pwagen

I'm with the Illuminati.

Well, assuming you can live with a battery operated horn instead of a mechanical bell, http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-High-Quality-Loud-Electronic-MTB-Bell-Bike-Bicycle-Cycling-Horn-Black-/160829664438?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item257231ecb6 Buying that would, of course, take all the fun away. But it should be fairly simple to construct. What you'd need is a button, some wire, a horn and a battery. Then it's as simple as connecting it like this: The only trick is to make it a closed circuit when you press the button, and break it when the button is lifted. The only thing I'd worry about would be mounting it all. Especially if you get a horn without an enclosed battery. Friend with a 3D printer maybe. If you want a mechanical bell, I'm not sure. You'd need some motor to hit the bell, I'd think. Maybe it would be simpler to drag a break wire from the bell "trigger" to where your left hand is. If you'd still want it electric, maybe something like they've done inside a wind-up clock would do? http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/clocks-watches/inside-clock.htm

"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place." -Luke 21:32 "This generation". It says so clearly, there's really no other way to read it.

So what you're basically saying is that if it weren't for people making the active choice, homosexuality wouldn't exist? In other words, only species that can make a choice can be homosexuals? And since humans are the only species able to make such a choice, humans are the only species with homosexual individuals? Obviously you're wrong, as homosexuality has been observed in an astonishing number of various species. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals Would homosexual tendencies be selected against? From http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html There's more in that article than what I quoted. But sexual preference IS a natural urge, on the fundamental level.

I knew it! You might have nailed the hit on the hammer though. Part of my obsessional, tunnel vision reading of "the right order" is probably due to my computer background. Most programming languages I'm aware of use PEDMAS, with M and D prioritized the same, no exceptions or anything. Computers are so simple. I'm glad I didn't get into something difficult and illogical. Like mathematics...

I absolutely agree the equation is written poorly. But the way I was taught, the order of operation always stood fast, so seeing people educated in math say it can, in fact, be interpreted two ways is a bit shocking.

Yes, but the original equation wasn't 36/(6(6)), so to me, this still doesn't explain why 36/6(6) would equal 1.

36/6(6) is the same as 36/6*(6). And seeing as I'm pretty sure multiplication and division has the same priority, it's a matter of going left to right. 36/6 = 6, 6*(6) = 36. http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#The_standard_order_of_operations http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=36%2F6(2%2B2%2B2) Edit: Come to think of it, seeing as two people who probably know more about math than I do have said otherwise, I'd love to be pointed out why I'm wrong.

Some do. However, I'd bet for most people, it's something that has emerged over time. Like it or not, but society at large teaches us to be straight, as you correctly points out. And because of that, a lot of people think there's something wrong with them, since they are not attracted to the gender society wants them to, so they deny it to themselves. Some do it for a lifetime, others realize the issue and acknowledge their preference to themselves. Tragically, some people also kill themselves because they themselves or their friends and families can't accept who they are. No. All it means is that they realized their "teachers" (and I use that word loosely in this context) are wrong in trying to teach them something that goes against their nature. All three were also abstracts to scientific studies. Unfortunately, you need to purchase the papers (as is common with scientific studies) to read all of it. Which, I guess, is a reason way too many people have to resort to pop-sci. And being wrong. You say not to compare homosexuality to slavery, because gays don't have it nearly as bad. If that's your only issue, fine. Homosexuals are persecuted around the world on a daily basis. john5746 rightly brings up the point of comparing the issue to civil rights fights. But what you also have to remember is that the planet consists of more than the western world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Act,_2014 http://www.interaksyon.com/article/6916/afraid-killings-of-lgbts-in-philippines-on-the-rise http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Persecution_of_Homosexuals_(Saudi_Arabia) http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/24/gay.iraqis/index.html?_s=PM:WORLD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Asgari_and_Ayaz_Marhoni http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraqi-police-killed-14yearold-boy-for-being-homosexual-476917.html What was the issue you had with comparing the struggle with homosexuality to slavery again?

Did they choose it, or did they discover it? You might want to ask them again. As for your parents "teaching you" to be straight; what about the tiny amount of people who were "taught" the same, then still discovered they were gay? Faulty teachings? This is sexual preferences we're talking about, not math. As for it not being an inborn trait, read up. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10405456 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15539346 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8332896 http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb

When did you decide to be heterosexual?

Mind you, I'm no expert in Asian languages, but I'm somewhat sure the video is Korean, not Chinese. Is it possible it's one of those fake viral videos promoting some upcoming movie or event? Edit: imatfaal beat me to it.

The 100 billion number is a rough estimate of the number of galaxies in our observable universe. As for limits, I'm assuming you mean how big the universe is? If so, this might provide some insight. http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/5-8/features/F_How_Big_is_Our_Universe.html

Even a quick glance at his site tells anyone he's not involved in real research. After all, if he was, we'd be linked to science journals, not websites with a design stemming from the late 90s. Not really worth getting all wound up about.

Parts of the above answer taken from http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~mstrick/AskGeoMan/geoQuerry57.html Feel free to include a source next time.

From "article 2": Emphasis mine. I'd be interested to hear your definition of Theosophist, if not one who believes he has proven the very concept of Theosophy. If the material on his website is his own, why would anybody not use it to find out more about him?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/10298-so-youve-got-a-new-theory/

Agreed.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980327b.html Extract: Now, we eagerly await the experimental confirmations of UDT.

Unless money or other factors is an issue, I'd get a new computer. The Pentium D is a low-point in Intel's production history. You could probably crank it up a notch by doubling the memory in it, but that doesn't negate the fact that the CPU architecture is seriously flawed. And now, 10 years later, it simply doesn't last. Have you tried other browsers? I can imagine there are other, more light weight browsers out there, that will work just as well and not bring your computer to its knees. One step further, there are light-weight Linux distributions that work very well for every day use, and won't bog you down.

Like creating a square circle? The problem with religion is, it's not based on logic. To me, it feels like a trap when someone tries to argue their (religious) case with logic. There's simply no way to do it. The argument you point out (creation ex nihilo) is a good example of that.

Sensei mentioned your experience, not your knowledge. You say you're in high school. This means that, regardless of how much extra hours you've put into studying physics, and how much you think you know, you simply haven't worked with it long enough to grasp it at the level that's required. Meanwhile, you have real, live, working physicists explaining to you why the paper is wrong. You'd do well to listen to them, instead of dismissing everything they say and throwing jabs around, like "you probably don't know what quantisation is" or "does it use too much logic for you?". Throwing a fit is a bad argument for any case. Edited for spelling.

Density of Earth: 5.51 g per cubic centimeter Density of Saturn: 0.687 g per cubic centimeter Earth has a density 8 times as high as Saturn. So why isn't Earth's gravitational pull 8 times higher? Edit: Just did some quick math, which anyone can check for me. But since I recall the 10.44 m/s2 figure would be when measured on the surface of Saturn, which is much further away from the planet's center of gravity, I think it would only be fair to see what the gravitational pull would be on Earth, at the same distance. Saturn's radius is something like 60268000 m, and Earth's mass is about 5.97219 * 10^24. So F = Gm1m2/r^2 gives 6.67*10^-11 * 5.97219 * 10^24 / 60268000^2 = 0.11. So, at equal distance from the gravitational center, more mass = more pull.

Very strongly reminds me of Asimov's "The Relativity of Wrong", which I believe can be applied here. http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

Saturn has a lower density than water. Earth has the highest density of all the planets. According to what you propose, Saturn wouldn't have even close to the same gravity as Earth. However, both planets' gravity is consistent with gravity being dependent on mass, not density. How does that fit with your hypothesis?