SH3RL0CK

Of course they'd never go bankrupted, but they could destroy the dollar trying to pay off debts.

 

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.

Whatever one wishes to call it, I would like to live in a society where governmental decisions are made based on the best scientific evidence available and the goal is improvement of the condition of the greatest number of citizens possible.

 

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?

If an image is reflected by a surface which bends according to a particular function, can one, based on this function, know how the image is deformed, and reverse the deformation? How? (Formula etc.)

 

 

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,

 

The four color theorem was proved in 1976 by Kenneth Appel and Wolfgang Haken...To dispel remaining doubt about the Appel–Haken proof, a simpler proof using the same ideas and still relying on computers was published in 1997 by Robertson, Sanders, Seymour, and Thomas. Additionally in 2005, the theorem was proven by Georges Gonthier with general purpose theorem proving software.

 

As the book is fiction, it shows a side effect being that they will "live forever".

 

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.

SH3RL0CK,

 

Here's the page you haven't looked at:

 

You state, "Ok, first allow me to state I haven't looked at the links"

 

You say: "A hard look at what? What science is involved?"

 

If you would have looked at the link, then looked at the science of Dr. Forward that is linked to, you would have seen what science was involved.

 

Please don't anyone answer this unless you have downloaded Dr. Forwards PDF and read it and tried to understand Mr. Kooiman's point of view. Oh crap, the PDF link is down. I will try to find another link. It is available at the American Journal of Physics But I will try to find another link to view it for free since it should be public domain by now- It was written in 1962. Guidelines to Antigravity by Robert L. Forward.

 

 

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

it only requires a small leap of faith to believe

on top of the outlandish claims which violate the known laws of physics as has been pointed out.

 

 

SH3RL0CK. If you wish not to do this that's fine by me, but don't tell me I didn't present anything to look at when you haven't even looked at all the data.

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.

 

Don't just tell me it can't happen without reading all of this and trying to see if you can make coherent since out of it. That' not taking a hard look at it at all. LOL

You guys keep claiming there is nothing here but you wont go beyond that.

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.

So.. it's been days and still no one will look into the science claims seriously to prove or disprove this?

 

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.

 

Someone who knows the science involved and is able to take a hard look at it?.

 

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

The MFD generates a magnetic vortex field, which disrupts or neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass within proximity, by 89 percent.

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.

Heat death is not the same as all interactions stopping.

 

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)?

With our level of technology in communications and networking, we should be able to have a system that instantly connects a pregnant woman to an infertile couple looking to adopt. It's supposedly difficult finding children to adopt, so if true, wouldn't it solve both problems at once?

 

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.

How about a potential case Obamacare might cover?

 

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

 

In an ectopic pregnancy, the fertilized ovum implants itself in the fallopian tube, rather than the uterus.

 

In such a case, the pregnancy can be aborted by the mother ingesting methotrexate.

 

We're talking about a situation where it is almost impossible for the ovum to develop into a state where it could survive without the mother, and unless something is done, the mother will suffer severe trauma and likely die.

 

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.

By the way, I think your arguments were laid out in a reasonable tone, and do view your exit from the thread as a loss (for everyone). I'm more than happy to debate with you (friendly and professionally).

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)

the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

Or in my own words, some kind of observable change in something.

 

When your scenario requires exploring results of physically impossible scenarios, the odds are pretty good you've left the realm of science discussion.

 

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.

So, by your logic, cancer surgery is illegal. Different genetic makeup, therefore it's a person by your rules.

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.

Yep.

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.

Last time I checked, parents do not *own* children's bodies like pieces of meat. And a parent's decision cannot override their child's in this matter - that's basic medical ethics.

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...

 

Strawman. Show me even one, single incidence of this happening. One. Go on, show me one.

my point is that the father needs to be taken into consideration.

 

You can't, because people do NOT undergo major surgery just to piss other people off - especially when there's only 3 places in the entire US which will perform that surgery. Or were, until anti-women loons shot one of the doctors.

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?

 

 

The only "reasons" for restricting it all trace back to simple misogyny.

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?

 

 

Do you support equal rights for all, or not? It's as simple as that.

 

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.

All rights, ALL, begin and end at the right to control one's own body. Take that away, and nothing else matters.

 

Either you're pro-choice or anti-freedom. Period. There is no other option.

 

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.

What would have happen if the US had not dropped the bomb and did not invade the main Japanese islands? There wasn't much left of the Japanese fleet to reach out and attack the Allies.

 

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.

Can you provide some estimates of the alternatives? That would be helpful in evaluating them.

 

I think Padren did a good job of this in regards to continuing the war, see his previous post

If we invaded the the interior of Japan, isn't it reasonable to assume at least one battle on the scale of Okinawa would have occurred? If so, that alone would amount to the number of casualties.

 

If we had continued firebombing, judging by the fact a single raid killed about 100k people I think it's quite reasonable to assume firing bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki among other Japanese cities would have resulted in a higher death toll than by the nuclear bombs.

 

Starving Japan out with sanctions could have been attempted, but considering the historical impact on civilians (while much debated) I think it is fairly reasonable to make the leap that the death toll could have exceeded that of the nuclear blasts.

 

Honestly, the only reason I can see for not dropping the bombs, is if the war could have been ended without further military action as any continuing commitment from Japanese forces would likely have rendered higher death tolls.

 

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

What if the task forces on deciding how to end the war, had instead collected all the tremendous potential energy -- from all the meetings, simulations, conferences, group brainstorms, organizing, preparing equipment, testing for unforeseeable circumstances, mobilizing units, billions of $$, whatever -- and put their all into a nearly 100% peaceful, non-violent way to end the conflict in a manner acceptable to both sides and clever enough to work. Laughable huh? Yes, it seems of course.

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).

The variables don't fit.

 

A. You have a people who'll never surrender.

B. Thus your new plan is for them to surrender.

 

 

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 included contracts for which money has been ear-marked/set aside. The guarantee of spending for specific purposes is generally taken as the money already "out the door" when dealing with financial data and budgets.

 

It sounds like you were referring only to dollars delivered, so your number is correct in that sense. Sorry for not being more clear.

 

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.