toastywombel

ZolarV, I cannot believe you just said that. Chemical and Biological weapons don't cause as many casualties as Nuclear Weapons if you go pound for pound. And is death by Nuclear weapons really a quick death? Radiation poisoning is certainly not quick and painless, also if one is far enough from the blast, and instead of being incinerated, he/she suffers severe burns all over the body is that quick and painless. Is it quick and painless if you survived the initial blast all right, yet you are asphyxiated because all the oxygen was burned up by the blast? Again, though. I think everyone is missing one of the point. The idea of using nuclear weapons in defense is like using a grenade to defend yourself against someone who is ten feet away. A thermo-nuclear bomb can have drastic global effects. Nuclear weapons, no matter where detonated can have affects on large regions if not the whole world. It is simply not a defensive weapon. To take the analogy a little further, even if someone ten feet away in a crowded room throws a grenade at you, I fail to see how it would be justified, reasonable, or practical for you to throw a grenade back at him. And the article isn't terrible, but the feature of it on Fox's front page is incredibly biased. Also, I will acknowledge that it is an extreme policy change, but I could not see the United States government nuking a country because they attacked us with biological weapons, it would be completely counter-productive. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged We could make the planet an uninhabitable rock if we detonated our nuclear weapons, we could not do that with all biological weapons in the world. I fail to see how how any biological and/or chemical weapons, provided both were used to maximum capability, could inflict as many casualties as nuclear weapons, let alone more.

That is the front page headline of this article that can be found here, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/05/obama-limit-potential-uses-nuclear-weapons/ "Administration says it will pledge, with exception, not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries — no matter what they use against us" "You decide: Is Obama Limiting Nukes too much?" I don't even know where to start. How can Fox turn such a good thing, nuclear nonproliferation, into an attack on Obama? Well I guess it is Fox. The ignorance of the You decide question is what really gets me though, it is like asking, "Is Obama limiting mustard gas too much?" I also love the featured segment of the article. I cannot believe Fox gets away with implying that it is okay to leave nuclear weapons as an option against non-nuclear countries, let alone any country. I mean did the author even ask himself the question. What would be the international implications if the United States nuked a non-nuclear country even if they attacked us first? I couldn't imagine anything good. Furthermore, does Fox realize that one thermo-nuclear detonation could cause severe global climate damage and radiation fallout, especially if it was detonated in the air (The bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were detonated in the air, not on impact for those who don't know). Are these guys crazy?

Well true, because observation and reference frames depend on light, but I was really just emphasizing the point that a photon cannot be at rest.

Well, stopping a photon, would mean that it is stopped relative to the observer, so you could have an photon that is at rest, relative to you if you were able to travel at c, but then of course, you would have to be a photon to do that. So if a photon is at rest, relative to you, either the photon is now matter or you or now a photon.

The energy and momentum of a photon depend only on its frequency (ν) or equivalently, its wavelength (λ): where k is the wave vector (where the wave number k = |k| = 2π/λ), Ω = 2πν is the angular frequency, and ħ = h/2π is the reduced Planck constant.[13] Since p points in the direction of the photon's propagation, the magnitude of the momentum is Even if you cannot understand all the math, the only thing you need to know is that a photon's momentum is not dependent on its mass, which is zero. We are past Newtonian Physics when it comes to this stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon "a single photon always has momentum (since it is determined, as we have seen, only by the photon's frequency or wavelength - which cannot be zero)."

Okay, so there are closed strings and open strings Closed strings retain there energy because they are essentially like a loop. With the energy flowing along the string. Open strings are the problem, energy can leave the open string and simply vanish. This is where the conservation of energy problem comes up. Well at the end of open strings, according to string theory there are D-branes. D-branes, are a type of higher dimensional object called branes, these are like boundaries of the dimensions. So a one dimensional brane is simply a brane, two dimensional brane is a membrane, so on and so forth. This might be the medium that you guys are referring to. Open strings exist under two conditions. One is where an end of the string is not attached to a D-brane, but has no momentum escaping out the end. The other is where there is momentum, and because of this the open string must be attached to a D-brane, this is how the energy is conserved. The energy cannot escape the brane, or dimension, even if it escapes the string.

174 cm is not something you should worry about. If you look at the average height of males around the world your right there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height

