iNow

No. You can simply train your mind to be more adequately prepared to mimic normal behavior under the influence of those subsances, but regardless of your preparation or mental ability, those substances will act physiologically in the same way. Also, you might look into reaction time studies. That will show just how measurable the effects truly are at the scale of millisecond differences.

Rutherford said that, not Einstein. Swansont already made this correction. Also, use of the word "even" before "finished reading BHoT" implies to me that he didn't finish reading any of those other books w/o titles. Tangointhenight - Instead of reading books on relativity, I might suggest that you spend some time reading books on logical fallacies and how to properly argue a point in a scientific arena. Enjoy.

Pangloss - No offense, but have you been posting high lately? What are you talking about, my friend?

This is very thought provoking. Would you be willing/able to elaborate a bit? I'd like to explore this a bit further and examine some of the intricacies of your point.

So what? An investigation is still warranted. It was never my intent to suggest that the motivations of anyone besides myself were pure, nor anywhere did I argue that this could be done without political implications. You're arguing against points I've not made. Are you familiar with term, "strawman?"

Aha! I had a feeling you'd just read that elsewhere. Thanks for clarifying, Lance. It's the "electric current" that is better.

From the article linked in the OP: As for war costs, Mr. Bush included little or none in his annual military budgets, instead routinely asking Congress for supplemental appropriations during the year. Mr. Obama will include cost projections for every year through the 2019 fiscal year to cover “overseas military contingencies” — nearly $500 billion over 10 years. For Medicare, Mr. Bush routinely budgeted less than actual costs for payments to physicians, although he and Congress regularly waived a law mandating the lower reimbursements for fear that doctors would quit serving beneficiaries in protest. Mr. Obama will budget $401 billion over 10 years for higher costs and interest on the debt. He will also budget $273 billion in that period for natural disasters. Every year the government pays billions for disaster relief, but presidents and lawmakers have long ignored budget reformers’ calls for a contingency account to reflect that certainty. Fascinating. I'm inclined to agree with both Bascule and the article in that this brings much needed transparency. Further, this brings much needed integrity and sincerity to the accounting. “The president prefers to tell the truth,” he said, “rather than make the numbers look better by pretending.”

Nope. Nobody bumped the thread so I forgot.

Interesting article, Lance. Thanks for sharing. This bit seemed to be the key to the research: It was already known that carbon nanotubes containing iron were effective catalysts for oxygen reduction, with the iron-carbon centres forming the catalytic active site. Dai's team, however, has shown that efficient catalysts can be made from a carbon nanotube scaffold without the need for metals, demonstrating a novel mechanism for the catalysis. They suggest that this new catalytic mechanism could be incorporated in other materials or used for other applications where the reduction of oxygen is required. I tend to share your general perspective that we can often use our ingenuity to overcome many resource problems, I just ensure that I temper that perspective with recognition of scale requirements and funding limitations. With that said, you made a comment about which I'm curious: I don't know what you mean here, nor did the article you linked seem to support or clarify your assertion. I have two basic questions. One, better how? Is it four times cheaper, four times more durable, four times faster, four times less impactful to the environment? Four times what? Two, where is that supported? What is your source? On that note, the article certainly ended much less "optimistic" than you. Thankfully, they provided a sense of realism and context for the work: Paul Christensen of the University of Newcastle in the UK -who has been working on fuel cells for many years -says the nanotubes have interesting properties, but disagrees with Dai that the expense of the electrode is what has held back the take-up of these alkaline fuel cells. 'The big problem with alkaline fuel cells is not the expense of the electrode material, but the failure to date to develop an alkaline version of the solid polymer electrolyte employed in acidic fuel cells, such as Nafion. This has made alkaline fuel cells impractical in terms of size and complexity, and ruled out the use of liquid fuels such as methanol. Electrode materials are not that relevant,' he told Chemistry World. Fortuntately, that particular limitation is just another area where we can use our ingenuity to succeed.

