When I was a kid, I was told "if you ask a stupid question, you'll get a stupid answer." True?

When I was a kid, I was told "if you ask a stupid question, you'll get a stupid answer. " True? Be creative.

Stupidest 5 answers get five stars. Asked by IchtheosaurusRex 24 months ago Similar questions: kid told stupid question answer True Entertainment > Humor.

Similar questions: kid told stupid question answer True.

Incidentally, at my house it was "ask a foolish question, get a foolish answer! " Obviously, there can be no *wrong answer here so let me begin. A) Why did the chicken cross the road?

He was a risk taker B) Why is the sky blue? To match the great white clouds when you view it from your spaceship window C) What have they done to my brain, Ma? Well, they picked it like a chicken bone and I think I’m half insane, Ma D) Whatever happened to punctuality anyway?

They started using "on time" because it was easier to spell E) Whatever happened to people who were often "tardy" in grade school? They became dishwashers, car wash attendants, and starving artists in later life (except for the rich kids who were given obscure positions at the state lottery board or in the Department of the Interior)... *Stupid is as stupid does! Sources: my last cat scan dougiedoggone's Recommendations Extraordinary People: Understanding "Idiot Savants" Amazon List Price: $17.95 Used from: $0.01 Average Customer Rating: 4.0 out of 5 (based on 1 reviews) A penny for my thoughts...how cheap!.

There are no stupid questions! " This was on a .

Its simple really... Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southampton and Stanley Pons of the University of Utah hypothesized that the high compression ratio and mobility of deuterium that could be achieved within palladium metal using electrolysis might result in nuclear fusion. To investigate, they conducted electrolysis experiments using a palladium cathode and heavy water within a calorimeter, an insulated vessel designed to measure process heat. Current was applied continuously for many weeks, with the heavy water being renewed at intervals.

Some deuterium was thought to be accumulating within the cathode, but most was allowed to bubble out of the cell, joining oxygen produced at the anode. For most of the time, the power input to the cell was equal to the calculated power leaving the cell within measurement accuracy, and the cell temperature was stable at around 30 °C. But then, at some point (in some of the experiments), the temperature rose suddenly to about 50 °C without changes in the input power.

These high temperature phases would last for two days or more and would repeat several times in any given experiment once they had occurred. The calculated power leaving the cell was significantly higher than the input power during these high temperature phases. Eventually the high temperature phases would no longer occur within a particular cell.In 1988, Fleischmann and Pons applied to the United States Department of Energy for funding towards a larger series of experiments.

Up to this point they had been funding their experiments using a small device built with $100,000 out-of-pocket. The grant proposal was turned over for peer review, and one of the reviewers was Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University.

Jones had worked for some time on muon-catalyzed fusion, a known method of inducing nuclear fusion without high temperatures, and had written an article on the topic entitled "Cold nuclear fusion" that had been published in Scientific American in 5 September3. Fleischmann and Pons and co-workers met with Jones and co-workers on occasion in Utah to share research and techniques. During this time, Fleischmann and Pons described their experiments as generating considerable "excess energy", in the sense that it could not be explained by chemical reactions alone.

They felt that such a discovery could bear significant commercial value and would be entitled to patent protection. Jones, however, was measuring neutron flux, which was not of commercial interest.In order to avoid problems in the future, the teams appeared to agree to simultaneously publish their results, although their accounts of their 5 September3 meeting differ. In mid-5 September3, both research teams were ready to publish their findings, and Fleischmann and Jones had agreed to meet at an airport on 5 September3 to send their papers to Nature via FedEx.

Fleischmann and Pons, however, pressured by the University of Utah which wanted to establish priority on the discovery, broke their apparent agreement, submitting their paper to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry on 5 September3, and disclosing their work via a press conference on 5 September3. Jones, upset, faxed in his paper to Nature after the press conference. Fleischmann and Pons’ announcement drew wide media attention.

The recent discovery of high-temperature superconductivity in 1986 had caused the scientific community to be more open to revelations of unexpected scientific results that could have huge economic repercussions and that could be replicated reliably even if they lacked a theoretical basis that explained them. Cold fusion was proposing the counter-intuitive idea that a nuclear reaction could be affected by happening inside a crystal structure, and many scientists immediately thought of the Mössbauer effect, since it was an example of this happening, and its discovery 30 years earlier had also been unexpected and it had been quickly replicated and explained within the existing physics framework. Scores of laboratories in the United States and abroad attempted to repeat the experiments.

A few initially reported success, but most failed to validate the results; Nathan Lewis, professor of Chemistry at the California Institute of Technology, led one of the most ambitious validation efforts, trying many variations on the experiment without success, while CERN physicist Douglas R.O.Morrison said that "essentially all" attempts in Western Europe had failed. Even those reporting success had difficulty reproducing Fleischmann and Pons’ results. One of the more prominent reports of success came from a group at the Georgia Institute of Technology, which observed neutron production.

