npts2020

The bulk of the text seems like mental masturbation but the comments after were hilarious (wish I knew all of the languages). How does this Borger guy know anything about what parts of his barynome (imo same thing as genome only not described by how it really works) are in fact duplicates or non-functional when no scientist I have ever heard of claims to know what even a small fraction are for in any advanced life form?

I am not a chemist so chemical notation might as well be a foriegn language to me but how is it that O2 + H2 <=> 2H2O instead of H2O2 or H2O + O? Am I confused that the sides should be equal?

Not if you believe that some creatures genomes are basically unchanged while others evolve.

Never is a very long time. Remember Jules Verne, H. G. Wells and others wrote about "impossible" things that came to pass in less than a century.

Sam's Club had pallettes full of them yesterday, didn't really notice the price tho.

The biggest obstacle is political i.e. the irrational negative baggage associated with nuclear power from incidents like Chernobyl (not even remotely like any commercial reactor in America) and T.M.I. (operator overriding the safety features). The main technical reasons I oppose widespread use mostly relate to proliferation of the technologies of refining and configuring fissile materials (maybe irrational fear of a bomb?) and unresolved waste disposal problems. The biggest reason, however, is that it is not necessary. I am well aware that it may be the easiest and cheapest method for now but it is not as if there are no alternatives. Much of the cost and ease is simply because that is what we are already doing, IMO never a good enough reason to not consider other means of accomplishing the same thing. In the same amount of time as it takes to concieve of and build a nuclear power plant, you could build enough factories to give you the same or more output equivalence of solar (windmills or whatever I am just using solar for an example). Just the other day Konarka opened a plant that will supposedly produce a enough non-silicon organically based solar cells (they say 1/10 the cost of silicon cells) every year to generate a gigawatt of electricity. The main reason more of these plants are not opening is because the demand hasn't justified it. How long would it take to gear up production to produce enough for the massive number we are talking about? I don't really know but am sure it depends almost entirely on the urgency given to the problem. During WWII we massively scaled up industrial output in just a couple of years time, are we now for some reason unable to do that? If a hundred or a thousand plants such as Konarkas were to be built how long would it take to do a significant changeover? The problem isn't so much that alternatives aren't viable as that they haven't had the demand to justify their largescale production. Demand is largely related to price which will go down for alternatives as production increases and up for fossil fuels (nuclear I expect to remain steady or increase slightly) as supplies dry up and governments realize the environmental cost of using them is not "free". Finally, I think that putting nuclear power into widescale use will only hinder development of even better alternatives than we have now and facilitate those who would manipulate the energy market for their own gain. I'll get off my soapbox now before I have a book written.

Part of the problem is that humans live a limited existance with a definite beginning and end and it makes it difficult to envision something that may have no beginning or end.

One thing you might ask your pastor is, how and where to go about getting a job where you live. Being able to earn enough money to support yourself is hugely important for any consideration of emancipation both legally (in most places) and practically. If you are considering something drastic like open disobedience or running away, make sure you know what the emancipation laws for your state are first, as in some states you don't even need any court involvement. Another angle you might consider, is accelerating your schooling (you did say you were home schooled?) so that you can start college early, or even take college classes before finishing your high school curicula. If I am remembering my teen-age years correctly, one of the hardest things to do is have patience. I couldn't get time to move fast enough either. Seriously though, google emancipation of minors/whatever state you live in and see for yourself if it is an option you can use (or threaten to use).

It is certainly feasible but not very practical. I am sure somebody, somewhere has probably built one just to show it can be done but unless you have a very large tank or one that can be pressurized to many thousands of psi your range until refilling the tank would pretty limited.

The idea that solar and wind energy are not viable because of variability in production would be a fair criticism if we had no way of storing energy. However we have today many methods of storing it, with more being developed all the time. When you have an intermittent power source you store it, whether it is using a rachet to store the potential energy of a wave until the next wave pushes in a tidal generator or making hydrogen or ethanol with excess from solar or wind generation to run another generator when there is a deficit (do you guys really not know this?) I have never said that nuclear power does not have its uses but I do not believe generation for widespread use to be one of them.

Possibly you get the notion of a moral component by my question of why we even have immigration restrictions, it was badly framed since I am well aware there will be control of some kind. What I should have asked is why any qualified applicant is ever turned down? BTW I personally try to avoid terms like left, right, liberal, conservative because they have so many different meanings to different people that they are fairly meaningless in the end.

Taco Bell: I can't help but smile that you are on a forum laden with nerds asking for advice about interpersonal relationships but here is my 2 cents for what it is worth. At some point in your life you will have to stand up to your parents if you ever wish to lead your own life. IMO the first thing I would do is ask my mother about her dating and what she would have done differently, if such a conversation is possible between you. Then I would have a similar talk with my dad. It may turn out that all you have to do is ask if your friend can go along on a family day trip or can you both go on a church outing or other chaperoned activity. If you cannot reach satisfaction or come to any sort of agreement via that method you may want to start researching emancipation of minors for your state (the laws vary widely from state to state, with many gray areas). In that case, make sure you have a job and place to live beforehand. Running away should be your very last option, since that will often get you into the juvenile system, not the best place to become an adult for most. You should under no circumstances get your friend or anyone else pregnant before you have been on your own long enough to be financially and emotionally secure.

I hadn't heard this. I have always thought (maybe wrongly) that warming followed CO2 concentrations pretty closely with the increasing temps lagging some time behind increasing CO2. Maybe somebody can be more definitive about this than I

Martin: Thanks for the clarification, I don't believe that we have any serious disagreement on this. It is just my opinion that when you define the universe as infinite with no further elaboration, that includes all components of said universe. Now, if you wish to say that time is not part of the universe and exists completely on its own (possible but must be defined as such when defining an "infinite" universe), that is an entirely separate discussion.

