iNow

But... since you raised the specter of affordability, it's important to remember that right now... with the government taking a larger role in health care... looking for every conceivable way to drive down unnecessary costs... to remember that the decreased revenues from cigarette taxes may be totally eclipsed by the overall cost savings to our healthcare system which would result from fewer in our populace lighting up those coffin nails and inhaling.

Out of curiosity, have you run a google search along these lines: online math curriculum I mean, one would presume that something there is gonna be useful to you.

I thought this was interesting: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html The pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,000 species including penguins, dolphins and primates. However, in the latest study the authors claim the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species. They found that on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females because of the shortage of males. Through these 'lesbian' unions, Laysan albatross are flourishing. Their existence had been dwindling before the adaptation was noticed. Other species form same-sex bonds for other reasons, they found. Dolphins have been known engage in same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding while male-male pairings in locusts killed off the weaker males. A pair of "gay" penguins recently hatched an egg at a German zoo after being given the egg that had been rejected by its biological parents by keepers. Writing in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Dr Nathan Bailey, an evolutionary biologist at California University, said previous studies have failed to consider the evolutionary consequences of homosexuality. He said same homosexual behaviour was often a product of natural selection to further the survival of the species. Dr Bailey said: "It's clear same-sex sexual behaviour extends far beyond the well-known examples that dominate both the scientific and popular literature – for example, bonobos, dolphins, penguins and fruit flies. "Same-sex behaviours – courtship, mounting or parenting – are traits that may have been shaped by natural selection, a basic mechanism of evolution that occurs over successive generations," he said. "But our review of studies also suggests that these same-sex behaviours might act as selective forces in and of themselves."

Mel - I think perhaps the single biggest challenge you will face is... In order to make your research scientific, you must first put forth clear definitions of your terms which are falsifiable, and replicable by others. For example, I dare you to put clear parameters which are testable and which can be falsified for this "astral plane" concept you referenced. It just ain't gonna happen, and... until it does... it's not science. Your definition is too "fuzzy." It's too, "Hey man, this is like way far out. Are those cup cakes?" Now, if you're interested in stuff like telepathy... then you could maybe posit a mechanism. Let's say you think that a magnetic field is generated around the human body as a result of chemoelectric conduction in our nerves and synapses... and that maybe this electric impulse which travels through our bodies results in a magnetic field (as per experiments from Farraday). Perhaps that field is somehow impacted by the iron in our blood, which pools in specific areas of our brain, and hence impacts our perception. Maybe that field interacts with a similar field put out by other humans, and the interpretations we make after perceiving that multi-biomagnetic field interaction is what we commonly call telepathy. You can absolutely test those things... test if there are minute magnetic fields surrounding the body, of if concentration of iron in the blood has any impact, or even if the topic of ones thoughts impacts the nature of the field or the way it's perceived. You could even make comparisons to electric fish, which put out a pulse and are able to perceive their environment based on the EM field surrounding them and it's perturbations. That's all science. Here's the rub, though... You still have to find a way to test and define the concept of telepathy itself in a way that is falsifiable and replicable. Good luck with that. Seriously. The research is easy, but convincingly showing that it supports your "para" conjectures is not. You can show that such fields exist, and even measure their interactions, but after that it's a ginormous leap to proving this has any relevance whatsoever to your concept of telepathy. Anyway, good luck. I used to be much more interested in stuff like this. Then, I started learning more about 'actual' science and tended to let go of the things which were based more on wish-thinking, since reality was so much more interesting and informative.

It's really too bad that the term "embryonic" ever stuck in terms of stem cell research. We'd all probably all be a lot better off and farther along right now if we'd just called them "blastocystic" stem cells from the start.

I always like Hitchens comment on this issue in his debates. I believe you have free will and, if you ask, I must retreat to the philosophical irony that... We are predetermined to have free will. Incidentally, the Christian must say "of course we have free will, God demands it."

The obvious answer is Goodwill. After that, start looking around for consignment shops. You may get lucky there.

I remember watching a program recently where they created a robot which mimicked an owl (or, perhaps it was a falcon... can't quite remember), but simply placing the robot in the area scared away all of the seagulls, pigeons, and crows.

Totally agree. We should teach kids the MOST accurate information we have, regardless of their age. That's one of the absolute best things we can do for the progress of humanity. The stronger their foundation, the stronger the structure they will be able to build on top of it.

I struggle to understand why some people think that we are benefiting students by teaching them something which is outright false and nonrepresentative. It's as if folks are willing to replace what is "right" with what is "easy."

