NowakScience

The answer lies in the nature of being human, and the way we have constructed societies historically.

Before the Old Testament was written, before Judaism and Islam both became proper religions, humanity was already obsessed with sex, as an act of power, as an act of dominance, and as an act of coercion, and this is because the sexual urges within all animals are among the strongest urges we experience.

At some point in human history, someone realised that a good way to control people was through rules, and if the rules of a society were aimed at our basics, the deepest set urges and needs, then the rules would become much more successful. Ruling kins and chiefs had control over their people and laws and rules were developed. Apart from coming to an agreement such as the barter system for trading, rules around conduct were developed. (Don’t steal from others, therefore others won’t steal from you. Don’t kill, else you might be killed.) The advantage of sticking to these are that everyone gets the same chances and rights. The disadvantages of not following the rules were shame from others, banishment, torture or death. There were many ways this was enacted, but of course these rules can only be as successful as the society they are enacted upon. Of course, with sex being the deep drive that it is, rules around sex developed, and alongside this came the shame associated with sexual “deviations” from the accepted norm. Sex and sexuality became taboo because of a need to control the actions of others.

As others have said, I believe that the obsessiveness over sexuality that religions such as Islam and Judaism have shown is in some ways a 'marketing tactic' and provides control over certain groups of people.

I haven't yet seen this posted on the forums here, so apologies if its already been posted.

Google recently launched a 'virtual tour' of the galaxy as a workshop experiment. I thought it was quite neat, so here's the link for you guys-

http://workshop.chromeexperiments.com/stars/

 

Religion isn't new in the scheme of things, nor is jihad on countries on colonies due to their religious views and faiths however, you would think that since we no longer live in the dark ages and are civilized in the most part we would have a much more serious look at how to re-evaluate not the religious viewpoint but the way in which it is conducted around the world.

 

I find peace in the fact that when I die if I do good and try to prevent wars and save the planet my children and children's children will be in good stead which isn't, as we know, necessarily the case.

 

You really did just hit the nail on the head with those two sentences.

I honestly can't see a reason other than comfort for someone to devote their life to a leap of blind-faith.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkBhZ2qQrTY

 

 

The black triangle at 09:00 and forward is interesting but there is no context to judge it's actual size...

Indeed. That's the main problem with most UFO footage, there's hardly anything to judge size/speed upon.

It does look intriguing though.

Here is a nice interactive experiment launched by Google.

http://workshop.chromeexperiments.com/stars/

I'm not sure if it's entirely what you're after, but try some of the software from Crocodile Clips; particularly Crocodile Chemistry. Google it and you'll probably be able to find some torrents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fK5C2IPthk

This is interesting.

I'm not entirely sure if this is real or not, but it sure would be a pretty good hoax if it was fake. Its extremely convincing

If this is NASA footage, however, why would they release videos of Unidentified Object sightings?

 

Possible? Sure. But it runs contrary to the trend in science, where more powerful tools that make one level of inquiry routine expand the field elsewhere, and that draws more people in.

 

Put another way, as I see it, more computing power means models with a finer resolution. That means more new models to try, not fewer. You only stop investigating when you're satisfied with the status quo. Does that sound like meteorology to you?

So the further/higher tier of technology we progress to won't make us start running out of ideas - or an ultimatum of human innovation to put it another way - it will open up more paths every tier we progress? That makes sense, like an equilibrium between the stem of ideas we progress, and the number of leaves that flower off the stem.

 

There are probably more meteorologists these days because of the computing technology that's matured in recent decades. It's hard for me to see why the trend would reverse itself.

Wouldn't it progress to a point in the near(-ish) future where CaptainPanic's statement would be true? Is it possible that computing power would become sufficient enough for manned computers to become rather outmoded?

I'm not sure, it just seems as if a naked flame would be useful for setting things alight, not heating them up.

I'm also not too sure on how the hotplate functions, I was assuming it was only for heating things to a high temperature.

I had a quick look on the internet at hotplates for sale and there seems to be a lot produced for camping and outdoor needs but not many as laboratory equipment.

I'm actually only in high school now and haven't come across hotplates yet, we just use rusty old relics called Bunsen burners haha.

It may seem slightly obvious but the type of seed that is used?

The blue whale weighs up to 200 short tons (180 metric tons) and individuals up to 98 ft (29.9 m) in length have been found. It is thought to be not just the largest predator that ever lived, but the largest animal in general. It kinda depends on what you specifically mean by 'predator'. The blue whale consumes Krill and they are small animals, so it could be considered a predator in a different angle of definition.

Edit: I just realized you said 'land' predator. Sorry

Its basically potatoe vs po-tot-o

It is nothing to worry, it is just the same. Actually this is the way you'll find in most of the books, the reason being that for the leftmost carbon when we draw on paper we make the bonds towards its left so thus they are shown by H₃C- and not -CH₃. However this is not the case with right most carbon.

Thanks guys, that was a help. I get how the structure puts the carbon to the right in the molecule, cheers.

Sorry for creating a whole thread about this but I couldn't obtain an answer from Google.

I'm revising from my textbook and I have come across the structure of 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane. I'm slightly confused as to the structure which is displayed in the book. Part of the structure is H3C but I have always seen it as CH3.

Here is the structure of 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane I was familiar with --

Whereas on the structure displayed in the book, the furthest left CH3 on the trimethylpentane was displayed as C3H.

Are they the same notation but displayed in different manners, a typo or am I missing something?

Thanks

 

Why exactly do you need to produce a flame?

It's not essential, I just guessed they were slightly more dynamic than a hot surface.

Why not get a hot plate? That's what I use for home lab.

I was thinking that but although it's ideal for boiling liquids and can reach considerable temperatures, it doesn't produce a flame. In lab settings, hot plates are generally used to heat glassware or its contents, not to produce a flame. I want something that literally has naked flame to it.

If it would have cost one quadrillion in 1980, I doubt the change would be significant enough today to make it a viable operation to pursue.

A quadrillion is a phenomenal amount of money.

It would be a lot of hassle getting the gas for a bunsen into my lab so would a spirit burner be a good substitute?

Seeds. And can you post some pics for us? Vielen dank.

I'll get round to it tomorrow!

Danke fur der Vorschlag

So I've recently received my new Bresser Biolux Microscope and have been having a plethora of fun with it. I've looked at blood, pond water, salt crystals, a dead fly, pollen and rose petals under the microscope.

It's been very interesting but as unimaginative as it seems I think I've run out of ideas of things to look at under the microscope.

If anyones got some cool, fun suggestions of things to look at under the microscope I'm all ears!

Thanks in advance