iNow

They would probably give them Prozac so they don't get depressed about getting beaten up. While I appreciate your point, and am pretty sure we agree, it's important to also recognize that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. Responsible parenting sometimes includes the exertion of ones physical dominance. However, far too many parents cross into that (subjective area I will call the) extreme zone where the hitting is not responsible and is instead more of an expression of personal frustration and feelings of failure as a parent. That's not something we should support, so don't get me wrong, even though I find most arguments for blanket bans to be ridiculous. line[/hr] We need to be careful about the definition. In the animal kingdom, normal reproduction often resembles what we consider rape. Different thread topic, maybe. The counter point to my question which I'd considered before asking it is sharks. The male literally bites the female around the neck, spins her face down into the sediment on the sea floor, then inserts his penis as she struggles against him. Sharks were the first animals to evolve a penis and to have internal fertilization, btw. I'm somewhat disturbed just imagining what will appear in the search results.

Yeah, I know (and agree), but wanted to close the door on that so he couldn't use it in his rebuttal. Now, TheAM - Please do let us all know if you think insulin has zero impact on non-diabetic animals. If that's the case, I'd like you to volunteer yourself for an injection.

Since I did edit my post, I'm not sure which link you're referring to as "the last one." Was it this? http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/nanoantennas-solar-arrays-that-002905.php The graph came from BP - British Petroleum. Here's a link: http://www.bp.com/popupimage.do?img_path=liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/frontiers/STAGING/local_assets/images/fr19solar_parity570x417.jpg%20&alt_tag=Graphic%20about%20grid%20parity,%20when%20the%20cost%20of%20solar%20energy%20equals%20that%20of%20grid%20electricity As for the validity, you will see by looking more closely that the cost has remained relatively constant across decadal time scales according to that representation, remaining roughly within a 10¢ cost window. I saw it for the first time reading from this link: http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9019305&contentId=7035199 I say again. There's much more at stake than cold economics at this point. Not really, not if you include impact to the environment in your benefits and impact of burning oil and coal in your costs. As for your question on First Solar, I'm honestly not sure. They are but one company among the thousands getting into this game.

