Jump to content

iNow

Senior Members
  • Posts

    27342
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    250

Everything posted by iNow

  1. I wonder if it's worth the investment since global warming is going to cover those islands completely with water in a few years...
  2. When I was in high school, I really wanted to get involved with updating our virtual reality technology to move us closer to a holodeck... Ah... That never panned out. Oh well.
  3. In addition to better parasite control, I want to reinforce your cooling point. Part of the reason we lost our fur coat was because we ran so much. The body developed more sweat pores, and these liquid producing glands replaced many of the areas on our body previously covered by hair follicles. The cooling result from the loss of hair was less related to "insulation" issues, and more related to "replacement with a better cooling system." ...namely, sweat. I saw it on the History Channels special (called "Evolve") on the evolution of "skin" recently.
  4. From Meet the Press: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4u373oHLz8 I, for one, should like to think the world would be a better place with IBM Selective Typewriters. I saw the entire program at home, but h/t here for the YouTube clip.
  5. Now you're talking! Well done. I totally screwed up question 2, and forgot the original question. My bad. Here's my speculation. Longer lived plants are likely to reproduce more slowly than shorter lived plants, therefore, shorter lived plants will be easier to see adapting to climatic changes. So, you have a forest of trees that live 200 years each. Those trees, once established, will be there for a very long time, regardless what happens to the climate (although, many might die). You also have a flower living below those trees that only lives one month. We're much more likely to see the effect of climate on the flower since it has to respond so much more quickly to change or become extinct. The tree, however, might be able to ride it out until conditions are favorable again. I'm just guessing here, though. I'd also question how confident you are that "as a rule" plants that live longer won't be seen changing their locations as quickly. The above was all speculation based on the assumption that #2 is true (which it very well may not be).
  6. Fact Checking. A short video by CNN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tc7BF_Fd7I Here's a post which summarizes reports from Newsweek, the Wall Street Journal, and TPM, along with a video: http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2008/09/palin_comparison_ix_the_bridge.php The outright lying of the McCain [campaign] is shameless and brazen, so we shouldn't be surprised [that] they defended themselves with still more lies.
  7. iNow

    Bigfoot?

    No, not every piece of evidence. Only those which prove your assertions true, and which are valid and repeatable.
  8. Okay. That provides some context. Thanks. I'll offer you my preliminary thoughts, but encourage you to keep looking on your own. 1) What is being done to stop this? I'm not sure, nor if anything really can be done. As part of nature, these plants will go where they survive best. Since we are changing the climate, they are surviving better in different areas, and often surviving worse in areas where they previously lived. The only answer I can offer is that we are trying to curb the impact humans are having on climate change, but when you look at how slow this is and how many people are still perpetuating denialist lies, it's tough to be optimistic. 2) Why do plants that live longer tend to move slower up? Be cautious with how you phrase this. You make it sound as if the plants are putting on a pair of boots, grabbing a backpack, and trekking up the mountain in search of new opportunities. What's really happening is that plants lay their seeds, and those seeds either grow new plants or they do not. With the changing climate, some seeds just don't germinate like they used to, and they have to find a way to sprout in different areas. Some get carried by wind, some are eaten and pooped out by animals, there are many ways... but whatever happens, some seeds will be more likely to grow into full plants than others, and location has a lot to do with this. If the conditions are better at higher altitudes, then those plants which got their seeds to higher altitudes will (after time) out reproduce those which did not. 3) Why don't the plants just adapt to the temperature change and stay where they are? Well, they ultimately have no choice. Plants are rooted to the ground. Therefore, the ones that can't get their seeds to new locations will eventually parish. Those that can get their seeds to new locations will start new colonies. Just recall that plants are limited in many ways. Those that have characteristics conducive to survival will survive. Those that have characteristics which used to be good, but aren't good in new environmental conditions will die. Basically, nature is going to make the choice for them. The ones that cannot adapt to the new conditions will not reproduce. The ones that can adapt will reproduce, and eventually, you'll be left with plants suited to their current environment. I'm not sure if that made any sense. Can you please summarize for me in your own words what you think I just said?
  9. iNow

    Bigfoot?

    Yes. Also, we didn't need a movie or article to allow us to take gorillas seriously since we've been living alongside them for hundreds of thousands of years.
  10. Okay. Is there an article somewhere suggesting that plants are moving to higher altitudes? I've not heard that claim, so would welcome more information.
  11. Oh, grow up. We're not going to do your work for you, but will gladly help. Do you not even know where to begin? What class is this for? What have you been discussing? Why might your teacher be asking this? What have you done already? What do YOU think the answer might be? Oh, and look up the word "ingrate" while you're at it.
  12. iNow

    Bigfoot?

