iNow

Yes, actually. Apparently it causes me to completely miss the accurate parts of and valid questions in your post.

Except, I'd update that to say, "Claims that malaria resurgence is due ONLY to climate change ignore these realities and disregard history." Again, as I've shown, climate change impacts the regions where mosquito larvae can thrive, which is in warmer climates.

First, what's with the font again? I thought we'd made progress there... Second, a blackhole exerts the same gravitational influence as a star of equal mass. Third, I was unaware that quantum gravity had been worked out. You seem to be making several conclusions based on these supposed premises of quantum gravity. Do you have a source or peer-reviewed citation for the workings of quantum gravity? Again, I'm surprised I haven't yet heard of this amazing step forward in cosmology. My concern is that you may have begun with false premises, and hence any conclusions you draw will also be false.

Eric 5, Are you now simply ignoring the responses to your questions which don't fit with your worldview? You've asked the same question numerous times, and received a response each time, yet you continue on as if your question is unanswered.

Excellent. I think you misunderstood my point, but that's not really relevant. You've done a great job addressing the OP.

Light is massless, and is also the travelling at the fastest possible speed, yet it still is not travelling fast enough to escape the gravitational pull of the BH. You are propoping that an object with mass should be able to accelerate faster than light, fast enough to overcome the pull of gravity, and escape past the event horizon. Since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, and since nothing with mass can even reach the speed of light itself, I believe I've just addressed your request to understand where your hypothesis is wrong.

I agree with your point that blame to warming alone would be in err, but I've already shown at least one impact of warming on this issue so your second comment regarding the possible lack of any impact whatsoever is not accurate.

Yeah, basically it can only be done if you ignore all of the rules of physics. And, if that's the case, then I want to ride a purple unicorn into the blackhole!

Precisely my point. Have you, perchance, compared Eric's IP against that used by Fred56? He had a real hard on for dictionaries as well. However, even if it's not the same guy, he's clearly heading for the same ending...

Didn't the link I shared cover this? EDIT: Unless you meant, "What do they make the lenses out of?" If so, it's not glass, but a type of film. I'm not sure where it's available, but google is your friend.

A big difference is that blackmail is for express personal gain by leveraging some detail against some entity in a postion to offer something, but the leverage used is not generally relevant to the gain itself... like nude photos of the boss with another woman, used to leverage a raise. If they don't comply, the photos will be shared with the boss's wife. Boycott is an attempt by the consumer base to improve the actions of some supplier or entitiy, not specifically for personal gain, but for public good. Also, the mechanism of boycott is very often inherently linked and relevant to the gain being sought. Boycott is simply a refusal to add to the suppliers profits due to a disagreement with some practice. The boycott will end if that practice is improved or changed. They are not the same, which is why we have two different words to describe them.

Ah. Pretty much as I figured. Thank you for your honesty. I am curoius now who has given you the information which has formed your worldview on these animals, and why you take the input from that person/organization/group as more valid than everyone here who has, in fact, interacted with these animals (many of whom on numerous occastions). Do you have any insight you can offer on this? What makes the data from those who call them useless monsters any more "correct" in your mind than all others who recognize they are just another life form on earth subject to the inputs of the environment around them?

Yet, we know what ages us, and "junk dna" (what a laughable term) is not one of those factors.

I ask you in return if you are doing anything more than trolling, as definitions in a dictionary are hardly applicable in all contexts, and your attacks on swansont regarding atomic clocks are downright comedic considering his experience with them.

I don't think your use of the general term "scientists" and the specific term "freak chemical reaction" are very helpful in a discussion such as this, but I get your point. It's just chemistry and electricity, and most people have absolutely no idea just how long a few billion years truly is and what can happen during those vast unimaginable eons.

I think the list which has been repeatedly offered by lucaspa is both more accurate and accepted: 1. Metabolism 2. Response to stimuli 3. Growth 4. Reproduction

You guys could keep it simple and create the halo effect using filtered glasses. These holiday specs filter intense light from LEDs or holiday lights into shapes like snowmen or santa claus, and more appropriate to your application, stars: http://www.3dglassesonline.com/holidayspecs.com.html They're just like the 3D glasses they used to give out in theaters.

