iNow

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.

Interesting clarification, but probably too far beyond what Novice1954 was really driving at. Novice - Have you read this? It should pretty much cover most of your questions from a high level, and allow you to drill-down deeper if you have new questions as a result of reading it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Indeed, but I also want to assume that the "exploitation" of which you speak is already a subset of (inherent in my use of the word) "symbiosis." It's like exploitation-lite or some soft version of it, but it's still there. Obviously, I kill animals to eat, and manage earth to grow food, and kill trees to build houses, and use animal skins to stay warm, etc., but I'm also not fishing with a 3 mile net and pulling in resources indiscriminately. The same applies here. I'm not against using coal... but my caveat is that it must be done within reason. Our consumption and use surpassed the reasonable level (plausibly) in the 1940s, and I have zero qualms arguing to abandon fossil fuel technology altogether (unless significant advances are put in place first). I really don't. I here I find a fundamental fault in your assumptions. We're really good at it, and getting better every day. Not only is average performance and efficiency improving, but concentrating technology is improving gains by significant amounts. We've surpassed 25% efficiency in many applications, which is huge (as normal numbers have hovered around 6-12%). I think this is a bit of a misrepresentation of everyones position here (at least mine). I am totally open to advancement, I'm also trying to be realistic that said advancement hasn't come for the centuries we've been using it, and that the investment would be better spent somewhere proven to be clean, sustainable, and available as a source regardless of location (like solar and wind). Again, I disagree. It would cost more to research and retool coal burning plants than to scale up manufacturing of solar and wind tech. We can use existing computer/chip manufacturing approaches to crank out HUGE numbers of solar cells/panels in very short time, while continually driving down cost per watt. Again, though, coal is not clean, and the technology is not there to make it so (as of right now). However, (as of right now) we do have viable alternatives that can extinguish immediately upon implementation all of the problems caused by coal. I know where I'm placing my bets and which boat I'm tying my dingy to. I think I covered this above, but I disagree strongly with the basic assumption you've made here. I'm open to reading articles and whatever technology you may be privy to, studies which indicate our "closeness" to clean coal, and what that even means. Until then, I'm working from the knowledge I do have, which is that solar is quick, clean, easy, and scalable for moderate cost, and it eliminates the need for centralized infrastructure and transport while also being good for the economy. line[/hr] All you need to do is look beyond your own borders to see exactly this happening. While there are countless examples, I encourage you to look right now mainly to Germany, who with the help of government assistance, subsidies, and intelligent taxation have become a shining example of just how feasible and simple solar/wind implementation can be, eliminating the need for multiple coal fired plants. I'd be really curious to see some numbers in support of these claims. You seem to be making it up. I imagine you have some logical basis for asserting what you did, but it runs counter to everything I've read in the industry these past several years. Clarification is needed. You seem to be arguing more against storage/battery technology than solar/wind energy generation itself (but, I was really challenging your reliability comments more than anything else).

Indeed. I was thankful the man did something to earn my respect before leaving office, and absolutely will honor those efforts in Africa. My problem is hardly with honoring Bush and entirely with honoring him for the wrong reasons.

Correct. They are people engaged in the practice of the scientific method. Crowning them with the label "scientist" is not only premature, but serves no useful purpose. I think the only time you see the word scientist is in a news article written by a person who knows little if anything about science or those who practice it.

I wonder if there's a way that you could reflect the mirror image on to a blank screen and apply the magnifying glass to the screen instead. Basically, make the mirror more like a projector somehow... Just speculating. It's an interesting question you've asked.

That's no problem. The challenge for me is that I sometimes answer questions as a six year old would answer.

Most people "in the know" readily concede that IQ tests are very limited. They are not really used by anyone who knows their arse from their elbow (except to measure very specific things, none of which are indicators of total/overall intelligence), so I'm somewhat confused as to what all the fuss is about.

It would seem that challenges are initiated by the campaigns themselves, however, I imagine some sort of voting oversight group also exists. This page links to some good data with actual examples of challenges: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/minnesota-challenged-ballot-examples.html The vast majority of challenges on both sides are frivolous, often utterly so. Perhaps 1 in 10 challenges -- maybe slightly more than that -- actually required a judgment call of some kind. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/16/minnesota-officials-eye-challenged-senate-ballots/ Ballots have been challenged — and rejected — for a number of reasons, many because of ovals not properly filled in, some because of identifying marks — initials or signatures — made by voters on their ballots, and others for stray markings, particularly in the areas with the candidates' names.

Have you seen this special? It's split into six chapters. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/program-3114.html

People can't get credit and so aren't buying cars. We've just spent almost eighteen billion dollars to watch them fail in another few months. I'll be wrong if special provisions were put in place to ensure retooling and entry into new business sectors, but I remain pessimistic as of this post. Also, what of all of the small business owners? They account for something like 70% of the workforce in our country, and they're failing left and right, yet they're not getting bailouts. Anyone who tries to tell you this wasn't influenced by the lobbies and congress critters in the pocket of special interests is a frakking liar.

I assume no such thing. I state as fact that it's not currently possible, so I cannot with any reasonable justification include that proposed option in my toolbox of potential solutions. "If" is a mighty powerful word, but not quite as powerful as "when."

We can, but you should recall that the primary reason that we use coal is not because it's the best option, but because it's the most cost effective. For the cost of a few bucket cranes and trucks and conveyer belts, we power entire cities. Each day I grow more frustrated with people who fail to see that economics matter not if existence and health are taken off the proverbial table. [/soap boxey rant] The "environmental hazards" to which you alluded ARE the problem. Again, it's like you're asking why I'm concerned about cigarette smoking, asking why we don't find ways to cure cancer instead so we can keep doing as we please. Well... okay, yes. Let's try to find a way to cure cancer, but that's really hard. It might not be a bad idea to stop smoking also while we search for that cure. Also, I think you might be willing to concede that you have a different view of the world than I do. I interpret your approach to be one of "the world is there for us to exploit." That's understandable, and also common, but you should try to recall that I don't see it the same way (also, I concede that I may not be offering a fair view of your actual perspective). In my reality, the world is something which supports my existence, and I should think that acting on intentions that are anything but symbiotic with said "world" is short-sighted, misguided, and wrong. Have you heard of black lung? Guys who dig this crap up for us literally die from an inability to breathe so we can turn the lights on to our christmas trees whenever we want. The canaries in the "coal mine" keep dying, yet we keep replicating the parameters of those mines in our atmosphere. Let's get the hell out of the mines. I don't know what else to say.

For All Those Who Get a Little Verklempt Around the Holidays... ...You're not alone. Thanks to each of you for being. It's really amazing the power inherent in the sense of community. This is just a statement of thanks, and appreciation. It's often humbling to read the contributions here, but always educational and usually enriching. Happy Holidays, everyone... regardless of your personal mythology or secularity.

Sweet tip! I like that style of thinking. Tackling the problem one line at a time is... well, thanks for showing me how to do that. So, I paused my mouse over cboCode.Value and it said: cboCode.Value = "TitleONE" ...which (I think) is good since I selected Code1 (but, I may be misinterpreting this, and perhaps it should actually be showing "cboCode.Value = "Code1"???). Okay. The next line (Set rs = ...) didn't throw an error, but when I hit F8 again, I got a new error at the next line (While Not rs.EOF)... (and, if I interpret the comments above from you and TD correctly, this new error actally refers to the "Set rs =" statement (since it is listed immediately before where the error presented), but I'm not willing to wager any money on that assumption). The error which appeared seems to have come from the line: While Not rs.EOF , but may also have come from the line (based on my comments just now): Set rs = db.OpenRecordset(strSQL) . It was, however, a new error. Here's what the error says: [color="Red"]Run-time error 3075: Missing ),], or Item in query expression '(((Table1.code)=TitleONE'.[/color] So, I played around a bit, and I wasn't able to determine where to put a closed parentheses ) . Also, I noticed that it's populating cboCode.Value as "TitleONE" in this statement: WHERE (((Table1.code)=" & cboCode.Value , but that it looks like it's missing a single apostrophe before the value: [color="Red"]Run-time error 3075: Missing ),], or Item in query expression '(((Table1.code)=TitleONE'.[/color] (((Table1.code)=[color="Blue"][why no single apostrophe here?][/color]TitleONE'

Since when did our government become so broken that our executive could do something which itself was explicity rejected by congress? Almost $18b. Do founding principles mean absolutely nothing? Norm - Still mad that we allowed our athletes to attend the summer Olympics in Beijing?

Yeah, I hadn't considered that point. Good insight. It may only take tiny bits to effect great change.

Thx, Phi.

I think the issue is the word "explore." I just think we should stop using coal as a power source. Explore it all you want. Find things to do with it. Find ways to make it so it doesn't choke us all when we burn it. That's dandy. But, we need to stop using it to power our civilization. Not only does stripping it from the earth cause problems, but so does burning it. Not only will we run out of it someday, but we might have killed ourselves using it before we figure out how to do so in a better manner. What do you mean by explore? Does my above comment align us at all on this, or drive us further apart? This is spoken like someone who has never had to make a proposal to venture capitalists. People will NOT invest in something (on the scale needed for massive infrastructure change like this) no matter how good of an idea it is, if there is little to no guarantee that that status quo won't be challenged. Having dudes in their garage inventing is great, but if they can't do proof of concept, scale up manufacturing, and get past the litany of lawyers out there protecting corporate interests, well.. then they're screwed. The idea is dead in the water, and we continue on with business as usual... no matter HOW good of an idea it was. Oh no, those "dirty liberals." I wonder where you got your talking points. Your premise fails on two fronts. First, energy is regulated by the government, so they need to sign off on whatever comes down the pipe. Second, oil and coal interests have huge and powerful lobbies, with representatives in their pockets. They've been writing legislation for years which makes it more and more difficult for competition to find an in. Basically, you argue that the government can't help advance technology, yet that's exactly what they've done for decades in the coal and oil industries. It's one of those "Hello, pot? Meet kettle." ... moments. The premise is flawed, and is hypocritical ta boot. I concede, my stance is much more idealistic than practical on this. I don't really disagree with your point, but that's one monster sized "IF" statement you've made.

Cool. I look forward to seeing what others think in that new thread. Also, would it be possible for you to summarize your argument (again)? It's been a tough week for me (read: I'm really damned exhausted), and I did not intend to dismiss anything. I think I just missed the point you were trying to make, and welcome a helping hand finding where we happen to agree or not. Basically, if you'd be so kind, I'd like another chance to address specific arguments, but need you to go "bullet-point" with them.

I really don't see anything obvious about this, and (in fact) completely disagree. I think these pounded podiums have caused a certain natural selection to occur. Groups were either pushed to accept or reject the idea of gay marriage based on the strength and passion of the arguments. ALL indicators I've seen suggest that those in support of same sex marriage are winning a lop-sided battle against those who oppose it. There are not a lot of people "migrating" to the "against gay marriage" side based on argument. If they are against gay marriage, (I speculate that) 99% of the time it's because of conditioning earlier in life and is an emergent property of being taught to be against gay marriage (whether by parents, pastors, or otherwise)... basically, you start out against gay marriage. You don't change your mind after previously supporting it. People aren't "against gay marriage" because it's an argument with any merit, and that's the point. Natural selection on this issue is being explicitly driven by the pounded podium. No more sitting on the fence. It's time to choose a side and move forward, people! With all of that said, I definitely agreed with the tone and suggestions in your final paragraph, and think that you and I and Mokele and also ParanoiA all agree that there should be no such restriction on gays (or same sex couples) being allowed to marry. We just approach that goal on slightly different paths and following our own compasses. Back on topic though, nobody is saying Warren should not be allowed to speak. We're just reacting to the decision to invite him.

I think that some warming clearly has helped mediate any cooling over the past millenium. It's an interesting piece. In the present, however, the key is balance. The amount and speed of our warming, really regardless if the natural cycle would be one of cooling, is happening much too quickly (as you yourself even seem to concede in previous posts, so really, I'm just reinforcing that point, not arguing it). I must admit, though, I did get a chuckle out of the fact that you would open a post suggesting "boon" when much of this is speculation based on models. Why not open a thread about how these models can't be trusted either (due to unknown variables)? But gathering physical evidence, backed by powerful simulations on the world's most advanced computer climate models, is reshaping that view and lending strong support to the radical idea that human-induced climate change began not 200 years ago, but thousands of years ago with the onset of large-scale agriculture in Asia and extensive deforestation in Europe. What's more, according to the same computer simulations, the cumulative effect of thousands of years of human influence on climate is preventing the world from entering a new glacial age, altering a clockwork rhythm of periodic cooling of the planet that extends back more than a million years. Using three different climate models and removing the amount of greenhouse gases humans have injected into the atmosphere during the past 5,000 to 8,000 years, Vavrus and Kutzbach observed more permanent snow and ice cover in regions of Canada, Siberia, Greenland and the Rocky Mountains, all known to be seed regions for glaciers from previous ice ages. Vavrus notes: "With every feedback we've included, it seems to support the hypothesis (of a forestalled ice age) even more."

I don't trust anyone in this regard. Can you please share with us a few specific examples (preferably quotes or links to specific posts) which support your assertion that people in this community who support their arguments are not respected unless they have a special user title, or that people with special user titles are only respected because of it? Anything with substance? Bueller? Bueller? Ferris... Bueller? Yes, many have earned a certain amount of respect, but, you know what? If ANYONE ever asked them to support a claim, they would. THAT'S the difference.

I'm not going to bother clicking your links, as you didn't even include a summary or snippet, but I do find it interesting that so many of them are CNN links considering CNN has terminated it's Science & Technology section.