j_p

I think that the window should be behind the instructor, so that those whose attention might wander will at least be facing in the right direction.

No' date=' I collect pictures that were taken at Gettysburg. Isn't anybody starting to wonder why there are so many strange pictures taken at Gettysburg?

 

[/quote']

 

I've been to Gettysburg; it's haunted. So is Manassas. Jamestown used to be, but it doesn't seem to be any longer. Several of the old missions in California are haunted, as are some places in Quebec.

 

But that is not a photograph of ghosts.

My own hypothesis has always been that the rapid evolution of humans came about through tribal warfare in which one tribe would wipe out all the (male) members of the other tribe' date=' thus the best thinkers who were able to outsmart their enemy and the best communicators who were best able to work together against their enemy were favored by evolution, as those who lost out died. Thus we are descended from the best thinkers and speakers among the proto-humans. Is this how it happened?

 

Beyond that, I'd say socialization and forms of expression became intermingled with sex, and thus appreciation of music, dance, etc was genetically favored because it became a sex-linked behavior.

 

Am I at all on here with what SCIENCE has to say about it?[/quote']

 

Well, you are leaving out half the human race, and the half with the better measurable communication skills at that. [This half is also the one that can be certain of passing on its genetic material, by the way].

 

And a brief glance at history indicates that assimilation has always been more successful a means of conquest that annihilation.

 

So, one could readily argue that the advancement of the species was brought about the female-gatherer [to accept a common assumption] sneaking off to the lower forty and figuring out how to seduce some cute lone male who was smart enough to escape anihilation in the battle.

 

And art and sex are different expression of the same impulse; art as an expression of the sublimation of the sexual impulse began and, thankfully, died with Joyce and Lawrence.

You would prefer she took to bulimia to keep to the dangerously low body mass required of models and jockies?

I think the "indoctrination" qualm is an understandable one, but how many people do you (any of us) know who are mindless automatons because they recited the Pledge of Allegiance in school? Maybe we should look on it as part of the learning experience. After all, reciting the Pledge doesn't seem to have stopped a great number of people from joining the anti-war movement.

Prehaps it led them to the anti-war movement.

1. so I should protest next time it`s Ladies hour' date=' because they outnumber the males here, by about 55 to 45????

 

2. says who? You?

 

3. yeah, Spam, whatever Zzzzz....

 

4. ^^^see above^^^

 

now then, care to answer the Questions I asked?[/quote']

 

No; I think your premises are all invalid.

Oh, right; I remember. It's just that I was using a solution last night, and, well, you confused me. But you're talking STP; now I curious, what happens under pressure?

... Now' date=' mind you, these statistics come from Bill O'Reilly and his "crack research staff" (to steal one of David Letterman's favorite lines). I don't know if these numbers are accurate, or where they come from. Sources were not cited in the show, nor in the online version of the story, which may be found here:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169347,00.html

 

So if anybody has a problem with the numbers I'll be happy to try and dig deeper and see if they're bunk. ...[/quote']

 

I do rather have a problem with the numbers; I am disturbed that you present the numbers first, and then state that you have no idea how reliable they are.

 

I want to know where they come from, who compiled them, where the money was spent, how the money was accounted for in the budget ...

... My gut instinct is that it will be upheld in spite of the conservative bent of the court (i.e. the traditional reciting of the Pledge will become illegal). ...

As Hellbender has pointed out, removing 'under God' would be a return to the traditional recitation.

Non-action thrillers; especially with lots of dark, moody shots that one can imagine being filmed in black and white, like Blade Runner. Toss in a little dark comedy, and I'm in heaven.

Good horror; not a lot out there. Alien was one; the original The Haunting was another.

Anything with Vincent Price; most of his movies were dreadful, but I just love to watch him.

"...then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. It also must be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that' date=' defend that, teach that in your classrooms... THEN you can stand up and sing of the land of the free..."

[/quote']

 

It's from a movie? I was trying to figure out when the Reverend Doctor would have said it ...

 

Oh, wait; was it 'An American President'?

well who are they "protecting" by saying I must pay for My drink when a female standing next to me doesn`t and yet orders the same drink?

 

you see' date=' what I`M trying to establish here, is what makes gays think they`re "Victimised", what is the difference that seperates Them from the rest of acceptable "discrimination", Should they be an acception made for them? and if so, on what basis?

 

what make their case "So Special"?

they WANT something and the law says no, I want a million quid for Free![/quote']

 

What makes their case 'so special' that they should be denied legal rights that 90% of the population have?

 

Marriage is a legal institution with lots and lots of legal rights and protections; it is absurd to deny them.

 

I live in Massachusetts, and I was a strong proponent of legal civil unions; I was even planning on getting unionized with my current [other gender] spouse when they became legal. I thought them a reasonable compromise, given the strength of some cultural prejudices. Not anymore; I think the homophobes had their chance, and missed it.

 

But you are right about Ladies' Night; if I were in that bar, I would insist on paying for your drink.

 

BTW, there is no tax break for the married in the U.S.

Ammonium hydroxide doesn't exit?

Consider Na (not a transition) metal. Each Na atom has 1 electron in the outermost shell. For Na to react' date=' it needs to have this extra electron ripped out. And after this electron gets pulled out, Na attains a very stable, Noble Gas configuration.

 

[b']The high stability of the end-product and the relative ease of getting there is what makes Na very reactive.[/b]

 

Now consider Fe (a transition metal), which has the configuration [Ar] 3d⁶ 4s². The best you can do with Fe is pull out 2 electrons to make it [Ar] 3d⁵ 4s¹ (both half-filled subshells) or 3 electrons, to make it [Ar] 3d⁵ (one half-filled subshell). So, you see that for Fe to react, you must (i) pull out more electrons, (ii) and still not reach the "most" statble configuration (only a local minimum). Removing all the 3d and 4s electrons takes too much energy, so Fe can really never attain a Noble Gas configuration.

