or whatever) until they get paid. Or they may start when they get paid a small deposit. They may have been paid, but have not started the work (which will expand the M3 money supply). Or they may start right away...it is difficult to determine how much economic benefit has been gained for this reason alone. And government contracts can cause more problems for the economy, as an example, we've seen problems with the "cash for clunkers" program in that some car dealers sold cars, but still haven't (or maybe they have by now) gotten paid. This is a difficult thing to determine and even economists differ greatly in their opinions. I'm not sure whether or not I agree with your assessment of a long-term jobs vs. short term cash payout. You may be right.