Moontanman

I've often wondered why some words seem to incite such a horrific response under some conditions and illicit quite another under different conditions when the words basically mean the same thing. I have in my life whispered the so called F bomb into womens ears with certain words before and after it and received quite a different response than when I've said the same word to the same women with different words before or after it even though none of the extra words were in any way bad or demeaning. I mean if the word F--k p-ss-s you off when it's said one way why not the other and why if i smash my finger and SHOUT F--K! I get a completely different response than if for instance a I loose my pen and just say f--k out loud? F--k is a perfectly good Anglo-Saxon word, why is it hated so much? Frak it! BSG for those of you who are not literate in science fiction vernacular. Remember shoot is just shit with two o's How about "rapports sexuels" nah, doesn't quite have the same ambiance, maybe baiser?

I once read that the sun would expand and sterilize the earth before enough hydrogen from our planet could be fused to make a measurable difference in the amount of water in the ocean or some similar thing and that is probably pretty close to being correct. The main thing to remember about hydrogen fusion is that it does release neutrons and will cause other things to become radioactive so in the long term it is not much better than fission as far as waste is concerned, well the fusion waste probably wouldn't be as nasty as the waste from fission but there would still be a lot of it... except of course for aneutronic fusion, which perversely would use helium3 as it's fuel and produce no particle radiation and "could" skip the entire turning heat into motion and then into electricity cycle all other power plants rely on. The perversity of this is that helium3 is practically non existent on the Earth but occurs in a more reasonable quantity on the Moon! Don't ya just love it when a plan.... well lets just say doesn't quite come together. lol BTW a link was posted in another thread that has very good graphics and explains nuclear energy quite well and if it is correct Canada already has reactors that can operate on thorium... http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57643-nuclear-energy-infographic/page__pid__610859#entry610859

Great link, good graphics, thanks for posting it.

How thin would this one metric ton of neutronium have to be for it to be one square meter?

I have a seafood addiction, i see food and i want to eat it! It's more difficult to stop eating once it gets out of hand than many people seem to realize. I eat late at night for some reason but seldom during the day, addiction is weird, hard to understand unless you have been there.

Yes but it would be an incredibly trivial amount, just a few hundred kilos, at most, of hydrogen fused would be enough to power the entire USA power grid. I don't know where his mind has taken him on this but that one thing is so inaccurate it's difficult to really go any further with the discussion he is presenting.

JCP, you are spreading so much crap here it's difficult to deal with it all, from non science opinion sources to sources that are nothing but political action groups, to sources that assume 1950's level technology, to some sources that don't even seem connected to your argument. You keep talking about just wanting to represent the facts but you are not being honest in your "discussion" style at all but the idea that a power plant uses up water is the biggest piece of male bovine excrement you have raised and the most obviously false. yes the water evaporates, some of it, but not even a major percentage of it, most of it is just recycled in some way from cooling towers to cooling lakes and ponds but the amount lost is trivial and it also rains back down elsewhere often quite close by. You cannot show that nuclear power plants significantly increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, if they did they would be a source of global warming not a possible solution! Nuclear power plants or coal or hydro for that matter do not "use up" water! If you want to debate any of the rest of this stuff you must stop out right lying! The idea that power plants use water in a way that make it unusable by anyone else is simply not true, not true by any stretch of the imagination.

Beg all you want but your data is flawed and incomplete. You've made several assertions here, how about showing some evidence for them? Your link ignores fast breeder reactors and assumes all reactors run on U235, which is a tiny part of the uranium on the earth. Your link also ignores thorium and plutonium. You may have a point, considering your own misrepresentation of the facts I suggest you consider your own agenda. It does seem unlikely, just like coal fired plants were once rare and as were hydro electrical dams rare at one time. but nuclear has the potitntial to generate far more power than coal or hydro. In some places solar is great, not so great in others, as an example, solar and or wind power is far more vulnerable to weather than nuclear or coal or hydro. This is trivially falsified, water used by hydro, coal, or nuclear is not too polluted to use and should not be polluted at all. I live near a nuclear power plant, they use huge volumes of water so does the local coal power plant as well this water is either recycled through cooling lakes or released back into the ocean, the water so used is not contaminated or harmful in any way. They are not connected in the way that you suggest, in fact your suggestion that water used to take away waste heat from any power plant or used to make electricity via a dam is unusable for other things is simply not true and is suggestive that you have an agenda that is not being honestly shown here. And this supports your assertions in what way exactly? I agree, and I suggest you take your own suggestion to heart...

In your video you seem to be suggesting some quite improbable events, can you give us a written description of exactly what you are suggesting? I once read of a idea that asserted that Mars was once the moon of a large terrestrial planet that orbited where Mars is now, somehow (the mechanism was unclear) the primary planet was destroyed and most of the material was ejected from the solar system (the rest became the asteriods) and Mars went into independent orbit around the sun. Your video seems to suggest Mars got close enough to Jupiter to have it's atmosphere stripped away, i would think this would result in the complete destruction of Mars and the resulting debris being added to Jupiter.