John Cuthber, Out of curiosity, how did you respond to the questions I posed in the OP? I've searched this thread and found that you have yet to answer it.

That's Brilliant! The funny thing is that I think it appeals to both sides of the debate.

What I've heard is that there is a range of temperatures in which malaria carrying mosquitos can thrive (in fact, I think it might be all mosquitos, and not just those which carry malaria). As one gets to higher elevations, the temperature tends to cool, so mosquitos cannot live there (or, more to the point, it's much more difficult for their larvae to hatch in cooler areas). Humans who have moved to higher elevations did not suffer malaria as much as those who did not, because the cooler temperatures of those higher elevations prevented mosquitos from following (and ultimately biting) them. With the rise in average annual global temperatures, these higher elevations are not as cool... they are warming up on average.... so these zones which were previously inhospitible to mosquitos (and mosquito reproduction) are no longer, so their range has effectively increased as a result of rising temperatures. I cannot recall where I read this, so hopefully someone will correct me if I've mispoken.

Hi truckrazy, Thank you for sharing your experience. You've asked some good questions above, and shared some good points. The challenge in this thread, as you probably saw already if you read through it, is that these questions have already been raised, but to no avail. Folks who support a ban on this animal seem to do so blindly. When their suggestions are challenged, they accuse the challenger of being "emotional" and/or "irrational." They argue that these animals kill more than other types of dogs, yet cannot support with data how the breed was identified and by whom, so we have no way of knowing if this truly is a type specific phenomenon or a problem with identification. I quite agree with you that the dogs are inherently quite kind and sweet. I quite agree with you that the visciousness so often referenced as support for the outright ban position is something which has been taught to that tiny handful of dogs, not something fundamentally part of their genetics. I also suggest that ANY animal would engage in viscious behavior, regardless of breed or type, if subjected to the same treament that many of these great dogs have been. However, my primary argument has been that these people are trying to restrict a freedom with incomplete and very weak data. I have stated that it's fine if they choose for themselves not to raise one of these animals, and that the laws presently in place already effectively achieve the goal they seek, that others are not harmed by the property of someone else. It truly is an emotional argument they are making, because the numbers just aren't there, and the data which has been offered doesn't have a high degree of confidence on breed/type specificity. I've been charged with being overly emotional on this issue, but I fail to see where my points above are illogical. If I were only arguing on emotion, I would say something like: these people in favor of bans really need to remove their craniums from their colons and stop with all of their propaganda motivated fear-based Orwellian attempts trying to remove a freedom by implementing legislation unsupported by the data, and that the effects of said legislation have a nearly nonexistent probability of actually resolving the problem they are using as support for their position... But, I've actually said much more than just that. Cheers.

Wouldn't the "halo" be more a factor of what the tube is made out of, as opposed to what kind of lights you use? I'm not sure, but it's something to consider. Some irridescent materials may give it the "glow" you're after. Anyway, good luck, and have fun.

I don't see the relevance of your analogy. Pit bulls are not toxic. Do you know something I don't? Please, do share a link if you have some information supporting your strange contention above. Who's throwing a tantrum if not you?

The fundamental point is that you are trying to restrict a freedom, and you accuse anybody who challenges you on that of being irrational. I quite agree with ParanioA that the emotional side of the issue appears to be coming from those who wish to implement a ban. The laws in place already handle the small handful of attacks which occur, and that small number hardly justifies the removal of one of my freedoms. You can choose for yourself what breed you wish to keep, but you cannot choose for me which breed is right for me in my situation.

One has to recognize that the primary customer at wal-mart is not often tapped into the blogosphere. The groups I've seen at nearly every Walmart go there (quite simply) because it's cheap and it's close, and they need to maximize the return on every dollar. To get them to stop going there would require a) a viable alternative (like a target on the next corner), and b) a financial incentive (I'll give you a hundred bucks if you don't shop at wallyworld for the next month... or Target is cheaper... something like that). After that, I truly believe our culture is too disjointed and amotivated to be effective in such an approach, and that the population size needed to be effective in this far exceeds the number of people who would actually take it seriously, but I would welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong.