Xittenn

It doesn't say much really . . . . . neither does the following, but the following is a much better route to find what you are looking for: http://data.bls.gov/search/query/results?q=paleontology http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Life-Physical-and-Social-Science/Geoscientists.htm http://www.bls.gov/soc/2010/soc192042.htm http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes192042.htm

The following is to the best of my limited knowledge! Skeletal muscle works in antagonistic pairs. Skeletal muscle attaches at origins and insertions via tendons, and when a muscle contracts the skeleton will move. Skeletal muscle doesn't relax it has to be stretched back out by the contracted muscles antagonistic pair. When you lift something against gravity the weight acts similarly to the antagonistic skeletal muscle, in that cells that contract are stretched back out as the object attempts to fall back to where it came from. Internally to the body there is a concerto trying to move the skeleton by means of many cells contracting and being stretched back out again. The reason that cells do not maintain their contracted state is that ATP, the unit of biological energy, has a defined value and once it's used more is needed to continue the process. Furthermore the mechanical structure responsible for the contraction must be fed more ATP to be stretched back out or the filaments involved tear. A lack of ATP induces rigor mortis, which is a contraction that is unable to release do to lack of ATP. Here's a video demonstrating the the basic concept. There is also need to account for all other energy input such as the action potential, as well as loses due to internal resistances such as moving the weight of the bone.

People might hate on me for this but, I vote for the planes. I have no idea who Rick Santorum is, I appreciate what research on the environmental effects of shale gas extraction presents, but I think we need to upgrade our damn planes. I mean it's really nice of the American's to do much of the patrolling of our nation, but I believe it is irresponsible to ignore our military needs. It would be nice if we could manufacture our own planes, but I believe these will at the very least keep our military responsibilities satiated at a bare minimum standard. It would be my preference that we maintain 70% of America's military position with respect to our population ratio, which of course, will never happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ9D6mg0w1U&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5tRXRfvYXw

I was referring to the process itself. Smelting kind of implies--to me--a chemical process by which impurities, especially oxygen, are removed from metals during purification of raw ore. I believe if oxygen were not present in the ore, the smelting process would not be required. Instead the ore could simply be melted and fractionally separated. My definitions are probably off though so forgive my comment, I can never seem to use the correct definition for smelting.

How strict is the no oxygen condition? I mean can there be water, or are the oceans methane as well? It is possible to make an electric arc furnace. One could theoretically be made entirely of ceramics and clay. But, even ceramics and clay require oxygen as part of their chemical makeup. If there is no oxygen why are they smelting . . .

Italian Engineers produce many products for the global market. As much fun as I have reading Italian manuals, I don't believe most people would know that a punte candela is a brad point tip. The reality is, to be competitive in the global setting English communication is now required and expected. I find it surprising how quickly Asians have adopted English to the extent they have, and yet Latin derived language speaking countries still avoid moving forward much of the time. It is much to their advantage to do so.

Just to be clear the PSpice simulator is part of the package and has it's own integrated user environment. This is a complex set of tools used to design complex analogue and digital circuits. The lite version is limited to the overall scope of project, and I've seen one source saying max. 60 parts, but I haven't actually looked at the license. It is however, probably the best suite to learn if you are serious about doing this sort of thing. Else, I'm sure you can find a quick fix somewhere maybe TkGate. Probably the better link TkGate. [edit] TkGate seems to be completely dead! [edit] nope there it goes . . . but it's only for linux . . . there's source, I can see what I can do (I assume windows user by default) . . . . on the weekend, not that anyone will probably want that! [edit] gone over build, Linux only . . . (maybe mac)

It might be a little painful to get started, but try Cadence OrCAD PCB Designer Lite 16.5. It wasn't the most brilliantly designed user environment, but the tools themselves are an accumulation of decades of product dev. I've only just tried it out myself, barely. notes: - use capture to design circuit, the add library icon is hard to see - use PSpice to run simulation . . . .

But you are nearsighted and therefore a genius, and so you can see their every move with your mind!

I think you would be hard pressed to find a study that actually supports how people 'feel' about this relation. As for the warrior thing I was thinking to an earlier time where swords were employed, it is quite a different warfare these days. But really it was meant to be more silly than anything, like the comment that somehow there is a direct relation between near sightedness and intelligence. I mean honestly, I am extremely nearsighted and I hardly demonstrate 'natural' prowess, it has taken me every ounce of my being to get to where I am with academics. It was suggested that stress and lack of outdoor activities might be related to near sightedness, both of which I could reasonably relate to academic activity. That said, I grew up in the forest and spent most of my time in my marsh. I was a stressed out child as my mother would be sure to point out to anybody--I was very busy thinking about astronauts and plasma people in the sun . . . How many intellectual leaders were nearsighted? Not Einstein, Pauli, or Pauling . . . . Shroedinger is an insignificant statistic . . .

I never understood how having -7.50 dioptre myopia at the age of seven equated to having intellectual prowess. What precisely is the advantage of being blind? I have tried to reason it out and have concluded that in fact this is more of an advantage for a warrior. It's much easier to kill randomly when you don't see their faces or the counter acting weaponry!

