dmaiski

these advantages you describe, why do you think they are limited to gay men?

straight men are just as capable as gay men at all those tasks, so I don’t see how it could be a selective advantage for the gay gene.

I'm sorry to ruin your party but it has to be done, until you can answer that what you are saying is baseless.

urban legends always amuse me...

i would sugest goint to geology, or math.

this question is more their field

all I saw on the links there is that women who use condoms during sex have higher risk of breast cancer

nothing about swallowing semen

*don’t trust the internet, trust the citations(applies for “they say” statements too)

**i look upon this with great distrust, there’s no wikipedia page for it...

that is probably from the fungi family, in other words, its a mushroom

*but don’t take my word for it, I'm not entirely sure and haven’t poked it to find out

**also don’t poke unidentified mysterious objects, if you’re a horror movie fan you will know why...

cancer spreads from the main tumour due to failure of the cell adhesion proteins that usually keep tissues from falling apart.

also the best tip i can give you: start from wikipedia and work your way out

you cant reference it, but everyone uses wikipedia for remembering the basic concepts

this is why I don’t believe in the "god" theory:

I(dmaiski) created the universe.

Ok? Get it? You believe me? No!? Why? how is this possible I am just saying the truth...

if you believed what I said is true, you are gullible.

if you think its impossible, you are small minded.

if you think it could be true, you are agnostic.

My theory for the beginning of everything is this; it never happened.

simply put if there is nothing, nothing cannot produce anything

so what we exist in is simply a wrinkle in nothingness

The Columbus egg is an interesting idea but its unfortunately not relevant to this topic, "something" can't have always been here, because to get here it had to come from there, and this is asking where was there.

I imagine its something like the spontaneous subatomic particle generation effect, where particles come from "nothing" by basically taking out a loan and then annihilate themselves completely moments later.

I like Buddhism, and i think it fits in some ways

a quote from Buddha:

"Don't blindly believe what I say. Don't believe me because others convince you of my words. Don't believe anything you see, read, or hear from others, whether of authority, religious teachers or texts. Don't rely on logic alone, nor speculation. Don't infer or be deceived by appearances."

if that is not compatible with science I don’t know what is...

its in some ways Buddhism is a fairly loose "religion" where the "deity" isn’t really a deity, but rather a person that believes in a certain set of moral and philosophical ideals and doesn’t really care if you believe in them yourself or not "its yours to choose", so its probably the best religion for a scientist.

*that is my personal opinion on Buddhism

**I am agnostic I live by the policy “ill believe it when I see it, and I don’t think “god” cares”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

wikipedia definition of nothing for the linguistically impaired

I have been thinking (yes, I know its not a good idea)

and I came up with this

1. currently there is a universe

2. it started at the big bang (or something along the lines)

3. it had to start from something

4. that something had to come from something

5. that something had to come from something

6. that something had to come from something

7. that something had to come from something

8. (infinite regression)

9. that something had to come from nothing

so the million dollar question is what is nothing

*I just thought this was a valid thing to post here since no one has asked this simple question

**I know it is by no means a simple question to answer, prior apologies to anyone who has their mind bent into a pretzel due to this

***yes, I know this is a current question in physics that has yet to be properly answered

the way I understand it "time" is just a reference point to something's position (it all depends what theory you want to look at time with)

sort of like a movie is made up of frames

objects in each frame have a position

time is the frames themselves, giving a sequence to the individual images

also the "big bang" is just a minor speed-bump in the greater scheme of things

what you are really looking for is what was before the big bang, ie. the origin (when something spontaneously puked itself into existence from absolute nothingness)

Thanks so much for your reply. Would you happen to know why my biology professor thinks it's 8?

well atoms do try to keep 8 electrons in their outer shell, also he may have been talking about argon specifically, or limiting the explanation to the third row only.

ie. he may have been keeping it simple, though I don’t see why...

lets say you have vital genes on a chromosome

these genes are moved off that chromosome during recombination

the child doesn’t have these genes

the child dies

ie. its a lethal mutation

thus a system evolves to prevent such things happening

its why certain regions on chromosomes do not recombine, and there is non random recombination of genes

www.nanoarchive.org/6517/1/024A56CBd01.pdf

may be relevant

short summary: in sufficiently high doses gold NP are lethal to mice models as long as gold NP are between 8-37 nm diameter, smaller and larger particles had no effect

There area gold based drugs that contain (complexed) gold ions

If those didn't pass through cell membranes then they wouldn't work (unless the site of action was the cell membrane itself).

http://en.wikipedia....ts#Medical_uses

i searched for the toxicity of gold and this is what came up

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2988217/

that paper is scary... is uses "could"(9 times) instead of "do"(0 times)

the only place where "do" is used is in the reference:

"Connor EE, Mwamuka J, Gole A, Murphy CJ, Wyatt MD. Gold nanoparticles are taken up by human cells but do not cause acute cytotoxicity. Small. 2005;1:325–327. doi: 10.1002/smll.200400093. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]"

Eco comes from the Greek word meaning Hearth. Cognates include Ecology and Economy. Seems that economists have forgotten this essential link to Earth systems in their dismal science.

i think economists list "Earth" in the "other" category, or "minor contributing factors"

well there is evidence that regions of DNA can be made non-recombining, lowering the rate of mutation in that section. (example: 95% of Y chromosome doesn't recombine)

*this was caused by gene transfer from Y to other chromosomes leading to lethal mutations

**most of what you are showing is just systems that evolved to prevent lethal mutations in the genotype due to having chromosomes

I think I cheated I used excel to tabulate all the information

once I had it it took me 5 minutes of fiddling to get it done for 12 minutes in total

edit:

just wanted to say it felt like sudoku with words to me

I think I will repeat this post, because of comments that do relate to it. This is not only about censorship, but how it is being done. I write this is a memory of history and the struggle for freedom of speech, and with concern for the future. There was a country where the people were just like us, and where everything went very wrong, because the people were just like us, and didn't see the bad coming. While there are good reasons for censorship, if it is done poorly, and no makes an issue of it, a bad history can be repeated.

