"By harnessing the power of tiny waves dancing in an electron sea"

I am glad something came out of the tidal wave and nuclear plant.

(I am sorry for Japan and surrounding areas)

It's all very nice having a super computer race, but what I want to know is does it run Linux?

I like your idea, I propose that we get NASA to lunch a man object over to the moon to check out your theory. Because for all we know those Flying Spaghetti Monsters are terrorist with downloaded music from *AA with HDs full of child porn.

Wont someone think of the children!

You just got to learn to speak politicians language if you want to get your way. (I actually would like a man mission back to the moon in my life time).

When I needed a coworker to her job I would email BCC to the boss just to let him in on whats going on and to at as prove later on if required.

It covered my butt a couple of times because since I am the "tech" at my work, I could easily fake an email, so by sending at the same time my butt is covered if a dispute occurs and the coworker never received my deleted email. (I hate people playing politics at work)

And on the plus side, the boss would think I am hard working and motivated while the other is troublesome.

I would have to disagree with you,

1 Evolution isn't a fact. It's a theory/story based on fact and "optimistically" reinterpreted into what it is.
2 The moon showing the same face to earth is because the moon is gravitationally locked to the earth. This happens when there is an imbalance in the orbiting object and the heavy side is pulled towards the earth/star. This doesn't mean the Moon was caught by the Earth.

As for 1,
Evolution is the theory that simple life/cells build up complexity into better life forms. This is done by using 2 facts,
      1 Natural Selection.
                NS is where the fittest survives to the next generation. But NS is the exact opposite of Evolution.
                Evolution is from simple to complex, but NS is complex (in information) to simple (less information).
                This can mean the lifeform survives better. and example of how NS is opposite to Evol is dogs/wolfs.
                Everyone agrees all dogs came from wolfs. So the dna of wolfs contain both Big dogs and small dogs.
                When they bread, you will get some of the dna of both parents into all the children but not all the possibilities.
                So if you get 2 small dogs, you will never get a big dog out of them. Same for blue eyes and brown eyes in humans.
                heres a overly simple chart / view:

                                Bs Bs DNA of 2 wolfs containing both "big" and "small" geanes
                        BB Bs Bs ss There children containing the variation of the DNA.
        BB BB What happens when you get only Big dogs breading is the result of only Big dogs.
    BB BB BB BB

          So Natural Selection will reduce information, and is the opposite to evolution.

      2 Mutations
        Mutations are mistakes in the dna where there shouldn't be the normal variation. Normally DNA will detect and remove errors in the code but when something isn't corrected, you get the mutation. The vast majority of mutations do not show there effect during the breading time of the lifeform. So mutations are passed down from generation to generation without notice. Usually when a mutation is seen it shows up as a very bad thing. There are a few exception to this. E.g. Theres an island near Italy where the bugs have no wings because of a mutation but that loss of information meant they were kept on the windy island instead of being blown away.
          Viruses & bacteria do not have the DNA correcting abilities like we do, (and ignoring the cross breading that they do), they are not getting any more information when they mutate. But when they mutate they often lose something information and become weaker compared to there wild cousins. but due to the change in the structure of there surfaces our bodies find it harder to attack them. (natural selection going on there, not Evolution).

Evolution doesn't make predictions that creations can't also explain. It depends how you interpret the data given. But when it comes to benefits, if you assume the human cell is a super complex machine, with all it's complexities, you will get further than thinking it's a "simple" mistakenly assemble thing. Like how Evolution pushed the idea of "junk" DNA consisting of 95% of us yet only discovering recently that all of it is used. That is one of the greatest failure of Evolutions predictions which has cost all of us alot of time which could of been used in researched.

I was expected to see in the image a sheep being picked up half way in the tractor beam.
kind of disappointed its not there. :-(

I had interpreted this as the best way that God could explain to a guy 6000years ago.
Technologically how would you explain that I just took a piece out of you, altered the double helix acid code in ways you will never understand, grew up sample into your really sexy babe. This isn't even thought possible to humans until recently in the last 50 maybe 100yrs and as of yet, we got dolly the sheep which is just a clone, not an altered clone.

