|
901
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: Gangrene
|
on: August 17, 2014, 10:17:26 PM
|
|
Man that sounds really bad, sorry to hear. As others have said amputation/removal of the gangrenous tissue is the standard procedure I think, but I'm not sure how that would be performed if it's on her back.
It worries me that she is in a lot of pain, make sure she is prescribed stronger painkillers, probably opiates/opioids to ease the pain - I can't imagine anything worse than being on my potential deathbed in agony.
All the best.
|
|
|
|
|
902
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: FREE ELECTRICITY: Magnets Motor Electric Generators
|
on: August 17, 2014, 10:08:30 PM
|
Okay. Let's see if I can say it really clearly and briefly. First Class: Perpetual Motion, as a noun, where it could be written PerpetualMotion, or Perpetual-motion, is what the scientists mean, and what the laymen usually do NOT mean. This PM means, once started into motion, no added energy, no energy loss, and continuing to run perpetually. Second Class: Perpetual motion as the layman usually means it is where you get out at least a little more energy than you put in. Magnet motor generators fall into this class. First Class is impossible by any means science understands because their is always loss due to friction. Second Class is impossible because you can't get more out of something than there is in it. There is a Third Class. This is where a form of energy that we do not understand and can't even observe is going in, and it is being converted, to come out in a form that we DO understand, like static magnetism or active electricity. There are all kinds of people that call this Third Class, PERPETUAL MOTION. If anybody is so bold that he claims that he knows FOR A FACT that we know everything about the universe, he is a fool. We ABSOLUTELY DON'T know for a fact that a magnet is NOT a converter of some form of energy that we know little or nothing about, and that the magnet, itself, helps us to convert that unknown energy into electrical energy. Is someone wrong for calling something like this magnetic generator/motor a perpetual motion machine? In the technical sense, yes. But there will come a time - and it might be here already - when enough people call this a PM machine, so it is accepted by such in the eyes of everybody. There are two more things to say: 1. much of the disagreement in this topic is over semantics; 2. I believe that there are political trolls who are constantly suggesting that such a "perpetual motion" machine can't work, because they are working for the government and the power companies, and are trying to keep the power companies from losing any more money than they are already losing to solar.  You're correct in saying no-one knows everything about the universe, it would be foolish if they thought that. But we do know a hell of a lot about magnets, and can harness their electromagnetic field, with turbines and generators. It's been proven by many experiments that electricity and magnetism are linked - hence the electromagnetic force. No experiment has EVER shown that magnets themselves convert any sort of "unknown energy" into any other sort of energy. We know through experiments that magnetic force is a result of aligned electron orbitals at the atomic level, forming magnetic domains in the material. These domains line up in magnetic materials, creating a generic magnet with a north and south pole. You can make your own magnet by taking a piece of iron, then rubbing a magnet across it in one direction, which aligns the domains in the iron in the same direction, creating another magnet. So although we don't know this 100%, every properly done experiment ever seems to prove it. I mean you could say that the magnetic force actually comes from Evel Knievel's ghost driving a microscopic motorbike round a neodymium wall of death in the 5th dimension, which powers a supernatural trans-dimensional energy field, in turn giving magnets their magical powers here on Earth. We ABSOLUTELY DON'T KNOW for a fact that this isn't true, but it's much more sensible for us to look at the science from the last few hundred years and conclude that it's most likely due to the above explanation. But yes, we still have a lot to learn about field theory (gravity in particular). As for the political trolls constantly suggesting these machines can't work, that may be true, but you will find hundreds of thousands of advanced physicists all over the globe with the same conclusions, and they can't all be working for the power companies. I have an open mind, but I won't believe any stories about harnessing unknown forms of energy until I see some real scientific proof, which isn't in the form of a dodgy youtube video. |
|
|
|
|
903
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: FREE ELECTRICITY: Magnets Motor Electric Generators
|
on: August 17, 2014, 01:52:11 PM
|
