ewmon

America was spoiling for a fight (and revenge) after 9-11, but prudence and reason should have prevailed, and there were Americans (I being one of them) who should have spoken up more loudly about the ridiculousness of the Bush administration's claims for invading Iraq. At least Al Qaida was in Afghanistan. I wish people would smarten up about this "desire for oil" mentality. Oil is wealth, and wealth is power. Period. You don't want a madman to have power, so yeah, you go in and take control of the oil away from him. And you also don't want the next random madman (or fanatical organization) to wander along and become the next dictator and controller of all that power, So all this whining about "we only went in there for the oil" (as if we only went in there to get cheap gasoline) is malarkey. I heard the same whining about why we supposedly went into Vietnam, and they produce between ¼ and ½ of 1 percent of the world's oil. Whoop-dee-doo.

As for the glass bottle, I'll bet that he also used only his mouth toward the end to increase the pressure, the tongue being a rather powerful muscle.

Similar to the OP, what about a simple "Agree" button? If you agree with a post, click the button and your name is added to the post. This would also encourage posters to give responses as concise as possible. Otherwise, if they ramble on and on, they take a chance with losing agree clicks — someone else could follow behind him/her with a concise form of response and scoop all the agree clicks. This would cut down on the verbiage. Yeah!

Interestingly, "wrinkling is caused by blood vessels constricting below the skin" ... source source (Janus beat me to it.)

First, I suggest more explicit descriptions — You seem to be confusing "industries" for "companies" below. If I want to buy a car, I must go to the auto industry, but I might buy a Chevy, a Ford or a Honda. Ford would care about its own pride and dignity, but not about the pride and dignity of the auto industry. * Shouldn't you be covering this in the first paragraph? Argh, you need to outline this to get your ducks in line — Company seems secure: * Employees (current and prospective operations) * Customers (revenue) * Stockholders (market value) * Government (regulations, investigations) * Other companies (competitiors, buyouts/mergers) * Hackers (minimize attacks)

Thank you for questioning my post on genetic codes. (It's been a while.) You're right, all organisms use basically the same 20 AAs, and with similar distributions. I myself seek info on the evolution of codons because they certainly look as though they can evolve and did evolve.

There are articles on evolution and codons (Google Scholar: codon evolution). The number of human codons is 4³ or 64, where 61 encode for 20 amino acids and 3 encode for stops. There is more than codon usage optimization to consider — for example, sufficient flexibility and subtle mutability to allow for evolution to occur. You can also read about codon usage bias.

Whoever makes the offer seems to pay, even when it's not a date — or not possibly a date. Besides, I think women don't want to appear slutty, and within reason, what guy would refuse a free meal? So women are bound to lose a lot more money than when guys ask (and guys get rejected more often).

There's an important word to apply here ... equilibrium. Everything around you experiences the same pressure (ie, equilibrium). If you bake one of those angel food "sponge" cakes, it's flimsy, and yet, it was created at 14.7 psi, so it's at equilibrium at that pressure. If you take your sponge cake to Bolivia's Altoplano region (~14,000 feet altitude), it would expand. Bake one there, and it will have a particular size, and bring both down to sea level, and the first one will return to its normal size, and the high-altitude one will shrivel. These are, of course, perfectly ideal sponge cakes.

"Microbe Hunters" by Paul de Kruif (1926), very much the classic and still in print "The Hot Zone" by Richard Preston (1994), a best-seller on viral hemorrhagic fevers (ebola etc) "Splendid Solution" by Jeffrey Kluger (2005), excellent about polio and Salk's vaccine

Who cares about losing scientific evidence billions of years from now? If Krauss is correct, then conversely, what was evident millions or billions of years ago that's not evident today, and what would it be evidence of?

Thanks for all your comments and the terminology. About 1 in 1,000 with Robertsonian fusion is much more common than I would have thought. What is it about a fusion would have detrimental effects? I'm taking this to an extreme, but could there be a "normal" human walking around with, say, one pair of huge chromosomes (that is, the number of chromosomes generally does not have an effect)? Do you know the chance of an inheritance going in the opposite direction (maybe 47 or 48 chromosomes), and what is it called? So, is the absence of mitochondrial code the main cause of sex-linked infertility?