NO! He wants proof that you understand that consciousness IS NOT REQUIRED for the wave to collapse.

Again, depends entirely on who you ask. I would suggest, however, that among scientists there is little or no problem with it. I would also suggest that those who do have problems with it tend to do so due to religious reasons, but I speculate. Me... as an insulin-dependent diabetic who could directly benefit from it? I say, LET'S GO!! Full speed ahead! We know how to do it. All that rules against it are going to do is to delay the inevitable.

There is no objective/absolute answer to this question. For some people, yes... for others, no.

Physically Impossible <due to his perfectly rigid pole>

It's tough to say what would happen if it were "inflexible," since it's not possible. Once you start asking about situations beyond reality... outside of physics... You really can't use physics to provide an answer any more. Someone could just as easily tell you that it makes a purple unicorn flatulent at the other end of the pole/rod, and it would be roughly equivalent to any other answer (conjecture) provided, since the situation itself is not reality based.

Yeah, and as per Sisyphus' link, now they're "People for the Ethical Treatment of Fish which have been dead for a while, and which people are going to eat anyway." Morons, the whole damned lot of 'em. Protecting animals is a really good cause. There are multiple exceptions, but the cause itself is just and noble. What this group is doing, though, it's just embarrassing and obscenely ridiculous.

As an FYI, Shadow... We discussed a really similar question very recently here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41293

A few years ago, I'd have stood up in support of PETA. I'd have focused on the fact that they have an honorable mission, and that it should be supported. However, much of this stuff they do... It's just plain stupid. Flat out... ridiculous. For example: Obama was in an interview and killed a fly. PETA? They are sending him a letter and a special device asking him to be more kind and to "catch and release" the flies outside. Give me a frakkin' break. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hNw_VW9Dlp19RvvaxvSLo5TZRwSQD98SQ0606 The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants the flyswatter in chief to try taking a more humane attitude the next time he's bedeviled by a fly in the White House. PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside. "We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals," PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said Wednesday. "We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals." During an interview for CNBC at the White House on Tuesday, a fly intruded on Obama's conversation with correspondent John Harwood. Here's that video: ORZ00OyKp0I But, PETA? Friedrich said that PETA was pleased with Obama's voting record in the Senate on behalf of animal rights and noted that he has been outspoken against animal abuses. Still, "swatting a fly on TV indicates he's not perfect," Friedrich said, "and we're happy to say that we wish he hadn't." Do they even want us to take them seriously, or do they just not care anymore?

Unfortunately, that particular question is beyond my current knowledge. When I looked it up, most of the sites I read were for new age oils and crap, so the method of action wasn't readily apparent. Someone like YT2095 or one of our other resident chemists may know. I looked at the wiki, and it mentioned that it helps with certain growth processes, so if I were to guess I'd say that it boosts clotting and immune-type response (although, I can't say if slugs have immune systems in the traditional sense). Really interesting question, that.

That's pretty funny, but I fail to see why you're making this into an argument about global climate change. KCYYhEiTuro

The "god particle" is probably one of the worst interpretations of science in pop culture seen in quite some time. It has nothing to do with god, and won't even unify physics. It's the Higgs Boson, and that's what any respectable person calls it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#In_popular_culture The Higgs boson is sometimes referred to as "the God particle," after the title of Leon Lederman's book for lay readers. The term mistakenly implies that the Higgs boson would complete our understanding of physics. In fact, while the discovery of the Higgs boson would be a groundbreaking stage in the story of electroweak unification, it would leave remaining the question of unification with Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), gravity, and the ultimate origins and early evolution of the universe. Being an atheist, Peter Higgs dislikes the epithet "God particle". The term is rarely used by particle physicists when discussing the Higgs Boson; its prevalence is primarily due to its usage in popular media.

Depends on where your hand is in relation to the rest of your body at the time it's struck.

A better choice for both. For one, Ahmedinajad has mismanaged the Iranian economy incredibly badly, and that tends to be the key deciding factor when Iranians vote... The person who manages the economy in such a way that it puts money in their pockets. The programs of Ahmedinajad have been very poor indeed, and he is directly responsible for much of the economic woes of Iran, who are worse off than most other countries. The voters there would hold this against him very much... Also, Sisyphus covered many of the other points in his post after yours.

Yeah, but you have to admit that my choice of words had a much greater rhetorical and visual flare than "you're much more likely to die in a car wreck."

Thanks for helping me to correct a misconception. I'll do some more reading, for sure.