iNow

Never mind. Misread the post.

Probably the lack of resistance out in space. If two objects in space were tethered together, and you gave a tug to one of them, then the other would jerk toward the tug to some degree no matter how massive it was. I presume that CM is applying the same logic, thinking that the side of the elevator in space lacks resistance, so any tugs to the tether from the earth side would cause its orbit to destablize and the object to come falling toward the surface. I think he is looking for an explanation in simple terms of why this would NOT happen.

Huh?

Wow. That's sort of the point, now isn't it? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Not really. The only way this works is if you ask which had been considered as a god by at least one human culture or group of humans. After that, you're more or less arguing which teenage mutant ninja turtle would pick up the most chicks, or how many puppies you must kill to stop global warming.

Now THAT is a good response. Thank you for elaborating, Mr Skeptic. I agree that mistakes happen in war, and I also agree that negative actions which are determined not to be accidents should be punished. Another agreement is that the ICC should be doing trials both ways if they do them at all. With that said, I ALSO agree with bascule that Palestinians deserve human rights protections just like anyone else, and that Israel has been rather uneven-handed when it comes to civilian deaths, and really stepped in a pile of crap when they killed humanitarian workers, accident or not.

Good point. I do, however, think you may give Obama too much credit. I'm not as sure as you that he'd have rejected it without Republican votes in Senate. We may never know.

I will bet you all of my future tax dollars that there are Republicans in Congress as well with these types of ridiculous back tax issues, yet your comment implies otherwise.

Yep, by responding "None." Although, the poll is all jacked up and my vote went into the bucket for "Other" since "None" was added to the poll options after my vote had been cast. Anyway, it's like I offered you a list of characters... Harry Potter, Captain Ahab, Admiral Adama, and Doctor House... then asked you to tell me which of them are real. Same type of premise, and yet the response of "none" fits despite the fact that the question rests on a false assumption. Amazing!

This whole thing is rather ridiculous. I think we should just let the IRS audit all of the Congress critters now and get it done with. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Do Nothingers alike. Obviously the issue is rampant. Let's clean it up and be done with it.

Sure, but for purposes of this poll, they are not. Also, FWIW, I reject the entire premise of the question. It falsely assumes a priori that anything ever even could be a god.

B/c they are scarcely different from one another. It's like asking why did you lump purple unicorns into the same bin with pink unicorns. The only legitimate difference is that people on one side of the planet were raised and taught that they are purple, and people on the other side of the planet are raised and taught that they are pink, but they're both still unicorns.

No worries. It happens. I was concerned that there was a pretty key piece of my studies that I had just completely missed, or which had been forgotten due to too many parties.

So, instead of addressing the valid point that we must be careful of our responses (and encourage caution among others who are responding) regardless of the target, including preventing these responders from attacking members of the UN and the Red Cross, you're going to pretend that not only are you okay with Israelis killing humanitarian workers, but that you also think it's funny that they are accidentally killing their own people? I really believe you're trying to make some point, but it's not coming through with the short snarkiness in your post. Can you elaborate... please... and earn back some of the respect I had for you which was lost after reading the above?

I tend to agree overall with your post. Tax cuts do have a good benefit, and I was not careful enough with my words. The point I was trying to convey is that a tax cut ALONE is not going to get it done, and that people who think it will seem to have a myopic and incredibly narrow view of the economy. However, one point I wasn't sure about your meaning was this: When did it fail, exactly? I know that no republicans voted for it, but it did, indeed, pass the House and go on to the Senate...hardly a failed outcome in terms of a bill and its passage. What did you mean? Is it possible you and I both were way too happy to throw around the descriptor "failed" last night?

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=127

This is a science forum, not philosophy or metaphysics. I'm not sure this is the place for you, having read your 9 posts all asking the same question.