Thank you for the clarification, DH. That DOES, indeed, make much more sense and I can't help but to agree. IINM, your position is that it must be done via legislature, not court. As stated in the OP, that's exactly what is/was being attempted, yet it's failed repeatedly. I guess we'll just keep chipping away at it, slowly, but surely. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSwansont, I'll see if I can dig anything up in terms of historical enforcement post-Torcaso v. Watkins. I sense this is not too likely to be easy, but I understand your desire to see it. The thing is, as alluded to by The Bear's Key a couple of posts ago, even if it has been used zero times to restrict someone from office since the SCOTUS decision in '61, allowing it to remain on the books is like having a sleeper cell waiting to strike any time the tides shift. I'm sort of arguing on principle, I know, but it doesn't belong there, ergo should be removed. Either way, if I manage to turn up any cases post-1961 where these constitutions restricted someone from office, I'll share it here. Interestingly, during a brief search I made prior to posting this response, I found that (in addition to the 1st and 14th amendment violations) these parts stating that an atheist cannot hold office are ALSO against the "No religious test clause" of Article VI, Section 3. The "no religious test" clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3, and states that: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. This has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee, whether elected or appointed, "career" or "political," can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief. And yet, what is written as required into the constitutions of these six states stands in direct opposition to that, the first, and the fourteenth amendment, enforced or not. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I'm going to now end my search after reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists In the 1994 case Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Supreme Court Justice David Souter wrote in the opinion for the Court that: "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion". Everson v. Board of Education established that "neither a state nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another". This applies the Establishment Clause to the states as well as the federal government. However, several state constitutions make the protection of persons from religious discrimination conditional on their acknowledgment of the existence of a deity, making freedom of religion in those states inapplicable to atheists. These state constitutional clauses have not been tested. Civil rights cases are typically brought in federal courts, so such state provisions are mainly of symbolic importance. Well, there you have it. I suggest someone step up and test it in one of these six states (win an election and proudly proclaim their atheism), and until that time, I will keep arguing on the symbolic nature of removing this from the books based on greater principles.

And this is the reason why they chose that cartoon. It was interprettable in different ways, and got groups like us all to talk about it and do some free adverstising for their paper. Keep it simple, stupid.

No, again... I am saying that it needs to be investigated. That is all. We'll take it from there depending on what we find out during said investigation. If you call that spinning, then your definition of that term is MUCH looser than mine. My "predetermined position that Bush needs to be punished for his sins?" Pangloss, I have a strong feeling that you are not reading my posts and you're confusing me with someone else. Also, the slippery slope argument as a reason not to investigate Bush is both without merit or relevance. Well, thanks for the kind words about my intelligence, but there seems to be good reason here to investigate the matter. The fact that "we might investigate people in the future for retribution" is no reason not to investigate now. Nor are we "putting this out there." This is nothing new. It's part of the process. All I'm talking about is an investigation. We can go from there depending on what we find. The country of the United States of America and the legal personnel put in charge of enforcing her laws. I'm not advocating that Obama pressure this, I'm just supporting the justice departments duty to do its job. It's not personal... it's not retribution... it's a series of acts by the administration of the former president which are of questionable legality which need to be reviewed and, if after that review it is deemed appropriate, further steps taken. We can all argue about what those "further steps" might be after the investigation takes place, but right now, I'm just saying an investigation should be allowed. Slippery slope potentialities are not a good enough reason to prevent it.

You truly have a gift, Martin.

Like this: f2XQ97XHjVw

See post #2, and we can go from there... Up front, I will let you know that it's a lot like contructing a computer chip... semiconductor manufacturing... the stuff like Intel and Samsung do... You take a substrate like silicone or glass, feed it into a machine, that machine does some really cool chemistry and physical processes moving it through several different chambes and compartments to add stuff and grow structures and scratch stuff out of the way and build little nanochannels and other stuff like that, then out the other end comes your solar panel... at which point you'd wire it up and make your connections. I'd suggest googling or going to wiki for "crystalline silicone solar manufacturing" or "thin film solar manufacturing" and start from there. The question being asked in this thread really needs to be more specific... Like, "at this phase in the manufacturing process, why is it that the chemical vapor deposition process can only blah blah blah, yet at this other phase, the etch process blah blah blah...." Simply saying "I want to know how to build a solar panel" is a bit like coming here and saying "teach me about quantum physics" or "explain to me cosmology." You'll need to put some more effort in yourself, and work with the community here at SFN to clear up those specific areas with which you're struggling.

