Double K

Have a general knowledge of latin certainly helps. Also, the large medical charts you always see in doctors surgeries are great to have when you study, put it up on your wall and you will look at it pretty much every day, if you expose yourself to it constantly it will make a difference. Lastly, don't be overwhelmed. It's actually not that hard, its just alot to try and absorb and it seems daunting to begin with. The best way that I found was to break it down into portions, for example focus on the bones - once you have skeletal anatomy down, move on to the muscles, their (muscle) origins and insertions and their actions - rotator, abductor, adductor. It's also good to break it up by focusing on specific areas and learning each part well. Eventually it all comes together, and break the body up logically as muscles cross segments so if you're learning origins and insertions it makes sense to think about perhaps it starts at the hip, and crosses the knee ([Tensor fascia lata] Ilio-tibial band for example) Where it starts to get really difficult is learning all the epicondyles, tuberosities etc.. Understand terms such as superior, posterior, anterior, distal, proximal...(this is where basic basic latin helps out)

You clearly don't read what I've said, you have a preformed ideal and you're not about to change your thinking on it. Your OP was clearly regarding Climate Change and the integrity of science. I've addressed these points but you've managed to somehow say that I'm questioning the actual science. I have no access to hard data to question it's validity, so how do you even assert that I disagree with modern science? That's nothing more than an attempt at character assassination. Which again goes to further my argument which I made earlier. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Fine lets go with "science" for you as you have misinterpreted much of what I have said. "Suggestibility also depends upon the source of propaganda. People are particularly sensitive to the influence of a good parent figure sought in the external world to protect them from persecution by bad 'internal' parent figures. To be effective, propaganda must correspond with or symbolize existing unconscious fantasies. It should begin with an appeal to fear by pointing out symbols of bad parents, thus arousing unconscious fantasies for which can then be erected compensatory symbols of good parents to lend support in facing reality dangers greater than the imaginary ones created by the appeal to fear." http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=paq.012.0156b the source of GW information: The government + scientists. "People are particularly sensitive to the influence of a good parent figure sought in the external world to protect them:" The government + scientists "It should begin with an appeal to fear" : Complete anihilation, planetary destruction This sort of psychological attack gives limited information, or even information that must be taken at face value from an "expert". "the use of propaganda against an enemy, supported by such military, economic, or political measures as may be required. Such propaganda is generally intended to demoralize the enemy, to break his will to fight or resist, and sometimes to render him favourably disposed to one’s position. Propaganda is also used to strengthen the resolve of allies or resistance fighters. The twisting of personality and the manipulation of beliefs in prisoners of war by brainwashing and related techniques can also be regarded as a form of psychological warfare" http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/481682/psychological-warfare

If the disc is herniated it can break the synovial bursa sac which is kind of like busting open a plastic bag, you just cant fix it back up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synovial_bursa What is usually done is fusing the discs, or discectomy, neither are great sollutions but there's not much else to do. Sometimes the herniation is just a bulge and as long as the bursa isnt broken you can reduce the swelling, realign the back and it can go away, but if the injury is more severe you're kind of stuck with it.

I think what you're after is ATP production. There are several stages to consider in this but magnesium, calcium, and potassium are common minerals used in the innervation of muscles and motor units. picture sourced here: http://www.medbio.info/images/Time%203-4/secret19.gif Also "energy" is stored in the form of glucose in intramuscular fat which is where most fat stores go initially, once they are converted into adipose tissue it is much harder to break down but still can be broken down. there is a good explanation of Glycolysis and it's broken into stages here (below), I would post it here but I think just linking you to it should suffice.. http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios100/lecturesf04am/lect12.htm Edit: Sorry I've made the mistake of linking the wrong image and can't seem to remove this one!?

Also being well educated or having alot of learning doesn't necessarily reduce ignorance. Granted that in theory it should, but let's just assume that all I have ever read on the subject of of <insert subject here> was only articles or journals published by one source (which happens to be all my theoretical university has in the library). I may be very well versed in a particular topic, but completely limited by a narrow persepective of the topic.

I've also heard of this being used a tooth whitener. Hydrogen peroxide + baking soda as toothpaste. It actually works extremely well, I've seen it done (not on myself) but a friend decided to use it to whiten his teeth and it worked exceptionally well with awesome results, but after reading what hydrogen peroxide does to cells it does concern me. Would using this as a scrub or wash in an environment like the mouth result in cell damage?? Perhaps as a mouthwash it would not, but as a scrub if you were to break the skin and got it in the bloodstream, or would that be simply restricted to damaging cells in direct contact? I guess as a wash there is the possibility of ingesting it, but that would be small and perhaps negligible? I'd be interested to hear any info regarding what it may do as a wash or scrub for teeth.

