iNow

Letterman opens well despite the cancellation, and I think was motivated a bit by it. Watch below. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E But something's going on here... something doesn't smell right. This is not the way a tested hero behaves. You know, somebody's putting something in his Metamucil.

It may be time for you to reconsider your beliefs and check them for accuracy. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS275&q=genetic%20components%20of%20alcoholism&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

That's not true at all, zebbygoss. There are people who work in these fields who have studied these things who can offer their own insights and experiences. Sometimes hearing of the first hand experiences of others can impact our own decisons tremendously. Blackhole - There are many things you can do. Since you are so interested in so many things, you have several options. I didn't decide what I wanted to study until I got through my 3rd year in college, and even then, I didn't know what I wanted to do when done. Sometimes, life "bounces" us into the right path, so don't fret. Maybe some other members here who work in biology or chemistry can offer more solid examples of jobs, and talk about their experiences. Good luck.

HydrogenBond Pioneer has demonstrated time and again that he severely misunderstands evolution, and that he has little to no desire to correct those misunderstandings.

Well, some of the comments in this thread seemed to suggest otherwise, hence our posts.

Nothing. Anti-particles don't "go back in time." They can, however, be described perfectly well using math exactly the same "regular" particles if you reverse the time direction.

I still dismiss this a complete political grandstanding and it annoys the living crap out of me. Lots of Senators going to be there at 9PM on Friday night trying to tie this down, are they? Too many games from John McCain, not enough clarity and leadership. How appallingly obvious it is that he's trying to score points, not solve issues.

I think Sayo's point was that people are too quick to assume diseases of the mind are not diseases (as with diseases in the rest of the body). People say "it's all in your head" and think they're done with it. This is an outdated and inaccurate way of thinking. Diseases of the mind are very real, indeed, and I don't quite care whether or not others agree, because I know I'm correct on this.

Probably best for you to avoid commenting in a fashion that seems like you're answering a question, and spend more time asking them then, eh?

I'll bet you he still somehow will manage to find the time for David Letterman tonight though.

Yes. Too many people not able to laugh at issues and who try to disregard everything as partisan. Also, not enough people making or listening to speeches like this done September 23 from Obama on the bailout:

Bill Clinton explained it fairly well in a way that is accessible to most last night here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=185197&title=bill-clinton-pt.-1

I propose his colon.

And computer memory is not a valid representation for human neural connections in the brain, so... erm... you can again be ignored, pioneer.

Why is this still being allowed in the biology forum?

There's no reason to assume that, blazarwolf. My larger point was that an understanding of Heisenberg uncertainty would require reading about it, and not knowing how to spell Heisenberg correctly would imply that you hadn't read much about it at all. My point was not to suggest that proper spelling is the most important thing ever (although, it is important to one who wishes to learn and share ideas with others). My point was that misspelling the name of someone so important to present day knowledge implies (not only a lack of respect, but) a lack of understanding.

An amazing piece in Newsweek by Sam Harris, very well worth the few minutes to read it (although, I imagine many of you will have already seen it). Enjoy. http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080/page/1 Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated.

Laptop. I'm always in different places for meetings and events, sometimes at the local uni too, and it'd be a real challenge hauling a desktop and monitor everywhere with me.

Ah. That's what I get for trying to help you look less stupid. Please, do carry on.

There are genetic risk factors which significantly increase ones predisposition toward alcoholism, yes.

Reading is a good start. Whether in a library with books or online. Unless you mean sex. In that case, use a condom. Kidding aside, your question is incredibly non-specific. Can you clarify what you want to do so the members here can offer you their personal advise on the matter?

If you're going to refer to the uncertainty principle and attempt to sound like you understand it, you might wish to start spelling his name correctly. It's Heisenberg, first name Werner. http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p01.htm The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa. Studying the papers of Dirac and Jordan, while in frequent correspondence with Wolfgang Pauli, Heisenberg discovered a problem in the way one could measure basic physical variables appearing in the equations. His analysis showed that uncertainties, or imprecisions, always turned up if one tried to measure the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. (Similar uncertainties occurred when measuring the energy and the time variables of the particle simultaneously.) These uncertainties or imprecisions in the measurements were not the fault of the experimenter, said Heisenberg, they were inherent in quantum mechanics. Heisenberg presented his discovery and its consequences in a 14-page letter to Pauli in February 1927. The letter evolved into a published paper in which Heisenberg presented to the world for the first time what became known as the uncertainty principle.

This is wrong in so many ways. I ask you, Lance. Why do some people drink and not become alcoholic, yet others drink and do? Why do some people metabolise alcohol faster and more efficiently and hence experience fewer of its effects? There is nothing "purely moral" about the variables which impact alcoholism. It's an interesting thread idea you have here, but is completely bankrupt from the start since you begin with so many inaccuracies, including with your other examples.

It appears McCain is not the only one out of touch. Last week was a challenge for him. It reinforced the accusations he's been facing for months about lack of economic understanding, and goes further by scaring people that he's trying too hard to make a show rather than to make things right (i.e. talking about firing Cox).

And the iNow Phantom Pagination Syndrome has reappeared. I just noticed it here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2941&page=22