bob000555

I think if you read the seminal book on what is and what isn’t science you will find that the Theory of Evolution is and creationism is not. The book is at the link below and if memory serves it doesn’t even mention Darwin. http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Scientific-Discovery-Karl-Popper/dp/041507892X Oh and before you go straw manning(that’s right I used straw man as a verb) your way through one of the most important theorys ever conjectured why don’t you read the book below so you can understand what your trying to discredit. http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-150th-Anniversary/dp/0451529065/

Let's say we define a set [math]S[/math] in the following manner. [math] 0 < S_0 < 1 [/math] [math] S_n = (1-S_{n-1})^x[/math] If we take the example [math]S_0 = \frac{1}{2}[/math] and [math]x = 3[/math] then the set apears to not converge and to follow no set pateren, is this chaos?

Best chem schools: http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/chemical-engineering General enenering schools: http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/rankings

I don’t know where all this talk of OCD is coming from. The behavior of which you speak doesn’t seem to fit the diagnostic criteria for OCD from the DSM IV, available here http://www.biologicalunhappiness.com/DSM-OCD.htm As for the pondering of moral issues this seems rather normal and not at all disordered. The first few books of Plato’s “Republic” have given me great guidance in my thoughts on moral issues and the nature of morality. “The Republic” in it’s full glory(it is, in my opinion, the greatest book of moral and political philosophy ever written) is available here: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.htm .

The thing about curing people with life long pain may actually not be bull shit. If the pain was only psychosomatic the placebo effect can be just the thing to cure it. With some hypochondriacesque psychosomatic pain the most important thing is convincing people that the cure will work. There are stories of people with severe chronic pain not being helped by the strongest of pain killers but when their doctor makes miraculous claims and gives them a sugar pill all is well. But all in all homeopathy is bull and the only reason legitimate pharmacies carry it is to make money off the uninformed masses.

It truly does pain me to come to the defense of someone who is so obviously a troll or an idiot, but the question may acuity fall into the legitimate academic field of the behavioral economic subfield of information economics. When talking about signals like belly button rings, tattoos etc. we fall into a chicken and egg type of conundrum. The question is weather the wearing of a belly ring signals what ever it signals because an certain group of people decided to wear these rings and the rings became associated with said group or weather girls chose to wear these rings because they want to send a certain signal that the ring is already associated with in peoples’ minds. The spontaneous emergence of such signaling mechanisms can be a fascinating study granted this is a ridiculously trivial example.

I believe I’ve posted prognostication on this board regarding not when but if the republican party will rise agene; and I think there is a fair chance that the answer is no. My reasoning begins with some personal experience; I was in third grade in 2000 when Bush “won” the election. I therefore have only some vague memories of the Lewinsky scandal, most of my formative political memories are of Bush’s actions of varying degrees of stupidity, deceitfulness and open blissful ignorance. Not surprisingly I have grown to be a solid democrat and when I come of voting age before the next election I would have a hard bringing my self to vote for a republican candidate weather he/she is Palin, Pawlenty, Romney or someone else. If the republicans thought the “young people” where tough on them in the last election they have another thing coming next time; my peers who grew up with Bush are probably the most solidly democratic generation since the hippies. (P.S Michal Steel’s “hip-hopification” of the republicans wont help) The division within the republican party itself isn’t going to help either. As I see it there is a deep rift in the party between economic conservatives and social conservatives. The party, which was historically based on fiscal conservatism. has for quite along time(since Reagan inserted an antiabortion plank in his platform for purely political reasons to be specific) been hijacked by socially conservative bible belters. The two types of conservatives are increasingly becoming strange bedfellows. The two are increasingly relying on different people for leadership; Palin and Ron Paul respectively. Neither side seems to have any qualm about being openly critical of the other with Paul calling his opponents not true conservatives and Palin claiming her opponents aren’t “real Americans”. I can only foresee the two side feuding more under the pressure of the next primary. The republican party over the last eight years has shaped itself into the party of ignorance, ideological rigidity, exclusion and reactionaryism, an image not easily broken in four years. I therefore predict the two sides of republican party feuding on a massive scale in the 2012 primary, much like Clinton and Obama in 2008 but this time there will be significant ideological differences between the two feuding parties. This feud will be one that will not easily be settled by the time the general elections roll around and , in combination with the “youth problem” and the parties image problem, the republicans will lose. The feud still going on and both sides blaming each other for the loss the republican party will tear itself apart. The resulting parties will be the crude uneducated hyper-populist party of Sarah Palin and the ideologically rigid libertarian party of Ron Paul which will be mush like the republicans before the incorporation of the social conservatives. Neither side will be able to garner enough support to beat the democrats and will vanish into obscurity leaving a power vacuum to be filled by a new opposition party to the democrats. Before you pooh-pooh this please view this thread: http://finance.google.com/group/google.finance.700341/browse_thread/thread/d21b6732da54b129?hl=en Where I correctly predict many events of the recession before the recession even got started. edit: i am the one going by chris.resnick... in the above google finance thread

Vandium pentoxide is the way to go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_pentoxide#Sulfuric_acid_production It is avalable here: http://www.unitednuclear.com/chem.htm

Speaking of which(or should i say witch ha ha ha no thats not funny at all): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1546500823932425961 This stuff makes Catholisim seem realtivly tame.

