doG

Recently I have made two test to see how much hydrogen is made with hot and with cold water and I have seen that when you put an electrolyser into hot water, the quantity of hydrogen obtained and the speed of electrolysis is higher that when you do the same test in cold water.

Might I suggest another measurement you should make? Take 2 samples of the same quantity of water at the same initial temperature. Take one and apply an electrical current through it. Track the total energy used and the time to produce a given volume of gas.

With the second apply a quantity of energy over a measured quantity of time to rise the temperature to some elevated value. Once heated then apply the electrical current as applied in the first experiment until the same volume of gas is acquired. Add together the energy used to heat the water with the energy of the electricity used to separate it and sum together the time to heat the water and the time to separate it to see if there is really any difference in the total energy required and the time to produce a given quantity of gas.

The second method is only more efficient if the total energy required over time is smaller than that measured in the first experiment. I suspect you will find the final efficiencies to be comparable.

Wow. I hadn't known there was a term for my usual sleep pattern.....or lack thereof as the case may be. I sleep 3-5 hours most nights and the rest of my sleep time comes in short, irregular naps throughout the day. I typically find that even a 5-10 minute power nap gives a better recharge than a cup of sweet espresso. I take advantage of the irregular idle times that pop up in my day to grab short naps. I have been doing this for years and find that it gives me all of the rest my body seems to need. For me it maximizes my productive time each day as I use my otherwise idle time to get my rest.

Proving negatives is the backbone of science. It usually depends on a logical trick called Modus Tollens....

Not really. That is a valid argument in propositional logic but that's not really physical science, it's philosophy. We see only a minuscule portion of the Universe so I don't think we can conclude, as fact, that things do not exist in the vast majority of the Universe that we cannot observe by using logic tricks and thought experiments.

Was Sadddam beaten and tortured by the US?

No one here can honestly answer that question as fact. The best you will get is speculation and that's no better than gossip. This thread is a waste of bandwidth!!!

If it were proven that God doesn't exist, would the world become a better place?

You can't prove something doesn't exist.

Why are atheists so determined to prove there is no God/s to the theists?

I'm not determined to prove there is no God. You can't prove that anyhow. What I am determined to do is to point out there is no credible evidence in support of the existence of any god(s) and that faith is a flaw in one's ability to reason rationally. People should not believe in things like gods, santa clauses, leprechuans, etc. just because others claim they exist. They should be skeptics and seek proof of such claims without buying into them on faith. Faith is a mental disorder!

Do your own homework!!!

Learn to use jdb then. It should have come with the jdk you are using. It supports breakpoints and stepping.

...am I wasting my time. Thanks

Yes

Oldest Living Thing Found in Ice

 

The oldest living thing has been discovered in the form of 600,000-year-old bacteria extracted from ice cores, scientists claim...

1% of Carbon + 1% of Oxygen = Carbon Dioxide

"Di-"? Really? Your essay has more holes than a Menger sponge...

It works now! Yay!

Great. Going forward I suggest you get an IDE like Eclipse that you can use to debug your work. It will allow you to set breakpoints and run your code interactively in debug mode. It makes troubleshooting much easier.

It's just another logic puzzle, nothing special. With a typical grid used for solving logic puzzles it only takes a few minutes to make the necessary deductions.

We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

Why would you think religious people do not do the same?

Some do. Others teach their children that they need to grow up to be martyrs while killing those of other beliefs. Some teach their children that they are the 'chosen' ones and others should be cleansed from society. Children are not born with religious intolerance of others, it is taught to them. Where else do you think children would get religious intolerance and hatred from?

We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

This is a gross characterization of what religion really is.

No it's not. Religious ideologies run from the 'love everyone' mentality of Mother Teresa to the 'hate everyone but your own kind' mentality of religious extremists. Get your head out of the sand!!!

It is clear. Christianity gives us clear guidelines on how to live.

Please see The Affirmations of Humanism:A Statement of Principles. Guidelines to live by without the threat of eternal damnation. Do right by mankind because it's the right thing to do, not because you've been threatened with hell if you don't.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

I think so. I'm agnostic being open to the concept of god but skeptical of their being one.

Firstly, agnosticism IS NOT a point on the axis of theism. To be agnostic simply means that you believe man can never 'know' the truth about the existence of deities. It has nothing to do with the 'belief' in deities. Belief, or lack thereof, is what theism is. If you have an affirmative belief that there is/are one or more deities then you are theist, else you are not-theist, i.e. atheist. If you believe man can never know the truth and you are skeptical about the existence of deities then you are an agnostic atheist.

Secondly, define 'god'. Ignosticism can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

1. The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.

2. The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.

IMO, 'God' is a copout. It is a made up answer for questions man hasn't found answers for yet. It is for quitters. Scientists don't quit looking for answers or resort top making one up. They accept that we don't have answers for everything yet and they keep on looking. To that means 'god' is not compatible with science, from Latin scientia meaning "knowledge".

I've wanted to set up something like this in the past...

