RiceAWay

In my experience you are pretty close. There are crimes such as simple robberies and using dope that are punished far too hard and not fitting the crime because minimum sentencing rules. Whereas murder, rape and pedophelia - are punished so lightly that it is amazing. A FIRST TIME rapist can get six months in JAIL - not prison - and get 50% of their sentence off for good behavior. I was on a jury in which a multiple pedophile was given 60 days in jail to be served one day per week. And of course that too followed the 50% off for good behavior. You see that poor illegal alien (this being California) had a wife and child to support.

Either explain yourself of give us a citation please. That is a totally false assumption. If it is the right of a woman to "make her own decisions" explain why 80% of abortions are performed upon black women? Let me give you a few facts - an abortion nurse quit the practice even though she was in dire need of the money. Why? Because asd she explained to me, a five month old fetus was aborted in a single piece so that they could use the body parts and it was alive and crying. She watched the abortionist doctor take a hammer and kill that crying baby by breaking it's skull. When they deliver these mid-term babies they are commonly breathing by themselves and crying. These days rather than resort to murdering with force, they leave them in the hall-ways without protection to freeze to death. A LARGE percentage of these aborted babies come from women that have been talked into these abortions and afterwards suffer from PTSD for the remainder of their lives. A significant number commit suicide. These days a large number of these aborted fetuses are sliced up in utero like carving a chicken so that the delivery is easier. They have to be careful of the way they do it in order to retain body parts that are used as replacements for other people or in scientific experimentation. Your belief that a fetus is not human is false. The SECOND that a fertilized egg attaches to the wall of the uterus it is alive. Within ONE week it has a beating heart and within a month it is a fully formed baby. So if you are against the death penalty but for abortions you are little more than a hypocrite.

Reality isn't an abstract thing. Reality is an agreed upon understanding of the world around us that can be tested and arrive at the same results all of the time.

And you have no excuse for not stating your professional credentials when arguing things that you so obviously don't understand. "I make atomic clocks"? And I worked on the first large scale time sharing computer on which the Internet was based. So what? You could be the most brilliant person around but if you do not study the subject you are arguing about of what use is "intelligence"? I have an IQ of 145 - does that mean I can argue organic chemistry?

I am in complete agreement with you and have a little experience that horrifies me with abortions. Approved by the SAME people that find the ultimate punishment for the worst offenders to be unethical.

Beauty changes with time and upbringing. So there IS no standard. Miss USA this year looked like a stick figure. That was quite difference from Greta Garbo or Cid Charisse. In China beauty was considered to be weight. So no - YOUR idea of beauty might be hereditary but the definition of beauty is not static.

Why do you make the assumption that free will does not exist and then design a Disneyworld around such a false premise? Most mammals have free will. They can decide how and whether to react to most stimuli. That the range of stimulus they react to is limited does not change those facts.

1. It is my understanding that the most likely precursor was Homo heidelbergensis except he was in the wrong area at the wrong time. So be aware that "most probable" is not the same as "is". 2. Unless the so far discovered suspected precursors could manufacture and use tools they were no more human than a Chimp. 3. https://phys.org/news/2016-02-neanderthal-dna-subtle-significant-impact.html I would like to know why widely known science requires a citation for people such as yourself? Anyone on a science forum arguing should have the ability to look things up like this for themselves. 4. Why do you find it somehow instructive to talk about comic books? Rice can be grown only in a very narrow climate pattern.

1. So "denialist" was meant as a compliment? 2. And I posted a link that is FAR more indicative of the real case. CO2 absorbance bands are below the emission bands of the Sun and above the emissions of the Earth. What's more the SCALE of those lines is entirely incorrect in order to show their presence. Most of the scales are improperly shown not to avoid anything but to show the lines in their proper places. 3. The 4% is an AVERAGE. And this globe being covered over 70% with water means that it doesn't radiate enough to be significant. The humidity in the tropics is FAR above 4% and that above the arctic circle is less. But the angle of incidence of the Sun's emissions is a great deal less. It is the absence of energy that causes the ice packs and not global warning causing meltdowns. Surprise - the Milankovitch Cycles effect this. 4. The sea ice decline WAS NOT a prediction. It was nothing more than an observation due to the present warming pattern. I predict that it will rain someplace today. 5. I suggest that you would not be insulted if you could recall that turn about is fair play. 6. https://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/archaeological-finds-in-retreating-swiss-glacier/ https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/receding-swiss-glaciers-reveal-4000-year-old-forests-warmists-try-to-suppress-findings/ http://www.archaeology.org/issues/105-1309/letter-from/1165-glaciers-ice-patches-norway-global-warming There are more evidence from ALL over the globe that any claims that glaciers are permanent is preposterous on the very face of it.

