iNow

Some of us prefer to sign our messages of thanks.

One major incorporating both is an interesting idea, hence Mokele's suggestion of biochem.

This is simply false, and can be rejected on its face. Your argument implicitly suggests that even people born with genetic brain disorders have the same potential for achievement as people without said disorders, and that is just untrue.

Indeed, you're correct. Sorry about that. The answer then is the atmosphere. It's our atmosphere which causes the lag. http://solar-system-astronomy.suite101.com/article.cfm/first_day_of_winter Earthly Conditions as a Result of the Solstice In the winter time, those in the Northern Hemisphere receive fewer hours of sunshine and less direct rays of sunshine, which combine to make it the coldest season. Many people wonder why the "first" day of winter isn't the middle point of winter and why it's not the coldest on the solstice. It is understandable to wonder why, if the December solstice marks the shortest day and the farthest south the sun will get, that it hasn't been colder leading up to the solstice and that it doesn't get warmer more quickly as the sun moves north again. The answer lies in the Earth's atmosphere. It is a cumulative effect. In the summer, it takes the atmosphere a while to warm up from receiving the additional radiation, and therefore it is not hottest at the summer solstice. In the same way, the atmosphere has taken some time to cool down so that it is not the coldest at the winter solstice. The same thing can be noticed in the atmosphere on a daily basis. It is not warmest during the day when the sun is highest but in late afternoon. It is not coldest in the middle of the night but instead just before the dawn. Or, using an analogy: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/wfaqsson.htm The coldest part of the year lags about a month behind the shortest day, just as the warmest days come a month or so after the longest days. To keep the answer simple, we won't consider warm or cool air coming in from other places, but will assume the air at a particular location stays in place, warming and cooling. We could think of the air in such a place as being like a bank account. If you add money to a bank account, it grows. If you add heat to air it warms up. The Earth is always losing heat, like a bank account that you're always taking some money from. If the amount of heat arriving from the sun is exactly equal to the amount leaving, the temperature stays the same. As days grow longer in spring and early meteorological summer, the balance tips to more heat arriving than leaving. This is like adding money to the account faster than you are withdrawing it. The air grows warmer and warmer. On the longest day, the amount of heat arriving is greatest. But, even after the days begin growing shorter, the amount of heat arriving is more than the amount leaving. It's like continuing to add more money to the bank account than you're taking out, even though you are adding less than you were before. Sometime in the late summer or during the fall, depending on how far north of the equator you are, the heat "account" is in balance. From then on, more heat is leaving than arriving and the days grow colder. Now, you're taking out more than you're adding to the account. In December, when days are shortest, the "withdrawals" from the heat account are greatest. But even after the days start growing longer, more heat is leaving than arriving. The heat account is growing smaller, even though less heat is leaving. Eventually, however, you arrive at a day when the amounts of heat leaving and arriving are in balance. Then, the amount of heat being put into the account becomes greater than the amount being withdrawn. The air begins warming up. Here's a graphic and text that help show why longest days are not the warmest.

Hi Ishmael, It's not so much a factor of "how long the sun is out" nor "how long the day is." The duration of the day is not as important as the angle at which we face the sun. So, in winter, the light we receive from the sun is at more of an "oblique" angle, so basically it's effect is less intense (the radiation from the sun is spread out over a larger area and has to travel farther, therefore is more dissipated on arrival). This is all explained pretty well here. Maybe it will help. Ask more questions if you have them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter

No worries, friend. I know you conceded the point, and that you are also not against gay marriage. Further, it was not really you who suggested the 5,000 year definition, but it was Warren (whom you quoted in post #8). He was the one who said it, therefore he was the one being ultimately rebutted. You just felt the brunt of it since you were the one sharing his quote in support of your argument. I think part of the passion against him is the fact that he equates gay marriage with incest and pedophilia. That's where he is being an ignorant buffoon, and that's where people take issue with him and his invitation to the inauguration. He has done great work, on climate change, helping in africa, and many other things, and his leadership on those issues is to be commended and acknowledged. However, he is still really wrong and really ignorant on the issue of gay marriage, and his heavy assistance in the passage of Prop 8 should be strongly criticized, and he ostracized for equivocating gay marriage with pedophilia and incest and supporting state laws that are implicitly discriminatory.

