True Blood's Blog

Clara Moskowitz
LiveScience Staff Writer
LiveScience.com Tue Sep 9, 10:35 PM ET

The potential for the world's largest atom smasher to destroy Earth is one question weighing on the minds of some lay people as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) prepares to go online Wednesday.

Don't worry, say the experts, who are more concerned with whether the 17 mile-long particle accelerator underground at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research near Geneva, Switzerland, will work as planned and, perhaps, reveal the existence of the so-called God particle.

 

All that in mind, here are answers to several questions buzzing around on the eve of the LHC's inaugural run:

 

So, will a black hole consume the planet?

 

Some people have suggested that a microscopic black hole, spawned by the powerful crash of subatomic particles racing through the LHC's tunnels, could potentially suck up the Earth.

 

But physicists say these fears are unfounded. For one, creating a black hole at LHC is extremely unlikely based on the laws of gravity alone, CERN officials say. But even if it did happen, as a few highly speculative theories suggest, the miniscule black hole would be so unstable it would disintegrate immediately before it had time to gobble up any of the matter on Earth.

 

Will a 'strangelet' destroy us?

 

Another wild idea: The LHC might produce something called a strangelet that could convert our planet into a lump of dead "strange matter."

 

This hypothesis is equally unlikely, experts say, because the same worries were raised eight years ago before the opening of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), a particle accelerator at the Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island. Since RHIC has been operating safely for years, and it's set-up made it even more likely to produce strangelets if such creation were possible, then the LHC poses little risk of converting us into strangelings.

 

Although worrywarts have gone so far as to file suit in Federal District Court in Hawaii and in the European Court of Human Rights to stop the LHC (as they also did before RHIC), the project will go ahead as planned.

 

"The LHC will enable us to study in detail what nature is doing all around us," said CERN Director General Robert Aymar. "The LHC is safe, and any suggestion that it might present a risk is pure fiction."

 

Just how big is this thing?

 

The LHC is an underground ring about 17 miles (27 kilometers) long, running through parts of both Switzerland and France. Inside are 9,300 magnets guiding two beams of particles around the circle in opposite directions until they smash into each other, spewing out loads of energy and hopefully some new and exciting particles.

 

How fast will the particles go?

 

The speeding particles will travel the full LHC ring 11,245 times a second, travelling at 99.99 percent the speed of light. At this rate, some 600 million collisions will take place every second.

 

Don't we already have a bunch of atom smashers? What's so special about this one?

 

The LHC will be the mother of all atom smashers: the largest, the most powerful, with the biggest and most sophisticated detectors ever built. Although there are a number of particle accelerators around the world, each was built for a unique purpose. Scientists are hoping the LHC will be able to answer some of our most puzzling outstanding questions about the nature of the universe, including how stuff gets mass, what makes up dark matter, and why the universe is made up of matter and not anti-matter.

 

How much does it cost?

The facility cost $8 billion, $531 million of which was contributed by the United States. More than 8,000 scientists from almost 60 countries will collaborate on LHC experiments.

How long have they been working on this?

The green light for the project was given 14 years ago, though some physicists have been planning the LHC since the 1980s.

Why does it have to be underground?

The planet shields the accelerator from radiation that could interfere with the experiments. Not to mention buying that much land aboveground would have been really expensive!

By the way, what's a hadron?

Hadrons are particles made up of bound quarks. A quark is a building block of larger particles such as protons and neutrons. The LHC will manipulate two kinds of hadrons - either protons or lead ions - because a) they are charged (this allows them to be accelerated by the electromagnetic forces created in the machine) and b) they do not decay and are heavy so they will not lose too much energy as they are accelerated along the ring.

And what's a 'God particle'?

The God particle is the nickname given to the theoretical Higgs boson, a particle thought to explain why some things are more massive than others. The Higgs is one of the holy grails of physics, though its existence has yet to be proven.

Will the LHC find the God particle?

While many are hoping that Higgs bosons will pop out of the powerful collisions created by the LHC, the famous British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking is betting it won't. He's wagered $100 (70 euros) that LHC won't produce the elusive God particle and physicists will have to go back to the drawing board.

"I think it will be much more exciting if we don't find the Higgs," Hawking told BBC radio. "That will show something is wrong, and we need to think again."

----------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

 

I hope they at least learn SOMETHING from it. 

 I've always loved science and am always thrilled to hear about new discoveries. 

I have my fingers crossed for them.

