The 4 dimensional one or the movie one.
Lumber? Paper? Though more is probably made in it's transport in production just from the oil used.
It's like someone read Fahrenheit 451 and thought, "I could make a mechanical hound!" A few years ago I remember they made a fuel cell that could run on meat as well. Add a good gas chromatography and they'll have a viscious man eating robot dog!
I guess I should ask what you mean by "pretty sure". Adding to large atoms are a lot easier than small ones. It's been a long time since I've read about it, but it's called "proton induced fission". Admittedly, most of the reading when you Google it is a bit heavy. I do know that if you crack U238 with a proton that all 3 daughter isotopes have a half life of 35 days or less (one is like an hour and a half) and their daughter isotopes are all stable.
Anyway, if you Google "proton induced fission" and "nuclear waste" together you'll see there are already papers proposing the idea, such as this one:
Seems like a stream of protons (which is really just hydrogen ions) could be fired at nuclear waste to get it to split without making the next thing down the chain so neutron heavy as to make it radioactive itself. I would like to know how boiling radioactive waste is supposed to drop the half life. If it does I have some physics to brush up on.
Does sexism one way correct for sexism the other. What your saying is "men were very sexist in the past and that's bad. But sexism is only bad when men do it so its okay for women to do it now."
"your ancestors treated them like shit" is not a good excuse.
Isnt it more sexist for women to intentionally fund women's projects instead of men's? If men didn't help fund women you KNOW they'd cry foul.
It also implies that places like WalMart dont still have racks dedicated to 3D movies or that they not still being released. I buy them all the time. Old movies that were converted always look better than new ones cause they weren't thinking od 3D ahead of time. The scenes look more natural.
When a photon is absorbed and then re emitted, the direction it's emitted is random. The effect would have little difference from being scattered. So yes, if it was done often then it would blur out anything you'd try to see from orbit. You're claiming a lack of understanding. Is there anything else I could clarify for you?
I believe 1880 or 1890 was the first, but I could be wrong. I was trying to say the glaciers were receding without our help. I'm not saying they haven't accelerated, but it's implied that they wouldn't be receding without out us. To say it's re emitted often is an exaggeration. If that were the case it would impossible to make detailed IR images of Earth's surface from space, it would just be a blur. It would look like what blue light does in daytime, which is scattered a lot (I know, not exactly the same).
I'm fond of the Kenai Peninsula. Plan to move there in a couple years.
Having actually been there and visited a few of the glaciers, some of them have signposts that say how far they've receded. There's posts along the path with years on them. Thing is the posts go clear back to the late 1800's. Heading back in a couple weeks, I'll take pictures this time.
It's easy. There's usually hospital or school records of people being vaccinated. If they're not, pin them down and vaccinate them. What would you be charged with? Protecting their life?
They have already trademarked "Model Y". So according to Musk, they've put a trademark on SEXY.
Actually I think the burden is on you to explain that. One should try to understand the effects of their research, certainly. But what does geology, or astrophysics, even biology have anything to do with a love of nature. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to remove personal biases. The only thing that can come from putting a love of nature into your science is bad science. You'd be doing humanity a disservice by perverting data with your emotions.
So are you saying he's wrong? There is no place in science of any field for personal agendas or opinions.
"Reverence for the environment" is an extension of the reverence for nature. There's nothing unscientific about that...
What? How would a reverence for nature have anything to do with science whatsoever?