Boy, ain't that the truth. You're right, I think we agree on much of this, only disagreeing on our sense of the urgency required to mitigate the risk caused by CO2. Cheers.

Okay. It's a fresh new day, and I've had my Sunday morning political round table fix (I've grown to enjoy This Week w/George S more than MTP lately, but have pleased with the new tone and pace offered by David Gregory). So, I've read your comments, and think I understand it. The basis seems to be that you don't pass the actual code to the compiler, but instead work with concatenated snippets of various pieces, which when appended to one another, will be read as the proper code statement. More or less correct? So, from a high level view, that makes sense to me. I understand the logic, which helps. Here's where I struggle, though. I don't know Visual Basic, neither the syntax or the commands, nor do I really understand how Access forms tie all of the information together. It's as if I've been taught that an adjective modifies a noun, and that a noun is a person, place, or thing, but when shown either (red or table) I don't recognize it as such. I'm like, "Red?" What's that? Never heard that before." So, I tried to update the RowSource field on my title value (the one I want to autopopulate based on the users selection of course_code in the combobox), but nothing happened to the Title listbox when I made my combobox selection of course code. It just sat there. I also tried to do the append semicolon (& ";") statement you suggested at the end of your post, but the results did not change. So, in essence, I'm back to where I started. Before I opened this thread, the closest approach I had was to set the Course_Code combobox with Bound Column = 2. Then, I changed the ControlSource on my Course_Title box to be the "Code" field (instead of the "Title" field). This worked... It populated the correct title into the Title field based on the code selection in the code combobox. (see attachment) The failure, however, was in the Output Table. By changing the Control Source of my Title field to the Code field, I wound up outputting Title information to the Code field of my Output Table, which also left the Title field in the Output table blank (so, it made the form look correct, but didn't feed the data the way I intended). Like I said in the OP, I know I'm missing something painfully simple, I just don't know what that is. Thanks to each of you who have bothered spending a little time to try pointing me in the right direction. Your contributions are not unappreciated.

One idea would be to visit the staff and students of each of those departments at the schools. You can do this either before applying, after being accepted, or even some combination of both (heck, you could even wait until your sophomore/junior year, time is not the issue here, the visit is). Walk around, look at the facilities, chat with the students, sit with the professors, basically... explore. If you do this, chances are good that (in your gut) you'll know which one feels more "right." Good luck, and welcome to SFN.

It was not my intention to be unfair, so I do apologize for that. I know you're intentions are good, so I should have been more careful. However, the point I take issue with is your attempt to objectively designate the gay marriage issue as less important than getting divided peoples working together, as such a designation (less/more important) is inherently subjective. Further, one could easily argue (and, in fact, I have in many of these threads) that arguing for equality in state regulations and applications thereof is actually MORE important than the less tangible and more abstract goal of coming together ideologically. The former represents an issue of personal liberties and equal application of the laws to minority groups, whereas the other represents an issue of shared progress based on deeper principles. After all, we all find ourselves within at least one minority group during our lives, and we each would demand equal protections and applications of state rights and regulations when we do. That doesn't mean we cannot work in parallel to find consensus and shared interests, nor that these priorities are in any way mutually exclusive, only that some changes require immediacy while others require consistency, two rather different political arenas, indeed.

Well, the Supreme Court disagrees. While I would not normally cite the SCOTUS in a science discussion regarding the harmful and disasterous effects of CO2, this is a politics thread, and I am rebutting a political/policy point you made, so find it extremely relevant. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03scotus.html In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal. Following its discussion of standing, the majority made short work of the agency’s threshold argument that the Clean Air Act simply did not authorize it to regulate heat-trapping gases because carbon dioxide and the other gases were not “air pollutants” within the meaning of the law. “The statutory text forecloses E.P.A.’s reading,” Justice Stevens said, adding that “greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of air pollutant.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency The petitioners were found to have standing, the Clean Air Act does give the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases, and the EPA is required to review its contention that it has discretion in regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions—specifically, its current rationale for not regulating was found to be inadequate, and the agency must articulate a reasonable basis in order to avoid regulation. In addition, the majority report commented that "greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of air pollutant."