Yeah, that is cool. You may a really good point about the importance of guys (and gals) like that. I was going to respond to your comments that the scale of what they do is hardly comparable to larger corporations... that corporations employee tens of thousands, and guys like him only a handful... like 5 to 8 per house, usually a max of 50. I was thinking this was especially so with corporations involved in solar panel and wind turbine manufacturing... that they will be the drivers (which, they will have a large role in). But, then... As I thought more about your comments, and scaled up this "one Nightline guy" across the rest of the country, I realized that the numbers will exceed hundreds of thousands and put the corporations to shame. You probably didn't mean to, Pangloss, but your closing comments caused a whole cascade of thought and exploration in me. Thanks for that. The simple truth is that these organizations and people will each be carrying one section of the load... each hauling their own weight... and when taken together, that is what will tow our country and planet forward.

That just doesn't follow. Am I really just so stubborn about this issue that I'm missing some deeper point? If so, please help me. It's not my intent to have blindspots. I understand your position about being weary regarding judicial fiat, but I'm still not able to latch on to the quoted bit above. Is it discriminatory? Yes. Is it unconstitutional? Yes. Should it be enforced? No. Can it be enforced? No. Should it be removed from the books? Absolutely not. That just doesn't follow. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Isn't that exactly what I did with the very first link in the very first post?

I think perhaps you did read too quickly. They did not make that statement, I agree. However, the statement is supported by the study data itself, where they compare numbers across different time frames. The data from the time frame prior to Roe v. Wade aligns with the data we have today for developing countries. Now, back to the questions I asked...

Interesting. I'd never heard of this before, but it's a neat concept.

"[in the US,] before Roe [v. Wade], women's choices, and experiences, were similar to those of women in developing countries today." Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNobody has yet answered my questions. If she goes to jail, how long should she be sentenced? Surely, the guidelines should match those of murder, and she be imprisoned for life w/o parole. Execution is on the table here in Texas. Should we fry women who have abortions? What if the female having the abortion is under the age of 18? Should she be sentenced as a child would? What will/should the punishment be for breaking a law like this?

The alcohol might also be some sort of catalyst.

That's nice, dear. Now, what part of the studies they referenced are you calling into question? A simple attempt to discredit the author of said studies by listing groups in which he's participated ain't gonna cut it on this one.

Uhmmm... No. You might want to look at references before you call something unsubstantiated. Henshaw SK, Unintended pregnancy in the United States, Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 30(1):24-29 & 46. Henshaw SK, Abortion incidence and servcies in the United States, 1995-1996, Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 30(6):263-270 & 287. Seriously, I don't think that word means what you think it means. Henshaw SK, Unintended pregnancy in the United States, Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 30(1):24-29 & 46. Henshaw SK, Abortion incidence and servcies in the United States, 1995-1996, Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 30(6):263-270 & 287.

In my mind, it's more than just symbolic... While it's certainly the "right" thing to do, it's also necessary to ensure our laws are constitutional. An elected official should push for it to show how important the constitution is. While I take your point that this might make them lose in bible belts, I think it would make them gain a pretty significant number of votes from people who are nonbelievers or who take our constitution seriously enough to respect the motion. We really seem to be at a loss these days for people who argue on principle, instead of catering to the lowest common denominator of the electorate. Principled stands matter. Also, how do we know it's not enforcable? I'd like to run a test case and have an atheist openly run in one of those states to challenge the law. For all I know, I could win an election and be stripped of office for openly admitting I'm atheist. It's not worth the risk. It's a discriminatory and unconstitutional law, and should not even exist. We need to fix things like this at every chance we get. I live in Texas, man. It's probably much different over there in the DC area. These little battles ultimately add up in the larger war for equitibility and constitutionality. This is similar to my stance in support of allowing gay marriage. We need to make these changes because it's the right thing to do. I don't have to mandate it be overturned. SCOTUS already did. I tend to disagree with this. While I completely agree with your sentiment that it is vestigal, there is no reason it "can't" be eliminated, nor relevant secular reason why it should remain. As I'm sure is obvious to our regular members, I am an atheist, and it's a smack in the face to have laws like this which treat me as if I'm some kind of second class citizen or inferior person. With that said, it's simply unconstitutional, and should be purged for that reason alone.

Do you have to be a full time or half time student to qualify? I wonder if I went back and took just one class if I'd be eligible. Anyone know?