I also cannot find the number of chromosomes that comprise the Neanderthal DNA apparently because what we find is so old that it has decomposed. However, because we think they crossbred with humans, it seems they would have the same number of chromosomes as us, or the offspring would suffer infertility as do mules. A horse's 64 chromosomes cross with a donkey's 62 chromosomes to produce a mule's 63 chromosomes, but mules are almost always infertile. I'm guessing that the same would occur for Human × Neanderthal offspring. As for the video, it's the same (but somewhat different) situation when nonbelievers try to read the whole Bible literally as when believers try to. They get it wrong. To begin with, according to Genesis 2:7, God did not form Adam from "clay". Almost all English translations translate it as "dust of the ground" (and even Biblical scholars wonder what the heck that is supposed to mean!). Basically, it involves the ground/earth/dirt. Also consider that Adam's creation is mentioned previously in Genesis 1:27 where "God created man in his own image". Hmm, that sounds like we're supernatural. But, of course, we're not. And, obviously, neither was Adam merely clay/ground/earth/dirt. So, why revisit Adam's creation? To correct a misunderstanding. Yes, made in God's image, but no, not of supernatural ingredients — merely the dust of the ground. Same things with Eve created from one of Adam's ribs. Women certainly look and behave a lot differently from men (!!!), but no, they're mostly the same as men. Science has shown that only 5% is different. Viva la difference! Anyway, if you look at the elemental composition of the human body, you'll see that, maybe except for some of the oxygen in the watery part of us, the rest of our 60 elements must come from the ground (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, ... tungsten, beryllium, and radium). So, scientifically speaking, we are made from the dust of the ground, and if you take it back even further, we're all stardust, which is pretty awesome. Lastly, the word adam also means reddish earth and ruddy skin color. We know from scientific analysis that the redness of earth and the ruddiness of our flesh are both caused by the element iron — as iron oxide in the ground and as hemoglobin (a metalloprotein) in our blood.

It looks simple, and easy, but it emphasizes the importance of what are and are not additive. Consider this example from my high school days — We found students typically blurting out answers in the following order — — 90 mph, thinking that speeds are additive { (30+90)/2=60 }, and they foresee the arithmetic mean. Wrong. — 120 mph, thinking that the speeds are multiplicative { √(30∙120)=60 }, and they foresee the geometric mean. Wrong. — Hmm..... The answer involves the fact that, in this situation, only the distances and the times are additive — v = Σd/Σt So, for the first lap — d1 = 1 mile and t1 = 2 minutes so that v1 = 1 mile / 2 minutes = 30 mph For the second lap — d2 = 1 mile and t2 = (to be determined) so that 2 miles / 2 + t2 minutes = 60 mph = (by definition) 2 miles / 2 minutes Thus, 2 + t2 minutes = 2 minutes, making t2 = 0 minutes And v2 = 1 mile / 0 minutes = ∞ mph As with the hare catching up to the tortoise, its time has expired, but it must still cover the distance.

I think the "supernatural" helps distinguish religion from philosophy, whether it's supernatural beings or knowledge or rewards, and obviously from every other form of knowledge or experience (commonsense, science, etc). Current mainstream religions seem ultimately based on a single supernatural being, whether named Elohim, God, Allah, etc for their supernatural knowledge and reward. Lesser/previous religions seem mostly based on physical experiences — whirling (a la dervishes), psychedelic mushrooms (Mesoamericans etc) and other drugs, chants, meditations, auguries/divinations (entrails, bones, etc), sweat lodges, fasting, inhaling fumes (a la Delphic oracle), communing with nature, etc — just about anything to modify or transcend the limits of our human abilities to perceive/know, and hopefully, to connect with so-called supernatural knowledge, which by definition, is not naturally available to us. Supernatural rewards are well-known — heaven, hell, paradise, reincarnation, karma, etc.

I agree with convergent evolution within reason. I think why we see convergent evolution typically in geographically different areas because of common factors on Earth (the amount of gravity, oxygen, water, minerals, winds, etc). I would expect to see humanoid-like intelligent beings on Earth-like planets. But what if a planet is completely covered in water and has ten times Earth's gravity?