 

The not-so-great stability of the end-product and the relative difficulty of getting there is what makes Fe not so reactive.

I would like to thank you for that clear and simple description.

But what about the geometry? Isn't it so that elements with electrons in d orbitals can form bonds at a wider variety of angles, and so that a wider variety of stable lattice formations are available? Or did I completely misunderstand Inorganic?

Why would voicing an opinion result in a ban? I thought this was supposed to be a discussion forum! The structure of this thread has not fallen apart into choas... Just because it pertains to something you people think sensitive doesn't mean it should be closed to all, and it certainly does not mean I should be removed from the community. I think I am helping a few people think outside of the box, here, where most people's minds are more closed than they may believe...

Oh, for .... every-one is more closed-minded than they believe! Not many people admit, 'I'm going to rest on my ignorance and prejudice on this matter, and not listen to or engage in debate', but [i submit] that everyone does it about something.

However, you seem to think that those who disagree with you are being sentimental or knee-jerk humanists. No, SD, they disagree with your definition of worth and burden. They think your brother might be worth knowing.

You sneer at what you dismiss as 'pity'; Let's check the American Heritage ... "Pity: Sympathy and sorrow aroused by the misfortune or suffering of another." I don't see how any community could function without that. Why should pity be a more contemptible element of love than, say, lust?

Yes, I pity your brother, your parents, and the poor of the Gulf Coast; hell, I pity every-one from the Gulf Coast. They have a much rougher road ahead than I. I would that I could offer meaningfull help. I also respect them for dealing with a misfortune I have never had to face.

As for your place in this community, well, over time you may create one for yourself; but you do not exhibit any desire to belong to a community. You seem, both in your description of your family life and in the tone of the above post, to want to take all that a community has to offer, without fulfilling your responsibilities in return.

If you were to focus more on fulfilling your responsibilites, including simple courtesy, and more on others's needs than on your own, your situation would improve. 'From all according to their abilities, to all according to their needs' may not have worked out as an economic system, but it's a damn good definition of a family.

if this wasn`t such an emotive topic I and others would probably take exception to that remark!

and with very good reason ...

I apologize directly to SD for my lack of consideration and understanding.

And I apologize to the other posters for my breach of etiquette.

I was completely out of line on that. Thank you for your patience.

Shall we let you play God, Sum Deus?

It is obvious from the name that he would not consider it playing?

If this is a real thread, and not just some game designed to fire up a few posters, there are two things SD needs to learn, real fast:

1. Life is a struggle; bad things happen; productive adults learn to cope constructively; those who just whine are the burdens on society.

2. Everyone goes through a period when they feel like an outcast and a social misfit; the love and acceptance of our family and friends are what helps us through.

You and your brother have a rougher road than a lot of people, but your wishing him dead is not going to improve it.

Have you considered that your rejection could be contributing to his depression? That your hostility could be poisoning the family atmosphere? That you are being as great, if not a greater, burden on your family as your brother?

I actually got out my Inorganic Chemistry text for this [i thought I'd shot that thing years ago], and my general chemistry text, and my P-Chem Lab text, and I still can't find what I am looking for.

The d orbitals are actually of a higher enery level that the s orbitals of the next highest energy level; a 4s oribital is filled before the 3d orbital. And d orbital have more complex geometry.

But I can not find a simple explanation of why this means the transitionals are comparatively less reactive.

1' date=' why most transitional metals are less reactive than metals??

 

2, how compound ions are formed? eg, why sulfer + water = acid?

 

Energy...

 

why do you obtain energy when bonds are formed??

 

how does energy exist as such?

 

Albert[/quote']

 

A lower energy state is more stable; compounds react to form more stable forms; when they do so energy is released, generally in the form of heat.

 

Transition metal bonding electrons are in a different electron orbital than the metals, don't they? Something about the d orbitals ...

This sounds like a great assignment. But bias in science might not be the best topic; compiling quantitative data would be time-consuming.

Voting v. age? What percent of each age groups actually votes? What effect this has on allocation of resources and social policy? Then the next step could be to study why certain age groups do not vote?

Accretion of wealth? Wealth has not be increasing a quickly as income among non-WMs in the past decades; there will be lots of data on that and theories about why.

I can feel you yawn. Something in life must really piss you off; design a study about that.

J_p' date='

... I think this follows exactly from one of those things that sets you off in your own words, "[i']Undeclared premises and non-legitimate inferences[/i]"

Ouch.

I suppose I could argue that your inference that I assumed you ignorant is unwarranted, because in the context of a light-hearted thread ...

or I could just say, 'I'm sorry, that came out wrong; I did not mean to insult you.'

Here's another evidence of extremism on my part: I don't cede my right of way to someone driving an SUV, which is completely illogical because it results in them burning even more gas.

I am not implying that because female lions hunt and don't cook, human females should hunt and not cook. That makes almost as little sense as the OP.

Bias in science effects not only what we looks for but very much how we preceive what we do see.

I have to go to work, I'll explain later.

I turn into an absolute gibbering, frothing-at-the-mouth, wild-eyed, fang-baring maniac when people introduce beliefs and opinions into an argument, without stating them as such. [i swear I actually get larger.]

What really sets me off? Undeclared premises and non-legitimate inferences; I can get really mean about them.

Oh, and ignorance of history; for example, IMM, testing someone before allowing them to register to vote was a 'Jim Crow' tactic.

Also, my favorite joke is, 'I just have no use for intolerant people.'

Sigh, no-one gets it, because it is so true about me.

But bias in science is no where more obvious than in descriptions of and assumptions about group dynamics.

Quick, off the top of your head, describe the social structure of a pride of lions.