iNow

In fact, Pangloss has voted for that Thor at least twice now.

I have to say, this stuff just makes him seem more "human" to me. I never quite concerned myself with him, or cared really, but with all of this hype about him toking off the bong and swigging some whiskey and tossing dollars at strippers (oh, maybe that last one hasn't happened yet...) just makes me like him more. It says to me, "He's not some ridiculous and fake automaton. This is genuine human being like the rest of us who worked hard for a long time, earned his accolades, and took some time to celebrate and decompress when done." Good for him. Like ParanoiA, I'm more frustrated with our culture's desire to burn witches and nail people to crosses than with his getting stoned.

Indeed. John - Your logic is somewhat faulty, as you implicitly assume that evolution MUST be a directed process, or have some goal/intent. I don't mean this as an insult, so please understand that I'm really trying to help, as it's actually quite common to see this exact line of thought when people discuss evolution. The thing is, it's not a directed process, there is no "goal" to be sought. It's just that organisms are born, some do better than others under the given circumstances and environment, and then eventually you have more of those who did better and less of those who didn't fair so well. It really is that simple.

Can you summarize here the "horrors" that James Lovelock predicted? I'm not familiar with his work, but I do tend to agree with your closing sentence and think this could turn into a good discussion with the right type of nudges.

Right... Exactly as was suggested in post #2 and confirmed in post #3 by the person who asked.

Agreed. That was pretty great, and worth the 5 minute watch: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=217704&title=clusterf#@k-to-the-poor-house

Relative to outside observers (people watching you), you would not age. However, within your own frame of reference, you would age... all would seem normal. Then again, really anything could happen since you'd have to suspend the laws of physics to get any object with mass to go that fast. Once you suspend the laws of physics, you're talking about fiction so it can be anything you want.

Okay, so here's how it should work. A few months ago, all senior executives and director level employees at my company took a pay cut... Execs at roughly 15%, directors at roughly 10% IINM. Today, the executives announced that they are all taking an ADDITIONAL 20% cut, and NONE of them will be accepting ANY bonuses this year. That translates into roughly 60% pay cuts for each of them. Also, we are shutting down the company in various sectors several weeks here and there, and the overhead operating costs are being reduced drastically (several hundred million dollars) as a result of these measures. And, we're not even getting a bailout! This is what GOOD business people do, damn it! I'm SO proud to work for these guys. Despite the fact that me and a bunch of my friends may not have the opportunity to work for them for much longer (layoffs are still coming, and many will be impacted), this is how you run a big business intelligently. So, you know what? I'm a bit pissed off that everyone is railing against Obama for calling for salary caps and greater responsibility, instead of focussing the anger and frustration where it belongs... On the CEOs and executives who are too frakkin stupid to know to do this without someone telling them it's necessary. I sure hope I keep my job, and my chances of doing so just went up by quite a lot because there are bright guys leading us. That matters, people... not some stupid ideology based on what you heard on AM talk radio this morning.

Yeah, the funny thing is that it was the thread on "Do you believe in Thor" which got closed. Ah... the irony.

This has zero relevance on whether or not god Thor exists. You, like most people who try rationalizing their belief in an ethereal cosmic dictator, are merely displacing the subject of conversation to irrelevant tangents because ALL you have to show for your belief in god Thor is a personal conviction in the face of the complete absence of evidence or reason.

Cogito ergo sum

Just a quick bump. This special starts in about 30 minutes (at least, where I am). Enjoy.

Why did you roundhouse kick Milla Jovovich in the head?

The difference is rather simple. One is faith in the knowledge that evidence exists to support the position, that it could be checked, validated, and further... discarded if wrong. Another is faith in the total absence of evidence (and worse yet, faith in the face of the impossiblility of evidence to support it). I have "faith" that the sun wil come up tomorrow morning because that's what's happened everyday, and I have a chance to test it. That's rational. To have faith that some guy was born of a virgin, then died, and came back to life...and that he is the master of entire universe like all of the other sky pixies... Sorry, that's irrational. It's important not to equivocate here on that term.

And yet, nobody's answered swansonts question. What specifically in this bill IS pork?

Indeed. Judging from the responses, though, it's because not many other people believe that. However, as padren rightly commented, even christianity started with just a small handful of followers, so that's another irrelevant appeal to popularity. I know many find my comments provocative, by why not believe in unicorns or leprechauns while you're at it? What's the difference? Oh, they're not gods or not omnipotent, you say? Okay, then... why not believe in Apollo or Zeus or Baal? I'll tell you. It's because we indoctrinate our children and they far too often are locked into these mistaken worldviews for the rest of their lives. If parents indoctrinated their children that paper clips created the universe, then you know darned well that this is what they'd believe.