That is a man made scarcity. No, actually they produce less waste that has to kept stored for much less time than regular reactors and they operate with elements than cannot be used to make nuclear weapons, think thorium, and they use up the stuff that can be used to make nuclear weapons. I'm not sure what you mean by this? Do you actually think that hydroelectric or nuclear uses water that somehow vanishes after it makes electricity? Some sort of population control will eventually happen... Again quite thinking about U235 and the tiny amount of it available to us and think thorium, U238, plutonium, and fast breeder reactors, while not limitless nuclear is quite capable of sustaining our entire civilization if we wanted it to and for a very long time.

I'm going to have to go with the law on this one, if you were speeding then pay the fine and go on with your life. I was clocked as going in excess of 125 mph once on my Motorcycle (I was really going well over 135, not a lot of time at that speed to really keep track of your speed) when I saw the glint of chrome on the side of the road, way up ahead, that warned me some one was sitting under the over pass i was about to go through, I grabbed the brakes just as I was in range but I was doing 128mph by the time I was close enough to register on his radar. I just pulled over and stopped. got off my bike and waited on him to come and get to me. He just cited me for 69 in a 55 to keep me from loosing my license, 15mph over the speed limit was automatic revocation of your drivers license where I was caught at the time, (he said he could have taken me to jail right then) but since I didn't make him chase me (and he rode bikes too) he cut me a break, if he cited you for speeding and you were speeding don't quibble about a few mph and pay the fine and the insurance costs and be more "attentive" to the speed limits from now on or at least until the ticket drops off your record. You are likely to be spending more money to fight the ticket than you will gain by beating it and the cop has a difficult and necessary job keep idiots like me from killing themselves.... or others... But I do agree that local courts (often anyway) should have a kangaroo as a mascot.... But if you weren't actually speeding and have the time and money to do it then fight the good fight, never give up! (the court system needs your money)

While the question wasn't personal in the sense I really didn't want to know how much it would take to prostitute your self you gave the only rational answer anyone could give. We all prostitute ourselves in some manner for money or power or what ever we desire. Pornography, or at least being paid to make it is no different than any other form of exchanging work for our own benefit. Few people seem to see there is no real difference between sexual prostitution and any other kind other than what we learn culturally. I think the most threatening thing about prostitution is not that it's immoral or some how "more wrong" than digging a ditch but it's certainly more profitable when you compare the effort involved and I think there in lies the rub for most people. It takes power away from men and our ability to make money "honestly" and allows women to make money easier and faster than the "honest labor" of a man who would take care of them through his "honest" labor. I think this is more threatening to men than women in general but the rub is always that it's too easy to do (I question this) and that only the lazy or immoral would do such a low thing to make money. Of course the idea that sex is "low" is religious in it's origin and only fallen women would do such a thing. While I wouldn't recommend a woman take up sexual prostitution (say because she is so pretty men would pay highly for her favors) as a way to live i wouldn't recommend ditch digging to some guy just because he is large and strong either, but any judgment on the moral standing of either profession is artificial. Almost anything, in our society, that takes power away from men is seen as threatening to the morals of our society. This was much worse in the past when about the only honest job for a woman was as a school teacher and her only other choices was to marry a man who could take care of her or be a whore....

I think i could agree on some level there is an organizing force in the universe, it is demonstrably true that order does arise from chaos but i see no sign of creativity or intellegence....

Lemur, I asked you a question a few posts back that you did not answer, it was not rhetorical, what you would do for money? If you have limits, why are those limits more important than other limits? I'll expand on this if you will answer my question. How much money would it take for you to "prostitute" your self?

Deep-Earth devil worms A newly identified species of nematode lives miles deep in the tight, hot crevices of the Earth's crust Halicephalobus mephisto Property of the University Ghent, Belgium - Gaetan Borgonie Scientists have identified a new species of microscopic worms living in the ground below South African mines, isolated from fracture water gushing up from miles below the Earth's surface. It is the first multicellular organism to be found at such depths. The discovery of the tiny nematode (named Halicephalobus mesphisto after Mephistopheles, a literary nickname for the Devil), published in this week's issue of Nature, challenges the assumption that deep subsurface ecosystems cannot support multicellular life and may have implications in the search for life on other planets. Read more: Deep-Earth devil worms - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/58187/#ixzz1O92kgkxm

I understand exactly what you are saying light storm, you trying to insinuate that if it's more complex than we currently understand then it must be inexplicable. Just because we didn't know what genetics was didn't stop it from controlling life as we know it but it didn't make it unknowable either even though it controlled us. You seem to be insistent on suggesting that something must be above what we know or no matter what we know there must be a higher level of complexity above which we can know. I see no reason to believe this to be true.

