iNow

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."

You're talking about the principle of leveraging, it sounds like. Where, for every one dollar you take in, you "leverage" that into some greater number. Many of the banking institutions were leveraging on a 1:20 or 1:30 basis, a few as high as 34 (for every one dollar they took in, they spread that into 34 dollars in other things). My own perspective (much informed after listening to John Mack, a really bright and seemingly good guy who happens to be the chairman and CEO of Morgan Stanley, on both Charlie Rose and his testimony with the other CEOs in DC on C-SPAN a week or two ago) is that we should only allow 1 to 6 or 1 to 7 at most. This allows growth, doesn't stifle economic need, and still allows us to use the system in ways to help everyone. So, in answer to your question (IMO)... 1:7. Everything is risk, you just have to make sure you take the smartest ones.

You need a certain number of posts, and once you've made that many posts the system will automatically add you to a new user group. Once you've been added to that user group you can post in the Politics section. I think it's either 30 or 50 posts. One way or the other, you're very close, so just be patient or submit a few more posts and try again. FYI - It's setup this way for good reason. We don't want people who don't understand this community, who haven't proven themselves or shown that they are here for the science more than the politics... so they don't just come here and drive by post or flame bait. While politics is a passionate subject and conversations can get heated, we all tend to respect each other and the tone in the SFN Politics board is much more intellectual and calm than at many other boards. This is helped by not allowing noobs in until they have been around for while. EDIT: Snail beat me to it.

I post on SFN. I'm already immortal.

A frakkin cylon with busted dna, no less.

That IS cool. They said it's no longer being updated, and to also try here: http://ultimateunitconverter.com/

That's certainly a fair point. I tend to agree, but I urge you not to underestimate the inherent desire for fairness we all feel. Like I said early on, if the authorities are willing to investigate Phelps, then surely (at the very least) an investigation into the more egregious issues with Bush isn't crossing any lines. However, I too have bigger issues on my list of concerns right now. I'm just not willing to simply write off the lines which were crossed by the Bush administration and say, "oh well," ya know? Simply dropping it and sweeping it under the carpet seems even more unfair... to me, at least.

Like the tip of an ever enlarging cone? Like the breaking edge of the collapsing wave function? What do you mean? Like what?

A quote from President Obama: Let me be clear: The choice we face is not between some oppressive government-run economy or a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism. Rather, strong financial markets require clear rules of the road, not to hinder financial institutions, but to protect consumers and investors, and ultimately to keep those financial institutions strong. Not to stifle, but to advance competition, growth and prosperity. And not just to manage crises, but to prevent crises from happening in the first place, by restoring accountability, transparency and trust in our financial markets. These must be the goals of a 21st century regulatory framework that we seek to create. President Obama today took that problem head on by laying out 7 key principles for transforming the nation's regulatory system. We must: Enforce strict oversight of financial institutions that pose systemic risks Strengthen markets so they can withstand both system-wide stress and the failure of one or more large institutions Encourage our financial system to be open and transparent, and to speak in plain language investors can understand supervise financial products based on "actual data on how actual people make financial decisions" Hold market players accountable, starting at the top Overhaul our regulations so they are comprehensive Recognize that the challenges we face are global

A fun little video. wbIa9fZuTFA

Anyone interested in seeing funding amounts from HUD broken down by type and state can review at the below: http://www.hud.gov/recovery/statetotals.xls

11SEPT2001 That's the primary method I use to avoid this silly confusion when sharing dates globally.

Also, it's not our job to find alternatives when all we want to do is investigate if they properly used existing tech. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Point taken. I've been trying to focus on "let's investigate and find out," and didn't realize I was not even discussing the OP anymore (which assumed the wrong-doing as granted). My bad. Thanks for the reminder.

I thought we were originally saying that an investigation was warranted, and then we had to respond to comments that investigations were wrong and that Amnesty International is of questionable character.

I perceive a lack of understandnig about just how much people hate leaders who act like they are above the law and who get a free pass after engaging in illegal activities, or who don't even get investigated when their activities were certainly questionable. I find that passion and hatred to be much more profound than a simple distaste for what a relatively small group might see as potentially partisan politics.

Thank you. That is clearly one of the better arguments that I've heard. I tend to agree. If you can save more lives by potentially harming a much smaller number of them, then it certainly seems worth it. With that said, I kept reading and found this next argument even better: 1. Night vision. 2. Flour? Dry Ice? Streamed down from overhead. Flour Fight See' date=' happy crowd. Not coughing up intestines. I'm fairly certain that coughing, irritation of the eyes or prickling of the skin isn't worse than melted skin.

But an infinite number of cameras won't result the output of a single photograph (to use the definition you provided from einstein online).

There are ALWAYS other ways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_screen#Technology I could use a grenade to kill a wasp, too. Doesn't mean I should. The issue here is not a lack of alternate technology. It's the questionable use of technology they had in hand in areas densely populated by citizens. There are always other ways. See the link above and below for a brief sampling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_screen#Chemicals_used_for_smoke_generation

Prove it, or stop making posts about it anywhere outside of the Speculations forum.

How so? Time is inseparably coupled with space. The earth and the GPS satellites occupy different points in space, ergo experience different time. Like I said to asprung, the only place "now" is consistent (or absolute) is in your mind... or, if you'd prefer, in your own reference frame. Again, this seems to assume a decoupled spacetime. It was in your premises.

Not at all. I quite appreciate your comments. That's part of the reason I brought up Crist specifically. He's really doing the right thing, I think it's unfair the criticisms being lobbed his way, and I knew you'd be able to offer some perspective. Cheers. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged In a vacuum, this would certainly appear to be the best approach. However, I don't think it's very practical, as I'm pretty sure the administration was serious when they said they want to work with republicans in the future. By "erasing all the concessions to republicans in the bill," then they would really be sewing the seed for some serious bad blood and resistance on all future projects and legislation they try to push through. So, I do like your answer, and it would probably be the best one if this were the only legislation that would ever be under debate, but when taken in context of future needs, I think that Obama really out-manouvered them by taking the high road here, and probably made his future work and legislative wants/wishes a bit simpler by not pissing on them so early on when it would have been so easy to do. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSo I mentioned Jindal the other day (who gave a ridiculous Republican response to the Obama's speech tonight, but whatever) who said he'd refuse federal funding since it goes against his republican ideals when on Meet the Press this weekend. Anyway, it seems that The Daily Show had something to say about his hypocrisy on this. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=218391&title=clusterf#@k-to-the-poor-house He was offered $3.8 billion. His ideals will only allow him to accept a little over $3.7 billion. And some people still wonder why people don't take republicans seriously...

Okay, so maybe I'm not 100% up to speed on the latest and greatest military technology. However, the general point remains. There ARE other ways to provide light and/or smoke for cover that don't result in melted skin on the innocents caught in the center of the turmoil.

That's the funny thing about freedom of speech and freedom of press. They are free to say (or draw) anything they want, but we as the populace and readers are also free to openly express our digust, distaste, and general disapproval of what they've shared. That's all that's happening here. I'm abundantly confident that not a single poster was arguing to take away their constitutionally protected rights to express themselves, just that they should face the sincerity and passion of the negative response they generated.