Its a mohawk, its a pony tail, its a shaved head, its a something I do not approve of . . .

It is a Typical excuse for ostracizing anyone different.

Except that, as far as I can tell, that no claims are being made about particles "teleporting", or tunneling any distances at all what so ever through these "portals".

So in what way are they like the idea of worm holes as presented in the movie star gate of which was mentioned in the intro?

It appears that the only reason they are called portals by the nasa group is the shape and how the geometry effects solar weather patterns.

Perhaps someone who knows more about it may elaborate further.

Hydrogen as a fuel is an excellent idea, however trying to produce hydrogen on demand is tricky.

If however instead of using hydrogen for combustion you can also use it to create current for use in electrical motors. Fuel cell.

Honestly what has been presented sounds like word soup. Cant make heads or tales, he seems to be saying that hydrogen would be created, but then talks about expanding steam, then goes on to talk about electrochemical energy conversion such as used in fuel cells.

Dono, sounds like someone having a go at playing at science without any of the long hard work to actually learn the basics.

No, see that's the great part of human aging. The process of aging IS what kills you.

The process would be what would need to be reversed.

ie, if they succeed you would literally be "young" for as long as the method continued to work.

Thats the problem, the claim is that it has no waste, that it is more than 100% efficient.

Lets assume that computer code really is in equations.

First what? Math? Because Math exists in computer code, and it would be trivial to say that Math exists inside of an equation . . . .

Trivial, and stupid.


Second, so we have computer code in an equation that proves nothing? If actual code vs math . . . all it means is literally someone wrote it there. It has no use or meaning in the equation, and cannot come out of an equation because of that.

Third:
Superstring "theory" is internally inconsistent and so proves NOTHING about reality.

Nothing is proven by this "discovery".

Sounds like a sound byte to get attention from those who are scientifically illiterate.

As diverse are people are I wonder why we always feel it necessary to generalize what is best for all of a given group?

The devil is in the details. Some details may take 20 years themselves, and often as you answer questions you find new questions which need answers.

I certainly wouldn't hold my breath, but I do believe it is just a matter of time.
Me? I dont know, have not made up my mind . . . . ill let you know in a few hundred years . . .

Well then you should take some time and learn about the science involved.

Amazing discovery that will lead to amazing new technologies.

So I am splitting hairs when my point was that the "topic" was larger than what you presented?

This is a serious topic, and the idea of misandry is not often discussed, I have made no claims about anyone's beliefs in this thread.

So if for some odd reason you felt it was needed to point out that you do not share, or others in the thread do not share the belief that women are superior and that hating men is justified then good!


http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat?feature=watch
http://www.avoiceformen.com/

My thoughts are that individuals are just too diverse to generalize by gender.

It shows how many of us value honesty most especially in the face of adversity.

If only we could harness this, and make it work to change the culture of dishonesty that has risen up in the media, politics, business and government.

It is because we all know how far we have fallen into a culture of half truths, sound bytes, and outright lies where he who plays the game best wins, not he who plays fairly.

I have not followed you anywhere. You are a troll, and I tend to ignore you.

My minions? Lol, you are also delusional as well.

Hey, but you know what!? You can be a troll, you can be wrong, and you can still be other things as well. Maybe, perhaps even often, you think about others more than your own narrow views, that would also make you considerate, even if only briefly.

I can disagree with Charlie Sheen on his behavior, and agree with him on his principles (that is if he really holds them and it is not lip service) Just like I can agree with you on the (lack of) existence of god, and disagree with you on your arguments on why a lack of belief is appropriate. Also why I can disagree with you on what the definition of words such as "Gnostic , or theist, or know, or believe", yet still arrive at the same conclusion. It is because I do not judge you as a whole based on a single thing I disagree with you on. In fact your a troll in part because you seem unable or unwilling to do the same. However if tomorrow you stopped being so obnoxious and took the time to really consider what others mean instead of trying to pidgin hole everything said (also took the time to read what is presented and acknowledge when you are factually wrong) . . . well then Id stop calling you a troll, and might spend more time responding to you.

Thanks,

Those of us who carry guns, as our only protection or as one tool in a protection strategy, do in fact believe we can prevent violent assault with a firearm.

So to me, this thread was really just about the baggage that goes along with the two groups fighting it out about gun control, and woman's rights, and memes/troupes regarding the characterization of those who are strongly associated with one side or the other.

My advice is to not demonize at all.

Demons are not human, and when we dehumanize someone it then becomes easy to disregard them as a human and all that entails.

Perhaps you can disagree, even rather strongly, with some of his choices without judging him as a whole.

Something my mother taught me that will be with me forever is that poeple are more than one thing.

She said, "Jeremy, your father is an *******, but he is not just an *******", then she urged me to go see him and said, "he also loves you, and is a good man in many ways".

I try to apply this to everyone, most especially those I disagree with.

Earlier in the thread you were a bit upset that someone was arguing against a position you do not hold.

I am now curious who has said that, "guns will prevent all rapes"?

I believe the unstated sentiment (that I share and is put forth by the likes of the NRA) is that having a gun offers options one would not have for a lack of one, and those options can prevent all kinds of violent assaults of which rape is one.

I could not be more anti truther, as in 911 and all that crap about an inside job.

My standards of evidence are very high.

My understanding of science is functional, and professional.

My attitude towards those that ignore such rigorous standards is mostly dismissive.

I agree with Charlie's principles in regards to freedom and liberty. I understand how easy it is to demonize someone for what they have done and then ignore anything good in their message.

Each person should have the freedom to decide for themselves how best to protect themselves, after all they are the only person responsible for doing so, and thus should not need to consult others on how best to do so. That in no way limits that persons liability in whatever ways they choose to defend themselves.

Me? All violent attacks are considered equally, I do not advise anyone wanting to develop defensive strategies to necessarily develop a different strategy for every kind of attack.

The tools and the strategies are not mutually exclusive, but also do not perfectly overlap either.

Very disturbing.

Having objective criteria for secure classifications seems to be unpopular.

Since when do we do what the UN tells us?

Since when does someone asking you to do something absolve you of the responsibility and consequence of action?

Right, use as vague language as possible to allow the widest application of force desired.

These security resolutions have no more weight of law without congressional approval than any other military action.

No treaties were being fulfilled, and the US was in no danger that would justify an executive override to the war powers act.