flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Global Warming

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
Quote:

I hope you don't think that I was saying global warming is man-made. No, I haven't seen enough proofs for that so far. There are many arguments for, and many against. No scientific consesus. Of course man contributed to global warming, but there is no certainity if the contribution was worthy, or just some 1/1000th of degree per 100 years.


Far out, vid is now arguing my points while simultanous arguing the opposite view at the same time Smile




vid wrote:

What's the purpose in asking us random question about CO2, and moving to other question when last one is answered? Is there some conclusion in the end?


Nope, no conclusion, just posted these simple thoughts in the hope you will start using your brain instead of throwing crap data at me from bias resources and then crying when I don't take your truth as fact.
Post 03 Dec 2007, 04:23
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
I hope you don't think that I was saying global warming is man-made. No, I haven't seen enough proofs for that so far. There are many arguments for, and many against. No scientific consesus. Of course man contributed to global warming, but there is no certainity if the contribution was worthy, or just some 1/1000th of degree per 100 years.

I was just telling that global warming IS HAPPENING, eg. that average temperature is raising last several decades, and that is pretty much confired by all science. Only MichaelH and alikes who don't like it for some reason, and think that truth is in any way influenced by what they like (by their emotions).


As far as i'm concerned, they say that the oceans are clearly rising (with no argument about it). That means either more is in the oceans, it's getting warmer and the ice is melting, or it's getting colder and the air is reforming to water. Now personally, i don't care which it is, or even if the water is rising or falling. Fact is, it's all a waste of time to argue about propoganda. The left is notoriously humanistic, and likes to say that humans either have infinit potentential and can do something about a problem or that humans have already gone so far that they're the cause of a problem. It's why i'm conservative, for man isn't the only cause of death and destruction, nor will man ever control that which contains him.
Post 03 Dec 2007, 05:19
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
MichaelH wrote:
Quote:

I hope you don't think that I was saying global warming is man-made. No, I haven't seen enough proofs for that so far. There are many arguments for, and many against. No scientific consesus. Of course man contributed to global warming, but there is no certainity if the contribution was worthy, or just some 1/1000th of degree per 100 years.

Far out, vid is now arguing my points while simultanous arguing the opposite view at the same time Smile

This is exactly same thing I was arguing since beginning:
vid wrote:
As for global warming, got any serious inidications it isn't true? I didn't study it into any depth, but so far i got impression that occurence of global warming is pretty much proved, only questionable thing is whether / to how much extent it is caused by human activity.


Also, I am not arguing your point here. I am arguing that I don't have enough data to make decision about human impact on global warming. You say that you already know with 100% certainity there is no impact:
MichaelH wrote:
vid wrote:
only questionable thing is whether / to how much extent it is caused by human activity.

Here's where I'm am absolutely certain. Humans have not caused anything

Of course, so far you failed to provide any data for this certainity. All you can do is is nonspecific blaming of my arguments and ad-hominem attacks on me.



Quote:
vid wrote:

What's the purpose in asking us random question about CO2, and moving to other question when last one is answered? Is there some conclusion in the end?

Nope, no conclusion, just posted these simple thoughts in the hope you will start using your brain instead of throwing crap data at me from bias resources and then crying when I don't take your truth as fact.

What makes you sure it is me who doesn't use brain? So far, i "brainlessly" addresses all your points and provided data, while you "using brain":
- didn't respond my questions
- didn't provide any data supporting your opinion
- attacked me personally (fanatical cult follower, not using brain)
- didn't properly understand what i was writing (top of this post)
- misrepresented your stance on subject (top of this post)

I let it on others to judge which type of activity (mine or yours) is closer to brainlessness.
Post 03 Dec 2007, 12:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
Well vid, I once had a debate with Hypervista and he did the same thing and started debating my points when he realised his views where wrong. I said to him then it didn't matter who was debating what in the end, what matters was we were both making the same points.

You can convince your self (like a fanatical cult follower) that it was you who has been reasonable and always said there was not enough evidence to support anything but seriously, it was always my view.

Quote:

What makes you sure it is me who doesn't use brain


Some evidence is the fact that I mentioned about CO2 and algae in the vast ocean, and I recieved nothing in return on those thoughts from you. Although I only scatched the surface of how this alive planet we live on works, I suspect you didn't even try to think about it.

Other evidence is you multiple posts taking on everyone, making statements everywhere and not making a lot of sense. Perhaps less post and more thought is in order as all points of view make a debate. Your quick fire responses only cloud the debate with nonsense.