The Georgia Tech group later retracted their announcement. Another team, headed by Robert Huggins at Stanford University also reported early success, but it was called into question by a colleague who reviewed his work. For weeks, competing claims, counterclaims and suggested explanations kept what was referred to as "cold fusion" or "fusion confusion" in the news.

In April 1989, Fleischmann and Pons published a "preliminary note" in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry. This paper notably showed a gamma peak without its corresponding Compton edge, which indicated they had made a mistake in claiming evidence of fusion byproducts. The preliminary note was followed up a year later with a much longer paper that went into details of calorimetry but did not include any nuclear measurements.

In May 1989, the American Physical Society held a session on cold fusion, at which were heard many reports of experiments that failed to produce evidence of cold fusion.At the end of the session, eight of the nine leading speakers stated they considered the initial Fleischmann and Pons claim dead with the ninth abstaining. In July and 5 September3, Nature published papers critical of cold fusion claims. Negative results were also published in several scientific journals including Science, Physical Review Letters, and Physical Review C (nuclear physics).

Nevertheless, Fleischmann and Pons and a number of other researchers who found positive results remained convinced of their findings. In August 1989, the state of Utah invested $4.5 million to create the National Cold Fusion Institute. The United States Department of Energy organized a special panel to review cold fusion theory and research.

The panel issued its report in 5 September3, concluding that results as of that date did not present convincing evidence that useful sources of energy would result from phenomena attributed to cold fusion. The panel noted the inconsistency of reports of excess heat and the greater inconsistency of reports of nuclear reaction byproducts. Nuclear fusion of the type postulated would be inconsistent with current understanding and, if verified, would require theory to be extended in an unexpected way.

The panel was against special funding for cold fusion research, but supported modest funding of "focused experiments within the general funding system. In the ensuing years, several books came out critical of cold fusion research methods and the conduct of cold fusion researchers. Cold fusion claims were, and still are, considered extraordinary.In view of the theoretical issues alone, most scientists would require extraordinarily conclusive data to be convinced that cold fusion has been discovered.

After the fiasco following the Pons and Fleischmann announcement, most scientists became dismissive of new experimental claims. Nevertheless, there were positive results that kept some researchers interested and got new researchers URL5 September 1990, Fritz Will, Director of the National Cold Fusion Institute, compiled a list of 92 groups of researchers from 10 different countries that had reported excess heat, 3H, 4He, neutrons or other nuclear effects. Fleischmann and Pons relocated their laboratory to France under a grant from the Toyota Motor Corporation.

The laboratory, IMRA, was closed in 1998 after spending £12 million on cold fusion work. Between 1992 and 1997, Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry sponsored a "New Hydrogen Energy Program" of US$20 million to research cold fusion. Announcing the end of the program in 1997, deo Ikegami stated "We couldn’t achieve what was first claimed in terms of cold fusion.

" He added, "We can’t find any reason to propose more money for the coming year or for the future." In 1994, David Goodstein described cold fusion as "a pariah field, cast out by the scientific establishment. Between cold fusion and respectable science there is virtually no communication at all.

Cold fusion papers are almost never published in refereed scientific journals, with the result that those works don’t receive the normal critical scrutiny that science requires. On the other hand, because the Cold-Fusioners see themselves as a community under siege, there is little internal criticism. Experiments and theories tend to be accepted at face value, for fear of providing even more fuel for external critics, if anyone outside the group was bothering to listen.

In these circumstances, crackpots flourish, making matters worse for those who believe that there is serious science going on here." Cold fusion researchers have complained there was virtually no possibility of obtaining funding for cold fusion research in the United States, and no possibility of getting published. University researchers, it has been claimed, were unwilling to investigate cold fusion because they would be ridiculed by their colleagues.

In a biography by Jagdish Mehra et al.It is mentioned that to the shock of most physicists, the Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger declared himself a supporter of cold fusion and tried to publish a paper on it in Physical Review Letters; he was deeply insulted by the manner of its rejection, and was led to resign from that body in protest. To provide a forum for researchers to share their results, the first International Conference on Cold Fusion was held in 1990. The conference, recently renamed the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, is held every 12 to 18 months in various countries around the world.

The periodicals Fusion Facts, Cold Fusion Magazine, Infinite Energy Magazine, and New Energy Times were established in the 1990s to cover developments in cold fusion and related new energy sciences. In 2004 The International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS) was formed "To promote the understanding, development and application of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science for the benefit of the public. " In the 1990s, India stopped its research in cold fusion because of the lack of consensus among mainstream scientists and the US denunciation of URL7 February 2002, the U.S. Navy revealed that its researchers had been quietly studying cold fusion continually since 1989.

Researchers at their Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, California released a two-volume report, entitled "Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D2O system," with a plea for proper funding. In 2004, at the request of cold fusion researchers, the DOE organized a second review of the field. These researchers were asked to present a review document of all the evidence since the 1989 review.