Again you avoid "refuting" things that you really and quite obviously don't understand. Exactly how is it relevant that poison gas is poisonous? One single "death cap" mushroom can kill you. Can you explain how THAT would any relevance? In order to explain to a toddler you would first be able to explain to yourself and talking about poison gas being toxic and hence believing that in some manner proves anything makes me wonder if you write comic books for a living. I AM a scientist. I have worked in high energy nuclear research. I worked on the first heart/lung machine. I was part of Dr. Kary Mullis' team for automating DNA analysis through polymerase chain reaction. He received a Nobel Prize in Chemistry. I worked on blood analyzers to identify HIV in the blood banking system. I designed both liquid and gas chromatography instruments. I increased the power of the Berkeley Lawrence Laboratories cyclotron. I programmed military instruments that others couldn't get to work. Tell me - what do you do for a living?

So that is why you can't answer why CO2 is somehow a "greenhouse gas" despite the fact that O2 is 525 times more common, has a larger heat content and a lower heat transmission so that CO2 holds less head and transmits it more easily? And that the portion of CO2 that is supposedly critical is 1/2100th of the O2? Or that CO2 does not absorb in the emission band of the Sun or the warmth generated by the Earth? That water vapor absorbs almost the entire emission band of the Sun and that isn't important? After all it's also MUCH more absorbent and 100 times more common than CO2 JUST as free gas and particles in the atmosphere. This is why you will tell us that the Arctic Ice Pack is to the level now that the Northwest Passage is open? Why do you think that its CALLED the Northwest Passage? Judging from the knowledge you have about this planet Earth I suggest you read books more your speed - Jack London would seem appropriate. Or you won't bother to explain why things are so bad that as the glaciers in Iceland withdraw they discover the remains of farms beneath the ice? Perhaps Brachiosaurus were farmers. I could go on but I'm waiting for you to get complicated rather than to call names. Perhaps you ought to actually think before posting? CO2 absorbs in the infrared which is only a very small part of the emissions of the Sun. O2 absorbs infrared right in the middle of the emission bands of the Earth. The overwhelming majority of the emissions of the Sun are in the visible light spectrum. That is why virtually all animals have evolved to see in these bands. IF O2 were to absorb in the visible light spectrum far less heat would strike the ground and it is likely that life would never have evolved upon this planet. So O2 actually is in the absorption band MOST likely to retain atmospheric heat. If you're going to look specifically for a chart that appears to somehow show your point perhaps you ought to find a chart that proves your point. https://cosmoscon.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/atmospheric_transmission.png

The sign of someone that is a total loser is that he thinks that its the fault of someone else.

This country has disappointed you so because of their electing that stupid Trump that you should remember that you're always free to leave. Try moving to Canada. If that doesn't work try moving to Mexico - they really like Americans as long as they can pay. But Obama DOES care about the truth doesn't he? After all, he told us that the economy was up and unemployment was down and the VERY NEXT DAY the reports from his own departments showed exactly the opposite. He told us that the economy was ALL Bush's fault while anyone could go to the Department of the Treasury reports and see for themselves that was a bald-faced lie. On TV he told us all that he worked the hardest of all Presidents to improve race relations - apparently by saying "If I had a son he could have been Trayvon". Well if there's one thing that we can say - anyone talking about "alternative facts" didn't bother to use Obama as an example. So YOU think that Wells Fargo forced their employees to open false accounts by offering bonuses to those who opened the greatest number of accounts? Now there's some real worker thinking.

You do realize that the weight of the aircraft and LOAD has a bearing on the lift? You are speaking of being able to carry a load by soaring and that requires being able to lift off. And that the thermals necessary to soar upon must be strong enough to maintain the altitude of a soaring aircraft. Two problems appear: the wings in order to carry any load at all would have to be longer than the mechanical strength of the available materials and wings of that length could not find many thermals strong enough or large enough to be able to turn rapidly enough to stay within the normal size of thermals. Even the Great Albatross which is EXTREMELY light can only take off by running down hill into a wind. I believe that the aircraft in your photo is a U2 and the wings were NOT for soaring but for being able to lift to very high altitudes with minimal power. The power was minimal because it traveled so slowly that the fuel capacity was necessarily large.

Oops, of course you and MacSwell are correct. Having a pretty serious infection from a broken tooth and having to take strong pain medication while the antibiotics are working does tend to dampen one's ability to visualize.