So saying God took a rib and grew Eve out of it I think it much more realistic now than it ever was.
(Same for the Adam from dirt argument, think of startrek teleport technology assembling people from atoms. All the resources are already there, and Eve was made from adman and not from dirt I assume to stop people saying females were not human. (which people would do if they could.))
Or I could be completely off on the technology side but it seems thats how it is.

Thanks for respecting my views, usually I just get insulted as someone who doesn't think.

Right now I am thinking of my car. It's a dihatsu 91 model. It had a leaking radiator, the aircon was ripped out of it (before I brought it), and it has holes in the side door's padding, the wipers can't move the water off the window unless it's smush it to make everything blury. (Anyone want to buy it :-p)

Did the manufacture designed the car that way? No, they manufacture a good car. And it's the way I (and previous owners) treated it that caused it to be "evil".

Dont blame the manufacturer for a good car being completely awful. (still better than the busses in Canberra.)

And you can have good without evil. God created it Good, without any evil in it. (otherwise it would not be "good"). It's not Ying&Yang. That would be like giving a car to your son (good) and then saying, I did you good son, heres the evil (and kicking him in the balls). That doesn't happen(?). There is not force connecting Good and Evil together. (I'm sounding a bit weird here) The two will always try remove the other, they can not exist in harmony with each other.

Also God created the first humans directly, not the descendants. So God created the matter and the program of DNA for "kinds" to manufacture descending "kinds". So God didn't create you directly, but the atoms you exist from and the original blueprints of your design (of course degraded from the prefect dna of adam/eve).

I will agree that God created everything, but God didn't create "evil". Genesis talked about everything he created was "good". God created Lucifer has a "Cherubim" (super angle). The bible talked about 5 of them, we know 3 of them names. Lucifer was in charge of all creation, and was referred to as "The morning star". He is brilliant and very creative (in talent) and good at music. But being the most powerful created thing didn't make him as powerful as God. He got cocky and wanted to raise himself to be like God. His arrogance caused him to sin and rebel against God and he talked 1/3 of angles into joining him.

So God didn't create evil, but he allowed this angle to choose to be evil. Thats the problem of free will, as you slashdotter's love to have freedom to do what you want. God allowed (against his will) for this to happen. And the reason Satin is "evil" is he knows his punishment is coming and he only have a short time to spit in the face of God, since he can't do it directly, he goes after the thing God loves the most which Satin can hurt, ... Us.

Well replied educated response there Myrikhan.

1 - Your right, it's an starting assumption.
2 - Thats very cool, I didn't know that. I will have to read up on that.
3 - I've heard it was plank time . 10^-43 seconds? (but it is still assuming all matter was in a ball or a pinhead.)
4 - How big does the ball have to be for matter to over ride the gravity? At what point did it start? These are based on a faith that it must of existed but theres no *proof, (which can't be explained by another theory, e.g. cosmic microwave background can be explained by 2 other theorys, one I didn't agree with but predicted it before it was measured (Can't remember what is was about right now.)).
If it was a ball, why it started as a ball then expanded? again you are forced to make assumptions.
      My own assumption is that it's easier trying to explain it came from a singularity because "the laws of normal physics dont apply", so you can get away with string theories and multi-verses. I thought it will be much harder to explain a ball-o-really hot stuff coming into existence.
5 - Dark Energy isn't proven yet even though it's 75% of whats there? same for dark matter (light & heavy). These fudging factors are required for the BB to work. (And for outer galaxy stars to move as observed) I've read a theory that if gravity is a pushing force from gravitons then the effect of objects blocking the gravitons will cause an attraction in between objects and so that would account for the odd behavior of the outer stars moving faster than expected.
6 - I'll have to look up that 10^70 thing, I had a memory of that being the speed of which our 3d space expanded, but I will have to look up what the current BB theory says about that then.
The books I've read all say that a gas cloud is just too hot for it to collapse.
            you suffer from the following:
                1 - If temperature goes above 50Kelvin the gas tears apart
                2 - The speed of gas is just too fast for gravity to take effect.
                3 - for the gas to form stars it requires first to be a primed state (compressed to tipping point)
                          & a compression shock wave to get above the barrar.
                          The problem here is that if you say gas can collapse then it would of formed black holes everywhere.
                            And since gas can't compress itself into the critical density it requires a shock wave to form a star, but you need a star first to create a star. circular reference there.
                            How dense do you need it to be? well if it's as dense as the earth, then it can only just hold onto the air.
                  4 - How about rock planets?
                            You suffer from the problem that you first need stars then explosions to generate heavy metals / rocks/ dust required for planets (so you dont have the time)
                              You require at least 50cubicKms of rock just to hold on to a dust partical. The smallest I've read was astoriod is 500cubKm
                              1 way to get the asteroids is if you have a planet to break up but then what would of created the planet? another circular loop.
                              (The space shuttle did manage to get serveral dust particals to stick together because of some wierd effect with something about the magnitic field of the atoms not being even, I dont understand it, but it requires the dust moving with each other, and can only link up about 50cents / teaspoon amount of dust together. )