 

Oh the other hand, I very effective way to get rid of an unwanted poster is to ignore that person. Of course if the person is doing something that could cause harm to others, ignoring this person is not an option. Good censorship and bad censorship are really a judgment call, and things go better when everyone is involved in that judgment call.

I would prefer censorship done poorly then censorship done well. A censor you cant see feel or even know about is far more dangerous then the obvious one, because if you can see it you can guess what is being said, if you cant see it, you wont know what hit.

How do you censor someone on the internet? a persistent troll is unstoppable, and they will always complain that its bad censorship.

I hate to ask this and sound ignorant but... what's your point?

Darwin theory of evolution was written 150 years ago with only observable facts, it was pretty accurate, but not the complete picture(due to the lack of science in that era)

*i am not saying there was no science in the Victorian era, just not that advanced

number of electrons in a shell can be denoted as 2n^2

so 2*3^2=18

also there are s, p, d, and f sub shells holding 2, 6, 10, and 14 , electrons respectively

also outer shells like to have electrons in them so the shell config of lets say hafnium is 2,8,18,32,10,2 instead of 2,8,18,32,12 as you would expect

in this case the s, and p subshell of shell 5 filled up and the s subshell of shell 6 formed

if you get to really big atoms fun stuff like 2,8,18,32,18,8,2 can happen (i love radium its symmetrical)

i apologise for the earlier outburst, some people only behave like they have the mental age of a 12 on the internet, and i do get annoyed at them even though i should know better...

symbiotic ecosystems can be discussed as the chicken or the egg argument in evolution so i'm not going to get into that

but symbiotic relationships, or at least evolution of new organisms to take advantage of the waste products of others is what was responsible for the rise of plant life

predatory relationships were probably responsible for the rise of big things, not to say being bigger can help being a predator (ants are really good examples) but usually big predators find it easier to catch and eat little things

i have always seen ethics, morality, and environmental concerns as a hindrance to human development

many of the great discoveries, and advances were made by "unethical" means

nuclear power, vaccination, space flight (the Russian space program was fun), rockets, supersonic flight, most of early medicine, and gunpowder to name a few

"ethical" methods have given us many things as well, but most of those things were funded because they would lead to better ways to kill the guy next to us

also ethics prevents us from producing "what has science done!!" type experiments in the name of curiosity and we learn far more from our failures then we do from success(as long as your failure did not result in a crater the size of a small lake, then other people learn from your failure)

(fun fact, the first people in space, possibly, are still up there, but that's a conspiracy theory that Russia successfully got people into space but didn't exactly work out how to get them back initially...)

so i want to see a discussion of this (i will try to stay out of the discussion as much as possible)

*please do not criticize my examples, they are not 100% accurate, and based on my own opinion

You've overlooked the cost of the damages when your navigation system fails very badly indeed.

that's why you put the heat shields on last

it nav fails all that happens is you lose a tone of metals due to burn up in atmosphere

if nave fails early on, its easy to fix changing trajectory in space is the most simple thing in the universe

the worst thing is it will look and sound like an extraterrestrial bombing run when the rocks come down, that's why you need cheap land to crash your rocks into

*this assumes the space faring industry is sufficiently developed to manage such a system

humm the quick and dirty method for mining an asteroid

1. take an asteroid in the belt

2. strap a thruster to it to lob it on a collision course with earth

3. automated mining systems shed the majority of the useless mass on the asteroid into space (useless junk like ice, common elements, stuff we don't use)

4. section the usable mass into a series of small meteorites

5. small correctional thrusters align the asteroids into optimal position for a controlled decent into your "landing field"(an unpopulated area, like the place they used to test nukes)

6. use the excess shed mass that was useless to form the "heat shield"

7. bombs away (you lob the meteorites into the atmosphere and let them hit the "landing zone"

8. retrieve your minerals

total cost:

relatively small amount of flue(you could use solar panels and heat ice to provide thrust)

reusable mining robots

a large plot of land for your "landing zone"

bribes, tributes, or "tax" to government/space regulatory body for their great service of "oversight" of the project

*really the most quick and dirty method to mine metal for terrestrial use in space

**the ice heat shield is burnt away during re-entry

***this assumes you have a few monts-years to mine the asteroid while it is in transit to earth

****most of the cost for any space mining will be in paying off the tax man, some government regulatory body, or hiring assassins to kill said government body

*****if there is not enough ice on the asteroid you mine, you can always get another one for the ride that is made of ice

******this method dose require some reshuffling of the positions of the orbital hardware that's in the way

*******we do have the maths to calculate orbital trajectory, re-entry angles, and all that stuff

******** the most advanced piece of thechnology used here is the mining robots, evrything else is backyard science

********* "oversight" implies that the government will want a cut of what you are mining just because they have the guns to support the demands, and no actual oversight will be done(except for token efforts by under trained, understaffed, inspectors for extortionate cuts of the net)