Yes, but the universe acts as a unit. We don't exactly know the hows/whys/wheres/whats of magnetism and gravity. They react on the motion of the whole universe both macro-cosmically and micro-cosmically. Does this mean that someday the whole universe will run down and stop, simply because we make electricity? If we knew the answer to that question, we would have the perfect Unified Field Theory as a Law. We understand electricity, magnetism, and energy pretty well. Over time, energy diffuses from higher concentrations (like stars) to area of lower concentration, and may eventually reach a uniform state. It's like have a pot of hot water in a room. Over time, the pot cools down as the energy diffuses to the rest of the room, and the rest of the room warms up a little bit. Eventually, the "universe" in this example (pot + room) reaches a steady-state in which the energy is even distributed throughout the room (i.e., the temperature of the room and the temperature of the pot are the same). The same kind of thing is happening to the universe as a whole. Yes this is correct, the general theory is called the "heat death" of the universe, where it approaches maximum entropy and basically does "run down and stop". I don't see how this relates to having Unified Field Theory as a law? Anyway all these ideas of "perpetual motion" and over-unity devices are utter bollocks, it is impossible to create a device that produces more energy than it consumes. I've had this conversation with some of my conspiracy theorist friends, who are adamant that this technology exists and is being "suppressed" by the government. Yet they can never show any proof other than shitty youtube videos. The other idea which tends to be thrown around is that it's possible to harness "zero-point energy", which I don't believe as it violates Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle: If we were to "extract" the zero-point energy, then we would know the position AND speed of the particle. I do accept that large energy corporations/governments could be suppressing other energy technologies, such as more efficient ways of harnessing renewable energy, nuclear fusion research, thorium based power etc. But this idea that they are suppressing simple, cheap perpetual motion/over-unity machines (that defy the known laws of thermodynamics) that we could all power our homes with is just nonsense, sorry. |
|
|
|
|
904
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: Worst Movies You Have Ever Watched
|
on: August 17, 2014, 01:20:28 PM
|
|
Don't understand the hating on Wolf of Wall St, quality acting and had some really funny sections. I get that it's not the most convincing film in the world, but worst ever movie? nah...
Whoever said Sin City, you crazy mang... I thought it was epic, probably the best film interpretation of a graphic novel ever. I did see it in the cinema though, probably works better on the big screen.
OK, worst films:
Flying Virus
Batman and Robin
Bad Boys 2
Disaster Movie (had to turn off)
Transformers 1, 2 (and probably 3 and 4, to be fair I only saw 1 in full, had to turn 2 off halfway through.)
Snakes on a Train + Sharknado (Haha those Asylum films are unfortunately not quite bad enough to be good. They really are just awful.)
|
|
|
|
|
906
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: In a few minutes I get see what lamb chops look like after I...
|
on: August 17, 2014, 12:22:28 PM
|
You know, this is the problem with some food. You should have an ultimate Big Mac™ to cleanse your system along with some refreshing Pepsi® and golden french fries.
Meals from McDonalds often give me the "Chernobyls" the following day. These consist of a large initial explosion, followed by extended fallout. |
|
|
|
|
907
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: German Startup Says Its New Chip Halves Bitcoin Mining Energy
|
on: August 16, 2014, 06:52:55 PM
|
It still boggles my mind that we are in the peta-hash range.
Is this hash rate sustainable? If it continues to increase logarithmically, then I am afraid that at one stage we will hit the limit and the entire Blockchain system will collapse completely.  Seriously though, it would be cool if the Bitcoin network really started to be the No.1 industry in advancement of microchip tech. We're pretty close to Moore's Law slowing down - 20nm is almost small enough to get weird quantum errors in the chips. Proper quantum chips will be next, let's hope the BTC network doesn't shoot itself in the foot by accidentally inventing a superfast hashing chip that can brute-force sha256...  |
|
|
|
|
908
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: "I wish I had bought more Bitcoin when it was cheaper..."
|
on: August 15, 2014, 03:27:34 PM
|
Yeah Doug Stanhope is fucking great, an American guy first showed me some of his stand-up, I was like "Is this Bill Hicks' apprentice or something??" Then I was stoked when he started to do sections on Charlie Brooker's "ScreenWipe/NewsWipe" shows... they're both cynical geniuses. OT, I guess most of us wish we had bought more when it was cheaper, but hindsight is a bitch - may as well take the risk innit... "Daddy, what does regret mean?
