SH3RL0CK

Should the USA start over? As bascule stated, no. Yes, the USA has some problems. Every nation has problems however. I would certainly not be willing to trade the problems the USA has with most other nations. A relatively large debt is a very minor problem compared to a civil war which is common in parts of Africa and Asia...

I've seen compressed air powered model cars, boats and even rockets. See for example http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktstomp.html http://www.make-digital.com/make/vol15/?pg=105 But I've not seen any compressed air powered blimps.

Certainly compressed air could be used. I think, however the weight of the storage tank with the compressed air would be too great to be practical. You should look into whatever gives you the greatest energy density (in terms of propellant, however you manage this) per unit weight. I suspect (but do not know) this will be a battery and fan combination attached to your balloon. This is how commercial products are sold, anyway. http://rcvehicles.about.com/od/rcairships/p/rcblimps.htm http://rcvehicles.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=rcvehicles&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rcblimp.com%2F

How accurate does your temperature controller need to be? How much are you willing to spend on your project? Generally, these two are correlated. If you want something cheap, and don't need a lot of accuracy, the bi-metal switch as suggested by YT2095 is probably a good way to go. If you want a lot of accuracy and are willing to spend the money for it, look into Klaynos' suggestions.

While my opinion on the matter has not changed; I do appreciate the efforts of all parties bringing forth useful arguments with supporting documentation. I do not beleive there is anything more to say in this regard; certainly there is not a lack of information provided. Let me just say thank you to iNow and to Pangloss (as well as others) who have contributed to this thread. Obviously, the extent to which a politician or bureaucrat can express religious beliefs (and in what contexts) is a controversial issue with plenty of grey area. Issues such as these are why we have a Supreme court (as well as a way to modify the Constitution) to provide rulings as necessary.

The total potential energy in the lake will not change. However, the energy that can be converted into energy that man can use has increased because of technological developments.

Really? Not trying to be argumentative here, in my experience most people will rather purchase almost any chemical (if the price is reasonable) than mess around trying to generate it. Unless of course, the purpose is to demonstrate how to make them. But to each his own; if you enjoy making the chemcials yourself, then have at it In the original post, the purpose of the demonstration was to show how hydrogen is the lightest gas, not how to make hydrogen. But then maybe making it is part of the demonstration?

Considering the abundance of skilled workers in the USA today, and the consequently lower wages paid to these individuals, why should someone enter a science or medical field? Other than that they love the work that is. Seriously, it is because our society values MBA's far more than scientific Phd's. I can say this because the primary way society rewards people for the value of their work is in how much the individual gets paid for said work. Just look at the multi-million (billion?) dollar golden parachutes some of these people get for running their companies so well, the taxpayers have to spend trillions to bail them out. Obviously, people with management and business skills (paid very upper six figure salaries to millions of dollars) are valued more than the science professors making, if they are lucky, a very low six figure salaries (more likely a mid-five figure salary). It takes a very considerable amount of work to become a doctor or scientist (much more, I'm sure than to become a corporate executive). And I'm also sure a doctor works much harder than a corporate executive. Given this, why become a doctor? Go for the money and become an executive. Or save the time for your family and become a plumber. I'm sure there are many people capable of being scientists or doctors who see the economic and time commitments and won't pursue it because it simply is not worth it to them.

why not just buy some hydrogen?

It certainly seems the best approach to me. While many held are certainly extremely dangerous, so are many people currently in our penal system. But 90-6 in the Senate is a very difficult obstacle against this. I wonder how the Senate would vote for maintaining Gitmo? Not that Obama has any intention of going back on his word here. I suspect these people will wind up being held in Afghanistan/Iraq. To me, this seems the best compromise between Obama and the Senate (I can't see either of them backing down). It does strike me, however, that we would simply be opening a different Gitmo/Abu Gharab (or two)... Again, Ugh.

I think you are right, unfortunately one or more of these will have to give. Ugh.

Ideally, you should do both. Unfortunately, there is probably no DNA remaining. And we will only be able to look at comparative techniques. Still, what a great discovery.

I don't see the rejection necessarily based upon fear. There is a certain...I'll use the word dislike (different than fear - maybe closer to hatred)...for the detainees at Gitmo by many Americans. This is probably due to the fact that many (but I doubt all, unfortunately) of these detainees are Al Queda. Still, Pangloss is right (post # 19). If there isn't enough time to bring a trial for all these people and if we can't keep these people at Gitmo, and if we can't bring them into the USA, and if we can't send them to other countries, and if we can't just turn them loose; what do we do with them?

I'm confused. Doesn't the force of gravity diminish over distance? Then wouldn't a relatively large distance be similar to a shield in the sense that the gravity is less? Thus a gravity sensor might rely on a large distance (perhaps a couple satelites between two lagrangian points) as the "sheild"? Or is it more complicated than this?