Hold on one second here. It seems you have confused my comments as stating that I am debunking GW. I am not. The question was pertaining to the integrity of scientific debate surrounding GW and also integrity of science pertaining to GW. It is my belief that as soon as you put science in bed with politics you can throw integrity down the toilet, and let it float along with all the faesces that float down that stagnant stream of historically significant errors in judgement on behalf of science. The two can not gel, one corrupts the other and as science is the "pure" element of the two I need not define which one corrupts. Furthermore, my point that all debate is met with negative emotionally charged responses, has been proven even throughout this thread. Whether those be made through frustration or some other reasoning, it does not further the integrity of the science, and by your own admissions the topics and subject matter which derived the initial hypothesis of GW are complex and by the time someone understands one point, 30 others have arisen. Fine leave it to the experts to sort out, but keep politics out of it, even tho its already too late for that, and secondly, allow the experts to test and review and do so without fear of being called a "heretic".

You're position has now changed from debate and open forum to personally charged attacks. This is exactly what I was hoping for as it demonstrates my theory that debate can not occur because it quickly turns from facts or analysis of facts, to mud slinging. I'm not mis-representing anything. Science must be open to peer review, and whilst the science that they claim to have used is proven, the hypothesis that the planet is warming due to human manipulation of the environment is still nothing more than a hypothesis. There is ample evidence to suggest the planet goes through warming and cooling cycles and has done so for MILLENIA yet this fact is dismissed by simply recounting trends from the last century. When you talk about a sample size of data, for any analytical purpose, anything with a small sample size does absolutely not mean that you can determine trends from it. Out of 100 people surveyed it was found 98% prefer chocolate milk to coca-cola - therefore lets now apply this to the entire global populaton of 5billion+. Data can be manipulated and statistics especially to show almost any trend you like. This is dangerous territory. For a planet lasting thru millenia, most of which we are insignificant during the lifecycle of, we have taken a small data sample and applied to it a very large data scale of which we have very little depth of knowledge about except going back several thousands/hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of years - and yet the earth is much older than this. Until "climate change" stands up to analytical debate then it's nothing more to me than manipulated data(and there are plenty of "scientists" who dispute the findings as inaccurate, or mis-represented). Almost nothing on the internet is trustworthy as a source for data, almost nothing printed is trustworthy as its printed by those with vested interest. The layman does not have access to data that is trustworthy or non-skewed. It's also very dangerous allowing scientists and politicians into an arena together. You just have to look at Einstein to see this. He discovers a new energy source - government takes it, corrupts it, and then bombs people with it. I'm not saying it's the scientists mis-representing their data, it's the politicians. But as your initial question was regarding the integrity of debate on climate change, this goes significantly towards damaging said integrity.

This is commonly referred to as counter intelligence. Don't take the word "intelligence" to mean it's smarter, its simply a propaganda cycle. Again with the "heresy"? Really? This is exactly why there is no real debate on the topic, because the supporters are so convinced they are right that anyone questioning their line is somehow insulting them. These same scientists are paid by government purse, in which case they are corruptable to serve a government agenda. The "negative" side of the argument has no agenda - their agenda is simply to understand the science, understand the problem, and come to a sollution that doesnt just appease industry with no reduction in emissions. Well that's what happens with any hypothesis. First you provide the hypothesis, then you try to disprove the hypothesis - thats how it becomes a theory! Hypothesis preceeds theory preceeds law! This is scientific rules, yet the scientific community doesnt want to play by these rules on this topic. It also seems that scientists that support the hypothesis take it personally and emotionally when challenged which means the debate loses integrity. Ok firstly, I'm talking about political affiliation, science can take an affirmative or negative "side" but political affiliation is another thing all together. Secondly, if enough scientists agreed on the hypothesis and suddenly screamed all opposition down as Aether Deniers the same argument would arise. But this is what they have done to the general population - and in case you didn't realise we operate in a democracy which means majority rules - not government mandate (which has been the trend of late) I already see this in process. The evidence is very clear I dont need a science expert to tell me how I have been affected by recent changes to global economics, many of which are driven by resources. Big industry loses nothing when it can offset its polluting habits by buying "carbon credits" which it then passes the cost of onto the consumer - how does this affect the industry one iota?? The industry you speak of - big oil is probably the largest contributor here, has been well known to squash alternative sources for a long time. Not only this, but you make it sound as though alternatives are the responsibility or capability of the consumer but they are not. (responsibility yes, capability no) There need to be alternatives and unless industry is forced to provide alternatives why would they? And this is clearly the case, considering the importance of the scienctific evidence, there really has been very little urgency by industry to provide alternative energy sources for the masses. The end consumer can limit consumption but other than that without an alternative...what then?