Well son, the funny thing about regret is,
It's better to regret something you have done,
Than to regret something you haven't done.
And by the way, if you see your mom this weekend,
Be sure and tell her, SATAN, SATAN, SATAN!!!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo29_EjE-1Q |
|
|
|
|
909
|
Economy / Goods / Re: [WTS] - Original oil paintings for BTC
|
on: August 14, 2014, 10:52:26 AM
|
Beautiful paintings, I especially like the "Old Cross" and "Boats at the Docks". Unfortunately I've got no fixed address to hang pictures at the moment... Bookmarked the thread though, I'll be back when I've got some wall space  |
|
|
|
|
912
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Buying Birth Control for Others 'Obligation Citzens Have'
|
on: August 05, 2014, 02:17:19 PM
|
|
@ Spendulus/solid
Yeah I apologise, I got the wrong end of the stick. No, I agree that corporations shouldn't be forced to pay for stuff like this for their employees. However, I think it would be a good idea for them to voluntarily provide the service (if such a service is not provided by the government).
@ Mobius
I was talking more about food/shelter for people that can't afford it (eg if they're disabled or unable to work - I misunderstood that this issue was about a company being forced to pay).
In the UK we have free sexual health clinics (open to everyone, regardless of income) where you can receive treatment, advice and free contraception/morning after pills. It's one of the few services where my tax money goes that I agree with, from both a social and economic standpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
913
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Buying Birth Control for Others 'Obligation Citzens Have'
|
on: August 04, 2014, 06:55:47 PM
|
|
OK bear with me, I'm a bit confused and don't quite get how religion or morals are involved here...
So some judge woman says there should be free contraception/morning after pills for women.
Then some Christians complain because contraception/abortion is against their morals. (is that it?)
If the woman wants an abortion, are the Christians saying she shouldn't be allowed by law? These anti-abortion idiots should get off their high horse, what if she's a pagan, or an atheist, and believes she should have responsibility over her own body? Last time I checked being a Christian wasn't a legal requirement of being an American citizen.
Also this is absolutely retarded from an economic point of view. If a woman has a child she cannot afford, you will be paying for that child's welfare. That's gonna cost a lot more than the price of 1 pill.
If it's "Oh noes I'm being forced to pay money for something that's against my religion", then I would think there are more pressing issues with your tax money, like the massive defence budget that goes toward killing thousands of people every year. What happened to Jesus' ideology of forgiving people instead of blowing them up?
If you are living in a society which demands you pay taxes (whether that's right or wrong is another matter), then contraception should be a basic right, along with food and shelter. If you want to see what happens when contraception is illegal/seen as immoral, then have a look at the quality of life in some of the poor African countries that don't use much birth control.
|
|
|
|
|
914
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Attn: Human Influenced Climate Change deniers
|
on: August 02, 2014, 07:09:12 PM
|
OK, let me try and clarify some points. First off, I don't think the science is settled. Although I am firmly leaning towards "It's happening, and it's probably due to greenhouse gases produced by humans", I am trying to keep an open mind here and I try to read all evidence for and against without prejudice. I think we should be researching this as much as we can, for many years into the future. I use the word "denier" to describe people that think they know 100% that we're being told a lie. Unless you have a PhD in climatology/geography or similar, or can fully understand every detail/computer model in every climate/geography scientific journal, then sorry, but you're not really qualified to say "Open your eyes, it's obvious that it's due to [insert other cause here]". I don't pretend to know for sure one way or the other, I'm just making an educated opinion on what I know, and what I read by other people that I believe know better than me (mainly scientists/climatologists, definitely not journalists or politicians). The real point of this thread was not to start another climate change argument, it was to investigate the issues we might face by our choices going into the future. For example, what might happen if it's true and we do nothing, or what might happen if it's false and we do act. The only reasonable argument I've read so far involves the hypothetical pain/suffering of many people, due to humanity choosing renewable energy over fossil fuels. I'd appreciate it if someone who believes this could try and refute my post above, because it's an argument that I've heard from many people and it just doesn't make sense to me. Some of you seem to think that I'm trying to argue/get a reaction out of people, I'll admit that my OP did come across as a little provocative, but that was not the intention (and as you can see I made a follow up post clarifying my position more clearly). So let's keep "who's right/wrong" out of this thread (There's the reddit climate change thread for that), and try and look at the "what-ifs"... |
|
|
|
|
915
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Climatic weapon in action.
|
on: August 02, 2014, 06:11:44 PM
|
Waves like that is normal to us. Btw, we are the facing pacific ocean.