    Let us be absolutely clear here. An eye witness report that someone saw a horse is FAR different than an eyewitness report that someone saw a unicorn. We have truck loads of evidence that there are things called "gorillas" that actually exist, interact with the environment, and reproduce. We have zero evidence that there is this thing called bigfoot, at least nothing which goes beyond wish thinking and soft interpretation. Therefore, claiming to see a gorilla is acceptable and claiming to see bigfoot is not. Also, my girlfried has a book that says there is this kid named Harry Potter who can do magic and fly on brooms. Just because it's in a book (hmm... come to think of it, there's also a movie!) doesn't make it a fact based in reality. This is trivial stuff. I'm not understanding why you continue trying to force a square peg through a round hole.
  13. . http://www.cnbc.com//id/26563570 ...most of what the federal government has done is meant to ease the popping of the housing bubble, which it created in the first place, thanks to artificially low interest rates, government-supported mortgage lenders and liberal lending requirements. This past weekend's government takeover of mortage giants Fannie and Freddie was just the latest example of that. Still, many on Wall Street are skeptical that the bailout will do much to resolve the housing and credit crisis. “The best thing to do is to let housing prices reach their natural level as soon as possible, so people know what's real and what's not,” Mitchell says. That reminds me a lot of what Alan Greenspan told Charlie Rose earlier this year. We need to just let it run its course. The more we do to "soften" things, the longer and more drawn out those things will become. The ONLY way we are going to get through this is to let everything reach rock bottom, essentially hitting the reset button, and crawling forward again. The more we keep intervening, the more uncertainty there is, and the less likely people will be to pump money into the critically needed areas. If, however, they know that bottom has been reached, they'll feel more confident and we'll see things move up. Will it hurt if we do nothing? Yep. Will people be outraged if we do nothing? Yep. However, sometimes medicine that helps us most tastes the worst.
  14. For like the 27th time... Why are you trying to make this thread about me? Also, saying I "support" atheism is like saying I support "non-astrology." Since so many people know that astrology is completely bunk, there's no need to have a lable like "non-astrologer." The atheist label allows believers to dismiss critical examinations of their evidence free faith and instead circumvent the need to support these childish beliefs by saying, "oh, you're just an atheist... I know your type... you just haven't found god yet." Then, all challenges and criticism go unaddressed, and we continue chasing our tails. However, SFN is not a place for discussing religion, and I find it funny how you continue to attempt to steer the conversation away from substance and instead toward personal posts toward me. Whether you think I'm a bully or not is quite irrelevant. You have yet to contribute any legitimate on topic content to this thread.
  15. Fannie and Freddie are private. No impact to tax payers. Once the government bailout is complete, THEN it will impact tax payers. But, there I go, reading what people ACTUALLY said and judging them on it. The difference with your analogy to Ron Paul is that your example with him were basic abstract principles, whereas with Palin it was a real world issue that she completely misframed.
  16. I can't speak for Bascule, but it has pointed out that previous operational attempts at resolving the issue did not work, and also points out how powerful the Fannie and Freddie lobbies have been for the past decade. Among other things... I think I'm missing where you're going with this, Pangloss. The fact is that we're in rough shape, and trying to put lipstick on this proverbial pig helps nobody. It's not partisan or bush-bashing to speak about what is happening here authentically.
  17. WTF are you talking about, pioneer? None of that is accurate, and you seem to be just making it up as you go. Here's an idea. Try sticking to evidence instead of speculation. If you do, you'll be wrong far less often.
  18. Main Entry: criminal Function: noun Date: circa 1626 1 : one who has committed a crime and been caught by the authorities, but who could not afford a better lawyer
  19. I don't recall doing that. Can you provide an example where I stated I was objective? What I HAVE been doing is bringing up issues which concern me, and pointing out how every attempt at argument people have made (here and in the media) against those issues have focussed on attempts to ridicule, and have lacked content. Instead of responding with substantive rebuttals, the responses have been laden with personal comments and logical fallacies. I see a clear difference. I also agree with you that this thread has degenerated badly, and should like be put to sleep for a while. We can always start a new one the next time she screws up or lies or whatever else. I take your point. It's well supported, too. Perhaps that is a sign of my own bias. I see her as underqualified, mistaken on important issues, and too political and partisan to serve our country well. Yet, people are now more for McCain than ever because of his choice to put her on the ticket. That scares the shit out of me, and causes me to question that electorate we have in this country on a very fundamental level. Oh well. It really is too bad that the under-educated out breed the highly educated like 3:1. line[/hr] http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/09/09/palin_fundamentalist/ John McCain announced that he was running for president to confront the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century, "radical Islamic extremism," contrasting it with "stability, tolerance and democracy." But the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick. I think that some people may connect with this video, and may find it inspiring, but I see it as an example of the level of batshit crazy the rest of us who follow our existence using reason, rationality, and critical thinking are here dealing with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K_1Eit0pxM H/T