True but you wouldn't know it from most of the posts. I have seen a lot of discussion on this thread but very few opinions of the effects on the economy. BTW what effect did you say it would have, I musta missed it.

Well, if time is part of the universe and the universe is infinite, as postulated by Boise State, why does that not imply that time is also infinite or does infinity only go in one direction? IMO infinity only exists as a mathematical construct like a circle or a line, any sufficiently large number to be incomprehensible to the human mind will seem like infinity. I do not suppose that the debate over the size of the universe has been settled but it seems certain to me that it could be much larger than the part we can see.

How can you say that proliferation is not a dangeous thing? Or claim that with more individuals versed in nuclear technology that chances of proliferation are not increased? You have never seen me make any statement about the safety of any reactor only statements about proliferating the technology being dangerous. Why is anything needed before making a transition to other alternatives? It seems to me that erecting windmills, solar panels, building tidal and geothermal plants can all happen at least as quickly as building any nuclear power plants and without the problems. I agree that building a power plant or a bomb are different but not so different that a person who can build one couldn't build the other. So why is it again that chances of proliferation won't be increased? Last question I have is why is concentrating energy production in fewer hands a good thing?

I am not at all surprised except that Obama was as close as he was. McKinney-90% Nader-83% Obama-70%

Nuclear power is both unnecessary and dangerous or I would whole-heartedly support it as well. There are so many alternatives and more being developed all the time that we can supply all of civilizations energy needs without it. If we build more nuclear power plants we will have that many more individuals with the knowledge to proliferate all kinds of nuclear technology. How is the increased chance of misuse of the technology going to be dealt with? The main reason I can see for more nukes is to keep generation restricted to a few entities, therefore giving those producers more control. Would California have avoided energy problems if Enron was in control of nuclear power plants instead of conventional ones? IMO not.

I don't see how one could either support or oppose immigration without some "ideology" being involved. How would it be done without consideration from some philosophical perspective?

Expiration dates for most products are set well before the first expected failure of a non-defective item. It would do you no good to tell you the cartridge needs changing after you are already out of ink but you have to keep in mind that it is to somebody's advantage to sell as many cartridges as possible, also. Many people will automatically change it but I tend to try to squeeze every drop I can out, like you guys. I can't speak to your antivirus mail (spam?) but a computer geek friend of mine recommended AV6 antivirus at free.avg.com and I have had no trouble since, although it has only been a month so far. Another geek friend swears that his apple needs no antivirus protection because of the difference between windows and apple programming, his has been on line at least 3 years with no adverse effect. That is as much as I know about that topic (mostly what friends have told me). Medicines are a different matter. All medicines that I am aware of lose effectiveness over time. Having said that, I know that I have taken aspirin (not recently) that was at least two decades old and survived to tell about it so I cant imagine that many over-the-counter medicines would pose much of a threat from simply being outdated. A doctor or chemist would know better than I. BTW big pharma wants you to buy as much of their most expensive medicine as they can sell you (how many drug ads compared to other products are in the media?). Most expiration dates have some basis in reality (I would say all but I have seen them on things like bottled water!) and can be used for reference. Depending on how critical it is you can ignore many of them but things like medicines, food, and replacement parts for a nuclear power plant I would not push it too far, my ingesting ancient aspirins notwithstanding.

Isn't that exactly what just happened with the recent Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008? Still enforcing a ban on incandescents, imo a net positive thing, seems less reasonable than taxing them to death and making revenue in the meantime.

Personally, I advocate automating the American road/rail system and powering the whole thing with solar and wind energy. We can debate how long that would actually take but it would convert over 1/4 of our national energy use from petroleum to renewables and save over 40,000 people from gruesome deaths every year.

ParanoiA: Explain to me exactly how current regulations keep "free market" principles from operating in Americas health care system. It seems to me that anyone who wants to can provide health care so long as they meet the requirements for the service they are providing i.e RN's and LPN's meet training requirements, doctors have graduated from medical school and served an acceptable residency etc. BTW anarchy is the "philosophical compliment to individual liberty", is that what you are advocating or just corporate anarchy?

to Pangloss: I am not sure what ideological message you are referring to. Of course every nation controls immigration, where has anyone on this thread proposed not controlling it? What I have suggested is that it might be too controlled, maybe an affirmative statement to you but not meant as one. As you yourself point out, more immigration is not popular among the majority of Americans, so why would either candidate stick their neck out on this issue in a close race? Your talking points seem right off usillegalaliens.com but really are only applicable to illegals and not naturalized citizens. I could be wrong (I have had trouble finding some actual numbers) but it has been my impression that naturalized citizens generally had better upward mobility and lower crime rates than the general population. Finally, if paying taxes is not an issue why worry about whether any of them collect any of the things you mention? to Bombus: You, like Pangloss, are so bogged down in the "immigrants only fill the lowest paying jobs" mindset that you cannot consider any scheme that would only allow mostly entrepreneurs and skilled workers to immigrate. I am glad you mentioned Norway, unlike America, not known as a nation of immigrants. In 2004 abou 7.3% of Norways population was foriegn born (according to the Norwegian government) vs. the U.S. at around 7.9% in 1990 (according to the U.S. census). Some other countries with higher percentage of foriegn born residents; Canada, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Luxembourg with the last 3 being 2-3 times the American rate. Obviously civilization as we know it is about to end in all of those countries......not. You both assert that immigration causes insurmountable problems but have shown zero data for your reasoning. IMO you have illegal immigration confused with legal methods of staying in America and have used the actions of illegals (who are probably not too concerned with laws anyway since they are breaking it by being here) to infer the behavior of all immigrants.