iNow

To add to Mr Skeptics response, there IS more energy coming into the system described, it's just coming from the sun.

Jesse - Maybe you can do something like this: http://www.journalarchive.jst.go.jp/jnlpdf.php?cdjournal=bcsj1926&cdvol=40&noissue=12&startpage=2990〈=en&from=jnlabstract Try to google the term "Photochemical color change" for more ideas like that.

Do you see any reason why only one of them must be correct, as opposed to all three?

'Bout damn time. Basically, they're saying it's not the Pentagons place to make the decision, but the familiy's. That works for me. I watched secretary Gates on CSPAN last night, and he made a solid argument. He said his decision was made mostly as a result of a letter sent to him by the army advocating the allowance of the people to see the coffins. He stated, "since the army is losing the most soldiers, their arguments really mattered and helped me decide."

I see you're now at 30 posts. Have you tried again to post in Politics?

This is off topic, but interesting, and might warrant its own thread. It would include the need to improve lower education (K-12) and also some recognition of the points made by the move "Idiocracy."

TBKs comments were not specific to Reaper's link. He was making a broader point.

Absolutely. This is precisely where regulation comes in, and why that's so vital to our economic health, despite claims to the contrary from those looking to lose regulation in favor of short-term gain and likely long-term ill.

Almost, but not quite. Under the old system, there was zero loss of tax payer money until the student failed to pay. When the student failed to pay, the government "footed the bill," but never got that money back. The government provided security to the lender on the default, but (AFAIK) the lender never paid the government back, nor did the student responsible for the default. It was purely outgoing money from the government with the old system... no returns. Under the proposed system, the government handles it all, hence taking the interest profit themselves. This means that they are making money off of this no matter what happens. They gain interest (instead of the 3rd party lender), and the vast majority of students who have borrowed the funds will be paying them back (I think in the 95% range). So, old system = loss only, no recovery of funds. New system = additional income for the government to fund more educational (and other "collective good") programs.

Okay, I'll laugh if I'm wrong about this, but that's one of the silliest things I've heard in quite some time. When handling RAW chicken, one should carefully wash their hands and clean the work surface when done, especially if they have an open wound. However, avoiding the ingestion of fully cooked chicken because you have a paper cut is utterly and completely ridiculous.

W-_U1Z0vezw

Those are interesting ideas. One thing I wonder is, which would make the nanomachine more complex and less likely? Would it be storing the actual data, or storing a system complex enough to receive wi-fi? There are some pretty interesting engineering problems to overcome if you pursue this, but I support your point that it's not necessarily impossible. I think Mokele was more trying to correct your broad generalization that we could repair any damage. That's quite a feat, especially when the damage is more significant (he knows much more about this than I do, and I'm willing to accept his assertion that there is some damage which simply can't be undone). So, it's fine to speculate and try to engineer solutions, just ensure you do so with a solid grounding and grasp of the true realities at play.

It's been a long time since I've been in school, and I haven't reviewed it myself, by I've heard good things about this one: http://www.millerandlevine.com/ Table of Contents and Sections by Chapter: http://www.millerandlevine.com/chapter/toc.html

Except, they wouldn't be done with it "once and for all." It would actually make matters worse. They'd inspire new hatreds and reinforce old ones all across the arab world. Kids born today who might be okay with a future peace would be totally and completely soured by such actions, and terrorist recruiters will basically have been handed the best piece of propaganda to gain new soldiers they've ever had... all because Israel said, "let's just carpet bomb and be done with it." Again, your idea is wonderful in a vacuum... if Palestine were the only area involved it would work fine, but once you expand your reality to include the rest of the hemisphere, you've basically screwed the pooch by not showing greater restraint in the region. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand your sentiment and recognize the frustration which feeds it, but mass bombing is hardly the right answer. Now, if someone wants to dismiss my comments as those of an armchair general, then so be it. I'm still correct in what I've said.

You seem to be mincing words, here, Psycho. What Vgamer1 said about caloric restriction helping to extend lifespan is actually quite true. It's about more than just "not being fat," as the effects extend to organisms even at normal weight. To understand how, one can review some of the following: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=caloric+restriction+lifespan&hl=en&lr= However, just to reinforce the point Mokele has been making, we CAN extend lifespan and SLOW the aging process, but we CANNOT stop it or reverse it. I think that's the point to bear in mind, and the text you quoted from Vgamer1 is well in line with that fact (despite some of the erroneous claims above about stopping or reversing aging).

Oh, give me a break, Jackson. Nobody is taking away rights from the states. The states can still use the money they make the same way they do now. All they're saying is that there are restrictions on how they can use the FEDERAL FUNDS they are being handed. The idea is that they must be used in a specific way to ensure alignment with the other states, overall national goals, and maximal multiplier effect. The Fed is not taking over all of their finances, just putting restrictions on the funds being given... much like we need to do when we hand money to wall street. You seem to exaggerate when it suits you, focus narrowly on limited data and extrapolate/generalize based on those small anecdotes, and you tend to look foolish when you do, despite your obvious education. As for that last sentence, I have no idea what the hell you're on about with that, so I'm not even going to bother there.

waitforufo - You often make very useful and insightful posts here at SFN, but I'm sorry to say that the above appeal to ridicule and ideological labelling is just plain stupid. How many times will you be sharing the email address to Keith Olbermann before you start making useful comments again? Come on, dude. You were doing so well. Don't resort to the stupidity we have all come to expect at every turn from neocon cranium/colon crowd. You'll convince a lot more people that you are correct by spending more time articulating your argument than denegrating people with whom you disagree like O'Reilly would.

+1 Your response exactly mirrored my own, Sisyphus.

Relative to what?

That's great. 5,000 m is like 49212.5 human tongues or 2,315.8 Shaquille O'Neals.

I'm curious. Can you explain why you continue to suggest that this must be done directly by Obama, and why it wouldn't instead be handled like other legal matters directly by the DOJ?

I think you are basing this on more common reporting needs that we have used in the past, not on the requirements put in place specific to the stimulus funds. Or, to put it more plainly, you're quite wrong. It also appears that you are forgetting/omitting the role of the new Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board, chaired by former Secret Service agent Earl Devaney, a no nonsense and proven to be tough Inspector General.

In line with the calls for a transparent government by the Obama administration, the full 2010 budget is available for viewing here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/

I never said that I don't. I tend to agree with much of your sentiment. However, did you realize how you began your sentence with the words "I see..."? By doing so, you implicitly acknowledge that you are only speaking from your own reference frame. That's the point. Your now and my now are not the same, ergo... not universal. The issue is in perception, in your conscious existence, not the universe itself... Or, at the very least, we have no evidence to support the idea that the universe shares some absolute thing we call "now." It's philosophy, and it's fun to play around and explore, but it's not science and it doesn't help our understanding or ability to manipulate the universe for our own gain. That's where relativity and QM come it...

Well, think about it this way. The light causes electrons to move. More light would seem to cause more electron movement, so focusing it helps. However, I'm pretty sure there's an upper limit, too, but that would depend on the process used to manufacture the panel and the structure of it's components and "channels."