Nope. Not even close. Roughly 100 m/s is the max (whereas light travels at ~300,000,000 m/s). This page covers it pretty well: http://www.biologymad.com/NervousSystem/nerveimpulses.htm Action potentials can travel along axons at speeds of 0.1-100 m/s. This means that nerve impulses can get from one part of a body to another in a few milliseconds, which allows for fast responses to stimuli. (Impulses are much slower than electrical currents in wires, which travel at close to the speed of light, 3x108 m/s.) The speed is affected by 3 factors: Temperature - The higher the temperature, the faster the speed. So homoeothermic (warm-blooded) animals have faster responses than poikilothermic (cold-blooded) ones. Axon diameter - The larger the diameter, the faster the speed. So marine invertebrates, who live at temperatures close to 0°C, have developed thick axons to speed up their responses. This explains why squid have their giant axons. Myelin sheath - Only vertebrates have a myelin sheath surrounding their neurones. The voltage-gated ion channels are found only at the nodes of Ranvier, and between the nodes the myelin sheath acts as a good electrical insulator. The action potential can therefore jump large distances from node to node (1mm), a process that is called saltatory propagation. This increases the speed of propagation dramatically, so while nerve impulses in unmyelinated neurones have a maximum speed of around 1 m/s, in myelinated neurones they travel at 100 m/s.

That was quite brilliant. Loved the whole response, especially the end. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I don't understand. Why is this question any sillier than the question "Do you believe in god?" Can you elaborate? As for other motives, in addition to wondering why the logic and rationality of so many humans seems to completely evaporate when the word god comes up, I'm also making a point. By simply displacing the original question a little bit, it becomes painfully obvious (to me anyway) how silly that other question is. It should hopefully cause pause for those who answered "Yes" to the "Do you believe in god" thread, and spur some internal reflection on that silliness. So, Lance, oh great arbiter of what is and what is not silly or allowable, I was both asking a question and making a point, all at the same time.

Overall, Lance is correct. I'm just offering a minor correction and supplement to support his response. Carbon dioxide content in fresh air (averaged between sea-level and 10 hPa level, i.e. about 30 km altitude) varies between 360 ppm and 390 ppm, depending on the location. So, his quote of 350 is actually low. Also, one needs to look at this number in context, and realize that current concentrations in the atmosphere are rising very rapidly, so in essence, that number will only continue to get larger. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide NOTE: You can use the above source also to get a clearer understanding of why CO2 effects the temperature. Also, while the global surface temperature increase has been about 0.8C (~1.5F) on average, looking at the average misses a crucial knowledge point about the dramatically increasing rate of warming. The IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios, ranging from 541 to 970 ppm by the year 2100. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming A visual representation of the rate increase in temperatures for your reference below: Like I said, though. The overall thrust of Lances post is correct, so I am not challenging it so much as supplementing it. Good luck, Mb94. Enjoy. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnother item, more specific to the question you asked, is to review the concept of "radiative forcing." That helps explain the why and how of the process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

I'm curious about what people involved in science believe regarding Thor. Do you believe in Thor? Use any common defintion you like. No, I'm not talking about, "Yes, as a literary character," nor as "Sure, as a mythological figure in Norse culture." No, I'm asking "do you believe in Thor?" Why do we completely short-circuit our normal reasoning abilities and logic when the word "god" comes up? I'd be willing to wager my right testicle that the vast majority of you right now find this thread silly, yet it's SO very similar to the thread "do you believe in god?" What the hell is supposed to be the difference? I'm genuinely curious.

Oyy... that has nothing to do with the OP. I was just offering an inside joke. Good grief. My point remains. If you want to study psychopharm, neurobiology or biopsych are the umbrellas under which it most commonly falls.

I quite agree with Mr Skeptic here. This is why I chose "blatant hypocrisy" in my response, but the above is quite on point. line[/hr] From a week ago on THIS WEEK, Representive Frank again makes strong points (if you want to see Part 1, click the first link... however, it's Part 2 which supports the issue here most directly, so I've embedded that one): Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDsnhr9MEu4 Part 2 - uVYgCEVtbwU Now, don't get me wrong... I'm not some Barney Frank band wagoneer, but any pragmatist can see that he is making the best arguments across the board on these points.

The intelligence of crows made for a great TED talk: They're damn smart, those crows are.

I'd say that your focus should be on neurobiology. That is the proper path IMO. I'd actually advise against studying to be a psychiatrist, as they are pretty much (very rough simplification follows) therapists who can prescribe meds (whereas a clinical psychologist is a therapist who does not prescribe meds). We used to joke that the first treats the symptoms and the second treats the causes. Like I said, a good area of focus would be neurobiology. You may be able learn more by checking out the web page of the teacher I had for psychopharmacology about a decade ago. He was awesome, and might even be open to questions about how best to get into the field. http://www.utexas.edu/neuroscience/Neurobiology/TimSchallert/index.html Good luck.