iNow

IMO; Any comment made, making race an issue to influence the electorate is playing the race card.

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

CrazCo - You may be interested in reading articles about the Carrying Capacity of Earth. The wiki is pretty good:

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

The way we're living now, it would take roughly 5-6 Earths to sustain, and yet we continue reproducing. I'm not a mathematician, but soemthing about the equation isn't reassuring.

Here's the last part of an interesting talk with Aubrey Manning (one of the worlds top ethologists) and another well known science guy.

Prop 8 - The Musical

So if I understand this correctly the "squashing" of the Earth, which is due to the rotation of the Earth, is primarily responsible for the tidal bulges we observe?

 

So the effect of the Moon is negligible when it comes to the tides?

No, that's not really what I intended. I think this link explains it better than I could:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/moon_mechanics_0303018.html

If you have a rubber ball, and one side gets pushed out, the rest of the ball will deform. Think of squashing the ball between your hand and the floor. The area around the equator gets expanded, and the area around the poles moves closer to the center.

Similar with earth. It's not so much that "one side is getting closer to the moon," it's that the earth bulges at the center and squashes in from the poles, hence the bulge is seen around the entire planet, not just the moon facing side.

Wow! A fractal hand.

Yeah, my first thought went to Mandelbrot, too.

Very nice.

I would've liked for the Democrats to have a 60 seat majority, but I'm not majorly disappointed that they don't. It's still reassuring that only one Republican needs to break party lines for a cloture vote.

I believe this gives the Republicans a source of leverage. On any votes which are close and right on the edge, that ONE republican will receive promises and gifts and whatever it takes to coerce him/her to the other side. If leveraged correctly, you could have a few smart republicans becoming very powerful through all of this, precisely because they will be so needed.

in general. i was wondering with the world having such a large number of inhabitants would it be most desirable for it to continue to grow or should we try to make a decline

Well, in my opinion, and looking at the data (declining resources like water and food, inceasing pollution and climate change, etc...), we're diving quickly to our own extinction because we're reproducing too much. Either we need to find sources of resources beyond our own planet, or we need to have negative population growth for a while. It won't be pretty, but it will happen whether we want it to or not (nature is a real bee-atch sometimes).

An informative and welcome correction. Thanks, DH.

To whom?

Cool. Alright, well let me elaborate then. The subject of my imagination, in this context, is music. The different areas that contribute are interesting, but is there one that stands out, or contributes the most perhaps?

Then, in addition to the parts bascule referenced, you'd also see higher levels of activation in the auditory cortex:

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

Btw - the thalamus is like a crossroads or a junction through which almost all neural signals travel. "All roads lead to the thalamus."

I was hoping this was restricted to one particular area, one label, but I have a feeling it draws on multiple areas.

Your feeling is the right one. It involves all of the different regions, much like dreaming. Here's the kicker, though... the different regions which are involved depend greatly on the subject of your imagination.

For example, if you are imagining a big math problem, it would be prefrontal cortex. If you were imagining pitching a fast ball during the world series, your motor cortex would be more involved. If you were imagining a painting of clouds, it would be more the occipital cortex.

Then, on top of all THAT, there are the contributions from your more basic reptilian brain regions, the emotional and memory areas, like the hippocampus and amygdala, which change the "taste" or "texture" of those imaginative explorations.

Glider is the best person here to answer such questions, but you'd probably need to be a bit more specific first ("When I imagine X, and how it relates to Y, which brain regions tend to show the most activity on fMRI scans or PET...positronic emission topography... or CAT scans?)

Interesting question, though. Now you've got me thinking about this.

Not sure if it's a sign of deeper problems or not, but long story short... He enjoys the games and the feeling he gets while playing them. If you want him to stop the game playing (or, at least, limit it), you ought to try finding a replacement... Some alternative that gives a similar pleasurable exprerience. Some people do martial arts or other sports for the "good feelings" and endorphin rush that they get out the games.

The trick is to replace it with something else that provides a similar feeling of enjoyment.

Why do I feel like I'm stuck in the middle of a Who's on First skit?

If I read that article correctly, they got off because they never appeared in court, and on other technicalities like alternate jurors being inproperly substituted one day. That's our legal system for you. Guilty until dismissed by procedural nonsense.

A better explanation, Pioneer, is that this follows a similar path as the grandmother effect.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6979/full/428128a.html

There is no need for unfounded analogies. There is an existing explanation that works much better.

Also, there are other aspects of the evolution of homosexuality that you are missing. Evolution is about much more than passing on just your own seed, and you've been reminded of this numerous times before at this site and others.

During an All Hands meeting with several thousand employees across the globe this morning, the senior executive of HR in my company just named me as employee of the quarter!

It's really too bad that the economy is doing so poorly, as this would normally bring some sort of raise.

I guess I'd been holding that in for a while, huh? It came across much more negatively than I intended it. Sorry about that. I had actually planned on PMing you about those exact points just a few days ago, but never got around to it.

Speaking of PMs, that's another thing I think you do well. Sometimes there will be a hot topic or a heated debate, and you'll take the time to send a PM. Usually, it's something simple like, "Hey, I notice things are getting aggressive and emotional over in thread Y. Try to keep it civil and calm before things escalate." I've always really appreciated that, and such a step goes much farther with me personally than "Mr Stompy" ever will. When I see "Mr Stompy" coming, I tend to quickly become "Mr Go F Yourself."

