No, I'm afraid you're wrong. Hey, if the correlation between "child abuse images" and "pornographic images" in the BBC's report was a little bit too obscure for you to catch, perhaps you'd be better off at the Daily Mail. Here:

Is it really that hard to put 2 and 2 together?

The opening line said "child abuse images". The rest of the article described them as "pornographic images".

Did it ever occur to you that the headline might - just might - have been correct? And then, as the relevant fact had already been stated, it wasn't repeated later in the article?

Heck, you could even do some due diligence and look up a few other sources, mr. "skip the blurb and get to the source". Here's a couple:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110921/Council-bans-daughter-contact-Nigel-Robinson-child-porn-images.html
"A father has been banned from being alone with his eight-year-old daughter after telling police he accidentally accessed child porn while attempting to download music from the internet."

http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=170852
"a British man has been banned from being alone with his eight-year-old daughter for up to a year after he accidentally downloaded images of child pornography while attempting to download an album from former GUNS N' ROSES guitarist Slash"

No, they are the EM equivalent of shouting down the tower. They are low-power devices doing the equivalent of telling the phone: "the tower is nowhere to be found. Good luck finding another one." The phone then drops the call all by itself.

You have two devices, a tower and a phone. The tower has a lot of power, but it is far away and its signal is very weak. The phone has less power, but it has to have enough power to reach the tower - it is effectively already "shouting". Both must be able to talk to the other, or the call will drop. To jam the connection, the weaker one is the one you obviously want to drown out. The tower's signal is weaker, so that's what you jam. And since your broadcast power is low, it only affects a small area.

Think about it for a minute: The phone is already transmitting with enough power to reach the tower. If you wanted to drown out the phone's signal, you'd have to also drown out every phone's signal going to the tower. You'd have to DOS the entire tower.

That is obviously not what a jammer is doing: it creates a small, localized area where the tower's signal (not the phone's signal) is drowned out by noise. As a result, phones close to the jammer will drop their connections to the tower.

No - I meant anachronism - but after finding that I had spelled it correctly I didn't read the definition carefully enough to notice that (I'd forgotten) it has a specific relation to incongruity in time, not just context. So I suppose my use of it was, itself, a catachresis.

Catachresis doesn't really seem to fit what I was trying to say particularly well, either. The word was used correctly, grammatically, it's just that the meaning of the word that it was supposed to modify can't really be altered by the meaning of the word "high". I was more trying to point out that incongruity. Maybe incongruity is the closest word to what I actually wanted.

FYI, that's an anachronism: All Earth geosynchronous orbits, whether circular or elliptical, have a semi-major axis of 42,164 km (26,199 mi).

A geosynchronous orbit can't be modified by words such as "low" or "high". It is what it is.

Someone is fascinated by the way a fabric of structural elements in tension behave. It's almost cute.

In all seriousness, though, TFA was pretty light on the details. It sounds like a really interesting simulation, but a dumbed-down write-up is just kinda ... well, almost too watered down to be very interesting.

It sounds like you've got it all figured out.

I suppose I should probably blame this.

That might not be much of a problem. Helium is the least water-soluble monatomic gas. At STP (0 C, 1 atm), the solubility of helium is 1.7 ppm.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html

Helium pretty much just doesn't like staying anywhere, including in water.

Please, stop spreading the FUD. Regular tap water can just as well cause water intoxication if you drink too much of it, and ultra-pure water is by no means unsafe to drink.

Yes, it most definitely is FUD, and he was spreading it, though not nearly as thickly as you.

I think the phrase you're looking for is "universal solvent". Oxygen is the most corrosive chemical in the universe, AFAIK. Solvent != corrosive.

Utter bullshit. The leaching process would be so slow that you'd have to leave a tooth in a glass of DI water for a long time before any substantial amount of minerals were leached out of it.

Water passes through a cell membrane much more easily than those ions, so no. Osmatic pressure would cause the cells to fill with water until they burst, but regular tap water will do the same thing. It would not instantly suck all the ions out of your cells, by any stretch of the imagination.

Why don't you go and do that, moron. Meanwhile, I'll be drinking RO water, just about as pure as it can be made.

Correlation != causation. I'm sure plenty of people have kept super-pure water in glass vessels without experiencing that problem, so the onus is on you to prove what you claimed next:

Stop spreading the FUD.

If you're eating properly you will get plenty of electrolytes from your food.

And you could probably die from drinking too much pure Gatorade. Your point?

Arrest, in its original version, means "to bring to a stop". Its next definition is, "to take or keep in custody by authority of law". I.e. an officer of the law stops you and then keeps you there. The amount of time you are kept there is immaterial.

If an officer of the law stops you, he has arrested you. If that officer then keeps you there, he is arresting you.

"Detain" is a word that was invented to mean "we don't have enough cause to arrest you, but we believe we're justified in forcing you to submit to an unconstitutional search, during which we hope to find cause to arrest you".

That is a nice conspiracy theory, but I fail to see how the Israelis would obtain any tactical benefit in attacking an American ship. It would serve only as detrimental to the overall good relationship between Israelis and the US. I don't see that it would generating any amount of support from Israeli natives, and it would of course probably create outrage in the US, with possible ill effects to their ongoing ability to purchase armaments from us.

I am therefore quite doubtful that it was "carefully planned to happen", even if it wasn't an accident - of which I am also not convinced.

Feel free, as long as your justification for each of those being planned is something better than "too coincidental to be a coincidence". And when you have similar justification for this event being non-coincidental, I'll entertain that idea as well.

Oh... so that's it. I knew there must be some catch. They don't want to actually own your entry, because when someone comes a-suing they'll just point him in your general direction and say "his invention, we're just selling it".