Black sea is all other thing. On Atlantic coast of USA Russian forces can provoke 100 mt. high waves with total destruction of many cities. 100 metre high waves eh? I don't know the exact physics but that would need a stupid amount of energy. Maybe if you detonated a nuke underwater, I can't think of any other ways you could do this off the top of my head. What technology would they use? |
|
|
|
|
917
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Who's brave/stupid enough to invest their life savings into Bitcoin?
|
on: August 02, 2014, 05:53:53 PM
|
Investing your life savings into Bitcoin is borderline retarded and indicative of a low financial intelligence.
That statement is so true it hurts. So what do you think is a safe/good amount of your savings to invest in Bitcoin? 20, 30 over 50 percent?
The key here is it all depends on how much savings you've got. Most people I know have life savings of less than a year's salary, and don't own any assets. For them, it would probably make sense to invest a lot, >50%, because they could make the money back by living very economically for a few years. If you have a million dollars in the bank, then it would be pretty dumb to invest >50% of it IMO, I would say no more than 15%, more like 5% But if you have a million dollars and own 10 houses worth a million each, why not invest 100% of your money? If it fails, sell one of your houses and you'll have your money back. This is such bad advice. You're advising the guy who doesn't have money to invest a lot of it, and the guy who has tons to invest a little. No, I stand by my recommendation - It's all about damage control, what you'd have left if Bitcoin failed, and how much the investment could change your life. The guy that doesn't have much money benefits a lot more by investing a higher percentage. Lets say they put in 100% of their life savings which is $5,000, and it multiplies by 10 in a year or two, they now have $50,000 which is a life-changing amount of money for this person (considering their current lifestyle). If they lose it all, then they could make that $5,000 back in a couple of years, by saving $50/week. A guy with $1m is already sitting pretty, so for them to invest the whole million and lose it would make their life considerably worse - it would be a hell of a lot harder, if not impossible, for them to make the money back. Yes, they could turn their $1m into $10m, but this wouldn't better their life that much. After all, they can already buy a nice house, a nice car, and still have enough money to put into low return investments which would pay them enough interest to buy food and clothes. Geddit? |
|
|
|
|
918
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: Change ONLY one word in the post above of the iconic novel opening.
|
on: July 31, 2014, 08:17:53 PM
|
|
Lucy was the boffin, the schtupped öyster; verboten porn reject in Lackawanna - siphoning by occasional intercourse, like it was lost by a maniac bedlamite on LSD who rode down the mountain (for it is on Whoppers that our penny-farthings ride), cackling at the gibbosity, and quizzically agitating Gleb the Flame by the fire that raped against the wombats.
|
|
|
|
|
920
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: S.E. Cupp: It’s a myth that conservatism is hostile to atheism
|
on: July 31, 2014, 08:06:03 PM
|
Ever been to a meeting of atheists? In large part they are pro Clinton, pro Obama, pro socialist anything, pro Marxist, etc. Rather ridiculous and boring actually.
Certainly doesn't mean one is equal to the other.
You got it wrong, you didn't went to an Atheist meeting, you went to a Communist meeting, who happens to be also atheists. You can't have atheist meetings, because there's no mass, no church, no associations, no nothing, Just plain people going around their business and not caring about worshiping any imaginary friend. You most certainly can have an Atheist organization. It's just Non-Prophet. bad-um tsshhh! In my experience there's no link between atheism and political ideology. I'm an atheist and verge on anarchism, I know some atheists which lean to conservative, some which have socialist views. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
