Kurtz

Since this thread has left Taiwan and drifted out in the realm of GOVERNMENT NAZI UFO MIND CONTROL CONSPIRACY you might want read this article about mind control parasites

From Google's cache of "CLOSE AIR SUPPORT SUMMARY SHEET"

Where were we? Oh, yes, the People´s Jihad and the Islamistic Liberation Army of Red China just invaded Formosa. My answers: B, B, A, B, B The (a) in Q4 seems to be at the wrong place. Shouldn´t it come after "allies"?

I had to check what the phrase actual meant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kool_Aid_Drinker I think that description fits a lot of people, including Tagwyn who started using the phrase in this thread.

Is Tagwyn for real or is he just satirizing the right-wing nuts? :confused: And what does his ramblings have to do with a conflict between China (People's Republic of) and the United States (of America)? Can we expect to hear from the People's Jihad or somefink? :confused: :confused: :confused:

That's not a very constructive post , Tagwyn. What's the saying? Pot..Kettle..something.... China is not "a most serious threat to the Western way of life". China is necessary to maintain "the Western way of life". But I suppose you don't buy stuff Made in China? Your computer, or parts of it is not Made in China by any chance? Take a look around you in your basement room, are there any devices from Red China, monitoring your every action and reporting them back to their Evil Communist Masters in the Far East? No? Nothing made in China? Only stuff made in the USA?

I wonder who a blockade or war will hurt the most; US/EU or China? I turned my mouse and keyboard around and found a sticker which said "made in China" (on a Microsoft mouse). What would happen to Wal-Mart wihout a steady supply of cheap trinkets made in China? What would happen to the prices of stuff 'made in China' in case of a conflict (or threat of conflict) in the area? The Chinese and US/EU economies are so hard tied together you can't hurt one without hurting the other.

By the way, I'm sure there are lots of evidence for the geocentric model of the Solar system.

I have Googled and looked at a bunch of sites. But since I'm not familiar with the technical details, there isn't much use in reading them. I don't have enough knowledge in nuclear physics to seperate the wheat from the chaff. I have no idea which of the sites are credible and which are false or just biased. That's why I want peer review. I want some scientist with the appropriate knowledge to follow the instructions and repeat the cold fusion. I glanced at the book "Fire and Ice" and saw it was from 1991. I suppose something must have happened in 15 years? Looking at the sites, I get the impression this free energy business attracts a lot of loonies, and wouldn't be surprised if the lab trashings etc you mention is performed by some of these people in revenge for something or the other. But of course they blame it all on The Great Conspiracy If it is so easy to get free energy, why don't we? Why isn't Big Business filing patents for cold fusionall over the place to prevent us mortals from possibly making a buck? I think there isn't much interest in energy research at all, because energy is cheap. Sure, the gasoline prices have increased, but it's not expensive. If energy really was expensive, there would be a real interest in saving energy. People are not willing to pay a higher initial cost in order to save in the long run. It possible to build houses that use excess heat from people and appliances for heating. Good insulation, heat exchangers but still good ventilation. To bad it's a few percent more expensive to build this way. Actually, in Sweden the energy consumtion for new houses have increased something like 10% since 1990. No need to save on something that's cheap. I'm planning on buying a new fridge and find it's cheaper to buy an older model with high energy consumtion than to buy a newer model with lower consumtion. The higher price of the newer model will take away the saving made by the lower electricity bill. Unless I keep the fridge for 20 years or so, which isn't likely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtora http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/shtora-1.htm I detects laser from rangefinders (and target designators), which probably is why M1A1TankCommander doesn't like it. The missile countermeasure is probably not effective against modern ATGMs (unless they are laser beam riders). The signal between missile and launcher is encoded to be more resistant against this type of jamming.

I'm sorry John, but I don't think a few people's perceived maltreatment is proof of anything. As you said, there are lots of conferences going on and even prizes for those who make a working device. Blaming a government/big business conspiracy for your failures isn't a reasonable explanation when your're trying to violate the laws of physics. If you want to change the laws of physics (which is possible) you need proof. Lots of proof. But I can see why noone takes Cold Fusion seriously anymore. Pons & Fleischmann is responsible for that when they made astonishing claims and failed to back them up. I just read about the "100-mile carburateror"; http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp I wonder why Hot fusion is an accepted line of research when cold fusion isn't? There is nothing to prevent the governments from spending their money on CF rather than HF, such as the ITER project. And why isn't Big Business trying to take over this? Why don't they fund research and get patents (after all, they control the government and shouldn't have any problem in convincing the Patent Office that they should get patents). When they have patents, they can get money everytime a CF device is made. Anyway, bring me proof of a working device and I'll accept it. But you should also bring along two things: Reproducability and Peer review Saying "it won't work 'cuz the stars aren't right" , "the men in black ate my homework" or "it worked fine yesterday" isn't proof of anything.

