iNow

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/ The series, which will focus on the the Earthlike planet of Caprica as two rival families deal with, among other topical issues, the broader implications of their society’s emerging artificial intelligence technology sector, is scheduled to debut in 2010. “Caprica” will star Eric Stoltz, Esai Morales, Paula Malcomson and Polly Walker and will be set 50 years prior to “Battlestar”’s attack on human civilization by the Cylons.

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.

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. 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? line[/hr] 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 Rainbow Animals – homosexuality in the animal world One sometimes hears arguments against human homosexuality on the grounds that it does not occur in nature among other animals. But is that really the case? What is truly natural? Rainbow Animals is the first exhibition in the world to address those questions within the framework of a fascinating new area of biological study. The exhibition includes a selection of more than 1500 different species for which homosexual behaviour has been documented. With the help of photos, model figures, texts, and animals from the museum collections, visitors will receive fascinating insights into a field of study that has never previously been the subject of such a scientific exhibition. They will encounter swans, dolphins, giraffes and other animals among which homosexual behaviour is common. I heard about it reading this: http://pointlessanecdotes.blogspot.com/2008/12/having-gay-old-time.html Our main target was the exhibition “Rainbow Animals” (yup, that's the original, “Swedish”, name of the exhibition) on homosexuality in non-human animals. They had a couple of (plastic) dolphin pairs in quite explicit positions, but generally the exhibits were just random stuffed animals and we had to contend ourselves with reading about their lascivious natures. h/t Aardvarchaeology I am impressed by the gay dolphins' invention of nasal intercourse. To pull that off, one human would have to be hugely endowed in the nose department and the other very petite indeed elsewhere. I wonder what happens if you sneeze? In the title of his entry, Kai reminds us of the Flintstones, who of course had a gay old time. Now, the bit that I've been wondering about is "they go down in history". On whom?

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.

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?

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 The early observations on the rate-of-living theory by Max Rubner and the report by Gershman that oxygen free radicals exist in vivo culminated in the seminal proposal in the 1950s by Denham Harman that reactive oxygen species are a cause of aging (free radical theory of aging). The goal of this review is to analyze recent findings relevant in evaluating Harman’s theory using experimental results as grouped by model organisms (i.e., invertebrate models and mice). In this regard, we have focused primarily on recent work involving genetic manipulations. Because the free radical theory of aging is not the only theorem proposed to explain the mechanism(s) involved in aging at the molecular level, we also discuss how this theory is related to other areas of research in biogerontology, specifically, telomere/cell senescence, genomic instability, and the mitochondrial hypothesis of aging. We also discuss where we think the free radical theory is headed. It is now possible to give at least a partial answer to the question whether oxidative stress determines life span as Harman posed so long ago. Based on studies to date, we argue that a tentative case for oxidative stress as a life-span determinant can be made in Drosophila melanogaster. Studies in mice argue for a role of oxidative stress in age-related disease, especially cancer; however, with regard to aging per se, the data either do not support or remain inconclusive on whether oxidative stress determines life span.

Value in this sense is a subjective term, hence quite meaningless for forming any conclusions. Either way, the answer to your question is 42.

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 This list includes animals (birds, mammals, insects, fish, etc.) for which there is documented evidence of homosexual or transgender behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting, as noted in researcher and author Bruce Bagemihl's 1999 book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Bagemihl writes that the presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not 'officially' observed on a large scale until the 1990s due to possible observer bias caused by social attitudes towards LGBT people making the homosexual theme taboo. Bagemihl devotes three chapters; Two Hundred Years at Looking at Homosexual Wildlife, Explaining (Away) Animal Homosexuality and Not For Breeding Only in his 1999 book Biological Exuberance to the "documentation of systematic prejudices" where he notes "the present ignorance of biology lies precisely in its single-minded attempt to find reproductive (or other) "explanations" for homosexuality, transgender, and non-procreative and alternative heterosexualities. Petter Bøckman, academic adviser for the Against Nature? exhibit states: "[M]any researchers have described homosexuality as something altogether different from sex. They must realise that animals can have sex with who they will, when they will and without consideration to a researcher's ethical principles". Homosexual behavior is widespread amongst social birds and mammals, particularly the sea mammals and the primates. "No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis." 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?

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. Please see above. 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?

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: The secondary auditory cortex has been indicated in the processing of “harmonic, melodic and rhythmic patterns.” The tertiary auditory cortex supposedly integrates everything into the overall experience of music.

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):

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 Airtight containers are not always so airtight. As any child will discover the day after a birthday party, even a tightly tied helium balloon will leak its gas out over the course of many hours. Now scientists have come up with a supremely efficient barrier that lets nothing in or out. As described in a recent issue of the journal Applied Physics Letters, this new wrapping material is made of graphene, a natural carbon fabric that is only a single-atomic-layer thick. The actual journal article: http://link.aip.org/link/?APPLAB/93/193107/1 We have performed a first-principles density functional theory investigation of the penetration of helium atoms through a graphene monolayer with defects. The relaxation of the graphene layer caused by the incoming helium atoms does not have a strong influence on the height of the energy barriers for penetration. For defective graphene layers, the penetration barriers decrease exponentially with the size of the defects but they are still sufficiently high that very large defects are needed to make the graphene sheet permeable for small atoms and molecules. This makes graphene a very promising material for the construction of nanocages and nanomembranes.

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

Indeed. Very well timed article. Thanks for sharing it, Lance. In 1956, Denham Harman proposed the theory that aging is caused by an accumulation of molecular damage caused by "oxidative stress", the action of reactive forms of oxygen, such as superoxide, on cells. This theory has dominated the field of aging research for over fifty years. But now, a study published online today in the journal Genes & Development suggests that this theory is probably incorrect and that superoxide is not a major cause of aging. "The fact is that we don't understand much about the fundamental mechanisms of aging," says Dr David Gems from UCL. "The free radical theory of aging has filled a knowledge vacuum for over fifty years now, but it just doesn't stand up to the evidence." Dr Gems and colleagues at the Institute of Healthy aging studied the action of key genes involved in removing superoxide from the bodies of the nematode worm C. elegans, a commonly-used model for research into aging. By manipulating these genes, they were able to control the worm's ability to "mop up" surplus superoxide and limit potential damage caused by oxidation. Contrary to the result predicted by the free radical theory of aging, the researchers found that the lifespan of the worm was relatively unaffected by its ability to tackle the surplus superoxide. The findings, combined with similar recent findings from the University of Texas using mice, imply that this theory is incorrect.

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 That is simply one revealing fragment. This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pu$$y-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion. And there is worse, much worse. Toward the end of the film, we find that Stein actually did want to title it "From Darwin to Hitler." <more at the link>

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...

I presume you either didn't read or didn't comprehend the post made in response to you by Sisyphus. Obama was explicity trying to PREVENT race from being an issue, asking the electorate to judge him on his abilities and character, not simply on the melanin content of his dermal layer. Your interpretation seems to me very far removed from the reality of the situation. Just because the McCain campaign and Faux News accused him of doing this doesn't mean that he actually was. If you think it does, then I've got a bridge I want to sell ya. It might help if you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_card