Totally agreed, I personally, would love to inhale less exhaust on my way to work, and scrub less rubber and exhaust particles from my balcony on the weekend. The end consumer isn't alone in driving the market. Ok yes, they drive the demand end of the supply and demand chain. however there are no real alternatives from the Supply end, and simply introducing a tax which affects the supply end very little because they offset the cost by passing it on, does not drive industry to create new sollutions. If industry does not suffer, or is able to mitigate it's suffering it has no incentive to find alternatives.

Ostensible Christianic Delusions?

Please don't think that my comments here mean I disagree with climate change science, but allow me to debate for the 'negative' a minute. (this already has an inference about it, do you see the psychology involved?) Firstly, I think I was misunderstood in regards to your first paragraph, my point is not that science is flawed, it's that for Joe Average, there is just too much data out there, supporting either side, that it has become impossible to make an informed decision without being influenced by the emotional rhetoric. "This is a label which is deservedly applied to those who willfully misrepresent the state of modern climate science" This pertains to the "Climate change denier"(Heretic) label. Why does there need to be a label at all? Again this immediately puts a "label" which is well studied and analysed. "Social Reaction Theory" or "Labelling theory" will give you some insight into this, and don't forget that the initial purpose of television and media came from the military industrial complex AND intensive studies were done on the psychology of misinformation, and propaganda, and social reaction. My point is that placing a label on either side of the debate immediately degenerates valid discussion into slinging matches as either side attempts to justify their position rather than allowing non-judgemental open review. Social Reaction theory article: http://www.articlealley.com/article_524965_50.html "This is the approach Richard Dawkins has taken to evolution denial. His rationale is by debating evolution deniers on a level playing field he's giving them too much credit and dragging himself down to their level." This statement is a perfect example of social reaction theory. "instead find political advocates (e.g. Al Gore)" And there-in lies the dilema. For a scientific debate to remain free, it must not take sides. As soon as it affiliates with a politician it has chosen a side, and especially Mr. Al Gore, I would just like to point you to a few things that lead me to question his position on this. When someone in this position seeks to gain immense amounts of money from introducing a system (which is terribly flawed) it shows me that the government is not serious about taking action, but is serious about cashing in. If we were in such TRULY dire circumstances that the planet was at threat, I would hope that ALL industry that pollutes was instantly shut down to assess the threat and assess the recovery of mass interruption. For one - we could stop production of ALL softdrinks(soda) on the planet this releases insane amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere daily. Secondly lets shut down all oil companies. See it's the fact that cash remains king, industry giants can buy credit offsets (with cash!) and continue to pollute at the same level. The government has just found a new way to tax, but has literally taken no action to reduce the threat, and this tells me that there is an alterior motive. When climate change science aligns itself with the corrupt, it appears corrupt - when all opposition and fair debate is shouted down as morons without a clue, and yet no action is taken to remedy the findings it appears hypocritical and seems as though a vested interest has been formed. For average joe whom doesnt have access to all of the hard data, and even still wouldnt understand alot of it regardless, how can you expect them to trust a government which has time and again been shown through demonstration to be interested in appeasing big industry at the price of average joe for centuries? In the current Emission Trading Schemes, big industry changes nothing, continues to pollute, and at best - passes on it's additional costs to the end consumer.

Yes that's true, they are in Troy Ounces.. also, I believe this wasn't the only thing measured in columbian ounces contained in coca-cola??