:eek: Happy new year, everyone!

Reproducability and peer review. That´s all I ask for from anyone who claims to be a scientist. But playing the "the Establishment is trying to stop us"-card isn't proof of anything. - Martin Fleischmann in Wired Not very convincing, IMO. The burden of proof is on the person who claims to have an invention that contravenes established knowledge. There was a new claim a couple of years ago, something about cavitation in acetone, but I haven't heard anything about CF since then.

Until the "free energy from vacuum"-people put up their findings for peer review and repetition by other scientists I'll put their findings on the "Cold Fusion"-shelf. a.k.a "things that would be really nice if they worked but they don't". We have an established method in science, it might not be flawless, but that's what we demand today. Reproducability and peer review. Without those components, new findings won't be accepted, no matter how happy everyone would be if they worked. How to spot "free energy scams": http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/fnrg.html http://www.phact.org/e/con_man.htm I know, the formatting on those pages are horrible. From the last link: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.

It's quite funny when someone makes what's supposed to be a German technical drawing and they don't use German characters in it. Why would a German spell a word with "ue" or "ae" when they have the proper characters "ü" and "ä"? OK, no more nazi ufos today. I'm off to read some crackpot science. Energy from vacuum? Of course, no problems at all. But how do you create vacuum without energy input?

In other news: From Weekly World News. Sounds like a trustworthy source. Good thing the Germans never learned the Enigma code was broken, otherwise we wouldn't have any knowledge of this menacing threat. The article is from June, I guess the saucers are still hovering over Antarctica.

Should be easy enough to reproduce this experiment. Reproducibility is very important in science, as you probably know. Meanwhile, more pictures of nazi ufos, now in Antarctica: Good point.

What is this, don't we have more important things to discuss. Like, say, why there where no nazi ufo:s in the first three CM games. It was real funny reading about the wonder weapons.

In the 1970's, when the Swedish military contemplated buying more G3's or switching to 5.56, the calculations indicated a 40% lower cost during the weapon's expected lifetime for the 5.56 alternative. Lower cost / weapon, less ammo needed for training, cheaper ammo and a longer expected lifetime (!) were the factors in this calculation. There are of course costs when introducing a new system, but in the long run it'll be cheaper.

I really touched a nerve, didn't I? But the logistical issue isn't an issue, right? The main difference is that the dead doesn't need as much attention as the wounded. And they don't need it this very second. Once you have found out that your buddy is dead, you can continue the fight. But if he's still screaming and bleeding all over the place, it would be quite rude not to help him. And just to make things clear: I have never said that the 5.56 is specifially designed to wound, not to kill. That's you trying to put words in my mouth again. (unless I have been unclear in some post). Anyway, as I have mentioned before, the logistical issue applies in a conventional war, and so do a lot of the other factors considering 5.56 vs 7.62. In a situation like Iraq, other factors may be more important. Come to think about it: the 5.56 wepaons are probably cheaper as well, which I guess mostly is from a shift in production techniques (e.g. from machined to stamped metal). Some armies were in the process of replacing older weapons, and had to make a decision whether to relace them with the standard rifle at the time (7.62) or replace all weapons with 5.56. Since 5.56 weapons generally are lighter and smaller (especially if they have a folding stock), they can replace the submachinegun for vehicle crews, cooks and officers. With 7.62 for the infantry, you probably need someting ligther for REMFs. With 5.56, the entire army can have the same weapon.

- Robert A. Heinlein Just look at Albania when everyone got guns a couple of years ago.

I read it. In a book. Don't remember where I read it, Consider it "anecdotal evidence" or somefink. I think the availability of ammo was a factor. Again, this is an unexpected situation and that's why I remembered reading it. If the US in Vietnam had been issued with AK-47s and the Vietnamese with the M16, I'm sure some US troops would have preferred the M16.

And from the same war there are stories about Vietnamese who prefered the M16. The grass is always greener on the other side.

What more evidence do you need, Dorosh?

No sources for you. My military-related literature (which mostly is in Swedish anyway) is stored away and I have no intention if digging it up for this argument. And I'm way too lazy to trawl the internet and trying to assess the credibility of various sources. You think I'm perpetuating an "dumb sounding urban myth". Fine, I think I'll be able to sleep tonight despite that. And I don´t think it sounds dumb at all. From a logistic point of view it makes sense. However, I don't think reduced lethality was the main argument (you're putting words in my mouth again) for the switch to 5.56.