I don't mean to attack anyone`s position , only to explane my own. I mean no disrespect to agnostics but I’ve always found agnosticism quite strange. It seems akin to saying that because no one has yet definitely proved that Bigfoot dosn't exist you won’t decide weather or not Bigfoot exists. Personally I’m an atheist because until anyone proves god exists his existence seems even less likely then Bigfoot’s (Bigfoot is just a giant apeish thing, god is an omnipotent omniscient being. He knows exactly what path he is going to take yet he has the power to deviate from it?)

This is probably a stupid question but… How exactly do oxygen and nutrients reach the bone marrow? I asked in the forum and someone gave me this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illu_compact_spongy_bone.jpg But that still leaves the fact that some part of the circulatory system; some vain and artery, would have to go through the bone and supply blood to the marrow.

The republicans are just being ridiculously overdramatic; saying there going to try to kick out senators after years of work they agree with over one vote? I hope they get a Connecticut-Democrats-defeating-Lieberman-in-the-primary-esque defeat. if they try to get rid of Specter, he could just run as an independent splitting the republican vote and giving it to the democrat(unless Pennsylvania election law prescribes a runoff, I’m not knowledgeable about Pennsylvania election law) The link I’m ranting about: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/10/stimulus.gop.pac/index.html Summery: republicans are threatening to give massive funding to primary challengers of any republican who breaks line with republicans on the bailout.

The case was completely irrelevant. Had you bothered to actually read the opinion and the discussion which it was in response instead of appeasing you’re your obvious compulsion to mask your self reassuring comments(“What, no, I didn’t say something wrong your obviously addressing someone else”, if you dont think a coment is directed at you dont respond.) you would know that. The reasoning the court gave for rejecting the argument that essentially boiled down to “it’s none of the school’s damn business” was as fallows

With respect to the original post and the question of the validity of Morse v. Frederick: In the field of law the summery of a Supreme Court case on Wikipedia is often not enough(gasp); had you actually read the majority opinion of the court you would find that section two states the case is only a school speech issue because it was a school sponsored event. Section four clearly states in it’s very first sentence that the question the court is ruling on is weather the school may “…restrict student speech at a school event…”. As the speech in question did not happen at a school sponsored event Morse v. Frederick is clearly not relevant precedent. The majority opinion in full is available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-278.ZO.html On a side note if you read Supreme Court opinions you will find that they are almost always highly nuanced and clearly point out which specific set of circumstances they are relevant to.

Who said containment was a disadvantage? When I spoke of self imposed disadvantages I was referring to the waste issue which is only so bad because we refuse to engage in reprocessing. The sequence of events I presented is exactly what would have to happen for a literal melt down and even for a partial melt down the cooling pipes would have to leek, which is unlikely to began with, then the emergency cooling system would have to fail and stay off long enough for the fuel to melt the containment device, even more unlikely. Of course there are some valid criticisms of nuclear power but unless you want to go back to the dark ages we need to chose some form of power and I propose that the best choice is nuclear.

short answer: A compound is a combination of elements, the number tells how many atoms of the element before the number are in the compound. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_formula long answer: There is something called the octet rule which says atoms “try” to get a full outer shell of electrons. The compounds you gave are all ionic compounds (with the exception of the CO3 which is a polyatomic) which means they try to get the shell by donating or accepting electrons depending on weather they are a metal or nonmetal respectively. Take salt ,NaCl, sodium chloride, for example Na wants to give one electron and chlorine wants to take one, so sodium gives one electron to chlorine and the two become bound by electrostatic forces. But for calcium chloride we need CaCl2 because calcium wants to lose two electrons so it need two atoms of chlorine to accept them.

I have never heard of “casual attribution theory" and googeling it yields nothing. It sounds to me like a combination of the concepts of the fundamental attribution error and self serving bias. The fundamental attribution error is when we overestimate the degree to which people’s action are effected by their personalities and understate the degree to which they are effected by the situation. For example we would judge someone speeding through traffic as rude and careless instead of considering the possibility that their wife is in labor or some such thing. Self serving bias is the tendency to attribute our successes to our internal traits and to attribute our failure to external circumstances. Welcome to the forums.