From a biological perspective we would expect to see differences in a few key components of the brain to account for any anomalous advantage with respect to brain function. Neuron structure and function tends to be fairly homogenous across individuals within the human population. If there seemed to be an increase in the overall speed of a persons thoughts I would expect a variation in myelination. If the individual excelled in terms of memory capacity I might look for changes in overall neural density, or brain size. Sci-Am had this to say about the matter, I would say that the stated findings are more on par with what I originally mentioned despite their attempts at discovering genius.

I have never met anybody who could be called innately 'genius.' My conclusions on the matter have been that in fact there aren't geniuses per se. I would find it difficult to accept any study that concludes with proof of their existence. Any normal healthy brain is just as capable as any other normal healthy brain. The difference between one brain and another is exposure and drive. A young child who contemplates high level mathematics for example, could readily be explained by an exposure to some thought and a willingness to progress beyond the point to which everyone else has progressed. The question that I would pose is, does someone who demonstrates a high level of mental competence excel in all areas or are they limited--maybe physically or socially? If you want to be a genius at something I believe the only solution is adequate time and effort put in. If you happen to start later in life then you will reach your goal at an equally later point--unless you dedicate more time per day than someone you wish to compare yourself to etc. People who have historically excelled at what it was they did, gave up a lot of other things in exchange, and you have to take these factors into consideration. I should probably do some research to back up my points, but I guess I always assumed that most scientists have taken the opposite view, that in fact there are geniuses. I've always disagreed with this view!

I believe what you see as Russel's paradox is a weak interpretation thereof, and asking whether [math] A \in A [/math] is true or false is essentially the same. The answer depends on how you have constructed your set theory in the first place, and for the most part the question is addressed through class' or universal sets, and the axiom of choice. I WASN'T sure what the question was asking, so I ASKED! : )

Planets inside the event horizon are very different from what I had in mind, but this was meant to be a very open discussion. I like this idea because it finds use for these natural phenomena such that some lifeform adopts its structure to its advantage, which is a main driving point in my investigation. But this also relaxes the constraints on how life might exist inside such a structure, where previously I had a much more rigid definition of what could exist within the event horizon. Awesome stuff!

From the perspective of plasma based lifeforms in stars, the first thing I think to look for is observable technologies. Assuming intelligent life this tends to presuppose curiosity, and it only makes sense that such life would try to observe the universe. How could a plasma based telescope exist? If such a lifeform did exist how might they travel into space? Would they feel it necessary? They would have sufficient resources to justify staying put, which also suggests a higher cost for leaving. In terms of a physiology, how would life manifest? Are matter interactions too chaotic to support life? How can memory be formed? These are questions I've considered for a long time now, I'm starting to feel a little more confident about being able to seriously scrutinize the ideas. I imagine most people have at the very least had a passing thought on the matter, I mean everyone knows the man in the moon right? I think overlaying computing science on a number of physical principles is probably the most reasonable approach to addressing these questions. It would be interesting to come up with a list of observables that might allow us to search for these types of lifeforms.

I would like to speculate that maybe black holes are, quite in contradiction to what we believe, highly supportive of life. Maybe it isn't the organic life as we know it, but something far more evolved and complex that we can't even imagine. I guess this is in some way an extension of my speculations as a child that in fact the sun is made up of a large collective of consciousness. Some of my reasons for my thoughts include: - an abundance of available resources - complex organization - constant consumption of more resources - natural defenses against external predators - possibility of inter well communication, maybe even travel This is a very quick post, and I may have said something really stupid--aside from the obvious--so forgive me ahead of time . . . .

Are you asking for a proof with respect to membership such that A is an element of itself? Prove [math] A \in A [/math] If this is the case I believe you are asking about Russel's Paradox. I can post further if this is the case!

Capsaicin, the chemical found in many hot peppers that make them hot also act as a diuretic, analgesic, expectorant, and diaphoretic. Hot sauce can numb the tongue and imparts a euphoric sensation. Often drinkers are smokers and hot peppers help clear the lungs during 'festivities,' people also for some reason like to sweat at bars and clubs. I see the OP was a question about sour though *shrugs* Vietnamese--hot and sour??

I see this sort of as a physics question. Think of it in terms of entropic forces. Organized systems tend towards disorganization as a cause of entropic forces. To maintain a higher level of organization requires a higher level of energy input, as you combat entropy it costs more and more energy. The rigidly organized structure you are proposing was at one time the product of a series of reactions and was in some sense a natural state. But, as time progressed entropy kicked in--or continued about its business--and things changed and became less organized, or took on a new natural state. It's funny that some believe these changes to be the acts of humans fighting against the natural state when in fact the real fight is those who are trying to fight against these entropic changes. I wouldn't say this is suggestive of the decay of organization, it just means that the overall structure is now more complex and the cost of maintaining our previous notions have become much greater. I would also note that many boys up until the 1920's wore dresses well up until the age of eight years old. The disintegration of gender distinctions is probably a better thing than most appreciate. I believe that the statistics with respect to transgendered persons will maintain itself as these distinctions are removed. It just means that boys and girls for the most part will find their own personal way of expressing themselves, and can do so without invasive surgery. At the same time I believe over the next thousand years humans are going to seed an entirely new set of biodiversity that will hinge on various technologies. None of this however, is a cause for concern about the downfall of democracy. Democracy is enabling this progression and diversity for me is what democracy represents. If everyone was the same democracy would be somewhat moot, no?