As for answering your questions, when your questions are well thought out questions based on logic I may answer them but if they are questions based of propaganda, forget it!


The reason I brought the nonsense of the theory of global warming into a thread about rational people, versus "faith based" behaviour was to show that it's not just people from Sudan who do stupid things based on faith but everyday people everywhere. Thanks for taking the hook so well and proving my point Wink
Post 03 Dec 2007, 21:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Some evidence is the fact that I mentioned about CO2 and algae in the vast ocean, and I recieved nothing in return on those thoughts from you. Although I only scatched the surface of how this alive planet we live on works, I suspect you didn't even try to think about it.

That was not evidenced, as you yourself said here:
Quote:
Nope, no conclusion, just posted these simple thoughts in the hope you will start using your brain instead of throwing crap data at me ...


You simply posted two questions (one of them using wrong term), which we answered. Neither molecular mass of CO2 nor fact that it is used in fotosyntesis by itself doesn't mean human influence on global warming is small enough to not care. As you yourself said: there is no conclusion.

There is nothing for me to react on: yes, CO2 has mass, and yes, it is used in photosyntesis. I would appreciate if you could make some such conclusion though.

Quote:
Other evidence is you multiple posts taking on everyone, making statements everywhere and not making a lot of sense. Perhaps less post and more thought is in order as all points of view make a debate. Your quick fire responses only cloud the debate with nonsense.

Give me exact citation(s) where my post didn't have a sense. Just saying I post lot of nonsense and not showing one single example, like you did so far, isn't best way of discussion.

Actually, I would probably give up discussion sooner, but because of your personal attacks on me i will endure and refute every false claim you post here.

Quote:
As for answering your questions, when your questions are well thought out questions based on logic I may answer them but if they are questions based of propaganda, forget it!

If it is false propaganda, why don't you demonstrate it? False propaganda still can be refuted, and you would get high ground in debate by refuting some propaganda (if it was false). So far, all your arguments were unspecific blaming all data provided by me, and two questions "with no conclusion".

As for "based on logic", you can't base anything solely on logic, you need data (observations) too. And since all data so far was just "propaganda" for you, it's no wonder you didn't form any arguments yourself.

Quote:
The reason I brought the nonsense of the theory of global warming into a thread about rational people, versus "faith based" behaviour was to show that it's not just people from Sudan who do stupid things based on faith but everyday people everywhere.

If my opinion is based on faith on your on science and rationality, how come that you didn't provide any data, and I provided data which you didn't refute?
Post 03 Dec 2007, 22:00
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
Quote:

There is nothing for me to react on: yes, CO2 has mass, and yes, it is used in photosyntesis. I would appreciate if you could make some such conclusion though.


Being a fanactical cult follower who wants others to do the thinking for him, the fact you want me to make a conclusion for you comes as no surprise to me. How about you do some research and make your own conclusions "mr self proclaimed rational thinker".

Quote:

Give me exact citation(s) where my post didn't have a sense.


bla bla bla bla bla bal ........................
bla bla bla bla bla bal burb ........... bla bla bla Sad

Quote:

Actually, I would probably give up discussion sooner, but because of your personal attacks on me i will endure and refute every false claim you post here.


bla bla bla bla bla bal ........................
bla bla bla bla bla bal burb ........... bla bla bla cough cough
bla bla bla bla bla Sad


Quote:

If it is false propaganda


bla bla bla bla bla bal burb ........... bla bla bla cough cough

snort snort bla bla bla bla bla Sad
Post 03 Dec 2007, 22:27
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Being a fanactical cult follower who wants others to do the thinking for him, the fact you want me to make a conclusion for you comes as no surprise to me. How about you do some research and make your own conclusions "mr self proclaimed rational thinker".
You told this is NOT meant for any conclusion before. Changing stance, are we? Razz

And what is reason why you don't want to reveal conclusion?

Quote:
bla bla bla bal burb ........... bla bla bla cough cough

Very nice demonstration of your (self-proclaimed) logic. But i am really happy to see your "arguments" reduced to their true nature.