Apparently you can get two nuclear power plants capable of a hell of a lot more output then T. Boone Pickens’ wind farm for about the same cost and with out the need for 540 square miles of land. Not to mention that one of the largest costs in building a reactor is battling for licensing due to peoples’ irrational fears. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/10/nuclear.nuclearpower http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN3143208820080331 If we went back to reprocessing waste instead of burring it there would be no need for separate weapons reactors to generate plutonium. Even so both reactors are still much safer then Chernobyl as they have shielding and emergency cooling apparatuses which Chernobyl lacked. Chernobyl was approximately comparable to the pile built by Enrico Fermi at the University of Chicago in the 1940s with the notable difference that the Chicago pile was actually closely monitored and run by knowledgeable staff.

I think he was talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Black_hole_evaporation

I really do think that all the supposed disadvantages of nuclear power are either far over blown of self imposed. People like to bring up Chernobyl when talking about nuclear power with out realizing that Chernobyl was such a poorly designed plant it would never have been approved for construction in the United States. First off the thing had a positive power coefficient, meaning it reacted faster as it got hotter, which is highly illegal in the United States(it was a carbon block moderated plant, all US plants are water moderated/cooled) . Secondly it lacked the five feet of steel, and ten feet of reinforced concrete shielding required of any plant in the United States. To put it quite simply a Chernobyl type accident could not happen in the US. As for the idea of a melt down it is so unlikely that it is basically imposable . The fallowing chain of events would have to happen for a melt down to occur. First there would have to be a leek allowing all the coolant to escape(coolant pipes are required to be inspected frequently, IMPORTANT if the coolant, which is also the moderator, leeks out of a water cooled design the chain reaction will STOP, this is because with out a moderator the neutrons will be sufficiently fast that they will all be absorbed by the u-238 this reaction releases no extra neutrons and stop the chain reaction). Secondly the fuel pellets would have to melt through their containment devices, this assumes that the emergency core cooling system has failed, but since it is required that this system be inspected literally daily this is exceedingly unlikely. The molten fuel would then form a puddle at the bottom of the core, next it is assumed that the puddle melts through the five foot steel container which is exceedingly unlikely. At this step it is a virtual certainty that the fuel would spread out and cool off becoming a solid agene, but people ignore that fact and assume its SOMEHOW gets through the ten foot thick concrete containment building into the ground killing every one(even if it gets through the building the above process would have taken a very long time and everyone would have been evacuated) As for nuclear waste and “it sticks around for 24,000 years blah blah blah” this really is a self imposed problem. Before the Carter administration all nuclear waste in the country was reprocessed, that is to say plutonium-239, the stuff with a half life of 24,000 years, was extracted and used for nuclear weapons, excess uranium was also extracted and reused . The stuff that was left behind consisted largely of fission fragments with half lives between 20 and a few thousand years, it is still dangerous but much preferable to burry then the stuff we put in Yucca mountain currently. For anyone who really thinks building a rector has more impact then building a windmill they should take into account that thousands of wind mills over a huge arrear would have to be built to get a comparable output. In conclusion I would be proud to have a reactor in my back yard.

The energy is emited via Hawking Radiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

Well phenolphthalein is used to test for the presence of blood if thats what your talking about. The process is not quite as simple as is shown on shows like CSI however. First the sample is obtained then a drop of alcohol is added then several drops of phenolphthalein then a few drops of hydrogen peroxide if blood is present the sample turns pink. It works because a reaction with the hemoglobin in the blood causes the peroxide to oxidize the phenolphthalein not because of any reaction with amino acids.

True Abdual-Aziz tends to make absolutists statements and oversimplify the complex concept of attraction, and I don’t agree that all women think alike nor that aggression is the singular most important factor effecting attraction(at least in most women, though a Abdul pointed out there are women who seem to have a masochistic tendencies to date abusive men). But I feel all of us can agree that aggression, assertiveness and hypermasculinity TEND to be seen as positive traits in men by SOME women, I further believe we can all agree that this is an evolutionary holdover from a time long ago when the most important thing for the women was to have a male who could defend her a find food etc. I also believe it is true that in SOME women these traits CAN be seen as more important than things like intelligence that are more relevant in the modern world. I submit as evidence the population of Staten Island; pictured herein is a representative sample of the reprodutive straegies thereunto associated :

Well if we accept that there are 11 dimensions of reality ,as is proposed by string theory, then the time machine could not only transport us back through the forth dimension(time) but also through the fifth dimension to an entirely new time line. Our actions would have no bearing on the time line in which the time machine is invented and used. I am posting on my new blackberry and its quite difficult to type so please excuse any irregularities.

Well according to Wikipedia terminal velocity is calculated as such: [math]V_t= \sqrt{\frac{2mg}{\rho A C_d }}[/math] where [math]V_t[/math] = terminal velocity, [math]m[/math] = mass of the falling object, [math]g[/math] = gravitational acceleration, [math]C_d[/math] = drag coefficient, [math]\rho[/math] = density of the fluid through which the object is falling(air), and [math]A[/math] = projected area of the object. Terminal velocity is when the gravitational force is equalized by the drag thus the maximum speed at which the object will fall.