I have two ideas — #1 — When using the single 4-inch lens, are you reading the same text equally with both eyes; that is, does one eye read through it more or less along its optical axis while the other eye relaxes far off axis (I'm guessing about 0.2 rad), then when you stop using the lens, the relaxed eye can see "properly" and the "reading" eye is out of focus (but you don't notice it)? #2 — If both eyes (set the nominal 62 mm {aka 2.5 inches} apart) are reading equally through the 4-inch lens, I'm assuming they are both equally offset from the lens's optical axis (I'm guessing about 0.1 rad each, that is, for simplicity of calculations, 1.25 inches offset over 12.5 inches distance), and I'm assuming this offset provides some sort of cylindrical component to the eyesight correction (that is, the correction is not just spherical). Sorry, I'm not good enough at optics to know if I'm talking fact or fiction. So the question to the optical experts is: Does tilting the lens introduce a cylindrical component that might help his eyes to relax? (I know in photography, tilt shift produces a unique effect.) You could test my hypothesis in #1 by alternately closing one eye and then the other both while reading through the lens and without it, but someone knowledgeable in optics will probably need to give #2 a yea or nay. Does anyone have an opinion? (What a silly question! )

Google: "hydrochloric acid" iron green, and likewise with aluminum.

To begin with, FoxTV, as with conservatives in general, communicates with a far greater emotion-to-intellect ratio than liberals. The same goes for mercury in CFLs (oh my!), even though there's mercury in all fluorescent lamps, including the ones over your food in the kitchen and the ones over your kids in their rec room. EPA approval. So, the EPA has approved E15 fuel, but it may have drawbacks for some cars. Well, the EPA has approved diesel fuel (and it's sold in pumps right next to gas pumps, oh my!), and it definitely won't work in most cars. And the EPA also approved E10 that's commonly used in most cars. Oh my! Remember that the EPA is only the federal Environmental Protection Agency, not the federal consumer protection agency. More expensive food. E15 is made with ethanol, which is made from corn, which drives our food prices higher. (As we all know, America is not obese enough!) But the very common E10 is also made from ethanol with a similar impact on food prices. Phase separation. This involves water in the gas tank, so anyone concerned about phase separation should first be concerned about water in their gas tanks, and water is much heavier than gasoline. Engines cannot run on water. And for water in our gas tanks, the historic cure has been a can of "dry gas", which is, not surprisingly, alcohol. Volumetric efficiency of ethanol. FoxTV also whined a little about this. Ethanol has only half the volumetric efficiency than gasoline. So, a gallon of E10 is 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol, meaning that a gallon of E10 is equivalent to 0.95 gallons of gasoline. Likewise, a gallon of E15 is equivalent to 0.925 gallons of gasoline. Studies have shown a similar drop in fuel economy. Minnesota mandates E20 by 2015. Fox didn't mention this, but Minnesota mandated use of E20 and originally set the date as 2013, but it recently pushed its E20 mandate forward to 2015. Fox, Fox Fox ... scare, scare, scare. Beware of the ancient saying — Caveat emptor.

I wholeheartedly agree, so the question is — Who will actually spend more of the money they receive. I suspect that rich people will look at it as discretionary money and simply save it, hoard it, or invest it (remember how the banks sat on their TARP money), and that middle-class people will see it as essential money and spend it on necessities. I would also rather prevent, say, five middle-class families from losing their five homes than one rich family losing its one home. Especially since the middle-class bears the economy on its back. The one rich family can downsize to a regular-sized home (oh poor them!), whereas the five middle-class families might downsize to a homeless shelter.

But the vertical velocity component that the bullet acquires (from gravity) does not affect the horizontal velocity. The horizontal distance and the horizontal velocity remain constant. Otherwise, we're getting into calculus, as you may have suspected. If the target is dropped at the instance the bullet leaves the barrel, the bullet will strike the bull's eye, honest. We are, of course, neglecting the effects of air resistance, otherwise there's tons of effects to account for. Plus, we're assuming a flat earth for such a short distance (200m), otherwise all bullets technically travels elliptical orbits near a spherical earth, and trust me, you don't want to go there either.