Well, there will be some "buyers remorse," in that many people did seem to have artificially high expectations of Obama. In that sense, some people will be let down when he simply can't do it all. Me, I find that he was definitely the BEST choice, and that he is certainly going to do better than those who opposed him would have (it's all relative essentially). However, to the thrust of your point, we tell these ideological scumbags how wrong they are, and how much they're hurting the country all of the time. But, you know what? Logic is wasted on their position, as they construe all disagreements as coming from people who "hate america first" or are "liberals" or whatever other derogatory label they can conceive. They don't listen to reason, they attack it, and it reinforces the bubbles of their worldview.* How do to deal with this, I'm not sure. All I can suggest is that we keep winning over the minds of people with logic and reason, and hopefully soon such idiotic approaches like those of Scarbourgh are marginalized into the realm of the inconsequential. * Like this (the example in the first minute and a half): http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213369&title=halloates-pay-tribute-to-alan

And the CO2? Is that not a pollutant in your approach?

Well, yes. It does exemplify the hypocrisy of the Christian view on this, but more... It defeats the argument that "marriage has been the same for 5,000 years," which is the context in which it was first shared in this discussion. I think it may have been you who said this, or maybe ParanoiA, but the fact is that no, marriage has changed dramatically through the years, and the Christian church itself had gay marriages often just a few short centuries ago. The point being, we can't lie to everyone about reality just to maintain some alignment with a bigoted and misguided worldview, nor should we accept faulty arguments in support of a weak position. That's crazy. "It doesn't impact ME much, so let's just let it work itself out." Sorry, mate. That's crazy. The majority is shifting, and the problem is hugely important to those it impacts. The fact that it doesn't impact you very much directly really matters not. What you said above is just crazy, and baffling really.

TBH, none of it was obvious at all, in fact, most of it went over my head. I need to look at it again in the morning. I just got done doing some more work in my master bathroom, and am tired. The thing is, I'm not really a code person (yet). I had a class in HS about 14 years ago where we learned some Pascal. The then took an intro to SQL 3 day class about a year ago, and that's all I got. I do a lot of stuff in databases for work, but it's almost all put together using the graphic editors (and self taught at that). Anyway, I know I'm capable of figuring out coding syntax and languages where needed, but I'm not even sure where to start with Access. Thanks for the post above. I'll review it again after Meet the Press tomorrow morning to see if i can digest it and put it into practice. Cheers.

Okay, that made the error go away. Now, when I select the dropdown menu on the combo box, nothing else happens. The title field stays blank. EDIT - Never mind. Had to set the Bound column = 1 (it was set to 2 previously). Now, the title field does populate with a title value, but no matter what selection I make in the combo box, it always shows TitleONE. (even if I select Code2 or Code3, it doesn't change to TitleTWO or TitleTHREE, just remains as TitleONE) EDIT2: Okay, so I closed the form, deleted my output table values to start and test from scratch, and now selecting the code value in the combo box doesn't do anything (i.e. The title field remains blank). EDIT3: If I change the Bound column in my Title box to "0," it again shows TitleONE regardless of selection.... EDIT4: Never mind. I closed the form, emptied the contents of the output table, and reopened the form to test again... the Title field isn't populating at all, even with BoundColumn in Title field = 0

Thanks, TDS (also, good seeing you). What's the r in your equation? It looks like mass of the electron times velocity of the election times radius (?.. didn't think electrons had radius) equals plancks constant over two pi. I just don't know enough about it to know how that equation applies to the question at hand.

No, it's not a bad thought at all, but I keep getting an error when I try.