I would surmise the "nicely put" was because Stereologist managed to condense this thread into a single paragraph.

Weak argument or not, 90-6 is a very substantial majority of the Senate. I had thought Obama had worked out what to do with the detainees prior to announcing the closure of Gitmo by placing at least some of them somewhere else overseas. Perhaps at a military base in Afghanistan or Iraq. But that doesn't seem to be acceptable now (maybe the Senate won't authorize funds for this either). At any rate, another "Gitmo" would probably be a public relations nightmare anyway. I don't know what Obama does next, but I don't see any options available to him. This could, unfortunately, get ugly for Obama.

I'd really like to get a good DNA sample from the fossil and compare to modern day primates, lemurs, etc. This could shed light on the potential for this to be a "missing link." I suppose that is asking too much though after 47 million years.

I agree with the sentiment. A bill such as this should be specific to address a single problem. Each bill should be passed or rejected solely on its own merits. I'd hate to see the credit card reform bill defeated or passed only because of this rider.

iNow, seriously, I do not see a constitutional issue here. Propaganda isn't policy. This isn't breaking the intent of the separation of church and state. I suppose you think that Obama should not set foot inside a church while he is president because he might be exposed to some religious brainwashing? Am I to take this, and several of the other comments directed to me as a personal attack? I certainly have not. You have simply misunderstood my position. You didn't make a point. You attacked a religion. See your comment as follows: I agree that we are done here, I don't think there is anything to be gained by further discussion.

I guess you didn't catch my sarcastic response to iNows comment. In either event, I do not believe most reasonable Americans are greatly offended by these posters. I certainly am not offended. One muslem claiming to be offended does not change my belief in this. Again, these were propaganda. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda Note that these were carefully selected with the audience in mind...such as G. W. Bush. And where is the risk you are referring to? Other than a few comments here, I haven't seen any concern by the American public. Its certainly not the top news story... I would be ok with it. Seriously. Its not like you can really divorce a persons faith or belief system from their actions. There must be an underlying foundation of what is right and wrong; acceptable and unacceptable; etc. for anyone to make rational decisions. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged For every example of intolerance you provide, I will ask: Would Jesus approve? Can you show me where Jesus is intolerant? Christians don't always get things right, which is exactly why they beleive they need a savior. But they often do get things right...where would the civil rights movement be without the reverend Martin Luthor King Jr.?

As an American, I agree. We do tend to want the cheapest quality at the cheapest price and rarely consider the long-term costs. This is usually to our detriment except in cases where it is possible to build things too well.

iNow, I am still unpersuaded. I find the only people offended tend to be people who do not have any belief in a god. (How dare someone believe in God?) While I agree in the concept of separation of church and state to a point; this isn't a policy statement, or even the actual beliefs of its creators. Its propaganda intended to boost morale. Of course propaganda is focused on things which the intended audience can relate to (otherwise the propaganda isn't effective). This includes particular religious beliefs - and face it, a large number of our military have strong Christian religious beliefs. Additionally, I would have no problem with similar artwork stating "Allah Akbar" or any religious statement or purely athiestic statements. These other posters probably also exist; but for some reason don't make the media (probably less controversial = less sales for the newspaper). One could speculate that purely secular viewpoints are more mainstream. Or perhaps these are less controversial because Christians are more tolerant of other beliefs (or lack thereof) than Athiests?

Neither do I. For one thing, these drawings are taken out of context. I still do not know if these were developed along with others which are all-inclusive of all faiths (and lack of faith). Certainly, there can be no endorsement of a particular faith if all faiths are included. For another thing, we do not know if these were ever released. I can easily see some supervisor telling the creative team to come up with every idea they can think up...then vetting the drawings later such that these drawings were not used. And lastly, I'm still not convinced these drawings are endorsing religion. After all, even President Obama (and AFAIK, all previous Presidents) have prayers said during their inagurations, and otherwise take actions which seems to me to be very much closer to an endorsement than these pictures. Perhaps someone here should consider filling a lawsuit against Obama ?

A couple of items to consider. 1) Methods used to determine mileage vary in regards to the mileage obtained. This is one reason the mileage seems to be greater in Europe, even for the same make/model of car. Hopefully, the legislation uses the current epa method for consistency (I haven't had time to look this up) and doesn't switch the methods to give an appearance of progress instead of actual progress. 2) What happens if the standards aren't met (again I haven't had time to research this)? Will the epa financially penalize a GM on the brink of bankrupcy should they be unable to comply? Politically, that doesn't seem like it would be appealing to any politician.

I agree with John B; I don't see a problem. Even if these are real, are there inspirational verses from other sources? From the Koran? If this were a part of a larger effort to improve moral, what is the objection to being inclusive? To having diversity in this effort by including people of all faiths, including Christianity? My goodness, are reasonable people really unable to handle any expression christian religion and faith? At what point does the "separation of church and state" concept overide the Consititutional rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion?