iNow

Moore raises a good point, though. We can buy all the shares for $3B. Why not do that instead? Seems much smarter, and would allow us more control ta boot.

Dude! Hell's yeah, I'll be watching. It only said "coming soon" in the preview you shared, so I googled. The sucky part is that we have to wait at least another year, but damn, that should be cool.

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2008/12/02/scifi-green-lights-caprica/

Let me paraphrase and anthropomophize. Geese and ducks practice "gay marriage" and the gay couples are given adoptive children to raise.

And they're often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.

You've still made me curious, Mr Skeptic. I am abundantly confident that there are more animals out there who pair bond for life with a same sex partner. Surely the phenomenon extends beyond just geese and ducks, and I want to know which other animals do it (that's part of what caused me to stuble on the wiki listing of gay animals which I shared in a previous post). Good thing I'm not a cat, or my curiousity would surely have killed me by now.

The only group who voted for John McCain in any greater percentages than Obama were older white people. Virtually every other demographic, other races, other income levels, and younger white people included, to a high order of magnitude voted strongly in favor of Obama.

While race played a role, the lack of votes for McCain actually had extraordinarily little to do with race, and no matter how romantic or objective you view this, that is still a fact.

Jacksons suggestion is that Obama would have lost if he were white, and implicit in such a comment is that he only won because he is black. That is so far from the truth (just look closely at the stats, it's quite clear and plain that this assertion falls flat on its face) that he probably heard it on Faux News or Rush and is just regurgitating it here.

Keep in mind on how the system works; Until 2003, sodomy laws existed in pockets throughout all States. This US SC 6-3 DECISION, made all law in all States with regards to sodomy illegal to enforce. Long before this, the potential for 'Same Sex Unions' was becoming an issue. The DOMA, you refer to was passed by Congress..Senate 85-14...House 342-67 and signed by then President Clinton in 1996. It clearly was intended for Federal Purpose and allowed States to make law to design law to their wishes.

Jackson - I think you may want to consider taking some ginko biloba or B12 vitamins or something. I already responded to you regarding DOMA in post #28.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that you referenced could also be struck down by the Establishment Clause, which is why I mentionded

that.

 

There is no relevant secular reason for a law preventing homosexual unions from being equivalent to heterosexual unions in the United States, and no harm is being done to others, so such a law is not in place for reasons of protection or avoidance of harm to our citizens. With that said, the only remaining foundation for such a law is the invocation of morality. Since it is the invocation of morality, it has no place being viewed by due process, and is best analyzed under the Establishment Clause in the first amendment to our constitution.

Also, it doesn't matter how you or I interpret Article IV, what matters is how the SCOTUS interprets it, and the precendent set by them indicates that a marriage recognized in one state must also be recognized by others (much like a drivers license must be transportable in this manner), so essentially your post above is another moot point. Would you like to repeat at this time any other moot points which you've already shared in this thread and had debunked?

[The SCOTUS] dismissed the [baker v. Nelson] case "on the merits." This is:

 

http://law.jrank.org/pages/6005/Decision-on-Merits.html

An ultimate determination rendered by a court in an action that concludes the status of legal rights contested in a controversy and precludes a later lawsuit on the same CAUSE OF ACTION by the parties to the original lawsuit.

 

A decision on the merits is made by the application of SUBSTANTIVE LAW to the essential facts of the case, not solely upon technical or procedural grounds.

 

I'm struggling a bit, as it very much appears to me that they had their minds made up before the case was even tried. Like, "of course two people of the same gender cannot marry, that's what the rules say." That is, of course, my interpretation of the "substantive law" statement.

 

I'll need to keep chewing on this, but I think it's time to work on overturning Baker v. Nelson, as it was decided without trial 37 years ago, and should be revisited.

 

 

Overturning Baker v. Nelson is not out of the realm of possibility, as that is exactly what happened in similar cases such as Lawrence v. Texas when they overturned Bowers v. Hardwick, also in Loving v. Virginia when they overturned Pace v. Alabama, and Brown v. Board of Education when they overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.

It turns out I was quite wrong above. The SCOTUS dismissed without review Baker v. Nelson "for want of a substantial federal question."

Since the case was dismissed, there was no ruling, ergo there is no case to overturn.

This just gets curiouser and curiouser.

This is awesome. The Swedish Museum of Natural History is doing an exhibit called Rainbow Animals.

http://www.nrm.se/en/menu/visitthemuseum/exhibitions/rainbowanimals.6876_en.html

I heard about it reading this:

http://pointlessanecdotes.blogspot.com/2008/12/having-gay-old-time.html

h/t Aardvarchaeology

Not that it really matters, helps with the question put forward in the OP, nor spanks someone for using silly text speak and making a random nonhelpful post, but CrazCo is a she. Again, doesn't matter much in an online world, but since she hasn't come back to let us know the answer she came up with, if she was still having trouble, or if she figured it out, I figured I wasn't harming the thread in any way to clarify.

If you could get enough power from the solar panels to convert the CO2 back into the fossil fuels, then why use the fossil fuels in the first place? It would be easier, and far more efficent, to just use the power directly from the panels.

I think I see the source of the confusion. I'm not talking about efficiency, and I agree that it's much better to just use solar panels as the primary source of power, instead of wasting a bunch by converting it over and over into other forms. However, I'm talking about a potential way to remove the excess carbon from the atmosphere.

CO2 causes warming. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries. We keep putting more CO2 into the atmosphere.

While we convert our society off of fossil fuels, we should work to find ways to pull the excess carbon from the atomosphere, especially since we keeping adding more and more every single day.

Ergo - the idea I shared above about solar powered carbon scrubbers in large concentrations across the face of the earth.

Would it work if it could be manufactured and put in place?

They only tested superoxide, but there are many more free radicals than that. I don't think the free radical theory is dead yet, but no one has considered it as the only cause of aging for ages now.

In case you're interested, I'm pretty sure the below is the University of Texas study on mice referenced by the article:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2007.03.034

Value in this sense is a subjective term, hence quite meaningless for forming any conclusions.

Either way, the answer to your question is 42.

err bignose how did u get that maths expert note after your name?

His contributions at this site repeatedly demonstrated his skill, ability, and competence in the mathematics. As a result of this, the members of the SFN staff chose to place him in a special user group so he could help members more fully, and to assist with managing threads on this topic, such as moving them to other topic areas. It also provides users a quick way to tell "I can trust this answer a bit more" than some of the other tripe people will randomly post.

For anyone curious about such lists, I just found a wiki on the topic. Pretty cool, really:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

But dude, seriously, there's a pretty extensive list there at the link. Anyone so inclined or curious should really check it out.

In addition, here's a list just of mammals displaying homosexual behavior:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

A list just of birds displaying homosexual behavior:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_displaying_homosexual_behavior

...and lists for reptiles, fish, amphibians, insects, and other invertabrates can all be seen in the original link at the top of this post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Hence the point of powering the scrubber with solar. What am I missing, exactly?

"my grandmother, a typical white woman" would cross the street rather than confront a couple black guys or " I don't look like that guy on the dollar bill" are racially toned statements intended to create sympathy from a segment of the electorate, IMO.

 

I'll ask again; Does any one think, Obama would have received the required national press coverage, the attention he did receive or even one primary victory, if he was a white guy from Des Moines, with the exact same history?

In sum, YES, I do.

As pessimistic as I am about the current state of our culture (if I can even legitimately call it that anymore), I still think there are enough people out there who couldn't give two shits about race. He tapped into a deep seated anxiety and resentment in the populace, and awakened the realization that we didn't have to live with it anymore.

NONE of that had to do with the melanin content of his dermis.

Add to this the resumes, credentials and experience of what his ten opponents, which he apparently now has embraced, and the only answer is NO.

Please see above.

Since you seem to have an obsession with open discussion on race, let me repeat; If I were one of those advisor's or the candidate himself, I would have done the same thing.

What makes you think that I am obsessed with an open discussion on race? What relevance does that have to any of the points I've made? How is that supposed to some how make your points any more valid?

I don't really care. You shared an opinion, and it has been shown to be pretty far from reality. You're welcome to that opinion, so don't get me wrong, but it seems a strange position since the facts of the situation argue very heavily against it.

I agree that politicians will do many things to win. I agree that advisors will always try to leverage strengths. The difference between your POV and mine is that you see his race as a primary strength, and I see his message as his primary strength. THAT's what won him the election, IMO.

EDIT: Anyway, this all has squat to do with the factors playing into the passage of Prop 8. Did anyone watch the musical?

Thoughts?

I never realized Phil Donahue had so much hair.

Kidding aside, I think MFs approach ignores the "heft" and multinational ability to leverage markets and governments in their favor that many players in the market have today, almost to a naive degree. He is trying to convince everyone that his "spherical cow" will actually produce the best milk. I don't disagree, but I'm not going to change anything until someone hands me a glass of milk produced by that idealized entity... that spherical cow.

Not sure that makes sense. I just see the idea of free market capitalism as an ideal state. In it's ideal form, it makes a lot of sense. However, in practice, being pragmatic about this, it's never realized in its idealized state so is doomed to fail at adequately addressing our issues.

Interestingly, though, MF seems to argue a very similar point (about idealized perceptions) at the end regarding "where are you going to find these angels who are going to organize society for us." He's saying basically the same thing I did about the market, but looking in from the other direction. I think we're both presenting valid points, and need to meet somewhere in the middle.

AFAIK, they have not yet found a way to protect against the damage done when the tissues and cells freeze. Ice crystals act like little spears and rupture/peirce the surroundings. This causes damage which is detrimental to your desire to wake them up later.

That's just ONE problem with the whole idea. There are a host of others which require solutions, as well.

One thing I gleaned from Gliders post is that the thalamus has more to do with actual sensory input (physically being touched or actually receiving sound in the ear canal), so I'm led to believe that (in the case of dreams and imagination) the thalamus is not really a factor (or, at least not a major one).

Also, the auditory cortex is in the temporal lobe, along with the secondary visual areas, so would VERY MUCH be involved. It is tied closely to the areas in that same region of the brain (temporal lobe) which is involved in memory. So, the temporal lobe seems to be the biggest player for these types of experiences, so long as you remain aware of the memory implications and impact from the hippocampus.

So, maybe you can alter the title to "Live at the Brodmann" (see wiki link in primary auditory cortex for clarification).

However, what I'm not sure about is whether or not it's the primary auditory cortex which is more important here, or the secondary/teritiary (see Gliders comments on primary visual cortex, and how most processing goes on in secondary and tertiary areas).

From the wiki on Primary Auditory Cortex link shared above:

This Faux News clip seems to support the point you're making:

And the other side presented by Keith Olbermann (which gives the clips of Obama which seem to present the context you referenced):

i suspect a membrane separator would be better for this as hydrogen leaks through pretty much everything. also, cheaper.

Slightly off topic, and not likely to be cheaper, but I read this article the other day discussing new ways to contain and wrap liquids and gases.

http://www.aip.org/press_release/nanoballoon.html

The actual journal article:

http://link.aip.org/link/?APPLAB/93/193107/1

One reason for humans not evolving is that...

...is that we are, in fact, evolving.

A recent study suggests that free radicals are not the cause of ageing. Rather spoils the heavy isotope idea.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081201105711.htm

Indeed. Very well timed article. Thanks for sharing it, Lance.

What precise, clear, and testable definition of the word soul you are using in your post, vlntn? I don't believe that word is very common in scientific literature.

Roger Ebert finally got around to a review of this stellar masterpiece of a film. Let's just say that his take was both sincere and rather telling.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html

You're quite right about being tasteful. His speech on race was both inspired and inspiring.

However, IIRC, it was the opponents endless cycling of his preacher, Jeremiah Wright, to inspire the "hey, he's different" outgroup mentality, and the snarky use of his middle name, Barack Hussein Obama, or that he was an arugala eating gun hating uppity elitist which prompted his response.

While he did it with class, and while his desire NOT to talk about it in some sense was a way of bringing it to the conversational table by all of us spectators, I think the chronology of the election shows clearly that he was responding to, not generating the issue. If my assertion is correct, this would mean the suggestion that he was "playing the race card" falls flat on its face, and ignores the actions of those who truly were involved in such a wedge driving card game among our populace.

Okay, so we have carbon scrubbers on our submarines and on the space shuttle and in the space station. Why don't we scale up production of these bad boys a few orders of magnitude, power them with solar panels, and plop them in large density across the planet?

It's just an idea, and I'm sure there are problems with it, but what are they? Identifying a problem is the first step in solving it...