Well, for one... Look up the work of Professor John Boswell, recently deceased chairman of the Yale University history department. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boswell http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html Excerpts from the keynote address made by Prof. Boswell to the Fourth Biennial Dignity International Convention in 1979. http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century). These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John. Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th and/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded. Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded". Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion. Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century. The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667). line[/hr] Looks like you got there before me. Here's one of those translated docs: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/sykeon-adelpho.html Also: http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/homosexuality.html John Boswell (a Yale Historian) also notes that historical gay ceremonies carried out by the church in previous centuries were in the same fashion as heterosexual ones. “For nearly two centuries after Christianity had become the state religion, Christian emperors in Eastern cities not only tolerated but actually taxed gay prostitution. In 7th century Visigoth Spain, a series of six national church councils refused to support the ruler's legislation against homogenital acts. By the 9th century almost every area in Christian Europe had local law codes, including detailed sections on sexual offenses; none outside of Spain forbade homogenital acts. By the High Middle Ages, a gay subculture thrived, as in Greco-Roman times. A body of gay literature was standard discussion material at courses in the medieval universities where clerics were educated. Opposition to homosexuality, as in Augustine and Chrysostom, rested on reasons unacceptable today: "natural-law" arguments based on beliefs about supposed sexual practices among hares, hyenas, and weasels; a philosophical Stoicism that was suspicious of any sexual enjoyment; a sexism that saw a degrading effeminacy in being the receptive partner in sex. All-out Christian opposition to homosexuality arose at a time when medieval society first began to oppress many minority groups: Jews, heretics, the poor, usurers. A campaign to stir up support for the Crusades by vilifying the Muslims with charges of homosexual rape also played a part in Christian Europe's change of attitude toward gay and lesbian sex.” "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" by John Boswell (1980) The author lists the original texts and English translations of a number of religious ceremonies: Office of Same-sex Union, (and similar names), 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th & 16th century translations, Greece Office of Same-sex Union, 11th century Christian church in Greece. The Order for Uniting Two Men, 11-12 century, Old Church Slavonic Office of Same-Gender Union, 12th century Italio-Greek. An Order for the Uniting of Two Men [or Two Women], 14th century Serbian Slavonic Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men, prior to 18th century, Serbian Slavonic. Christianity has always contained a mix of pro- and anti- homosexual elements. Periods of oppression of homosexuals and celebration of love, homosexual or not, have came and went. Finally, same-sex marriage is not only found in early Christianity - it has existed quite freely in other cultures and civilizations. For example a four thousand year old Tomb belonging to gay married couple Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep exists in Saqqara, Egypt.

It also differs whether or not the water is turbulent. Much easier to dive into water that is moving/turbulent than still (due to surface tension issues I presume).

Doesn't a hole get full when filled up?

Yeah, no luck there. Also, when doing this change, I realized that last night I may have been misinterpreting the error message. It was not trying to enclose the TitleONE value into single quotes. The error message was ending a quote which began after the word "expression." Run-time error 3075: Missing ),], or Item in query expression '(((Table1.code)=TitleONE'. Anyway, I'm reminded why I don't use Access. This is ridiculous. I have been playing around some, and realized that I might be better trying to populate a list box instead of a text box. The text box doesn't have a option to change RowSource, whereas the List box does. So, I changed my title field on the form to a list box, and now I'm trying to find a way to get my RowSource code correct. I've entered SELECT Title From Table1 Where Table1.Code = cboCode.Value , where cboCode is the name of my combo box. I've not had luck yet, but sense this is the better approach than text box.

Thanks for adding a new weapon to my arsenal in these arguments. I just confirmed what you've said through a few different methods, and I am happy that this appears very true. In addition to the whole recognition of polygamy and marriage not even being a sacriment until the 1200s, this point shoots the whole "it's been the same for 5000 years" argument directly in the foot.

Indeed. Igosaur, you can find out more by searching for information on the "Bohr model." That was the model which suggested that electrons were like little moons orbiting tiny planets. Interesting intuitively, but not an accurate description. As Tom rightly mentioned, they are more of a "cloud" and better described by probability distributions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbitals The idea that electrons moved in an orbit-like way inside an atom, was first suggested in 1904. From about 1913 to 1926 the electrons were thought to orbit the atomic nucleus much like the planets around the Sun. Explaining the behavior of the electron "orbits" was one of the driving forces behind the development of quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, atomic orbitals are described as wave functions over space, indexed by the n, l, and m quantum numbers of the orbital or by the names as used in electron configurations, as shown on the right. As electrons cannot be described as solid particles (like a planet), a more accurate analogy to the electron would be that of a large and often oddly-shaped atmosphere, the electron, distributed around a relatively tiny planet, which is the atomic nucleus. Because of the difference from classical mechanical orbits, the term "orbit" for electrons in atoms, has been replaced with the term orbital. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model The Bohr model is a primitive model of the hydrogen atom. As a theory, it can be derived as a first-order approximation of the hydrogen atom using the broader and much more accurate quantum mechanics, and thus may be considered to be an obsolete scientific theory. However, because of its simplicity, and its correct results for selected systems (see below for application), the Bohr model is still commonly taught to introduce students to quantum mechanics, before moving on to the more accurate but more complex valence shell atom.

What a nice outlook, Gabe. Good luck to you, mate.