iNow

That's awesome. Now, when can I start requesting that you change other peoples usernames? That would be even better!

While it was somewhat of a pain in the ass, I have to concede that it was a damned clever idea. ye teh June phools.

I see your point, but "right" in this case is pretty subjective. Also, psychoanalysts do much more than try to interpret symbols. They try to arrive at the root of the neuroses and heal that root, not just the symptoms. I have to pivot back to my previous post, though, where I reminded you that significance is subjective... it's what you make of it. If you think it's significant, then it is. Are you questioning something which has been said to you by a trained professional somewhere, perhaps?

Funny. I welcome looking at their data, but come on already with the logical fallacies and appeals.

The symbolism of hallucinations has not been discredited. The issue is that it's incredibly subjective, and does not lend to testable predictions nor consistent applications. If I tell you I had a dream/hallucination/vision about a giant black bird, that could mean that death is coming, it could mean that I'd been studying kung fu bird katas, it could mean that my favorite garden patch had just been devastated by a pack of black birds, it could mean I just watched an Alfred Hitchcock movie, it could mean just about anything ad infinitum. The symbolic significance is what you make of it... very subjective. To some people a burn on a Dorito chip that looks like a face is symbolically significant, while to others it just means there was a blip during the cooking process. Why do you ask?

In all honesty, I've never had to work so hard in a class. When I was in school last time around, I focussed on science classes, and barely had to try. It all just made sense to me. Chinese, on the other hand, is taking a lot of effort. It's not "hard" per se, it's just a lot to keep up with. We have class every day. Every week, we have a test, 2 homeworks, and 4 quizzes. So, every night, and even on the weekends, I'm studying, and all of this while working 60-70 weeks on my project at work. I do like it though. Maybe I'm a masochist or something, but it's a cool language. The challenge is you are not just learning one to one translations. You first have to learn tones, then you learn the pinyin (which is the word written in an english like format so you can pronounce it, then the characters). I, too, see it as useful, and as long as I keep my grades up my company pays all tuition and books (reimburses me once grades are posted). I see studying Chinese now a bit like someone in Europe studying English in the early 1900s. IMO, It's just one of those things that is going to be much more common in the relatively near future. While it's a lot of work, if we didn't have tests and quizzes everyday, I probably wouldn't keep up like I am (I'd wait to the night before to study, for example). 谢谢。 朱好。

It's worth it if you can check it out somehow... somewhere... Maybe at school or a friends place?

With me, I studied it when living in New York, and the students in our 8th grade class who studied french were to take a trip to Quebec (which is why I chose it... for the trip with the cute girls). Sadly, my class was the first group in over 20 years that didn't go to Quebec. We went to Boston instead, which was fun, but completely defeated the purpose of my selecting French back in 7th grade. I then just kept studying it in high school, and took it in college last time around to satisfy the language requirement, so got 16 hours there. Now, I'm studying Mandarin, or: 我现在在德州大学学习中文。

Oh, well, in that case, then there's also a Kermit the Frog on Mars: http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/25/face2.html

Has anyone else noticed that this guy has not responded to a single question or comment directed at him? Thanks for pimping your site using SFN's google strength, sir spams a lot.

Did anyone see General Hayden on Meet the Press this morning? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23868117#23868117

Blue fire, You may very well be right. My primary point was that a) the OP was mixing reference frames, and b) the photon is not travelling back in time. After that, I'm not certain. Sorry for my lack on understanding on the question you posed. You are quite right that c is constant in all frames...

Frankly, I know nothing of your teacher. All I know is that you have come here saying, "I give up. You give me the answers." Since you cannot control your teacher, I suggest you control yourself. I ask again... show us what you've managed to do on your own, and perhaps someone here has HAS put the effort forward may be able to show you the path to take to arrive at the correct answer yourself. I know some subjects can be difficult. I myself struggled in class from time to time. However, it helps nobody if you just whine about it. Grow up, and figure out how to succeed on your own. That's life. Now... what have you managed to figure out on your own, and where specifically are you stuck?

That's not going to happen at this site. Show everyone what you've got already, and folks will try to help you find the answers on your own. However, you won't be receiving the answers. So, with those harsh words out of the way, what have you done so far?

Where's Jack Bauer? Oh yeah... stupid writer's strike.

Lol. Good call, Runninfarmer. AbateNth has a... erm... an "interesting" posting style. No worries. Someone actually intending to help you will hopefully read this thread and let you know soon enough.

That doesn't seem to answer the question in the OP, shade. Hypercube, You are mixing reference frames. The photon, if it could be said to have it's own reference frame, from that reference fream moves "0% through time" as you put it. However, when the light interacts with gravity and is time dilated, that is only relative to some other / external reference frame. So, the answer is no. A photon interacting with gravity will not travel back in time.

Oh my god, dude... read the thread.

Do you think I'm out of line suggesting that this is, again, not relevant? They HAVE been bred, they DO exist, and you're trying to arbitrarily restrict personal freedoms using an incredibly weak argument.

If you can't ask, then it's probably best to go for the "sure thing" and make sure you're below 10k even counting the abstract.

As evidenced by the fact that the rational argument has failed on you. As demonstrated above, the numbers simply don't bear out this position. And, I'm not even going to touch the non-sequitur, emotionally laden, and completely unrelated issue of the 9/11 attacks. If that's what your argument has come to, then truly you must see the lack of merit in your position.

I saw a security guard on one at the nearby outlet mall a few weeks back. I remember commenting to my girlfriend, "That's pretty cool, but he's clearly one of the guards who should be walking instead."

I believe John was responding to me, where I thanked him for his honesty.

Every time I hear the word "segway," I now think of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHMsiStq1So

Your logic is fine. They cause more deaths, as a percentage, than other breeds. I'll concede this point, since it's really the only one you have. The dogs usefulness is subjective, and is not relevant. You also can't tell me that my pinky finger is useless as justification to cut it off, just as you cannot decide for me what use a pit bull is over other breeds (note also, I've not owned a pit bull myself, but I've lived with one and interacted with several). Your framing of the issue on percentage of attacks loses sight of the issue of frequency and scope of the problem. There have probably been... let's spitball a number here... I'll go conservative... 250,000 pit bulls owned in the last 20 years (again, I find that number very conservative, but for the sake of argument, let's use it). You argue that 33% reported deaths by dog attack were pit bulls (but your indentification of the type of dog is also in question). Let's just assume that they all were, in fact, pit bulls. I argue that out of 250,000 dogs, 66 deaths means that (as a HIGH estimate), only 0.0264% of all pit bulls have been involved in a lethal attack. Zero point zero two six percent. When considering a ban, the question is not "is this type of dog (which itself is not well identified) responsible for more deaths than other types of dogs?" No. That's not the correct question to be asking. The question is, when you view this type of dog itself, what percentage are involved in lethal or violent occurances and what percentage are not. Do the majority of dogs of this type attack others, or do the majority not attack others? Last I checked, my very conservative estimate of 0.026% is hardly even a data blip, let alone a majority. To your honesty comment, no... dishonesty has zero place in a scientific forum, but strangely, we see it often. Cheers.