In order to deal with "where does the energy come from" first you have to define what gravity is. And we do not understand it at all. All we can say is that gravity is a fundamental nature of matter.

Perhaps I'm mistaken but the visible blue light has a wavelength of about 475 nm. Because the blue wavelengths are shorter in the visible spectrum, they are scattered more efficiently by the molecules in the atmosphere. What do you suppose that "scattering" is?

After using the term "denialist" you have taken yourself out of the running for any sort of person without an agenda

There is a GENERAL agreement that the mean global temperature has risen (some 60% agree with this.). That is a VERY long way from man is causing it with driving his cars around. What's more there is far too many questions about what is really going on. This 2016 was "the hottest year ever" conveniently leaves out the fact that this rise was 0.06 degrees C while the error bars are about one degree C. And the games that have been played with "ever" are also extremely questionable: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/ You will note that the vast majority of people agreeing with climate change are uneducated in the facts and are repeating one single article they read five years ago. And this ALL ignores the fact that they identify CO2 as being man-made by measuring the amount of Carbon 14 in "man-made" vs natural. But that also leaves out the entire problem that there are some 200 known volcanoes on this planet that we know of, and many more we don't. (The "antarctic melting turns out to be nothing more than an unidentified undersea volcano erupting in a very small area. There are many unidentified along the mid-oceanic ridges). These Volcanoes burn through many layers of fossil fuel thereby making these sources of CO2 exactly the same as those generated by man. Furthermore the rise in CO2 is known to occur about 800 years after a global warming period - in other words, this boiling out of CO2 from the oceans is directly on schedule from the end of the Medieval Warm Period. The claim that CO2 has never been higher is totally fallacious since the atmosphere was approximately 50% at one time and the geologically demonstrated climate was not too different than now. Let me repeat - O2 has a higher latent heat content than CO2 which is 2/3rds Oxygen.And the "proof" of this is "proven" with ice cores. The fact is that ice cores only offer the broadest possible evidence. The Antarctica continent is the driest desert on Earth. Ice does not form there from snow storms but from the extremely slow build up of frost. During this entire time these areas remain porous and hence CO2 presence in ice is totally unreliable. And add to this that not ONE single prediction predicated on AGW has occurred. This is total bunk. Climate warming has already multiplied the farming all over the world. The additional CO2 has cause a world-wide bloom of the largest source of plants - plankton and with that all of the filter feeders. The Pacific Coast blue whale pods are now larger than they believed the entire world's population to be 30 years ago. With this additional CO2 the oceans are cleaning up and more and more food fishes are causing their predators to multiply as well. We have seen more white sharks within the US territorial waters than ever since records began being kept. Rather than starvation we have seen increases in human nutrition. And the world's population is predicted to increase 16% in the next lucky 13 years. Plus the statistics show a steadily increasing average age at death. So you think that it is increased life and liberty for the world's economy to be in the liberal dumps and the actual jobless rates to be over 10%? I find it curious that you respond to a string of facts by calling names and asking me to repeat them.

And yet you haven't any arguments against my posting beyond insults. You needn't take my word for anything: https://www.youtube.com/embed/BC1l4geSTP8

We do not have any clear evidence of a pre-cursor to Homosapiens. And Homosapiens only appears to have been around some 200,000 years in which time he has gone from an animal to landing on the moon and sending a spacecraft outside of the solar system. The single largest step in mental development was writing. That seems to me to be a pretty rapid mental evolution. Northern Europeans have signs of Neanderthal DNA in them suggesting that there was some interbreeding.

How would you propose that a satellite re-entering the atmosphere could generate any energy at all with a fan or propeller? It would seem to me that the rotation of the prop would be countered by a counter motion of the satellite.

If you live near a large city airport you can generally gain knowledge of where to get a comprehensive education from any of the management of the maintenance sections of commercial aircraft companies that have maintenance divisions at that airport. This is not a subject to be self-taught in unless it is just a passing fancy.

It has to do with the coefficient of the friction of both the barrel and bullet. The rifling, the time in the barrel and the speed of repeating, meaning that how hot the barrel grows and stays. At one point the repeating actions finds a balance between how fast it can grow with the heat it receives from the time in the barrel, the heat absorbed and that radiated including the time if requires to reload an fire again. In other words - it depends.

Rather than the larger the cross section it is the closer the flow rate is to the maximum capacity of the total volume including the frictional loses in the turns of the pipe. Square pipes tend to have maximum flow rates near the center as they reach the maximum flow rates. This usually is a round. In rectangular pipes it is more ovular. But turns especially near the entrance and exit have more effect than near the center of the length.