SH3RL0CK

Beach bums do not keep records! For eleven years I lived with the people mentioned, barbequed with the son of the US official who sold passports; listened to the remarkable stories of some of the South African whites as they explained what life was like under the last Boer goverment.

Together with the Carribean white settlers they formed a fascinating group of people; all were, or were the decsendents of, people fleeing from there home country.

From three grandsons of the private secretary to the last tsar of Russia to the descendents of a Portugese peasant who begged a ships captain to take his children to the Carribean in the hope that they would find a better life; they never saw their parents again but, like the Russians their descendants are now important members of the Carribean bussiness community; so now, are some of the South Africans.

I just sat quietly and listened, I provided rum punch and my wife sometimes provided real Cornish pasties. It was a price worth paying to listen to people from totally different backgrounds talking about different ways of life in a manner that I never new existed and never seems to be explained to quite the same intensity by the media.

Added to this were the American visitors, my very first charter consisted of two elderly husbands and wives who had not previously met. After a few drinks it was revealed that one was a retired US navy destroyer commander and the other had been the capain of a German U-boat; I never got another word in!. But it just goes to show who the USA allowed in at one time and who is refused entry at a later time.

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.

I think I understand.

 

Though, that pops up another question, how do recharable batteries work then?

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.

North Korea's most powerful weapon is their 22 million starving people. No one wants to deal with all those refugees when North Korea collapses. Not China. Not Russia. Not South Korea or its allies. The government of North Korea, if you can call one naval gazing megalomaniac supported by an absolute cult of personality a government, survives mainly on foreign aid it extorts by saber rattling. Dropping a single 500 lb cast iron bomb on a military facility near Pyongyang would likely cause the entire house of cards to fall down. If UN fuel and grain aid were cut off the country would fall apart. But then what would we do with all the refugees?

 

KIM Jong Il wants more so he needs a bigger saber to rattle. We want all those starving Koreans to stay in North Korea at the smallest possible expense to us so we find a way to keep KIM Jong Il in power. If KIM Jong Il dropped dead tomorrow and his son agreed put in place a reform package of democratic government, freedom of the press, and open borders it would be a financial catastrophe for north east Asia. No government really wants that to happen.

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?

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.

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).

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.

But what about In the front where the first electron left and there was nothing In front of It to pass an electron on?

Also, when you take those electrons elsewhere{generator connected to a batterie, then the batterie Is charged, disconnected, and taken elsewhere}, then the copper gets a lesser net number of electrons than when It started with, am I right?

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.

As an aside, it should not go unnoticed that the main problem for all those mentioned, is being famous. For lesser mortals persistance pays off.

From '76 to '86 hundreds of South Africans arrived in the Carribean and tried to gain entry into the USA or, failing that; the UK. Passports were available at £1000 and $1000. The US supplier was eventually caught but refused to return to the USA instead he had a thriving bussiness in the Carribean.

The UK supplier refused to supply more than six per year because that was the maximum the department could lose without causing an investigation.

But, South Africans are well verse in dealing with hard nose goverments and by carefully testing the system a way was found to acquire a valid passport from US authorities simply by juggling the system. All white South Africans rapidly dissapeared to become anomalous US citizens, regardless of their often extreme racial views. Unfortunately the method did not work for the one very moderate coloured S African (of Indian desent) who sadly was forced eventually to return to SA.

South Africans now find it easier to go to Australia, but I did hear a rumour that USA immigration are soft on SA illegal immigrants as part of a campaign to keep English as the main language.

The key to success is anonimity.

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.

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.

So the copper {or silver, or whatever your using to induce the current} would eventually become ions?

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.

You never been to youtube before?

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...

In anarchy, social norms and values are what make the law.

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.

...Anarchy means no ruler. It doesn't mean "no rules". If there are no rules, then that would be "anomie".

That is incorrect. I provided the definition of anarchy in post 13, but to repeat it here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

–noun 1. a state of society without government or law.

"Law" and "rules" are synonyms; therefore I believe anarchy is the correct usage for meaning "no rules".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/synonym

1. a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language,

FYI, anomie means the following:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anomie

–noun Sociology. a state or condition of individuals or society characterized by a breakdown or absence of social norms and values, as in the case of uprooted people.

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.

... That's what "representative democracy" means...

 

...No, if there is law, that's not anarchy. That's government...

 

...The rule is enforced by force, correct? THAT'S GOVERNMENT. ...

 

...What you're describing is a small democracy, not anarchy...

And from Baby Astronaut:

Anarchy allows people to make their own laws...

 

Not quite anarchy then, huh?

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".

Two Identical systems, two identical upper and two identical lower resevoirs. Same height same amount of water, everything is identical. Open both penstocks and release all the water in both systems. When the water collects in the bottom of the 2 resevoirs the potential energy is less, but it is identical in both lower resevoirs. You can line up as many turbines as possible in one of the systems, leaving the other just a waterfall. You can increase the output by adding more turbines etc. But the potential in the lower resevoir will always end up the same. No energy has been converted, the loss in potential is relative to its height, not the output of the dam.

 

No potential energy is converted, it remains the same in the lower resevoir regardless of how many turbines you put and megawatts you develop as the water falls.

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

–noun Physics. the energy of a body or a system with respect to the position of the body or the arrangement of the particles of the system.

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...

The government works by enforcing law and punishing those who disobey, and does so with exclusive power.

It can pass any law, regardless of how harmless a private person's activities are that happen to be banned.

People have no power over government, when the government can enforce rule on other people and people can't enforce rule on it.

A centralized/self-ruling government is naturally not apart of any democracy at all.

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.

A separate government makes law that it enforces on ALL who are governed.

 

The people voted against gay marriage and it was government itself that actually writes down and enforces the law. The government has exclusive law making power.

Yes, you have correctly stated the definition of government and provided an example of government working.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/government

1. the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration

 

Exactly my point! Regardless if I put turbines in the path of the falling water the potential energy at the bottom is the same, nothing is converted!

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.

A separate individual state (governing body) with power over the people is not a democracy.

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

1. a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.

or perhaps a monarchy

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monarchy

1. a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch.

You can read about various forms of government here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government

In anarchy the governing body is everyone, not a separate entity with exclusive authority.

No, a democracy is when everyone is the governing body.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

–noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

In the United States and Europe, people actually live in a republic

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic

–noun 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

Anarchy, dy definition, has no governing at all.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

–noun 1. a state of society without government or law.

Somalia as a country has not been stable, since the people were devastated by the wars with and from other countries. Farmland and most production had been destroyed/ruined.

 

Individual merchants and civilians would been armed themselves. In any stable country/community a loyal military is formed and also funded mostly by and of its own self sufficient people.

Yes, anarchy and stability do not go together. I agree there has to be some centralized governing body to maintain order.

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.

Being a warlord in an anarchy would not be profitable and therefore not sustainable.

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?

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.

Read the beginning of my first post, nuff said.

 

And I've already got my filtration apparatus working with NaOH, so this thread is now OLD.

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?

While school teachers are affecting lives in a more positive way, they affect fewer lives. The work of an actor like Nicholas Cage can reach tens of millions of people. A school teacher may affect at most something like ten thousand. The few orders of magnitude difference in salary corresponds directly to the few orders of magnitude greater number of people their work reaches.

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.