I think this quote really sums up the whole issue quite nicely. You are looking backward, I am looking forward (at least on this particular issue). What exactly could I offer up that would satisfy you on this? Shall I look into my crystal ball and pull out market numbers split by geographic region? Yes, yes... here it is... the magic eight ball proves my point that downward trends will continue throughout many parts of Europe, Asia, and the US. Also, it has confirmed that Paris Hilton and Britney Spears have nothing to do with our election of president. You know that I cannot produce numbers for the future, so what I will do instead is show you trends from the recent past to support my contention that price decreases are abundantly probable in the near term. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/charting-a-path-to-low-cost-solar-1128.html The solar industry can potentially reduce costs 40 percent over the next five years as the silicon shortage ends, according to Graham Stevens, an associate director at Navigant Consulting. <...> The company plans to make cells from 100 percent UMG silicon, which Johnson said is three orders of magnitude less pure than polysilicon, and is aiming for efficiencies of 16 percent to 17 percent. <...> Thin-film solar is another technology with the potential to reduce costs. First Solar, for example, reached costs of $1.10 per watt in the fourth quarter. http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUST20585820080622 The measures are expected to help cut the cost of a solar power system, which now sells for about 2.3 million yen ($21,440), to 1.1 million yen in three to five years, it added. http://www.solarplaza.com/event/thethinfilmfuture/Thin-film_solar_cells_heading_for__1_per_Wp.html Hansen showed a number of graphs that indicated a gradually declining trend in terms of production costs. In the first quarter of 2006, for example, a panel cost $1.60 per Wp; in the first quarter, the price fell to $ 1.29, after which the price continued to fall with a few ups and downs to $ 1.18 per Wp in the first quarter of this year. By 2012, Hansen anticipates having saved a further 50 to 55 % of the module costs and almost another 60 % relating to matters such as the inverter, the mechanical and electrical installation, and overheads. Moreover, he referred to the approach once taken by automobile manufacturer Ford: ‘in 1914, the average time taken by the customary manufacturing process was 728 minutes. Ford reduced that to 93 minutes,’ says Hansen. ‘In the same way, First Solar’s module has been consistently standardized and cost-effectively optimized by means of a frameless glass-glass laminate and standard dimensions of 600 by 1200 mm. The fully automated manufacturing process has shortened the manufacturing process from 24 hours to less than 3, making lower investment necessary.’ http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9019305&contentId=7035199 In the USA, parity with the electricity grid at peak charging rates has already been achieved in northern California and Hawaii. 'Hawaii imports all of its energy, which means that it costs around 18-20 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity for home owners. Because of the ample sunshine in Hawaii, the cost of electricity from the sun is also around 20 cents per kilowatt hour,' says Posbic. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS227491+17-Apr-2008+BW20080417 Product sales were $18.3 million for the first quarter of 2008, compared to $16.9 million for the fourth quarter of 2007 and $12.6 million in the first quarter of 2007. http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/nanoantennas-solar-arrays-that-002905.php A collaboration of physicists, scientists and businesses have teamed up to create cheap and highly effective solar cells on a nanoscopic scale. Spearheaded by the Idaho National Laboratory, this team is onto a fresh way of producing solar panels that can continue to absorb energy even after the sun has set. The technology, not only efficient at nearly 80%, will also be cheap to manufacture, at estimated pennies a yard. http://www.energista.org/node/476 Photon Consulting, based in Germany, is projecting that electricity from leading (mostly silicon) photovoltaic (PV) crystalline cells will cost around 10¢/kWh - almost equal to the average residential grid price of 9.8¢/kWh. Many sunny states already exceed the 9.8¢ average: California - 14.48 ¢/kWh, Florida- 11.21 ¢/kWh, Texas- 11.54 ¢/kWh and Nevada - 11.22 ¢/kWh. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/new-energy-finance-predicts-43-solar-silicon-price-drop-1288.html U.K.-based research firm New Energy Finance said Monday it expects the price of solar-grade silicon to drop as much as 43 percent next year. <...> According to the report released Monday, wafers are expected to retain their value in 2009 as the supply of wafers eases more slowly than the silicon supply, and then to drop by 41 percent in the next five years, reaching prices below $6 per wafer, or $1.62 per watt, beginning in 2011. http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/reports-solarUSA2008.php Installed solar PV prices are projected to decline from an average $5.50-$7.00 peak watt (15-32 cents kWh) today to $3.02-$3.82 peak watt (8-18 cents kWh) in 2015 to $1.43-$1.82 peak watt (4-8 cents kWh) by 2025 Solar power offers a number of advantages over conventional energy sources. Among them, the ability to deliver energy at or near the point of use, zero fuel costs, minimal maintenance requirements and zero carbon-based source emissions. The investment to arrive at 10% solar in the U.S. is not small, reaching $450 billion to $560 billion between now and 2025, an average of $26 billion to $33 billion per year. However, given utilities' existing capital costs such an investment is not prohibitive. To put the investment in perspective: Utilities spent an estimated $70 billion on new power plants and transmission and distribution systems in 2007 alone.

Why hasn't this thread been locked yet?

I don't know if I'll ever grow out of finding such immature interpretations taken so completely out of context so very funny.

The funny thing is that he doesn't know what my job is (I only spoke of the work at my company). Anyway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWp69FUoiuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydOPBL5iO2Y

Looking back, the dogs in the study I referenced were not diabetic. However, the point I was making remains the same. The discovery of insulin WAS successfully tested on diabetic dogs, which means that the points being expressed by TheAM remain false. http://www.discoveryofinsulin.com/Home.htm Working at a University of Toronto laboratory in the very hot summer of 1921 Fred Banting and Charles Best were able to make a pancreatic extract which had anti diabetic characteristics. They were successful in testing their extract on diabetic dogs. Within months Professor J. J. R. MacLeod, who provided the lab space and general scientific direction to Banting and Best, put his entire research team to work on the production and purification of insulin. J.B. Collip joined the team and with his technical expertise the four discoverers were able to purify insulin for use on diabetic patients. The first tests were conducted on Leonard Thompson early in 1922. These were a spectacular success. Word of this spread quickly around the world giving immediate hope to many diabetic persons who were near death. A frenzied quest for insulin followed. Some patients in a diabetic coma made miraculous recoveries. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dm22in.html By August they had the first conclusive results: when they gave the material extracted from the islets of Langerhans (called "insulin," from the Latin for "island") to diabetic dogs, their abnormally high blood sugars were lowered.

Well, he's been receiving credible threats for over a year now, and has had secret service protection as a result. This does appear to be real, but not exactly the best representation of where we're trying to take this nation and our planet.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4609445.ece Nice.

