iNow

Yep. Troll.

I used to work for these guys, and I learned quite quickly that I could trust their numbers: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp Lots of simple to follow information, and nice references at the end.

You could always create a subforum within EACH of the parent forums for Homework. Physics Homework Help Math Homework Help Biology Homework Help Chemistry Homework Help ...where each fits snugly within the parent forum. Whatever is decided, many people are going to ask questions and get help. We're just trying to make things as straight forward and simple as possible for noobs to find where to ask and for residents to offer answers. Most people are submitting their very first post as a homework question, so trying to figure out where to put it can already be somewhat daunting with all of the existing categories and sub-categories. Maybe keep the Homework parent forum and create topics within as subforums (per the bullet list above). I dunno. I like the way the boards here work, as well as the caliber of the membership (which reminds me frequently just how much in this world I don't yet know or understand), so I don't have many suggestions since I'm happy. That's my only even prime number of cents...

And I think THAT's where it was brilliant. Truly little to no writing involved. Just repetition of Palins own words, but still quite funny.

Thank you, my good man. I should have just stopped posting and started ignoring the kid when I said I would. I appreciate you stepping in and showing it correctly on my behalf.

They already have implemented such an idea: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/solar_hybrid_ca.php And, there's always the more full versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_vehicle That's not really true, at all. The general consensus is that they need to be placed anywhere there is a need for power and where the sun shines. While solar may not provide the ONLY source, it is not simply being disregarded as useless for that reason. I've never heard of such a thing. The sun shines in Alaska. Do you have any more information so I can research the phenomenon you're trying to represent here? Oh... and this thread is nothing like the solar panels on wind mills thread. That thread was kinda stupid, despite the OPs heart being in the right place.

Dak, as far as I can tell, the logic of it is pretty straight forward. The particulates in smoke increase cancer risk. Having a smoker in near proximity increases concentration of particulates in the air relative to air w/o a smoker. Ergo, while being near casual smoke does not lead to the same effect magnitude as first person smoking, it will still increase cancer risk relative to air without smoke. When someone is smoking a cigarette near me, I just light up a cigar and that pretty well drowns out their pittly little loosely packed paper tobacco sticks.

Not that your statement is anywhere near appropriate to this thread nor on topic, nor does it support any of your assertions or claims, nor does it negate any of the points which I have made... It's worth pointing out that it's ALSO wrong: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS275&q=equations+for+volcanic+eruption

Yep. I thought so. TROLL.

Now that you've been introduced to non-sequitur, I think it's time you said hello to Mr. Strawman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

I want to introduce you to something called a non-sequitur: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) It's like you're saying that because bananas are yellow it's 10 degress cooler in Vermont than Oregon.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Never mind, kid. I'm done with you. EDIT: But not before this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure the radiation of the Sun at the Earth has an energy flux density of 1,370 W/m2, so the radiation pressure is 4.6 µPa (absorbed) Gravity at the sun: 274.1 m/s2

I suppose that's possible, but you should still prove it. Where's the math? On the surface, or within the sun... yes, radiative pressure is balanced with (but generally stronger than) gravity (hydrostatic equilibrium IIRC). However, as you move away from the sun by even a tiny amount, the pressure from that radiation is greatly diminished. The earth is not a solar sail, but a massive body which would pull the sun inward as well as the sun pulling on it. (3rd law)

No, it would not. Your analogy does not support your assertion. The only reason the piston is forced to move in an internal combustion engine is because the explosive pressure from ignition is contained by the cylinder, resulting in compression on the piston head. However, in space, the radiative pressure of our sun is not contained, but is instead free to dissipate outward in all directions. Your comment would only apply if the sun and earth were contained inside of some closed system like a sealed tube, which they are not. My point stands. Gravity would overcome any radiative pressure, and flawed analogies and metaphors cannot negate that.

Nonsense. Gravity would overcome any radiative pressure. LHC - The oceans would boil long before the sun ever came close to touching the Earth.

Try here: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/ I did a search on "Satellite images of earth" to answer your question.

I just don't know what the best way is. I think Paulson's plan fails because it doesn't address the housing issues. Sure, it would help things in the short-term, but it would all come back and bite us in the ass again in a few years since the root cause is being ignored. Investors won't be willing to place their money into the arena until they feel confident we've already hit bottom. By putting forth a bailout, we are simply displacing the point (pushing into the future the time) where we ultimately bottom out (I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today). I'm slowly becoming more and more convinced that we need to let the correction keep going without flooding the market with money and dropping the value of our currency to 20 cents on the dollar. If we flood the market now, we'll simply have the same problems in a few more years. Let it correct. It will be pretty bad, but not as bad as if we keep using bubble gum and tape to hold it together. If some action is taken, let's fix the causes, not the symptoms. Regulation in and of itself is not a bad thing if done properly. Microcorrections here and there, oversight and guidance, etc... That's good to have, as a free market economy we are not. So, if they put a plan together, let's involve the geniuses with MBAs from Harvard and who are known and respected for their understanding on Wall Street. Let's get them together to hammer out a plan which takes a long view and incorporates knowledge from multiple arenas. I'm tired of them trying to force a plan down our throats which focusses on the symptoms, and Paulson's plan is included in that set of proposals which I above deemed as misguided and short sighted.

I can't say whether this helps or hurts my case, but it appears Barney Frank agrees with my sentiment above: For those who don't like the youtube: h/t

You're bad, Phi. I thought she was cute, too, but I think the lab coat may have been biasing my perceptions.

You've been told at least three times by me directly and several times by numerous others that this IS NOT TRUE. Simply repeating it adds no validity to your assertion, pioneer. I plead with you to never again post on the subject of evolution. You truly don't get it, despite all of our best efforts to help you improve your understanding. </me> Notes to self that Pioneer won't heed the request, will continue spouting inaccurate nonsense, and will never once supply references in support of his posts.

IIRC, it's something also about how "nothing would be possible without it," like mass or us or other things. I agree with Klaynos. The term adds much unecessary obfuscation to already hard to understand work.

What if I painted pretty rainbows on the blades? Would that help? Yeah. It was one of those "off the cuff" ideas I'd had and just didn't think it through. As I said to Sisyphus and big314, I agree that it makes tons more sense to have greater surface area and just put them on the ground around it. We just need to keep focussed on efficiency and greater energy generation per square meter overall, and creativity is good.

I'm very frequently wrong, friend. I admit it when I am. I've done so repeatedly on these boards. I pride myself on my academic integrity, and I'm sure others here will support my assertion about said integrity. I am very thankful that you've put me on your ignore list. Enjoy. EDIT: Sorry, Dak. Cross posted.

That's the beauty of having our text saved and being able to review it in its entirety. There's no need for misrepresentations, Pete. From the original thread: Post #12, first mention, and it was from you: Then, in post #21: Then, you were very "prickly" ("Gee, you're so smart"), and things just got worse between us. How much longer do you plan on continuing this tantrum? Your entire argument is that I offended your delicate sensibilities. Fatwah envy, much?

I don't disagree. My minor was in Education, and I work in corporate training. I'm all about learning, and how powerful an impact it has. But, who gets to define "better?" Isn't that sort of the problem right now (at least in the States), that "better" to some peopel is actually in the opposite direction from a focus on merit and accurate representations of reality?