iNow

Don't worry, MedGen... That's just Pioneer. You can safely ignore most of his posts.

What an excellent point. I hadn't considered that. Phi - Nice job on the response above. Clear and broad all at the same time.

You're right. We should be discussing his religion instead! Stupid america.

That's cool. I appreciate your point. I was more thinking that they ARE involved year round doing different things, but you tend to only HEAR about it as a non-involved person separate from their community around election time since that's when they ramp up their efforts the most. It's not like they sit around for 3 and a half years doing other things and then go, "Oh crap! It's time for another election. We need to get up off the couch." It's just that those are the times they are most heavily marketing and when volunteers get more involved. Just like a company... you don't run full manufacturing when demand is low... you keep doing the necessary things and try new approaches, and then when demand goes up you ramp up staff levels and output... Again, though... I totally agree with your point about people being more aware, more attuned to the process, and the need for real engagement with the populace instead of some sugar coated "I pull a lever once every four years and don't care one ioata about it at other times" approach. Well, they ARE, in fact, called "Rock the Vote," so of course one should presume that elections are sort of their thing, don'tcha think? I mean, they're not called "Rock the Wake up and Go to Work" or "Rock the it's time to feed myself again." <sorry, couldn't resist>

I think it depends on your source of electricity. Since you are using cost as your normalizing unit in these measurements, the answer depends completely on how much your electricity costs. Also, you need to differentiate between consumer cost and production cost (or, add them together). This would apply whether using electricity from coal (cost to dig, transport, process, transmit to consumer), wind (development, implementation, infrastructure enhancement, transmission), solar (materials, factory setup, transport, install, etc.)... Not likely the answer you wanted, and I'm sorry for that, but it really depends on what "costs" are in your area and also how far down the rabbits hole you want to account for costs (where is it appropriate to begin and end the calculation... do you start at the electric company and what they charge to the consumer, or do you start at the point where the source of the energy must be mined, or where you send people to find available mines, or where you develop the mine finding technology, or where you see fish coming out of the ocean for the first time in evolutionary history ).

I'm curious what leads you to believe that this is the case, and that it's not a year round effort.

Doesn't the video to which I linked above essentially show your point here to be wrong?

Joshuam, Out of curiosity, have you read through the following thread? http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30787 If not, it's worth a look.

Since you brought up "Rock the Vote," I think it's important to note that they are, at least, trying to lift people out of their ignorance and apathy as opposed to manipulating that ignorance and apathy to sway votes toward some specific candidate. They are drumming up interest, fanning the flames of a grassroots level passion and energy, and are bringing new people to the suffrage table. I find that to be vastly better than further pulling the wool over the eyes of the sheep and drumming up archaic and discriminatory fears and anxieties to "trick" them into some predetermined action or selection. Your other points, however, all make quite a lot of sense and are unfortunately very true.

I didn't want to open a new thread to share this, and this particular thread has been more or less dormant so it seemed as good a place as any... but... THIS is cool! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFVwo8u6SmM It's a 30 second time-lapse movie of a coronal mass ejection spanking against a comet and ripping off much of tail in the process. A friend of mine shared it elsewhere, and I'm piggy backing on his bad ass-ossity.

I gave a guy at work (either last week or earlier this week, can't remember which) a real verbal lashing about this. He was running around, all excited like a kid on christmas, about how they'd finally found bigfoot. It pains me sometimes to see people buy into this garbage. His work is far separated from me, and he does supply and inventory stuff, but man... I've got a bridge I want to sell you!

Yes. No. Encyclopedias (and dictionaries) should practically never be used as references in papers, and this applies well beyond just a discussion about wiki.

Wrong thread, WFU. Please take it over here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31281

Interesting special on Charlie Rose the other night where he visited GM and interviewed Bob Lutz about the Chevy Volt. I enjoyed it, you might too. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5331337021910564036&ei=2_OtSMepEJOGwgP5-4SJCQ&q=charlie+rose+bob+lutz

Is he qualified, and is he the best candidate to do the job?

That doesn't appear to be a fair assessment of Bascule's actual position. I believe you are correct that it is the way it's been manipulated and used to play the populace like violins which has caused reactions like his, but I don't believe his reaction is accurately described as not wanting "to respect any significance to 9/11." With me, I find myself wondering why we should pretend to be something we're not. We do attack ads all other days of the year. Wouldn't a better approach be to not do them at all, instead of this ridiculously vacuous sentiment of just "avoiding them on 9/11" out of respect? How about we show ourselves some respect and be mature enough to see what such approaches are doing to us as a nation and a culture.

The following site describes it far better than I can: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BinomialTheorem.html

You guys may have a point about the maturity growth between 18 and 21. My own experience was quite different from my peers at the time due some some incredibly challenging life experiences before being 21.

Bee - Not on topic, and I could have PM'd it to you (but then others wouldn't get to see), but if you haven't seen it already, you'd likely enjoy this talk since it branches into Weinberg's ideas here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7415898632278016197&ei=VNSsSM3-EYTYwgOgnIAr&q=dawkins+weinberg (the guy on the bottom right of the opening picture was my Evolutionary Psychology teacher )

I feel more edjamacated already.

Because the maturity levels at 12 and the maturity levels at 16 and the maturity levels at 18 are all very different. However, the difference in maturity between 18 and 21 is miniscule. I don't really care about the age thing, myself. When I have kids, I'll let my 12 year old swig off the beer if he wants. At least he'll be doing so under my supervision and guidance.

What exactly is the benefit for having the legal age at 21 supposed to be? I've only read studies showing a legal age of 21 making matters worse. Where are the studies showing it helps? Fact: The university presidents have real world, first hand experience with the issues of and damages from binge drinking. Fact: They are seeking a way to help their students be healthier and more focussed on school. Fact: The existing legal age is not a limit at all, and creates a need to hide, and for secrecy, and also the coolness factor of forbidden fruits. Fact: One of the reasons people binge is because they cannot access it whenever they want, so they are trying to maximize the return when alcohol is available. What's the benefit of fighting for an age of 21 again? It sounds to me like religiots trying to push their morals on to the rest of us via the legal system.

A great piece today at the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/19/AR2008081902396.html?referrer=emailarticle For the past several days, since mega-pastor Rick Warren interviewed Barack Obama and John McCain at his Saddleback Church, most political debate has focused on who won. Was it the nuanced, thoughtful Obama, who may have convinced a few more skeptics that he isn't a Muslim? Or was it the direct, confident McCain, who breezes through town-hall-style meetings the way Obama sinks three-pointers from the back court? The candidates' usual supporters felt validated in their choices. McCain convinced and comforted with characteristic certitude those who are most at ease with certitude; Obama convinced and comforted with his characteristic intellectual ambivalence those who are most at ease with ambivalence. The winner, of course, was Warren, who has managed to position himself as political arbiter in a nation founded on the separation of church and state. The loser was America. For the moment, let's set aside our curiosity about what Jesus might do in a given circumstance and wonder what our Founding Fathers would have done at Saddleback Church. What would have happened to Thomas Jefferson if he had responded as he wrote in 1781: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Would the crowd at Saddleback have applauded and nodded through that one? Doubtful. By today's new standard of pulpits in the public square, Jefferson -- the great advocate for religious freedom in America -- would have lost.

The 21 age not only doesn't work, it makes matters worse. Forbidden fruits taste the sweetest. It's silly and outdated. One can vote and die for their country, but can't kick back a beer? Give me a break.

I love sriracha. I put it on/in everything.