Leaderboard

I've placed this in Earth Science, rather than Astronomy, because it is, in essence, a geological tale. And I've put it in Earth Science, rather than Science News, because I'd like to see this sub-forum get more traffic. Three interesting papers have been presented at the 49th Lunar & Planetary Science Conference in The Woodlands, Texas that address tectonics on Venus. The lithosphere of Venus has been broken and, in places, mobile Venus crustal tectonics analagous to jostling pack ice Life potential on early Venus connected to climate and geological history The majority of planetary scientists consider Venus to lack plate tectonic activity. Though some researchers have occassionally pointed out features that could be evidence for plate tectonics, these notions have generally been dismissed and Venus has been viewed as having a stagnant lid - a single, fixed lithospheric plate, rather than the multiple mobile plates found on Earth. This lid is thought to have overturned in the last billion years as a mechanism for heat loss, a heat loss otherwise restricted in the absence of plate tectonics. The first two papers discuss an alternative, presenting the evidence for thin crustal plates that engage in small, irregular movements at their contact areas. This is not the large scale movement, with subduction, generation of new crust and creation of transform faults, in which plates can be transported across the planet, broken up and welded onto other plates, but a comparatively minor "rubbing together". Nevertheless this can modify the topography and facilitate heat loss. The third paper considers the impact of Venus's tectonic regimes for supporting viable conditions for life (as we know it). This article from Science News contains a digestible discussion for those who do not wish to read the papers themselves. Understanding the range and character of planetary tectonics will be essential (though obviously not sufficient) in properly estimating the probabilties for life on exoplanets.

I think it doesn't mention self preservation. He's allowed to choose not to debate something irrelevant. You, on the other hand are sailing rather close to the wind regarding hijacking a thread. I think the best response to the OP's debating partner is that any assertion put forward without evidence can be dismissed in teh same way.

You have to read things more carefully, the poll was about mixed marriages and not segregation per se. And in the societal climate at that time it was clearly not looked universally favorably even in minority communities. You also have to look at the context. In the wake of enlightenment and modern racial theories segregation and associated measures were often seen as a good or at least a "natural" thing. In this context, race-mixing was arguably one of the most contentious offenses which could isolate individuals from either community they belong to. That being said, among minority communities the acceptance is traditionally higher than that of the dominating group, which often proscribed to some ideal of purity (e.g. codified by the one drop rule in parts of the US until the late 60s). That all being said, there is certainly a decent likelihood that in the first data point minorities were undersampled, but then the general approval trend seems to be fairly constant over the next periods.

The new electric ones don’t. The old diesel ones did.

Or a proper health care system, as I like to think of it. This also undermines the whole concept of insurance where risk is amortised over a population. In the end it becomes a savings scheme to pay for your healthcare.

Given the current controversies over data retention and leakage, I think this idea is too early before the security methods and protocols are sorted and accepted to be reasonably secure. This won't work in a universal care system because everyone is treated the same. It's a recipe for discrimination on the part of the insurance suppliers.

Only part of the big bang perplexes you? Good for you, ALL of it perplexes me.

First, we are not here to do your homework or your non-homework thinking for you. You are supposed to show some sort of effort. Second, you did a poor job presenting the question. Table 2 is cut off in your diagram. Third, why did you ask for someone with a knowledge of peptide pharmacokinetics? Pharmacokinetics could be defined as "the study of the time course of drug absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion". The question you are asking is not entirely unrelated to that field, but we don't have any information that bears on the pharmacodynamics of either compound (and in any case your opening post assumes identical pharmacokinetics). Fourth, the answer to your opening question could be found by thinking carefully about the reply you have already been given by CharonY. Your most recent answer suggests to me that you are not approaching this problem correctly. Consider the following hypothetical. Compound A has a value of EC50 of 1 nM. Compound B has a value of EC50 has a EC50 value of 10 nM. Suppose that both are present in vivo at 100 nM. What would you conclude?

"... the compass was invented first in China and maybe independently later in Europe (and possibly elsewhere). .." ............................................................................................................. Then, the point is that whoever believe this must be a fool. The person who wrote this is a "scholar", LMAO. Photo: The ancient Chinese "Compass", Sinan.

In other words, you don't know the answer, so why not reserve the pointless, condescending comments? For those who actually understand the question, substance 15 is dosed at 1mg per day to stimulate mc1r receptors, I'm looking to understand if substance 5 is likely to stimulate the same receptor at doses of around 5-10mg, rather than 500mg, as implied by the EC(50). Anyone with knowledge of peptide pharmacokinetics or receptor agonists have an opinion?