 

I dual boot windows & ubuntu (though honestly I hardly ever use windows applications anymore). Is it possible to run that windows partition through a virtual box on the linux side? I think that's what you're doing but I'm not sure.

Yes, it is possible. Under virtualbox it is called raw disk access and in vmware it is called physical disk. I do not particularly recommend it even though it is possible. Tuning it is a nightmare. What you are basically doing is configuring windows to run with 2 different sets of hardware just like you pulled the hard drive from one machine, dropped it in another and booted it. With enough configuration you can make a native windows partition boot natively or boot inside a vbox but windows will see the two as different hardware sets.

I have good performance installing windows as a guest os inside a linux vbox and then giving it access to read and write data to a native windows partition elsewhere on the drive I use for dual booting. This way I can boot a vbox with Windows while I'm running linux and access something like an Excel spreadsheet in my Windows partition if needed. I find the need to do this much less now that I've moved most of the office documents I share with other users to Google docs. It is nowhere near the necessity that it used to be.

....its also possible that Santa Claus exists. We has just not found him yet....

 

ID is not a made up answer, but a logical inference based on what we have discovered through science...

 

Proofs, only in mathematics.

 

I do not believe, God was created, but exists eternally, without beginning, without a end.

 

It appears you have already drawn your own conclusions...Discussion is pointless.

There are only two possibilities : spontaneous generation of life, or creation. Once spontaneous generation can be discarted based on the scientific knowledge and evidence, design is a logical inference.

No there is really only creation and it's only only debatable whether or nor it occurred naturally. You could never rule out natural causes because it always's possible that it happened naturally and we just don't understand how, it will never just automatically infer that the only possible solution is a creator. Science doesn't have all the answers but that's no reason to just make up answers like ID. You can hypothesize it if you want but don't think the disproving of other hypotheses would ever prove yours.

Well, i think we do have just 3 mechanisms to explain the existence of the universe, and LIFE.

 

1. Physical necessity.

2. Chance

3. Intelligent design.

 

If 1 and 2 are discarded, no.3 is a logical deduction.

First, saying there are only 3 possibilities is itself an assertion you need to support.

Second, disproving current theories that assert physical necessity and/or chance does not disprove or preclude new theories with the same assertions. You could never disprove all possible theories in 1 or 2 and doing so does not prove the 3rd. The approach is fatally flawed. Quit wasting your time and provide scientific evidence of the 3rd if that is your goal. Disproving the others will not do that for you.

If there are no known chemical or physical laws which can create this complex and specified information needed for a self-replicating molecule, then this stage of the origin of life faces severe hurdles.

So!!! The whole basis of debate rooted in the ideology that this or that could not have happened such and such a way because we don't know or understand how it might have happened in such and such a way is no way to argue in favor of, "it must have happened my way". You could completely disprove all current theories of abiogenesis and that would provide no evidence whatsoever in favor of anything like intelligent design. Disproving any theory is not evidence in favor of any other theory. What to you hope to accomplish with your unsubstantiated assertions that current theories couldn't be correct?

A better question would be what are the odds of our planet being just far enough yet near enough to the sun to support life...

Many Billions of Rocky Planets in Habitable Zones Around Red Dwarfs in Milky Way

 

A new result from ESO's HARPS planet finder shows that rocky planets not much bigger than Earth are very common in the habitable zones around faint red stars. The international team estimates that there are tens of billions of such planets in the Milky Way galaxy alone, and probably about one hundred in the Sun's immediate neighbourhood. This is the first direct measurement of the frequency of super-Earths around red dwarfs, which account for 80% of the stars in the Milky Way...

It's beginning to look like planets in habitable zones are not as rare as once thought.

And while depictions or narratives of his life are dismissed by atheists as imaginative fairy stories...

Not necessarily true. I'm an atheist and I believe as Jefferson did, that there was a man, Jesus of Nazareth, that had great lessons to teach but he was not a god. I keep a copy of The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth myself as a reference to his teachings.

Notreally...

So you are saying Severian's post did not imply god is a dictator?

i actually meant configuration to be given so that it gives optimum perofromance.and would v box be better or Vmware

Vmware is nice but it's expensive and thus far I've not encountered anything I couldn't do with VirtualBox that I could with VmWare. For the price I recommend VBox hands down. Running Windows as the client OS in a VBox hosted on Linux has given me near native performance to what Windows would run natively on that hardware. I have tried running the Windows version of VBox with Xubuntu installed as the guest OS and had performance issues. I can't say though whether it was Windows causing the problem or the Windows version of VBox.

I can also say that I have run Windows in a native partition as a guest OS on VMware hosted on Suse Linux and it performed as a native OS on the machine. In full screen mode you could not tell you were using virtualization when using Windows.

If we were a true atheist.. who believe the world came into existence by its own thru sheer luck, chance and evolved by its own...and left to fend for ourselves in this lonely world...

If you are a true atheist the the only thing that can be said of you is that you are not theist. That is the only thing that atheists as a group have in common. The beliefs of atheists as a whole are widely varied so you can not lump them all together as if they share some common belief system. Atheism is not a religion!