pwagen

It's most likely because once there are metastasis, the cancer is already in the lymph nodes or blood system, meaning it has already spread and will continue to do so. Also, if there are metastasis, there is a high chance the original tumor has spread into the surrounding tissue, possibly making it very hard to remove.

You brought up two drones, the first of which fits comfortably in the palm of a hand. Any chance you could comment on its stability? I don't mind if you compare it to the one I linked. Here's another picture for size comparison: http://www.robotshop.com/blog/en/files/Hubsan-FPV-Mini-05.jpg Can you tell me the procedure of mounting a projectile weapon to a drone that's about twice the size of a USB memory? How much would that weigh? What would happen when you fire the weapon? Would you acknowledge my request of seeing other examples of drones for less than $200 which would be able to be fitted with anything weight about as much as the weapon type you were planning to use?

As far as I know, I'm not involved in any other threads where you have also posted. If I am, I suggest not bringing other topics here. I saw those. One is about 10 cm long, by the looks of it, so won't be able to lift the required payload. The other is $1000, so not relevant to the topic even if it is able to lift the weight of a weapon, which I doubt (but won't be able to check until I'm off work. Any other examples? Further, it seems you're only discussing this topic in order to "win", which is obvious considering your "Dear ladies and gentlemen, welcome to tonight's show" approach. I'm not sure how fruitful such a discussion would be, but I'd suggest discussing the topic instead of throwing around accusations of logical fallacies.

While I know this forum doesn't have an age restriction, I expect the discussions here to be civil and mature. Think you could kick it up a notch in the future? Just because it "survives" shooting a projectile doesn't mean it's stable enough to aim it. If a bullet has enough power to actually penetrate something, you can be sure it's left quite a recoil. Your link certainly doesn't have any. Feel free to link a specific drone. Surprisingly, I think you'll find that the majority of drones are in fact not made for murder.

I don't think a drone would be the cheapest, simplest or most discrete way of killing anyone. With all the technology from the past 150 years, I doubt adding one more gadget would noticeably add to the murder rates. Also, I'm not sure drones are sturdy enough to handle the recoil from a projectile weapon. Here's a typical tricopter, a common drone for hobbyists. http://www.villalachouette.de/william/krims/tricopter/websitepics/tricopter_dlx_detail0.jpg Considering they can barely handle a bit of wind, a shotgun recoil seems out of the question.

Right. None.

In what way is it not a strong theory? Does it not have a vast amount of evidence supporting it?

He didn't say he knows you're not stupid. He said think. Stop being so defensive, it's contraproductive.

If I'm not misunderstanding things, there seems to be a strong trend that developed, "rich" countries are steadily dropping religion. So there's that. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597891/Losing-religion-New-research-shows-religion-declined-Internet-use-increased.html http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/2014/01/27/great-decline-religion-united-states-one-graph/ http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/23/study-religion-may-head-toward-extinction-in-many-western-countries/

Not a whole lot. To an outsider, all of those myths appear equally irrational. There's an extremely slim chance one of all the divinities humankind has created over the years is true. It's impossible for them all to be true. So there's a far greater chance of being correct if you assume none of them is true, until further evidence emerge. And I wouldn't hold my breath.

Quite not so. He says he has "proved the existence of a form of knowledge about the nature of space-time, matter, and higher levels of reality that encompasses the Jewish mystical doctrine of Kabbalah, teachings of Theosophy(...)". Do you know what the word "encompass" means?

I'm sorry, have the requirements for passing the test been lowered in the past few years, or is this another example of news agency sensationalism? That conversation is silly.

Out of interest, how many internal wires does the USB cable have?

Did you measure it? If you're using a normal USB data cable, it's probably lacking the resistor which lets the device recognize it as a dedicated charger port. If so, connect the data pins to each other with a resistor of <200 ohms. Here's a schematic of a normal USB connector, but it should be the same principle with a micro USB one: http://m.eet.com/media/1169154/usb%20pwr%20conn.jpg Don't mess up though. I once shorted my phone with a home-made charger cable because I'm an idiot.

Measure resistance between the D+ and D- on the USB connection. If the resistance is >200 Ohm, the device won't recognize it as a dedicated charger, as far as I've been able to tell, so it won't deliver the full current. Pinout: http://www.thice.nl/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Milestone-dock-adapter-pinout-microUSB1.png

From the link in the OP.

You seem to assume the plant would be placed near the Sun. How then, would you get the power to Earth? Moore's law isn't really relevant, as the obstacles isn't in computer capacity. You could probably control a simple satellite with a smart phone which costs a fraction of the total cost of launching a space shuttle. Materials and fuel is what's really stopping us.

No, no, no. This thread isn't about what would happen to terrestrial solar power plants if war broke out, or if the Sun sets. It seems obvious that we CAN make use of solar power, as we do it all the time. That's not the issue here, at all. If you want to discuss what would happen to a solar plant the size of which John Cuthber suggested, should war breark out, you could, but not before you explain why your orbital power plant would be better, cheaper, more convenient, and work. Because as of now, is there really any good way to actually bring that power down to Earth? War on Earth, sure, but what would happen to your plant if hit by space debris or asteroids? How would you repair it? What would that cost? Questions you might as well ask yourself. Sending stuff to space is expensive.

Are you thinking about the part where ajb suggested to split water to produce hydrogen. Well, hydrogen engines produce water, which can be used to refill our oceans. It's all about being green. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_internal_combustion_engine_vehicle#Low_emissions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

Yeah, that'll happen. The ISS is also multitudes smaller as a project than what you're suggesting. And even with all the countries involved, I don't know that the budget would allow a whole lot of luxury up there. Also, aside from financial problems, the issue of material availability has been mentioned. It doesn't matter if every nation works together on this, if there are not enough raw material to make the solar panels.

So could normal procreation. Read up on hermaphrodites and this. You deeming it "disgusting" is less than scientific. Edit: Fixed link.

However, the event that birthed the phrase only lasted for 5 days. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norrmalmstorg_robbery

Maybe it would be more akin to masturbation?

Not unless you think energy is money.