Well, like said in another thread, if I'm not with you jackson I must be with Pelosi and Reid. The point of the thread, was to show the Republicans don't seem to have many big ideas, other than Nancy Pelosi is evil? I don't think the DMC ever had Bush with a backdrop of flames behind him, and if they did they would have been labeled as anti-american liberal scum. And as far as free market capitalism, I just bought the mineral rights to your property, you have 24 hours to move before I start drilling. And again, I am sick of hearing the center right argument. It is just not accurate. More registered democrats than republicans More liberals than conservatives in both congress' According to many conservatives, we have the most liberal president in history. And why if you are law-abiding and Christian, then you are considered a conservative? And I suppose believing in your constitution minus the 4th and 1st amendments is conservative right? Patriot Act. But I suppose you would rather have guns than speech and privacy. And as for the private sector being able to solve any problem, the Mississippi River is about to flood, should FEMA help? No, don't worry the good ol' boys at American Sandbag are giving us a great deal! 25 cents a sandbag, oh wait the share holders don't want that, well too bad. Please. . . You think we would have a space station if it was left to the free market? You think we would have been to the moon if it was left to the free market? Maybe, by 2050. The free-market is great in delivering known goods to the masses, but when a change is needed or quick response is needed that is not in the interests of the all-mighty dollar the free market will fail. And I am glad to know in 100 years, we won't be using fossil fuels anymore thanks to the free market. That is some quick problem solving! It is this kind of ideology that would have everyone working for a dollar an hour, ten hours a day, in unsafe conditions. I like going to a restaurant and knowing that there are inspections required by law. I like the fact that I can have roads that I can drive on, and I don't have to be part of a shopping club. I like that if I break my arm at work, my employers can't just fire me. And please don't compare Gingrich to Lincoln and FDR. Gingrich was mad at Clinton because he supposedly had to sit in the back of Air Force One, so he was stalling the budget, and when asked by a reporter he let it slip out. So not only was he selfish, but he was an idiot about it too. That is not patriotism that is self serving stupidity.

I agree with this, the Republicans seem to be group A, and the Democrats seem to be a bunch of groups against group A. This is of course a generalization. But it is unfortunate, I'll often have political debates, in which I question a Republican tactic or ideology and they immediately start attacking Pelosi and Reid, as if I am supposed to be a big fan of them.

I don't like Reid, and I could care less if he gets thrown out. I don't much care for Pelosi either. Furthermore, I believe it was many on the Right wing who cried, "Drill Baby Drill". And when Obama opens up some off-shore drilling (which I don't agree with at all) you say, "It's just a tactic". I wish Bush did some "tactics" to appease to the left at all. Are you that partisan Jackson? You cannot take anything from Obama simply because he is Obama? Also like I said, the demographics don't favor the Republicans unless they change essentially everything about their platform. They have a strong social reputation of being anti-environment, anti-regulation, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-minority, anti-evolution, and Pro-war. They have alienated several groups of voters that favor the above ideas (minus the prefix's of course) and many of these groups are a growing part of the electorate. And it is a shame that Newt nearly caused a massive shutdown of the Federal Government by delaying the federal budget because he had to sit in the back of the plane. I hope he never serves, he let a personal issue nearly effect our whole government. I sure don't want a man like that to be commander and chief and I don't think most Americans do.

From what I remember 2000 was a legitimate concern, because computers did not have the software to register the year as more than just two digits. Essentially though, nothing happened that was globally disastrous, so if 2012 is a billion times that, it would still mean nothing would happen that is globally disastrous.

http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/24841/page1/ You gotta check this article out it is sweet! "RNA-Loaded Nanoparticles Fight Cancer" "The researchers developed a nanoparticle carrying a molecular marker that binds to the surface of cancer cells, triggering the cells to absorb it. The siRNA carried within the particle was designed to silence a gene called ribonucleotide reductase M2 (RRM2), which regulates DNA synthesis and repair and is known to be an anticancer target. Because it was the first trial using targeted RNAi delivery for cancer, says Mark Davis, a professor of chemical engineering at Caltech and the study's lead author, "we wanted to choose a gene that was suspected to be hugely upregulated in a broad spectrum of cancers" in order to increase the likelihood of being able to observe the novel therapy's effect."

check out here http://www.gop.com/firepelosi/ "On behalf of the entire RNC staff we thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your generous donations to help us regain Congress in 2010 and fire Nancy Pelosi from the office of the Speaker of the House. This is the first step in restoring accountability to our nation's Capitol, please stay tuned for more information on what's next in the campaign to fire Pelosi" -Michael Steele I love the burning flame backdrop behind Nancy Pelosi. Anyway, it seems they want to return accountability to our nation's capitol? Hopefully they don't mean the return of the following as "accountability". "On January 21, 1997, the House voted overwhelmingly (395 to 28) to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich for ethics violations dating back to September 1994. The house ordered Gingrich to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it had disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.[18] Eighty-four ethics charges, most of which were leveled by House Democratic Whip David Bonior, were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term, including claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. Eighty-three of the 84 allegations were dropped.[19] Gingrich denied the charges over misuse of tax-exempt funds; however, he admitted to providing inaccurate statements during the probe over the college course and agreed to pay US$300,000 for the cost of the investigation.[20][21] The House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or ... reckless" disregard of House rules.[22] The full committee panel did not reach a conclusion about whether Gingrich had violated federal tax law, instead they opted to leave it up to the IRS.[23]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich "In the aftermath of the 1998 midterm elections, House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia stood down for the Speakership and declined to take his seat for an 11th term. The initial Republican prospect for Gingrich's replacement was Bob Livingston of Louisiana, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, who was unanimously chosen as the Republican candidate for Speaker--and de facto Speaker-elect. However, soon thereafter, Hustler magazine detailed sexual affairs Livingston had in the past while seemingly hypocritically attacking President Bill Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky scandal; Livingston announced he wouldn't seek the Speakership and resigned from Congress. With Livingston's departure, the leading candidates for Speaker appeared to be DeLay and House Majority Leader Dick Armey, both of Texas. However, Armey had just fended off a bruising challenge to his majority leader's post from Steve Largent of Oklahoma. This seemed to open the door for DeLay. However, DeLay was as controversial then as now, and felt that he would be "too nuclear" to lead a closely divided House.[7] The Republican caucus then turned to Hastert as a compromise candidate. He had very good relationships with moderate and conservative Republicans, as well as Democrats. Hastert was then unanimously elected as the Republican candidate for Speaker, all but assuring his formal election as Speaker on January 6, 1999." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert It is interesting to note they didn't choose many of the other options over Hastert because they were in legal trouble. "As details emerged about unsavory dealings between lobbyists and lawmakers -- including his top lieutenant, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) -- the House speaker stood on the sidelines. As DeLay's legal peril mounted, Hastert backed him at every turn, attempting to change House rules to allow an indicted leader to stay in power and even altering the leadership of the ethics committee, which had been exposing misconduct by the majority leader." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011600997.html Just some interesting insight. I think it is easy for one to make a conclusion from the above data.