I find this ironic. Isn't that exactly what McCain is doing as pertains to his attempts to extinguish the anxieties of the public (relying on obfuscation and distraction)? Public: Gas prices are too high! I can't feed my family! My electricity is about to be shut off! I'm going to default on my mortage! JM: That's why I advocate drilling now. We need to become independent and supply our own oil. Public: Oh. Phew. It sure sounds like drilling will help. Rest of us: WTF? That's not going to do anything for like 20 years. Also, there's only enough oil to last about 3 or 4 months. Why aren't we doing something more lasting, something more immediate, something more worth our effort and energy? "We need to drill Now!" He's using the anxieties about present energy costs to trick people into legislation which will have little to no impact on them.

A great post on this issue today over at Pure Pedantry: http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2008/08/more_on_the_legal_drinking_age.php I talked last week about the pros and cons of lowering the drinking age back to 18. One of the cons that I had assumed was that lowering the drinking age would increase the number of traffic fatalities in the 18-20 cohort. A study from NBER disputes this argument. <more at link>

What color is an invisible elephant?

While he and I often disagree on matters of politics, I have to agree completely with Pangloss on this. Bombus, your points are not supportable, and appear to be completely made up opinions. Opinions are fine, but you cannot come here and offer them as if they were facts.

As you've probably seen, the McCain campaign has released an ad trying to sway Hillary voters to his side. However, Hillary has responded (good for her, too!) http://voices.washingtonpost.com/livecoverage/ Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton issued a call for unity as the Democrats prepared to kick off their national convention this evening with a full slate of speakers who will sell Sen. Barack Obama to a national primetime audience. In her first appearance this week, Clinton, the runner-up to Obama in a protracted, hard fought presidential primary, addressed the New York delegation at a breakfast this morning. But while supporters waved signs declaring "Hillary Made History," Clinton's focus was on the future. "We were not all on the same side as Democrats, but we are now," she said. "We are united and we are together and we are determined." Clinton is expected to release her delegates to Obama on Wednesday, a symbolic gesture that reduces prospects of major disruptions when the roll is called to nominate the Illinois senator. <...> Speaking to reporters by conference call this morning, Obama campaign officials angrily decried press coverage of discontent between the Obama and Clinton camps, reiterating a joint statement released last night by Clinton aide Maggie Williams and Obama adviser David Axelrod that disputed reports of friction. Obama adviser Anita Dunn said Clinton campaign aides have been "wonderful partners" in convention planning. She said talk of discontent is coming from "people on the periphery," not "people that matter." She also dismissed a new attack ad from John McCain featuring a Clinton delegate from Wisconsin as a "video press release" that would air no more than three or four times before the next ad is released. "It's a video stunt to promote a story line which simply isn't true," she said. (Watch Clinton's reaction to the ad.) The ad features Wisconsin delegate Debra Bartoshevich declaring herself "a proud Hillary Clinton Democrat" who for the first time is supporting a Republican, McCain. "A lot of Democrats will vote McCain," she says. "It's OK, really." Clinton repudiated the ad in her appearance before the New York delegation. "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I do not approve that message," she quipped.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=304028 That one link among the thousands which exist completely destroys your point. TheAM - I love animals. I am a HUGE supporter of animal rights, and I don't want them to suffer with nearly every fiber of my being. However, even I cannot sign on to your approach here which is laden with falsehoods and logical fallacies. You will never achieve the goal you seek by lying to people and misrepresenting the truth.

Or it could be some wacky religious custom. It's really hard to say with any degree of certainty why one culture dresses one way and a different culture another way. Do you have a specific set of examples in mind? This is all still very high level and abstract at this point.

So when they tested insulin on dogs last century that didn't inform them of anything? Give me a break.

What happens to the information they obtain? How is it ultimately used, and how is it protected from others?

It really depends on the fabric type and color. We discussed a very similar question here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32498

Your post seems to be one big strawman about what lucaspa was actually saying. And, how can you say that "animal tests are completely uninformative?" You just ruined all credibility with that closing comment.

That's what I love about the values on which our nations legal system was founded. Guilty until thoroughly investigated and proven innocent. Erm... wait. That's not it at all.

Same can be done with a balloon.

Won't would be a better word choice for you. I've seen how you respond to well reasoned posts rebutting your own, and I honestly don't feel like wasting my time with you... You're too consistent in your approach for me to hold much hope of having a mature dialog with you.

Trolls distract topics by arguing irrelevancies and posting irrelevancies of their own, keeping posts focussed on them and the rebuttal of their nonsensical assertions. What does your post have to do with the subject of the thread?