iNow

I don't see why not. They simply asked people sitting inside of an MRI machine to do something with either their left or right hand, whenever the subject wanted to. During this time, they had the subject view some pictures flashing, and had them record what picture they saw when they "decided" on the hand they would use. I say that the application of this data is limited in scope due to the type of question being asked, and also the fact that an MRI machine is not a regular environment in which we find ourselves, so I wasn't surprised to see the prefrontal activity.

I think that was exactly HallsofIvy's point. The concept of speed requires change over time, hence cannot be used to describe, discuss, or apply attributes to the concept of time itself.

I just read the article you quoted: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/dn13658-brain-scanner-predicts-your-future-moves.html?feedId=online-news_rss20 ... and I suggest these results are not applicable to the questions you are trying to answer. Also, it appears you are heading toward making an argument for determinism, simply substituting the term subconscious. Is that the case?

Bush haters? I'd be willing to place a bet that it will be the Republicans themselves pressuring him not to attend, and speaking openly of his "error" when he does anyway.

Just being pedantic, but Dover, Pennsylvania.

And, hence, reproduce more successfully than those which did not and dominate the current "fish" landscape. Yet another chink in the armor of the story.

If you ignored it long enough, wouldn't you just become desensitized? I don't really think it would matter whether or not the stimulus remained constant if you ignored it and/or adapted to it.

Okay, I wasn't so much looking at the "partisanship" angle, but more of the "look how many different kinds of people are openly against a ban..." I could say this another way. China holds a lot of US dollars. Best not to instigate if we don't have to. Either way, I agree with the entire thrust of trying to improve humanitarian and environmental issues, but sincerely disagree that an Olympic boycott is the strategy to achieve that end. I might even go so far as to suggest that it would only make things worse, but I remain open to rational counters on that point.

Ermmm... Yeah. That was sort of my point. It turns out that both Jimmy Carter AND current President Bush are against a boycott. Considering their vast differences on all manners of issues, this is rather striking to me. Comments from President Jimmy Carter on This Week with George Stephenopoulis today: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Story?id=4641150&page=1 This particular case doesn't seem to warrant a boycott, as evidenced by the relative lack of support across ideological spectrums, as well as the fact that China IS adjusting and changing their behaviors on these issues.

I strongly come out against religious faith frequently. I find it detrimental and often toxic, and suggest that many of the benefits attributed to religious faith are often better explained by the social side of religious experience... the community effect, as opposed to the spritual or faith. However, despite my strong opposition to (what I see as an irrational) faith, I reject what you've implicitly implied with your question to mooey above. To suggest that there are no rational people who have religious faith as a central part of their life is plainly ludicrous. These individuals may suspend their rationality as pertains to questions of faith, but to suggest that this somehow makes them an entirely irrational (even illogical) being is both an invalid and inaccurate assertion. Do multiple personalities count as more than one? If so, he's good on two irrational ones!

What does the dictionary say about the word "troll?" Does it adequately cover what you are doing here?

Ooh... That's a good one, too, YT.

Apathy.

Atheism itself is an interesting label, as it just makes it easier for those who are religious to type caste and dismiss. It's not like we have a special word for everything people are not. That'd be silly. We don't have a special word like a-astrologers. We don't have a special word like a-numerologists. We don't have a special word like a-santa clause-tologists. We don't have a special word like a-unicorn-believers, or a-leprechaun-accepters... Atheists. It's just a way to denegrate and dance around a true, reasonable, and rational dialog.

Your implication being that "it becoming an institution" is somehow bad or somehow makes it wrong. That's a bit like saying that eating healthy is bad because more people now take it seriously and more people are now doing it... However, you're right. SFN is not the place.

I appreciate the info, DH. I am not inclined to accept that all of the water on our planet was "pansperm-ied," but I'll concede that some water may have arrived via this route.

Flying Spaghetti Monster Expelled: I believe Elvis is still alive, too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjhbccXIp4c

Why not Knox unflavored gelatin? After all, the stuff works for liberty spikes.

Atheism is not a shared set of principles, doctrines, nor moral codes. It is simply a lack of theism. To suggest that you can lump all people with a "lack" of belief in some concept or another is rather telling, but not very useful.

Pressurized is a relative term. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03212.htm

Ah... Yeah... That. Sorry, I need a napkin. I just squirted milk through my nostrils.

Relevance?

Enjoy, and make your own mind up: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=video+games+psychology&hl=en&lr=

This is better done regularly, but your mileage may vary.

It's always easier to believe a conspiracy than the science...