This spectrum is given here as the solar spectrum that reaches Earth, and it reminds me of my first thought on this subject that the Sun is really "green", but that such stars have such broad spectrums that they appear whitish (that is, all colors). The linked article says that the solar spectrum before filtering by the atmosphere is toward the blue. The broadness of star spectrums is why their apparent colors jump from "blue" to "white" to "red", while missing the specific colors in between. Here's another article on star color.

This seems like the default forum to post this, and I want to highlight one part of Liza Long's blog that has gone viral (emphasis mine) — So, where are these boys' fathers, and why does our modern society think that the male parent is optional in raising healthy children? I salute all mothers for raising their children as well as they do, but where are the children's fathers, especially when their children have mental and/or emotional issues? We read that Adam Lanza shunned his father. Why, because the father exercised more discipline? If so, this should have been a red flag of a troubled mind, instead of an excuse to shun some primary instruction and discipline. If Adam shunned his mother, it probably would have raised a red flag, but it can easily go unnoticed if the shunning is toward the parent who is out of the house. Adam couldn't shun his father so easily if his father lived at home. Or, barring that, why didn't his mother ensure that he couldn't shun his father, or that they address/resolve whatever issue (real or imagined) that drove Adam toward shunning his father? Also, the fact that Liza Long's house does not contain any firearms, but that she went around collecting and securing all the sharp objects because of her son's murder threats, shows that an important aspect of such situations (dangerous, mentally ill children) is not "gun control" per se, but "weapon control" in general. We've seen someone armed with a knife murder six policemen and seriously injure four others inside a police station before finally being captured on the 21st floor! Heaven forbid — some maniac armed with a knife can enter a sparsely-attended movie theater, such as a matinee, and silently slit everyone's throats starting at the back and working their way toward the front while everyone's attention is focused on the screen in the mostly darkened theater. You don't need 100-round magazines and semi-automatic weapons. We also need to look at school massacres and realize that the hatred is targeted at childhood foes and that the injustice (real or imagined) previously done to the perpetrators for which they seem to be taking revenge most likely happened during childhood. All bullying must stop now. Or that the hatred is targeted at those the perpetrators feel they most likely can defeat or victimize. Adults must be treated as adults, and must be made to understand that they have adult size, strength, abilities — and responsibilities. Once someone reaches adulthood, they are adults with adult responsibilities whether they want to be or not, and they must accept this ... they must be prepared for this. So, the issues are mental illness and weapon control — AND parental upbringing, including fatherly attention, love, instruction and discipline — and bullying and adult responsibilities. Crime control is never an easy task, but this sort of thing has become an insidious and very tender topic.

You have asked very good questions !! And t here are several answers, so people should read them all. If you consider its beginnings, sending a satellite into orbit or landing men on the Moon is allied with warfare and the Cold War. So when the Russians sent up Sputnik to orbit over our American heads again and again (it showed they could do it with a nuke warhead — yikes!), we had to best them (even if only psychologically), so the race was on for the Moon. It was part of the Cold War. We aren't conscious of it so much now, but I can remember the first TV broadcasts, usually sport events like the Olympics, from around the world that were "live via satellite". Now we have them all the time, and we don't even blink an eye. Sirius Radio. Satellite cell phones. GPS — and everyone uses GPS. Dish TV. Weather satellites (and all the very accurate days-long forecasts that we didn't have 50 years ago). Spy satellites, of course. I could go on and on. So we are very interested in "up there". But what do we now have "down here"? We have overpopulation, global warming, climate catastrophes, toxic waste, nuclear waste, energy crisis, food crisis, etc etc. And the possibility that we can literally "escape" this mess by going up there should be about the ratio of the space exploration budget to the rest of the budget. What do we keep hearing again and again — Earth-like planets found, Earth-like planets found, Earth-like planets found, ... . Besides, we don't see its effect every day, but the new technology required to do things in space or to get into space has been very helpful down here. As is often the case, it's tons easier to tone down a wild idea than to spice up a so-so idea, but you need the wild idea or technology first. Check out some space-age technology spin-offs.

The fact is that no one applies 100% of themselves to the most essential aspect of their lives, and the government, being representative of people, also does not do likewise. If feeding starving people is the most important aspect of your life, why are you online, or why waste time listening to music, or why own an iPod, or why download music, etc, etc? Why not spend all that time, money and energy feeding starving people? And the answer is because humans simply don't work that way.