DrmDoc, are you saying lower animals like fish and reptiles do not show emotions? They certainly show behaviors that are consistent with emotions both with each other and toward humans. I've been keeping aquarium fish and some reptiles for almost 50 years now and fish do indeed display emotions as do reptiles or at least the behaviors we would associate with emotions...

Bruce Lee is way cooler than Chuck, Bruce is dead and his body is at ambient temps below ground, probably less than 60f Chuck is closer to 98.8f most of the time....

Does anyone really think that cartoons today are more violent than cartoons of 40 years ago or 50 years ago? Tom and Jerry are not violent? They consistently fight, hit smash, shoot, each other, then you have the Road Runner, Daffy Duck, tweety bird, Elmer Fud, Bugs Bunny, Marvin Martian, Rocky and Bullwinkle, the list of constant violence in cartoons goes on and on and it is not getting more violent if anything they tone it down in modern cartoons.

Actually creationism is not restricted to any one religion, there are more Muslim creationists than Christian creationists then you have Sikhs, Hindus, and Zoroastrians, all of them have the same theme, the world was created according to the words in a book and science is totally wrong and they want everyone else to believe that as well, by force if necessary. Having no human rights unless you were a royal or priest comes to mind, the horrible living conditions and the total lack of freedom to do anything not allowed by religion comes to mind as well not to mention religion dictating reality like a flat earth, and everything going around the flat earth and the crystal dome that covered it. The torture and killing of anyone who disagrees would seem to be a down side as well. Um no, our western values were not set by the church, the church fought them kicking and screaming and the creationists are still doing it, rationalists and other intellectuals are the people who gelded the power of the church and set up our western ideas of human rights. So far you have yet to show any real connection between the things you claim, the Greeks and Romans you are so enthralled with held personal freedoms in very low regard for any one but the ruling class, the slaves would not have agreed with your assertions i am sure but this is not part of this discussion, I don't want this discussion to fall into the black hole of your idea of God because were are talking about creationists here, not people who believe in freedom of speech or anything else their idea of religion does not allow and from what I understand of your idea your idea of religion would require... Creationism is an intellectual black hole, originally Islam was the light of reason and science but they were sucked into the intellectual black hole of worshiping the words in a book as absolute truth and yet to emerge form it. Actually it's more the right to restrict the way of life of people that is under attack, not their actual way of life. Sadly that is not what creationists want, they want to indoctrinate all children in thier religion via public schools by claiming that science is not the truth and that they have the absolute truth. I've seen those as well, i doubt they had any real positive impact for the cause they were trying to promote. No, i disagree, there is no controversy that evolution is somehow not explaining nor is there a conspiracy to hide the "truth' in the bible by 'evolutionists', creationism is nothing but a blatant attempt to roll back knowledge by lies and propaganda, nothing less.

Being a nudist pretty much falsifies this quite easily, children of nudists do not turn out any different than children of non nudists other than being more likely to be nudists as well. BTW, of all things that require clothing of some sort, swimming would seem to be the most silly of them all....

I'm stubborn? Genes are what decides what species of frog the tadpole will be, no mysterious force, that is demonstrably true Carol. Giving birth to a child is no more a show of creative force than the tadpoles, and the regrowth in the spring is not creation by any definition i am aware of, if you feel it is give us some evidence, child birth is the result of sex, genes and the drive to reproduce that is part of the genetics of organisms, not some mysterious force. What do you mean by creation? or creative force? Define it at least. As interesting as Lemurs assertion is it is not even suggestive of a creative force much less proof of it. Please elaborate on this assertion. Actually we do understand the programming code running in the back round, it's called genetics, as for running the movie in reverse that was the idea the big bang came from... and as far as we can tell there is not enough matter in the universe to make it "recycle" or make the "big crunch" happen but the laws of thermodynamics would suggest this would not go one forever and would be limited to the number of crunches and bangs that could happen.

Do the so called culture wars really amount to a real war being fought with propaganda and and suicide bombers? Is our western civilization basically at war with fundamentalist religions, often called creationism? They are trying to not just inject their religious ideas into our civilization but to use those religious ideas to indoctrinate everyone into their beliefs and there by changing civilization back to something resembling the dark ages of our not so distant past. Their stated goals are to oppose science and it's methods by the use of lies and misrepresentations and substitute their (magical) thinking in place of the scientific method. And to change our own values to limit any criticisms of their religion or goals by using censorship political correctness, and hate crime laws on anyone who opposes them. They want to indoctrinate our children in school with their religious beliefs, use political correctness and hate crime laws to limit what adults can can say in opposition to them.

I would have to have some more detailed photos of the crab and know exactly where it was collected to even field a good guess. Some pics of the underside and pics of the crab on a neutral background it doesn't blend into so well would be necessary as well.

In a word, no, this is an urban legend that has been bouncing back and forth for along time now and all it has done is hurt the wild gecko population and allow some totally immoral people to make large sums of money.