Their review stated that the observation of excess heat has been reproduced, that it can be reproduced at will under the proper conditions, and that many of the reasons for failure to reproduce it have been discovered. 18 reviewers in total examined the written and oral testimony given by cold fusion researchers.9 of them were picked by the DOE for their backgrounds in theoretical nuclear physics, material science, and electrochemistry, and they were given a month to peer review the report and the supplementary material. Other 9 reviewers were picked from relevant fields, they examined the peer reviews made by the other nine reviewers, and then they assisted to six presentations of one hour each, given by six different research groups.

On the question of excess heat, the reviewers’ opinions ranged from "evidence of excess heat is compelling" to "there is no convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an experiment". The report states the reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic. The reviewers that didn’t find the evidence compelling cited a series of issues including: measuring excess power in a short time versus measuring the total net energy of an experiment, the non-elimination of all effects that could explain excess heat, and the net excess power being so small in percentage that it could be caused by calibration of systematic effects.

Most of the reviewers, from both sides of the split, said that "the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented". On the question of evidence for nuclear fusion, the report states: Two-thirds of the reviewers...did not feel the evidence was conclusive for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced. Many reviewers noted that poor experiment design, documentation, background control and other similar issues hampered the understanding and interpretation of the results presented.

On the question of further research, the report reads: The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards, and undergo the rigors of peer review.No reviewer recommended a focused federally funded program for low energy nuclear reactions. The 2004 report summarized its conclusions as being similar to those of the 1989 review despite the progress being made in calorimeters.

It also recommended specific areas where research could resolve the controversies in the field, and said that the field would benefit from following peer-review processes. Thirteen papers were presented at the "Cold Fusion" session of the 5 September7 American Physical Society (APS) meeting in Baltimore. In 2007, the American Chemical Society’s (ACS) held an "invited symposium" on cold fusion and low-energy nuclear reactions.

Cold fusion reports have been published in Naturwissenschaften, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, European Physical Journal A, European Physical Journal C, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Journal of Solid State Phenomena, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, and Journal of Fusion Energy.In 2005, Physics Today stated that new reports of excess heat and other cold fusion effects were still no more convincing than 15 years ago.20 years later, in 2009, cold fusion researchers complain that the flaws in the original announcement still cause the field to be marginalized and to suffer a chronic lack of funding. Frank Close claims that a problem plaguing the original announcement is still happening: results from studies are still not being independently verified, and that inexplicable phenomena encountered in the last twenty years are being labeled as "cold fusion" even if they aren’t, in order to attract attention from journalists. A number of researchers keep researching and publishing in the field.

These researchers have tried to avoid the negative connotations of the "cold fusion" label by replacing with labels like, for example, "anomalous effects in deuterated materials", which are both more accurate and "safer" for presentation to people outside the cold fusion community. The research currently appears under the name of low-energy nuclear reactions, or LENR. According to Simon, one of the reasons because the "cold fusion" label is still in widespread use is because it serves a social function in creating a collective identity for the cell.

In0 2007 the interest in the field was growing again, as shown by the presence of cold fusion sessions at the national meeting of the ACS. An ACS program chair said that "with the world facing an energy crisis, it is worth exploring all possibilities. "The APS has also hosted sessions on cold fusion.

Research in India started again in 2008 in several centers like the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre thanks to the pressure of influential Indian scientists; the National Institute of Advanced Studies has also recommended the Indian government to revive this research. The interest in cold fusion in India had been rekindled earlier that year by a demonstration in Bangalore by Japanese researcher Yoshiaki Arata. On 22–25 March 2009, the American Chemical Society held a four-day symposium on "New Energy Technology", in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the announcement of cold fusion.At the conference, researchers with the U.S.Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) reported detection of energetic neutrons in a standard cold fusion cell design using CR-39, a result previously published in Die Naturwissenschaften.

The authors claim that these neutrons are indicative of nuclear reactions, although some scientists indicated that a quantitative analysis would be necessary before the results are accepted by the scientific community, and that the neutrons could be caused by something other than nuclear fusion. Later in 2009, MIT Professor Peter L. Hagelstein hosted a cold fusion conference at MIT.

How about this. Dad, What day is your birthday again? Or Why is the sky blue?.

Saturday Morning Humor and Question. " "Who wants to answer my question? " "What is the best answer to the question of where you're from?" "Why am I not able to answer any question?

:(" "This might sound like a 'stupid' question, but I don't know the answer so here it is: IF you use WindowsXP, and Firefox" "Want to see something VERY stupid? Try to forward any question to me and see how you do,you will have to admit STUPID." "Sorry if this is a stupid question, but how in the heck do you get points now? Is there no best answer?

" "Okay, who is going to humor me and put their picture in an answer slot?" "is it stupid that I only ask? S & never answer them? " "This question is going around, want to see if someone knows the answer.

This might sound like a 'stupid' question, but I don't know the answer so here it is: IF you use WindowsXP, and Firefox.

Try to forward any question to me and see how you do,you will have to admit STUPID.

This question is going around, want to see if someone knows the answer.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.