It is very interesting to see what you can resort to, if there is no facts for you to tell. Blaming people for saying crap, and blaming science for being propaganda is very easy, anyone can do this. Demonstrating these blames are truth is something harder.
Post 03 Dec 2007, 22:55
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
Quote:

bla bla bla bla


bla bla bli bli blou blou

posting bla bla is a good mark of humouristic mind, but why in this serious technical forum??

i didn't read anything of your last post cause of the bla bla who show your lack of good arguments.
why don't writing directlly," I don't matter anymore your boring replies" to vid? sincerity is better that noise making.

vid: why did you poll edfed instead of MickaelH in the brainless topic?
Post 03 Dec 2007, 23:01
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
edfed: how do you know i polled? Smile

But seriously, i did poll you, just as a joke. You know, when someone makes "who is biggest idiot"-type thread, there is only one thing to await. There is single standard answer for author: YOU. Just try it on random board, and you'll see. It is not meant for real. Smile

And I don't think MichaelH is brainless. I just think that he has big opinion about his rationality (just like me), but he lacks understanding of how science (rational methodology) works. That is why he is relucant to present data, or refute opposing data, as rationality requires. Reading of dozen "what is science" articles should fix it. I wasn't much different few years ago, and I will probably think same about today's myself few years in future.
Post 03 Dec 2007, 23:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
elementary my dead watson!
directlly after your postage, i won a vote.

we are all young (20-30 years old). as that, we first need to find our real own opinion before to accept the others. it's human nature.
the problem is for mans who are in the wrong way.

[list 1]
[*] science rationality
[*] mind trip
[*] justice laws
[*] natural laws
[/list]
first is found at office, when coworker are all intelligent all goes well and nothing is ignored
second is the hability to have some funny or hopefull ideas, like perpetual movment or reincarnation
third is applied to various laws that are not always logic but applied to humanity, by humanity, for humanity
fourth is the real unchangeable fact of all interactions

to talk about the Islam, teacher, Bear and democracy, i only can say:

islam is a religion based on coran, coran contain many explanations on exact science.

teacher is the person who try to transmit knowledge and education to the others, like islamist want to do.

bear is me, someone who don't care about the babylon system

democracy is just a word to hide the "love of the power" of our leaders.

zeitgeistmovie contain a statement at the end, a statement from JIMMY HENDRIX
Code:
when power of love overcome the love of the power, the world will know peace.
JIMMY HENDRIX
    

this statement is rational, true and universal. but is not scientific.
Post 03 Dec 2007, 23:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
edfed, the bla bla was an appropriate response for the endless bla bla from vid. Do not think it was because I have no answers to the question I have asked.

All I have done is tried to open vids (and others) closed mind by not presenting my knowledge on the subject but rather hoping it will make people want to acquire the needed knowledge to debate rationally.

However it appears to me now, vid is more concerned about proving that he is the most knowledgeable person amongst all on every subjects bar none and he will out post everyone to prove it. With vid being an admin as well I suspect this forum is probably heading for oblivion as more and more threads end in arguments with vid the center of those arguments proclaiming his endless knowledge on all subjects to to the only truth Sad
Post 04 Dec 2007, 00:12
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
vid

joined: 05 sep 2003
posts: 4750
location: slovakia

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

vid is really cultivated, i don't know exactlly what he does all the day on the net, but he possess a huge internet knowledge, he always post a lot of interresting links.
if you say something false, like the first keyboard model is from ibm, or the maximum temperature of the junction of 2N3055 is 204°C, imediatelly he reply with the right answer.
on some point, he's better than Google to find the right informations.

personnally, i find it fine to have a human data base in this forum
Wink
vid: it's not a congratulation, just objective conclusion. do not feel like the king of the mountain after that. Very Happy
Post 04 Dec 2007, 00:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
All I have done is tried to open vids (and others) closed mind by not presenting my knowledge on the subject but rather hoping it will make people want to acquire the needed knowledge to debate rationally.

Still you didn't explain WHY you decided not to present your knowledge. I can't imagine any rational reason for that, other that you don't have such knowledge.

I can assure you that I am acquiring knowledge every day, devoting lot of time to studying. Would you mind telling me which area of knowledge is it that I lack to be able to discuss global warming rationally with you? Physics? Biology?

And how exactly did you try to open our minds? Let's recapitulate:
- You told global warming propaganda is abuse of rationality and science
- I told global warming is scientific consensus
- You (rightly) asked for proofs
- I provided them
- You told those proofs are not scientific, and they are just propaganda
- I asked you for proof (or at least example) of that claim
- You refused (couldn't?) provide it, and started to attack me
... about there, serious conversation ended.

Quote:
However it appears to me now, vid is more concerned about proving that he is the most knowledgeable person amongst all on every subjects bar none and he will out post everyone to prove it.

I don't post into topics which I haven't studied about. I studied things about history, evolution, and tried to get some basic overview of sciences. That is what I argue about. Just like in real life, I am very edurable in arguing, and like to address all points brought up by opponent, not just pick few. And yes, that can get very messy.

In this case, yes, i too decided to address every your point, after you attacked me personally, and you can view it so that I am going to outpost you. You are right, this thread became mess, I'll move it to separate thread (hope you don't mind).

Quote:
With vid being an admin as well I suspect this forum is probably heading for oblivion as more and more threads end in arguments with vid the center of those arguments proclaiming his endless knowledge on all subjects to to the only truth

I do mass posting (we could call it "personal discussion", like ours) only in Heap, which is meant for such discussions. No problem is simple and can be explained in few short posts. I believe (hope) there are people who have learnt something from my "spamming".

And what does me being moderator have to do with this? What have I done such that I couldn't do it if I wasn't moderator?
Post 04 Dec 2007, 00:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Post 04 Dec 2007, 01:00
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
Quote:

I hope i moved it properly. If you find some mistake, let me know.


Your mistake was splitting the thread in the first place making mute all my points about fanatical verse rational thinking and turning my posts into those of a fanatical anti global warming cult follower.

My posts were never about that so do me a favour and change the title. When I debate it's with what I believe to be rational thinking, it's not to beat other people down and it certainly isn't about me verse anyone.

I only wanted you to open your mind to how fanatical thinking comes about so we could move on to how to fight against it.


Quote:

By the way, MichaelH: Let's follow your CO2 play. I wonder what comes out of it.


Fine but only post your own thoughts/hypothesis and only resort to links if they enhance your hypothesis.

For instance when I first thought about global warming my first hypothesis was given the earth is made of tectonic plates with many volcanoes along the meeting points of these plates (many at the ocean bottom), I formed the opinion that somehow the living planet took care of the many gases that escape. Like a good scientist, I went about trying to disprove this hypothesis. To this date I have not been able too.

As mentioned I've learnt that molecules that have a relatively heavy molecules mass are pushed down into water which flows into the ocean where for example one process is the algae convert co2 into oxygen.

I've also know O3 (Ozone) is an unstable molecule that is broken almost instantly most of the time by O2 (not CFCs) because the double bond between two oxygen atoms is stronger than the single bond the oxygen atoms has when shared with two other oxygen atoms in an O3 atom.

So feel free to destroy my hypothesis with well thought out theories of your own and I don't mean theories like some big business spends money denying global warming, therefore your hypothesis is wrong cause as far as I can see with the many many more things I have learnt, the hypothesis of global warming looks wrong all by it's self and doesn't need some big business spending money denying it.


edfed, the problem with vid is he arrogantly thinks posting other people's research is akin to intelligence. It may very well impress you but I think he's just lazy!!!
Post 04 Dec 2007, 03:01
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Your mistake was splitting the thread in the first place making mute all my points about fanatical verse rational thinking and turning my posts into those of a fanatical anti global warming cult follower.

Which your post talking about wasn't citied in it's entirety? Or which was placed out of context?

AFAIK, I copied all your text regarding this topic before post that was responding to it, AND i linked original post, so everyone can check it.

Quote:
My posts were never about that so do me a favour and change the title.

no problem, what title would you like? So far I change it to "Global Warming".

Quote:
I only wanted you to open your mind to how fanatical thinking comes about so we could move on to how to fight against it.

But you still haven't demonstrated any evidence supporting your claim, so let's go directly to CO2, which i believe is supposed to be such evidence.

Quote:
Fine but only post your own thoughts/hypothesis and only resort to links if they enhance your hypothesis.

Why? I don't feel like the most skilled person to formulate hypothesis. That requires enormous practice and knowledge, which I believe I don't have.

Quote:
For instance when I first thought about global warming my first hypothesis was given the earth is made of tectonic plates with many volcanoes along the meeting points of these plates (many at the ocean bottom), I formed the opinion that somehow the living planet took care of the many gases that escape. Like a good scientist, I went about trying to disprove this hypothesis. To this date I have not been able too.

"living" is dangerous word. Depending on it is a problem. I agree our planet formed to self-regulating system, whether that is sufficent for term "living" or not.

For example, my (personal) definition of living is simply self-replicating system. Thus computer viruses and some Life-game patterns are living things for me.