Try reading about the 4 noble truths, and the 8fold path I'm not buddhist but I have read plenty about it, however you bring up a good point asking if the enlightenment is for them or the good of humanity...as that kind of makes it a selfish act and not a selfless act... The greatest achievement is selflessness. The greatest worth is self-mastery. The greatest quality is seeking to serve others. The greatest precept is continual awareness. The greatest medicine is the emptiness of everything. The greatest action is not conforming with the worlds ways. The greatest magic is transmuting the passions. The greatest generosity is non-attachment. The greatest goodness is a peaceful mind. The greatest patience is humility. The greatest effort is not concerned with results. The greatest meditation is a mind that lets go. The greatest wisdom is seeing through appearances. Atisha (11th century Tibetan Buddhist master) http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/ If you are interested in meditation this is the first step to observation without judgement - I recommend Vipassana (but only if you are emotionally stable - ie. no psychologoical illnesses) otherwise Zen and Transcendental are supposed to be useful, but Vipassana means: To see things as they really are.

There was a documentary (or news article I forget which) just this weekend on some pigs in NZ that are very pure blood and have proven extremely successful in diabetic treatments... http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/30/2019096.htm

I can't explain love with science, but I can explain science with love.... Which means I should be able to solve it using a non-linear equation?

One of the things that causes frustration in this argument is that "climate change" science is no longer a science, but has become a religion. What I mean by this is that (as stated already) it's no longer a point made with hard data, undisputable evidence and subject to peer review (as all good science is and should be) but it is now a game of You are either a) A Supporter of all that is good for humanity or b) A Climate Change Denier. This is dangerous ground because it forces anyone 'undecided' on the issue to choose based on morality - it's psychological manipulation at it's most subtle (and is psychology 101) and it simply makes anyone with a critical mind, or whom is weary of just taking their "benevolent leaders" word for it immediately question it's validity. One thing I -CAN- guarantee is that our leaders have agendas, and they aren't always in everyone's best interest. Unfortunately there is SO MUCH data that supports both sides of the arguments, that it's become almost impossible to choose without being forced into either cattegory a) or b) from above. All opposition is now shouted down as heresy (Climate change denier) and no real debate or analysis can continue once this card has been played. Personally I have no problem with less pollution, I think this can only be a good thing, regardless of if it will affect climate or not. While we are at it, can we tackle poverty, and famine and many other factors which we CAN have a more immediate effect on and WILL have much more real data to use for analysis of it's success.

Time isn't a constant though. Time is –noun 1.the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/time And what that equation uses t for is Δt (change in time) It needs to solve an inhomogeneous integral equation?? (I'm no mathematician)

Just for the record, I'm not disagreeing I was trying to uncomplicate the calculation for someone who stated at the start they weren't a student or physics major etc.

In which case you would have to assume; regular equal payments interest only accrues on the principal interest rate doesnt vary Should simplify the calculation a bit.

several nutrients have been studied for their ability to decrease damage to the mitochondria. In the current literature regarding mitochondrial damage and HIV therapies, some mention has been made about riboflavin (B2), coenzyme Q10, and acetyl-carnitine. Most of these are being studied in isolation and not in conjunction with one another. Although the approach is to determine whether or not each particular nutrient is beneficial in the treatment of mitochondrial damage, the flaw in this approach stems from the fact that each of the 5 complexes in the oxidative phosphorylation process requires different and varying nutrients simultaneously. Other nutrients that support mitochondrial function are alpha lipoic acid, NAC (N-acetyl-cysteine), glutathione, vitamin E, and essential fatty acids to name a few. (http://www.thebody.com/content/art2145.html)

40K Librarian: "An open mind is like a fortress with it's gates unbarred and ungarded" conversely; Being ignorant doesn't make you stupid, or even uneducated... The base of ignorant is ignore - which refers to awareness, not intelligence. I guess it's easier to say "Wisdom" is the antithesis of ignorance or perhaps awareness... This comes down to many levels, awareness of your environment, empathy with others, a general ethos that would generate tolerance among all levels of interaction, being able to observe something without passing judgement or forming an opinion would be the ultimate enlightenment and this is what Buddha was said to have attained (through observation without judgement)

Just for the record, I'm not disagreeing that all these factors are points to consider, but your last paragraph really sums up my point in that the OP was from a guy not a student and more than likely not so complicated a question, wouldnt the required answer be a simple vector force calculation? Just seems this is what the question probes for taking into consideration the units it gives for calculation. Otherwise they would give a resistance of the spring etc. Granted that a (t) unit could be derived from the units given in the question however.

"what weight would the scale show?" It's given in the original question..

I'd set this up in an excel spreadsheet, but it seems odd. If this is the case, lets say his outstanding debt is reduced to 5000 (from an original debt of 10,000) Does he continue to accru interest on the 10,000 or is it only on the outstanding remaining debt? or is he continually being charged the % of 10K?