Giving everyone a tax break will not build roads. It will not build bridges. It will not make broadband access available to those in rural areas. It will not prevent firefighters and policemen and women from losing their jobs, nor will it create new ones. It will not improve our schools, or put more teachers to work. It will not help local governments to pay unemployment. It will not cover healthcare in ERs, nor will it prevent ER doctors and nurses from being laid off. It will not create opportunity for smart grid electrical systems, nor will it assist in the switch off of fossil fuels and on to solar and wind. A straight tax break will NOT do a lot of the things that we simply must right now. We've had 8 years of tax cuts. The experiment failed miserably. Deal with it. It's time to do something different, as we're in bad shape, and the tax cuts only added to our problems, or at the very least, prevented us from excelling past them through smart investment. I'm open to haggling on what those smart investments are, but I'm quite tired of and frustrated by these morons who watch Fox news and think that a tax cut alone is the panacea cure for all that ails us.

Alright. Talk to me like I'm a fifth grader. Give me the bullet-point list. What are the benefits of doing this? What's the payoff for all of the effort and maing the change?

I don't always NEED to quote a post for a reply. What then? What if it's a new branch to the conversation? Quoting someone else before doing so would actually ADD to the confusion in such cases, not make things better. I think while we sometimes run into problems by leaving it up to the individual on how to process the post (i.e. sometimes they don't quote and it's a PITA), the costs of forcing it on people far outweigh the benefits.

Right on. Thanks. Hopefully someone will remember to bump this thread in a week, as I can't set my DVR until 6 days prior to the program start.

When in doubt, kick him out. It's all well and good if he hurts himself, but it's not cool if he hurts others.

Well, I'm not sure how tech savvy/able you are, or what people/resources you have access to in your lab, but you could use a simple ink jet print cartridge. In short, you get a clean cartridge and put the sunscreen where the ink would go. You can then use the printers existing functionality and software to lay down a very consistent thickness and converage of the sunscreen. I've seen this type of "drop-on-demand" inkjet used in biology via science programs. They essentially dropped one tiny drop at a time at exact locations and in exact thicknesses to build up home grown organs for transplant. I imagine you could adapt this layer-by-layer biomanufacturing technology to your purposes, and it would certainly overcome any concerns at the conference about consistent thickness and/or application. http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/abs/10.2217/17460751.3.1.93 EDIT: There may be some ideas here, too: http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ten.2006.12.1169?cookieSet=1&journalCode=ten

Perhaps you can add the sunscreen to a spray bottle, get a consistent spray out of the bottle prior to applying to the glass, then you have all glass applied with the same number of sprays. Get bottle. Add sunscreen. Pump several times to the trash until spray is even and consistent. Apply X number of pumps to each glass. As long as you are sure to clean thoroughly the spray bottle and nozzle prior to adding the sunscreen, you should be okay. EDIT: Or, are you asking for something else on which to apply the sunscreen as the glass won't work at all? If that's the case, I presume you could spray the beans directly with your spray bottle.

About 0.5%. As you imply, much due to the difference in acceleration (about 0.3%) and some due to gravitational difference and being closer to the center of Earth (about 0.2%). http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=310

Not to mention driving the field before half-time and throwing that interception to Harrison on the goal line. That's one of Warners key mistakes to which I alluded above. Also, their defense got super lucky after they got the roughing penalty on the field goal attempt Pitt was making... where they ran into the holder (or was it the kicker? doesn't matter)... I can't believe they held the goal line twice for all of those downs. They shot themselves in the foot repeatedly, though, with stupid penalties as you mentioned. It was a good game. I seriously thought they were going to pull it off at the end. They finally remembered they had this amazing receiver named Fitzgerald and started throwing to him.... something they should have been doing the whole game... and (whatdya know?) he kept scoring. The problem was, he was SO good at scoring that he did so with too much time left on the clock and Pitt drove it in when they got the ball back... and Arizona couldn't freakin' tackle before the 8 yard line to hold them to a field goal and force an OT. Anyway, my nachos were really good.