  (and also that they don't destroy the world...LOL)

By now we've all heard about Obama saying the phrase "lipstick on a pig". 

Of course Republicans are saying this was a slam on Palin. 

Here's the clip:



Well,   when McCain used the same phrase earlier this political season, was he referring to Palin as well?  



Of course not, he was referring to policies, just as Obama is. 

Here's the Obama comment again with another clip of McCain using the phrase at another venue.

   Here's a comment I made on Steve Noviello's blog about A/A now charging fees for every piece of baggage that you check:

-------------------

Airlines need to start treating people like what they REALLY are....Freight!

No, I'm not joking.

If you ship a package by air (and even by ground) and it weighs too much or is "oversized", then you get charged more.

The airlines should do the same with people. It shouldn't be by how many bags you have, it should be your total weight. You, and everything you're bringing combined.

And literally charge by the pound. Or charge a base price for a certain poundage, and then charge extra for anything over that.

We are literally human freight, and we're paying to ship ourselves to a certain destination. We should be charged just like any other cargo.

It makes no sense for a 90 pound person with three bags to be charged extra, and then the person behind them be 220 pounds with no bags and not be penalized with having to pay more.

---------------------

      Of course overweight people will scream discrimination.  And it simply wont be the case. 

       Airplanes can only hold so much weight.  After that it can affect the speed, altitude, and of course FUEL CONSUMPTION.   With rising fuel costs they have to make up the money somehow, just like every other frieght service. 

     That's why they need to treat passenger planes just like every other cargo plane.  A base price for a certain weight, and then charge extra for every pound you go over.  UPS, does it, FedEX does it, the airlines should too. 

      You don't like it?   Like Scotty said, have you tried a taxi lately?  Or better yet, drive yourself there and you don't have to worry about it. 

   Just thought I'd chime in on this one.  I truly have two takes on this.

1)  Sally, you and I have always gotten along on here.  I believe you are in the right, and you  were wronged.  I think you SHOULD take all your "evidence" and send it to upper management. 

 Though she's never done anything to me personally, just reading her blogs, Illusions seems like a total B!+CH.  And if you get punished for reposting her original pic, then she should have been punished as well.  And what SHOULD have happened, if the pic went against the TOS, then HER blog should have been pulled and it never should have gotten to the point where you got in trouble Sal. 

Now the other side of me looks at it THIS way.......

2) My opinion, it wasn't really THAT bad a pic, could have been worse.  This blog site is for ADULTS.  It's not for children.  I don't agree with the censorship of of curse words on here as well. 

BUT, it's in the TOS, so I'll deal with it I guess. 

You ALL know the moderators (and I use that term VERY loosely)  have always been lazy, wishy-washy, and appear to be one-sided.  Is that going to change, I doubt it. 

So, what do you do??  Complain until you're fingers fall off from typing?  Sorry, I don't see that doing anything. 

Truth is,  you don't HAVE to come here if you don't like how it's being run.  Sure many of you have been coming here for a long time, and many of you are on here day after day after day after day after day (geesh you people need a life). 

But this blog site is NOT yours.  Just because you've been here a long time doesn't mean you really have any say on how it's run.   Are you a paying customer?  No, I don't recall ever paying a monthly due to type here. 

You don't like it?  Leave!  Nuff said! 

Maybe the blogs will die out without all yall's daily presence?  If so, then yall made your point, and maybe something will change. 

More than likely just another group of  "regulars" will take over, and things will continue as normal. 

But all this constant complaining about the thing is POINTLESS.  Obviously they put I_AM_BORED's post as featured for a reason.  They DON'T agree with you.

So, like I said, Sally, send your stuff to upper management and even the sponsors and see what happens.  I DO TRULY hope you get "justice"(?).  

But if it doesn't, WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?????

My guess, nothing.  Yall will keep coming back again and again. 

Well, 

You may or may not notice that my blog asking about Evan Andrews is gone, both here and on the weather section.  They were not deleted by me, they were deleted by Fox 4.    I said nothing wrong, said he was a good meteorologist, just asked about the name change.  All he had to say was it's personal or whatever, but no, the blogs were deleted.  Maybe yall's ideas about witness protection program and the such were right?!?

Oh well, I expect this one to be gone soon as well, so feel free to comment on it as long as it survives.

 

Have a great day!