We will just have to agree to disagree with each other on gas not being heavy enough to self collapse.

I agree that science is about theorizing, observing & experiments. Thats operational science which brings forth all our current achievements

I thank you Myrikhan on giving a few notes I need to look up, and for giving an intelligent reply.

Can you enlighten me where I have a misunderstanding? as I would like to not argue illrelativant points.

Or did the laws of physics just changed when I wasn't looking?

Wow, my first post reads like I was a troll. oops. I post was about using a unrelated theory to advertise this article. (Which I think needs more technical details)

The big bang is a theory which relies on many assumptions which work against it. The more science you apply to it the more assumptions you have to make. Every theory you have to start with at least 1 assumption so lets give the BB the credit of the doubt and say it's did came from a singularly. just off the top of my head I can think of these problems:
  1 - Where did a singularity come from?
                    Problem, you can't rely on any matter or energy because they didn't exist yet.
  2 - A singularity is a black hole? all the matter of the universe is compressed into a theorized pinhead that means the atoms can not move, therefor the matter is in a thermodynamic dead end. it can not change state.
3- How long in time was the singularity stayed the way it was? (Does time stop in a black hole?, I dont know.)
4 - What mystical force caused the explosion / expansion of the singularity?
5 - I might be wrong on the name here but the hubble's constant of the expanding universe combiend with the gravity of the matter of the universe force would have to match to a accuracy ratio of 1 to 1 million million million in relation to each other otherwise the universe will
              A - collpase on itself.
              B - explode.
6 - With the BB I read you only get hydrogen / heiliem atoms. This means you should get a steady cloud of gas expanding at 10^70 the speed of light
                A - What causes the cloud to condense into galixies at the gas is uniformed.
                B - Why wouldn't the gas collapse back to the sigularity?

Do you want me to go on about how gas clouds can't form galaxies because they require a working super nova / sun to compact them enough for gravity to hold them?

Anyway, People have to use the BigBang theory because they have no other way to explain the universe and how they exist. And the other explanation they refuse to accept. So funding goes mainly/only? to such "research" hindering science other possibilities.
  Enhance funding == more popular.
More popular == getting chance at being read / publish.
Therefor when I stick my fork into the power socket and see sparks flying, that must be something to do with how the early big bang worked. (I am now moderated up).

I hope this brief posting enlightens some people but I gotta work now. I do recommended for anyone to read a book "Dismantling the Big Bang". It does a much better job at ripping to pieces then what I can remember.

Cheers
Obble.

Detecting a new form of plasma has nothing to do with the fantasy of the big bang. The reason this was published was because they dropped the BB name in it.
Don't get me wrong, the finding of super hot plasma gluttons is a cool thing, (err hot?) but trying to push the unrelated big bang with it is not (Although it does it work to get published).

Ho Ho ho, Your Legi mind tricks wont work on me.

I've been waiting for this release, I use OS 11.2 as well. I have tried Ubuntu, Gentoo & Slackware but always came back to OpenSuse. (mainly because it's the CD that wasn't scratched and booted with little effort because of my old / weird sata chipset. )