iNow

I'm going with blatant hypocrisy and over dramatic grandstanding. Let's see just how fiscally conservative they all are when budgets for military come up. How much you wanna bet they argue in favor of cold war era weaponry and huge spending allocations for technology which is not going to protect us in this new age of fighting. I can't help but agree with Representative Frank as he argued yesterday on MTP: f-g0tmsA0JM Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Absolutely. The section between 4:30 and 8:30 into the video is spot on.

Really depends on the person. I'm a native english speaker who studied french in school and college, and am now studying some chinese. I like it, and find it rather straight forward and logical. For example, there is a character/word for "meal," then to make the word for breakfast, you just add the character for "morning" in front of it, for "lunch," you just add the character/word for "mid-day" in front of it, then for "dinner," you just add the character for "evening." So, morning meal, mid-day meal, evening meal... and all I need to know to figure things out is the character/word for "meal" and the character/word for different parts of the day. Once I have those, I can usually work my way toward a proper definition (as opposed to just memorizing words like breakfast, lunch, and dinner). It's like that for a lot of things, and having a background in data management and relational databases I find it very simple. The challenge is primarily memorizing the characters and training the ear to pick up on minor tonal differences, but the understanding part (for me, anyway) is rather simple.

Yes, I saw it in a few of your posts here at SFN and have used it myself a few times since then. It's quite cool.

I don't personally know enough to say for sure, but does it actually have a "path" to "leave the brain?" Isn't it metabolized, broken into smaller pieces, then expelled? What have you learned in your research? What is the missing bit?

Try explaining to them how these may not have been constants, anyway. I listened to a talk today online by Lee Smolin talking about how cosmological "constants" may actually have evolved, and been different in the past. One example among many is the idea that the speed of light may have been different back closer to the early stages of the inflation. Ergo, you can deflate the ID argument by explaining to their tiny little worldviews that these "constants" may not actually be constant, and may instead be evolving parameters.

That's an incredibly broad question, and there is a lot to cover. Start here, read, ask specific questions when you have them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackhole

Alright, then. Well done. Just for the record, I still don't believe in god... any of them.

Yeah, indeed. Norse it is.

That means you fall cleanly into the, "No - I don't believe in god" category.

No worries at all. Your intention was to help someone, and better, to help them learn. That is not only admirable, but far too lacking in our world. Further, it bothers me deeply that scientific journal articles are not available for free online for anyone who wishes to see them and doesn't have access to the library at a local university. I think the need to pay for information is outdated, and places the ability to find truth arbitrarily into the hands of those who have expendible income. While the business man in me understands the need to recoup cost in order to survive, the more liberal enlightened side of me sees information (especially of the scientific variety) as the one true fertilizer which makes us all grow, advance, and progress as a culture. In short, the law sucks, and you were trying to do the right thing, so stop worrying and enjoy your life.

You're right. That was very simple. Nicely done, sir.

I think Vesna and Sione share the same IP addy.

Interesting ideas. They won't necessarily need to explain everything this season, though, as in the beginning of 2010 there is a new series coming out that is a prequel called "Caprica." They have the option of using that series as a big explanatory method.

In response to DH regarding the subject of gravity: It's almost like a hen wandering innocently into a wolf pack.

I was going to login to correct you on your assertion about the study of evolution not involving math, or in your thinking that the study of evolution is the same today as it was when Darwin articulated his position, but as I kept reading, only one response seemed appropriate. Not even wrong. EDIT: I see that Klaynos is wearing his special cross-posting cloak again today. His reply is far more patient and explanatory than mine. Thanks, mate.

Glider explicitly stated that his definition was non-exhaustive. For the love of Thor, man. Further, you say that your fictional magenta swan is in both the categories of ideas and the catagory of animals. I think this logic is weak. Idea is a higher order of classification than animal, more encompassing. It is along side "reality." IMO, your opinion is contrary to the truth that it is "animal" which is the subset category, not idea. Animal is a subcategory of both the larger groups, idea and reality, and I find this so blaringly apparent that I am almost led to believe you are being intentionally obtuse.

All I can say is, "Way to go, Chief!" Hoo rah! What was the deal with the hull in the engine room at the end? Looked like some sort of stress fracture to me.

And.... you want to talk about WHAT exactly?

Deleting your account would completely screw up every thread you've ever posted in, and would cause consistency errors in the discussions. You can just stop logging in if you no longer wish to use it.

Shev - I also think it warrants some time by you and your roomy to learn more about the difference between the word "theory" when non-scientists use it (which is usually better described as a conjecture), and the word "theory" when scientists use it. Here's a good place to start - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory The simple truth is that a theory is FAR more powerful than a mere fact. A theory in science is the highest possible form one can achieve, as it is a consistent framework to explain those facts and make predictions and run tests. If you think of it like money, a fact is a nickel, and a theory is a $20 bill. Be sure to read that wiki link above. It explains this very well.

It's OT, but google pointed me to a pretty good discussion about exactly that over here. line[/hr] Great post, man. I completely agree with pretty much all of your points. The one I quoted above is part of the reason our government has been so borked for so long. I, and I think many others, are okay with debate on merit and objective fact, but that's not what we get out of our congress. Instead of academia-based university level discussion we instead get kindergarden level booger throwing as debate, and it's killing us as a nation. I can be won over by a good argument. It happens all of the time, and I frequently switch positions after considering a well articulated justification for a point of view. I'll tell you, though, that I won't be won over by simple labels and fear ("oh, that's socialist" or "that's too liberal" or all of the other ridiculous and completely irrelevant comments which get tossed around). My concern, however, is that the majority of the American populace can/will be persuaded by such non-arguments. Perhaps suitable for another thread. I don't want to divert your primary point: I personally see the greatest benefit being in renewable energy and converting our transportation system away from the internal combustion engine. I think the economic impact of this will be ginormous, and it has the added benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

IINM, he may be in England where the concepts which apply to "left" and "right" are reversed from our own. If that's the case, he's actually blaiming liberals. Not that it really matters or helps with the discussion at hand...

You may want to try the Homework Help forum. Good luck.

I need to think more on your response. You asked some good questions. You did, however, mention pork, so I'll comment quickly on that. Considering the scale of this effort, I'm actually pretty comfortable at how low the level of pork is. There are a lot of really good ideas in there, and some pretty amazing projects, and of course a few "not so good ideas" or pork related nonsense. However, I think it's been fairly well minimized. What eats me up inside, really, is just how much science based programs that were part of the bill are being culled right now. That type of investment is incredibly low risk and often has huge returns... but, no... that's what's being removed from the bill. I'm rather frustrated by that right now. Of course, it's brought to us by our conservative Senator friends. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/02/science-gets-th.html US Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Susan Collins (R-ME) are proposing to cut the stimulus/spending package by roughly 10%. Their staff have identified several “useless” programs included in the bill, and it appears that they consider science funding to be one of those useless pursuits. Over the last 50 years, much of our economic development has been driven by science, and at a time when the US is faced with losing its scientific dominance to China and the EU, the US needs increased science funding. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime. Fund fishing research, and your children all eat for a lifetime. From the list of stimulus projects that are on the cutting block: NSF 100% cut ($1,402,000,000) NASA exploration 50% cut ($750,000,000) NOAA 34.94% cut ($427,000,000) NIST 37.91% cut ($218,000,000) DOE energy efficiency & renewable energy 38% cut ($1,000,000,000) DOE office of science 100% cut ($100,000,000) Yeah... useless programs, those. Either way, I've been personally impressed at how minimal the pork has been considering the nature of this action. YMMV.