Al-Qaida has regained strength, US warns

By MATTHEW LEE and KATHERINE SHRADER,

Associated Press Writers 

WASHINGTON -

A new threat assessment from U.S. counterterrorism analysts says that al-Qaida has used its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border to restore its operating capabilities to a level unseen since the months before Sept. 11, 2001. 

A counterterrorism official familiar with a five-page summary of the document — titled "Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West" — called it a stark appraisal. The analysis will be part of a broader meeting at the White House on Thursday about an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate.

The official and others spoke to The Associated Press on condition they not be identified because the report remains classified.

The findings suggests that the network that launched the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil has been able to regroup despite nearly six years of bombings, war and other tactics aimed at dismantling it.

At his news conference Thursday, President Bush acknowledged the report's existence and al-Qaida's continuing threat to the United States. He said, however, that the report refers only to al-Qaida's strength in 2001, not prior to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The group was at its strongest throughout most of that year, with well-established training camps in Afghanistan, recruitment networks and command structures.

Bush used the new threat assessment to show his administration's policies are the right course.

"Because of the actions we've taken, al-Qaida is weaker today than they would have been," he said. "They are still a threat. They are still dangerous. And that is why it is important that we succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq and anywhere else we find them."

The threat assessment focuses on the terror group's safe haven in Pakistan and makes a range of observations about the threat posed to the United States and its allies, officials said.

Counterterrorism officials have been increasingly concerned about al-Qaida's recent operations. This week, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he had a "gut feeling" that the United States faced a heightened risk of attack this summer. Still, numerous government officials say they know of no specific, credible threat of a new attack on U.S. soil.

And Chertoff repeated that Thursday during appearances on morning television news shows. But in an interview on NBC's "Today" show, he also said officials believe "we're entering a period" of increased risk.

Asked on ABC's "Good Morning America" to explain al-Qaida's continuing strength nearly six years after the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States, Chertoff said, "It reflects the fact that just as we improve our defenses, the enemy tries to improve its defenses and rebuild itself."

Al-Qaida is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the counterterrorism official said, paraphrasing the report's conclusions. "They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States."

The group also has created "the most robust training program since 2001, with an interest in using European operatives," the official quoted the report as saying.

At the same time, this official said, the report speaks of "significant gaps in intelligence" so U.S. authorities may be ignorant of potential or planned attacks.

John Kringen, who heads the CIA's analysis directorate, echoed the concerns about al-Qaida's resurgence during testimony and conversations with reporters at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday.

"They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven and the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan," Kringen testified. "We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications. We see that activity rising."

The threat assessment comes as the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies prepare a National Intelligence Estimate focusing on threats to the United States. A senior intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity while the high-level analysis was being completed, said the document has been in the works for roughly two years.

Kringen and aides to National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell would not comment on the details of that analysis.

"Preparation of the estimate is not a response to any specific threat," McConnell's spokesman Ross Feinstein said, adding that it probably will be ready for distribution this summer.

Kringen said he wouldn't attach a summer time frame to the concern. In studying the threat, he said he begins with the premise that al-Qaida would consider attacking the U.S. a "home run hit" and that the easiest way to get into the United States would be through Europe.

Several European countries — among them Britain, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands — are highlighted in the threat assessment partly because they have arrangements with the Pakistani government that allow their citizens easier access to Pakistan than others, according to the counterterrorism official.

This is more troubling because all four are part of the U.S. visa waiver program, and their citizens can enter the United States without additional security scrutiny, the official said.

The Bush administration has repeatedly cited al-Qaida as a key justification for continuing the fight in Iraq.

"The No. 1 enemy in Iraq is al-Qaida," White House press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday. "Al-Qaida continues to be the chief organizer of mayhem within Iraq."

The findings could bolster the president's hand at a moment when support on Capitol Hill for the war is eroding and the administration is struggling to defend its decision for a military buildup in Iraq.

The threat assessment says that al-Qaida stepped up efforts to "improve its core operational capability" in late 2004 but did not succeed until December of 2006 after the Pakistani government signed a peace agreement with tribal leaders that effectively removed government military presence from the northwest frontier with Afghanistan.

The agreement allows Taliban and al-Qaida operatives to move across the border with impunity and establish and run training centers, the report says, according to the official.

It also says that al-Qaida is particularly interested in building up the numbers in its middle ranks, or operational positions, so there is not as great a lag in attacks when such people are killed.

"Being No. 3 in al-Qaida is a bad job. We regularly get to the No. 3 person," Tom Fingar, the top U.S. intelligence analyst, told the House panel.

The report also notes that al-Qaida has increased its public statements, although analysts stressed that those video and audio messages aren't reliable indicators of the actions the group may take.

  Associated Press Writer Deb Riechmann contributed to this report. 

On the Net: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: http://www.dni.gov/

CIA: http://www.cia.gov/ 

---------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------

   Just what I've been saying in some of the blogs that were pro-war in Iraq.  Al-Qaida's busy with training camps in Pakistan.  They've had two full ones in operation for quite some time.  Being in Iraq isn't help stopping their build up there.  Bush says the report refers to their strength pre-9/11 and that because of his actions Al-Qaida is weaker, but even Chertoff says they are stronger than they were a year ago and regrouped to an extent not seen since since 9/11.  I'll agree with half of Bush's statement, we need to succeed in Afghanistan, because right across the border is where they're training and growing stronger.  I've never had a problem with our troops being in Afghanistan, that's where Osama was (is??), and he was the cause of 9/11. 

The computer had crashed again, so my I.T. guy had to retrieve all my important stuff and transfer it to a new comp.  Because of the internal damage (thanks to the multiple storms last month) that took forever.  Like being in a library without a card catalog and trying to find a book.  But my guy rocks at what he does and I'm back to being able to enjoy the W.W.W. from home.  

    I've been able to check out and read the blogs here occationally at work, on breaks, when I'm actually able to take them.  Seems not much has changed.  A few new faces here and there, but mostly the same players complaining about the same things.  Shame the maturity level hasn't gone any higher for some. 

Oh well.  I'm back, enough said. 

I know this isn't really "NEWS", sue me.

 

Have a great day.
 

Of all the times for the terrorists to drop the ball!! This has to be the most painful thing to watch....ever! I think George W would give a pardon to Al-Qaeda for interrupting this one. Bush may be an embarrassment to Texas and the U.S., but this is an even bigger embarrassment to his administration. Bring the troops home and send these idiots. After the dust clears from all the running away, there will be no one left in Iraq.

When Republicans Party - Click Here for more great videos and pictures!

 

 

 

 

(O
f course I would NEVER wish death on ANYONE.  This is a joke!!!!  But this video IS painful to watch) 

If you wish to help the family of officer Nix and ALL officers, firefighters, and military men and women who lose their lives on the job in the North Texas area, you can donate money to the: Russ Martin Foundation (for Officers, Firefighters, and Military). Located at www.russmartin.com . 100% of all donations go to the families of fallen heroes of these three branches. Once it's announced that an officer has fallen in the line of duty, he cuts a check and gives it to the family. He is supported by police, firefighters and military all over north Texas. Every year they do a huge parade to support the cause as well by getting vehicles from all different cities and driving from like Texas Stadium to the Texas Motor Speedway. You can find all the information about the foundation and the parade at the link above or here is a direct link to the donation site: http://www.russmartin.com/listeners_foundation.asp
. Whether you agree with him as a radio talk show host or not, this cause is beyond any radio shtick.

Have a great day!

 

Both websites listed above are clickable, no need to copy and paste.   :) 

A funny video for a not so funny trend in America.

Enjoy and feel free to comment!

  Good afternoon all.

I've been away a couple weeks.  Well, still in town, but away from the computer for a couple weeks.  My computer at home needed some tweeking, cleaning and updating, so my I.T. guy had it for a week (he's slow, but has GREAT prices and gets the job done right), then I also took the last two weeks off from work.  I have a lot of PTO racked up and my company is a "use it or lose it" job so they encourage time off whenever business is slow.  Even though I had my computer back for the second week of my vacation, I stayed off of the blogs, it was time for a mini-vacation from them as well.  I came back to work yesterday, and actually got on the blogs yesterday as well, but didn't post anything, spent the time reading a lot of what I had missed. 

While reading, I saw a lot of the "same 'ol, same 'ol", but near the end, I saw another side of a couple of bloggers that I really enjoyed.  POV's blog about chilling out was a great one and summed up that whole LH - acool battle nicely.  That got WAY out of hand and I think LH was a good man for apologizing. Though I didn't always agree with the way he handled himself or his blogs, I commend him for standing up for what he believed in.   I hope he has a speedy recovery and returns soon.   As for acoolone/icemann, he needs to let it go, but I fear never will.  Such anger over words on a webpage.   I think the best thing is to just ignore him and let him say whatever he wants to say.  Don't comment on his posts, don't reply to his comments, let him live in his own little angry cyber world.  He feeds on the anger and bickering, he'll go mad without it. 

  Everyone ELSE though appears to be abiding by the "agree to disagree and move on"  idea.  That is great!  It's so good to see some that in the past have not gotten along very well (or at all) able to post on the same blog without tearing each other a new one. Just this weekend Lee and LH AGREED on the SAME SUBJECT.  That was great!  And the sendoff that Lee gave LH when he let Lee know about his surgery was very heartfelt and I saw him in another light, a very good one.  There ARE a couple exceptions to the nice debating scene (one being named in the above paragraph) the other I'm sure you can figure out.   But if they are treated in the manor I suggested above, then they hopefully will change their ways. 

   Anyways, enough babbling for now.  It's good to be back. I hope all are well.  And have a GREAT DAY!!

Another blogger did a blog on this story in the London Times about how some U.S. generals would quit if the president decided to attack Iran.  He only mentioned one reason as to why (“All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion.") and blames this on Clinton, saying he gutted the military. Not even thinking that all our forces are currently battling in Iraq, which our government is still saying we haven't "won" and need to stay until the job's finished and Afghanistan.(and of course in other military bases around the world). But, let's look at the whole article and not just the clip.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/articl
e1434540.ece

From The Sunday Times
February 25, 2007
US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack
Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, Washington

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”

A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.

The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.

Iran ignored a United Nations deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment programme last week. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that his country “will not withdraw from its nuclear stances even one single step”.

The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran could soon produce enough enriched uranium for two nuclear bombs a year, although Tehran claims its programme is purely for civilian energy purposes.

Nicholas Burns, the top US negotiator, is to meet British, French, German, Chinese and Russian officials in London tomorrow to discuss additional penalties against Iran. But UN diplomats cautioned that further measures would take weeks to agree and would be mild at best.

A second US navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis arrived in the Gulf last week, doubling the US presence there. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the US Fifth Fleet, warned: “The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack.”

But General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said recently there was “zero chance” of a war with Iran. He played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq, forcing Bush on the defensive.

Pace’s view was backed up by British intelligence officials who said the extent of the Iranian government’s involvement in activities inside Iraq by a small number of Revolutionary Guards was “far from clear”.

Hillary Mann, the National Security Council’s main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace’s repudiation of the administration’s claims was a sign of grave discontent at the top.

“He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier,” she said. “It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon.”

Mann fears the administration is seeking to provoke Iran into a reaction that could be used as an excuse for an attack. A British official said the US navy was well aware of the risks of confrontation and was being “seriously careful” in the Gulf.

The US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the air force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month.

According to a report in The New Yorker magazine, the Pentagon has already set up a working group to plan airstrikes on Iran. The panel initially focused on destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been instructed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq.

However, army chiefs fear an attack on Iran would backfire on American troops in Iraq and lead to more terrorist attacks, a rise in oil prices and the threat of a regional war.

Britain is concerned that its own troops in Iraq might be drawn into any American conflict with Iran, regardless of whether the government takes part in the attack.

One retired general who participated in the “generals’ revolt” against Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the Iraq war said he hoped his former colleagues would resign in the event of an order to attack. “We don’t want to take another initiative unless we’ve really thought through the consequences of our strategy,” he warned.

This is yet another Islamic training film I came across. It explains how and how not to beat your wife. Yes, it's ok, but there are some rules to follow or Allah will be mad, so make sure you do it right if you're going to do it. (NO, I'm not really agreeing that it's ok to beat your spouse. Please no domestic violence, it's bad)

I came across this video on one of the video sites. Sadly this wasn't made as a joke. This isn't some Saturday Night Live skit. This is an actual music video by some religious nut about hating gays. The irony of the video is that the guy singing about "f@gs" (his words) is an effeminate guy wearing an open neck pink shirt. But the hate is still there. I have nothing against gays, no one gay has ever tried to push their lifestyle on me, seduce me, or cohorce me into trying to be gay. I don't believe it's a choice, why would someone choose to be hated. It's not my job to judge. It's not this guys either. Well, here it is and once again he does use derogatory terms about gays so you were warned:

This would normally go in the entertainment section, but there has started to be more and more heated debates, some name calling, some snide remarks, nitpicking, etc. SO, to try and calm people down and maybe put a little chuckle in their day I'll post this video of the "evolution of dance". I hope it's something we can all at least give a little smile at. Keep blogging and have a great day.