Quote:
So feel free to destroy my hypothesis with well thought out theories of your own and I don't mean theories like some big business spends money denying global warming

Sure, big bussiness has nothing to do with molecules. That was just another example that "something's going on". Someone was pissed about pro-global-warming propaganda, for some reason. Molecules are still better dis/proof, this was only little indication as bonus to all data provided along with it.

Quote:
So feel free to destroy my hypothesis

What hypothesis, you mean the one that says Earth is living? Sorry, you must first try to define "living" somehow (as clearly as possible). Many people understand many different things by "living". Without clear unambigous definition, hypothesis isn't formulated.

Even with definition of living, your hypothesis isn't complete scientific hypothesis. So far you posted several facts from physics. I didn't research them, but I don't have any reason not to believe you. However, hypotethis requires little more than that. Hypothesis needs to make some testable predictions, and must be falsifiable. What are predictions of your hypothesis? How could your hypothesis be tested and falsified?
You may find this link useful: http://www.accessexcellence.org/LC/TL/filson/writhypo.html

Quote:
edfed, the problem with vid is he arrogantly thinks posting other people's research is akin to intelligence. It may very well impress you but I think he's just lazy!!!

Show me one scientist who doesn't rely on other people research. Everyone does, including you (molecules, biology, ...). I could try to add my little bits to it, but I don't feel skilled and knowledgeable enough, that's why I prefer opinions of professionals who devoted decades to topic, over myself. Is this mine arrogance and your rationality?
Post 04 Dec 2007, 03:40
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
Show me one scientist who doesn't rely on other people research. Everyone does, including you (molecules, biology, ...). I could try to add my little bits to it, but I don't feel skilled and knowledgeable enough, that's why I prefer opinions of professionals who devoted decades to topic, over myself. Is this mine arrogance and your rationality?


I agree with him on this in a sence. It gets really annoying how people argue here with more links than words, but we've all done it at some point. Which is why i believe we shouldn't argue as much about fruitless issues and more on stuff that's creative. If we spend this much time on arguing, imagin what we could accomplish using that time to code instead. I honestly hate clicking links, no offence vid. XD
Post 04 Dec 2007, 03:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
I agree with him on this in a sence. It gets really annoying how people argue here with more links than words, but we've all done it at some point. Which is why i believe we shouldn't argue as much about fruitless issues and more on stuff that's creative. If we spend this much time on arguing, imagin what we could accomplish using that time to code instead. I honestly hate clicking links, no offence vid. XD

Actually, i find my personal worldview as important as my coding achievements. Improving my worldview, and even more importantly, improving other people's worldview (by contradicting claims i consider false), is very important for me.

Reason why people argue with links more than with words is (not always) that want to provide as good info as possible. Ideally, they write some short version of important info, and back it up with links for those interested with more info on subject.

Unfortunatelly, most things are not so simple as we would like them to be, and proper understanding of these things REQUIRES reading long text. I think link to long text is still bit better than long text in forum Smile

Yes, overwhelming majority of people tend to like simple explainations more, even if they aren't correct, but I consider this a very bad thing. Most things are complicated and should be viewed as such.
Post 04 Dec 2007, 03:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
Quote:

I've also know O3 (Ozone) is an unstable molecule that is broken almost instantly most of the time by O2 (not CFCs)


Here an article about ozone-oxigen cycle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone-oxygen_cycle

Here another http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

The O3 is destroyed by natural processes all the time, but the problem is the extra catalysis we are making by introducing Br and Cl in higher concentrations that would be available naturally.

I remember my teacher that told me that young Cl (sorry, don't know proper translation for "Cl naciente"), is highly reactive so it can easily destroy many O3 before it comes less "harmful". I have no references about this however but even if it is a lie, the fact that Cl and Br helps to destroy O3 is true.

I would like to talk more about chemical reactions but I left this wonderful world when I finished the Chemical-oriented high school and promised that I will never use my Chemical Technician degree (well, thanks to the moronic educational reformation it has another very wierd name that means almost nothing).

[edit]BTW, calling "Chemical Technician" a degree is part of my weak English, such big word is correct? Maybe I should say "diploma"?[/edit]
Post 04 Dec 2007, 03:58
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
Some websites translate "naciente" to atomic. In the US we get a diploma from High School, but it doesn't specify an area of study. I had two years of chemistry in HS, and really enjoyed it. My first professor would really entertain the class with explosions and creating neat products (rubber, perfume) from experiments. First year college chemistry was very boring to me.
Post 04 Dec 2007, 06:32
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.