  20. What spin? Toward the end of last week, the US stock market declined precipitously. Within the space of a few days, we learned that unemployment is way up, more than nine percent of U.S. mortgages were delinquent or in foreclosure, the FDIC closed the 11th bank so far this year (two were closed in 2007, none in 2006 or 2005), and retail sales are down; on the international scene, yen carry trades are collapsing, and the People’s Bank of China (China's central bank) may have to turn to the Chinese Treasury for money. The above was just the opening paragraph of the following: http://scienceblogs.com/corpuscallosum/2008/09/hows_that_economy_working_for.php How bad is this going to be? Impossible to tell, but here's a clue: From the normally measured Paul Jackson: This is no longer the worst mortgage crisis since the Great Depression; this is the worst mortgage crisis, period. From Michael Shedlock: In theory this is a bottomless sinkhole, especially in light of the fact that systemic risk will be increasing over the next 16 months (and probably beyond that). From Ben Bitroff: Tomorrow morning equities are gonna fly, especially financials... for how long, I can't even begin to predict. But one thing is for certain. The crash is going to be spectacular. According to this article, the bailout of Fannie and Freddie is just a band-aid: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=arc1_32y8rcg&refer=home ... but maybe that's really one of those stories that are "viewing this as a positive sign."
  21. A couple of morons have threatened to kill physicists over this: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/07/brian-cox-calls-em-like-he-sees-em/ Thing is, as I’ve noted before, a handful of people with little or no understanding of the science involved claim the LHC might create a black hole or a quantum strangelet which will consume the Earth. These people are wrong. They are, however, scaring lots of other people because the press is eager to make controversy where none exists. A couple of crackpots make a ridiculous claim, it involves esoteric physics, a newspaper or online site laps it up… and thousands of people becomes terrified from something that physically cannot happen. <...> This is coming to a head now that LHC is about to rev up. In that article, it says that some scientists are getting death threats. Death threats! To people who are trying to understand the Universe! These scientists are like you, and they’re like me: they want understand things, to better our knowledge, to increase the human awareness of the entire nature of reality. And some people want to kill them. H/T - Evolving Thoughts http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/09/05/scilhc105.xml Scientists get death threats over Large Hadron Collider How goddamned dumb have humans become?
  22. It probably won't remain here for long, but if you want to watch the movie in its entirety, it's at Google Video right now: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4577453851005069832&hl=en
  23. Hi throng, They are not. Inertia is the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion, whereas c is a label indicating the speed of light, which cannot be overcome (or even fully reached) by any object with mass. C is just what we call a specific speed, just like red is what we call a specific nanometer range in the electromagnetic spectrum. I'm sure your base of knowledge will both expand and become more solid as you continue to read and participate here. Just FYI. Welcome to everyone who has joined.
  24. I never countered the point you made that poll numbers have improved for the Republican ticket since the Palin choice, so I think we're both in agreement there. As you can see by looking back, I challenged your comment that "the only thing that's happened" was an improvement in polls. Again, you said: She has done nothing but improve McCain's poll numbers. ...and I proved that assertion false by showing other things which have also occurred in addition to poll number improvement. So, why again are you trying to make this about me and avoiding substantive issues? line[/hr] Now, back to showing why Palin is incompetent and a horrendous choice for such a high office, she seems to have screwed up her talking points this past weekend. Her lack of knowledge on the economy is readily apparent based on this: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/a-confusing-com.html Saturday in Colorado Springs, Colo., Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said, "The fact is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help." "Too expensive to the taxpayers?" They're private entities. Though they're private entities ultimately backed up by the taxpayers. But the only way Fannie and Freddie are "too expensive to the taxpayers" is if you're talking about the bailout announced over the weekend. Which, it appears, she was not. So -- according to this aide, speaking on background -- Palin meant they are CURRENTLY too expensive. So, am I liberal for pointing out that she's already failing on a national stage and that her knowledge is barely adequate to make it through a small round of questions with the press? Golly... Even if I am, how does that change anything about her noticeably absent ability to lead our nation?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.