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=445943#post445943

I love slippery slope arguments! Progressives want gay marriage? Next thing you know they'll be sodomizing babies!

Actually, I have noticed your interpretation of law and then applying to an argument. In Massachusetts and Connecticut, gays hold all rights of Heterosexual Marriages today,,,

Well then, this is irreconcilable and inconsistent with the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV, since other states won't recognize those unions presently being permitted in MA and CT. This was already covered in posts #4 and #5, this thread.

No, I don’t have any real objections, maybe a suggestion, though.. I consider you a friend, and have nothing personal against you, but I do think that sometimes you seem to take a Honeymooners (or Homer Simpson choking Bart) approach to moderation... "Why I oughta!!"

More explicitly, you tend often to put in giant red letters "Knock it off," or "Cut it out." It reminds me a lot of the father figure driving cross country with the family in the stationwagon in a 1960s sitcom. He’s getting frustrated that his “children” are acting up in the back seat and he keeps threatening the kids that he's "gonna turn this car around right now" if they don't quit... which, he basically never did.

I appreciate your desire for civility, the need for avoiding personal attacks, and also recognize the inherent difficulty of maintaining decorum in a Politics forum, where people with strong personalities are battling gladiator style on soft concepts and opinions.

With that said, though... Just freakin' moderate and be done with it. If you’re unsure about something, ask for opinions from the other staff, but please, for the love of flying spaghetti monsters, stop with the empty threats, and the condescending tone (“You know better! I won’t have any more of this!”).

If someone does something wrong, then infract them and move on. If someone's logic is faulty, point out where and move on. If they don’t respond to these corrective actions, escalate accordingly and scale your response with problem you seek to ameliorate. Also, be specific. Quote specific sentences by specific posters which distress you. I've seen too often where you'll respond after 3 pages of thread and not quote anything, simply yelling "stop it!" It's like, "Huh? Who? Which part? There's been a lot of things said here..." Just be specific. Quote bits like you did in the OP (but within the thread), and say, "This is not appropriate. It will result in an infraction next time." Botta bing... You're done.

Frankly, the repeated calls for "these types of comments need to stop" do you more harm than good, as it shows that you are somewhat powerless to take more meaningful actions. I don’t want you to read too far into this, though, as I see how much you are trying to provide everyone with an open floor, and that’s truly commendable, and damned hard to accomplish. You want ideas and opinions to be expressed, and for everyone to do so while being respectful and considerate of the membership and readers, and it’s fine line to walk sometimes. Again, these aren’t objections, per se, more suggestions than anything else.

With that said, there’s nothing wrong with criticism of faulty ideas, nor of demonstrating problems in thinking. Also, sometimes it's important to just call a spade a spade, and as long as ones comments are supported and backed up intelligently, it's not inherently a bad thing when members ostracize certain beliefs or worldviews (like racism or jingoism).

We’d all perhaps be better off if people would just grow thicker skins. I want those who disagree with me to tell me what they think, but, in reality, sometimes after their points have been debunked, they really should shut up and comply.

Speaking of which, I’ll step down off the soap box, now. I only commented since one of the five quotes in your OP was directed at me, and three of the others were made by me, and all context was stripped, as they were each made within a single post to a member who was spouting hate speech.

Do you want your opponents to tell you what they think, or do you want them to shut up and comply? Pick one.

How much time do I have to decide? Also, btw, it's a false dichotomy.

I do find it interesting such passion exist, to Gay Rights, when the only rights involved with any meaning are the social acceptance of the lifestyle itself, which is NOT denied.

Well, they are also denied marriage licenses and legal recognition of their union, a legal recognition which is afforded to heterosexual couples. I'm not sure if you missed the fact that this is what we have all been here discussing, but it negates your comments all the same.

IMO; Both sides on this issue are taking an emotional path in expressing their opinions, disregarding the laws our social structure or laws are patterned for.

I don't know if you've noticed this either, but every argument I've made has been precisely about laws and constitutionality.

If you feel this way, you should not bring up interracial marriage, or any other examples.

Okay, that's fair. The only relevant secular reasons for laws against incestuous marriage that I can conceive of are a) mutant babies and b) psychological trauma. It's plausible to mitigate against mutant babies via volutary sterilitiy, but the psychological trauma is much more difficult of an issue to avoid and protect against. Regardless, it's not at all my desire to argue in favor of incestuous marriage. I was simply answering a question posed to me qiuckly so we could keep the thread on track.

If you'll notice, Severian specifically referenced sibling marriage, which is why I answered in the affirmative. However, when you start discussing parent/child or uncle-aunt/niece-nephew pairings, the issue of psychological trauma becomes much more tantamount and presents a much greater potential for harm/injury to at least one of the involved parties.

Since psychological trauma is not an issue in homosexual marriage (unless it's perhaps a forced "shotgun" marriage, which I don't believe is being discussed here), I find the comparison moot.

That's just me, though. I've found a relevant secular reason for prohibiting incestuous marriage (in fact, I've found two, but proposed a way to mitigate the first). I have not found any such relevant secular reason for prohibing homosexual marriages, and I welcome examples.