CNS news is not a really good news source, just fyi.

It really is true, conservatism whether it is social or economical is usually about preserving the free-market (unregulated capitalism) and preserving good old Christian Values and/or traditional social values. This is from wikipedia: "Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve") is a political and social philosophy that holds that traditional institutions work best and that society should avoid radical change. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were." From Merriam Webster " disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage) the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change" From Encyclopaedia Britannica "Political attitude or ideology denoting a preference for institutions and practices that have evolved historically and are thus manifestations of continuity and stability. It was first expressed in the modern era through the works of Edmund Burke in reaction to the French Revolution, which Burke believed tarnished its ideals through its excesses. Conservatives believe that the implementation of change should be minimal and gradual; they appreciate history and are more realistic than idealistic. Well-known conservative parties include the British Conservative Party, the German Christian Democratic Union, the U.S. Republican Party, and the Japanese Liberal-Democratic Party. See also Christian Democracy ... (100 of 8064 words) " There is some legitimacy to what the OP is getting at, as iNow pointed out before. Conservatives generally like to preserve something, an older idea. If one wants to support an existing system, they are closed to accepting new systems. However, it is obvious that throughout history change and shift happens. Example: One aspect of conservatism one could consider is the "Christian Conservative". This group of voters often supports creationism being taught in schools. It is quite obvious that the scientific evidence behind creationism is lacking, and the evidence behind evolution is very strong, however many of these voters, vote for candidates who also support creationism being taught in school. If their candidate won and was successful in implementing this, our public education system would be teaching students utter nonsense, and we could end up with a completely misinformed nation.

That you cannot sign in on the front page.

Why should recreational sex be considered wrong? It is found throughout nature.

One of the initial purposes of the electoral college was to ensure that the people would not elect someone who is not fit to be President (putting the elector as a middle man between the public and the election outcome). I am pretty sure the republicans wouldn't like doing this though.

I agree with this strongly. It is ridiculous to have life long congressmen, it creates a culture of corruption.

I understand that, everyone has their own unique thought process, and it is good to be skeptical. And I can relate to not being sure of being human.

I was more making the point that simply saying, it's not constitutional, is not a good argument against something. Also it is good to keep in mind, just because the majority accepts it, doesn't make it right either. "Majority rule don't work in mental institutions". Much of our knowledge and information we have obtained, and eventually accepted as a society, was initially discovered by small groups of people working against what the majority saw as right.

Why does it seem that if something is not directly allowed by the constitution that it therefore has no merit? How is that even a legitimate argument? Its just like saying, if it is not allowed by the bible it has no merit. Again, the constitution is not perfect, it is a document written by men over 200 years ago, who had much less information available to them than us. Just because something isn't constitutional doesn't mean its not right.

You do realize paranoia, that everything you know, nearly all the knowledge you have ever obtained is from people in this world. Information doesn't just grow on trees. So to say that there are few people in this world who can convince you of anything is rather ridiculous, everything you know (your belief system) was at one point something known by another person and passed onto you through some means. It is great to be independent, but humans at the core are not independent creatures, we are social creatures dependent on each other.

I think this guy says it best jryan, "According to the Constitution's commerce clause, Congress has the power to "regulate commerce . . . among the several states." Traditionally, insurance contracts haven't been considered commerce, which is why they've been regulated by the states. But given that Congress has long been allowed to regulate other "economic" activities—activities that affect interstate commerce, even if they don't qualify as interstate commerce themselves—the Supreme Court isn't likely to object to congressional regulation of health insurance." http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/03/23/the-gop-s-last-best-hope-to-hobble-obamacare.aspx

I was talking with mooey and I mentioned maybe a soft glow on the biohazard black. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAlso, it might be nice to see the scienceforums.net set to the right of the logo instead of the bottom?