Stetson

Facial recognition seems more feasible, less things to distort the face. As well there are so many unique features on a face, i.e. a scar, distance between key facial features. Or to get a little creative, hit them with x-rays and compare dental records on a database.

I appreciate the feedback given so far. The information is being used as a report for a course of study in education. In my first question I may not have been as clear as I desired it to be. Public schools in America pay their teachers based on seniority (how long they have taught) and highest level of education attained. Teachers are not being rewarded based on their performance, and so the absence of monetary incentive would appear to bring a hindrance on improving teacher efficacy. The question begs, what exactly would define an efficent teacher? What qualities, tools, and techniques are used to engage and motivate? With this being explored deeper, I will slip in another question. Can these be measurable to fit a pay scale to reward efficacy?

With the issue of education in the United States, I would like to gather a consensus from the community. In your experience as a student/past student, what qualities in any of your past or present teachers enables them to engage and motivate the class as a whole? Is the emphasis on standarized testing appropriate to gauge a student's skill level? Why is there a high turnover rate in teaching positions? If given the financial opportunity, what would be the best way to go about teaching a student? Please feel free to add additional information that could elaborate on the topic of education. As well, any teachers here, I would greatly appreciate your feedback.

What I was trying to convey is that telling a child 'heaven is a lie' will give them nothing in terms of an explanation. Children are very suceptible to authoritative figures, especially their parents. What I'm stressing is to do exactly as your latter statement said. Present how different cultures and societies view these issues. As well honest explanations is synonymous with "tell them the truth", just so long as the emotional/mental capacity is appropriate with the explanation. As a note, that quote is horrifically out of context as I never said anything that portrayed heaven as real. I did later state: to see it as a "different way of viewing death."

Breaking the bars in half seems like a long shot. But suppose if you whacked both of the bars until one chips a sizeable piece. If the piece, when put back on, falls off then that is the iron rod. If it sticks, that it is the magnet. If you're still skeptical, it might be possible to do a body test. There is iron in blood, yes? Take both rods onto your palms and wait a while. If you see a difference in redness then the reddest would most likely be the palm holding the magnet. Then reduce the variables by switching the rods between palms and try and replicate the results. If the palming holding the now suspected magnet has a greater color of red than the other, I'm sure you have found the magnet.

A gun is a tool in the hands of a human being. It is used to take life, and preserve life. The need for a tool to do both will always be in demand as long as we're human. The same thing can be said about an atomic bomb. What is the difference between them? A gun is usually a mobile projectile firing weapon that has limitations based on the operators use, its ammunition capacity, and its lethality potential. We give these guns to every hand in the military and certain civilians in hopes they would preserve life by taking others when necessary. An atomic bomb is an explosive device caused by a nuclear reaction. It has a blast radius of 3 miles effectively killing just about every lifeform within its radius. These devices are in the hands of powerful government establishments, usually under heavy global security and enforcement. The point is when a tool has a higher risk of loss compared to potential life saving capabilities, it becomes vilified and heavily restricted. When the founding fathers wrote the second amendment in the constitution, they did not envision machine guns and atomic bombs. They did not see a tool taking hundreds of lives in under a minute. What they had seen were single action muskets and pistols. Back then, when founding a nation, they did not have a large scale, organized, and highly equipped military force as the United States does today. So their need for the individuals to be able to protect their nation and their freedoms were in great need. In the Declaration of Independence, we recognized certain unalienable rights and the right to abolish the government that is destructive of those rights. Perhaps the second amendment of the constitution is a provision for American citizens to abolish the government if their rights were violated. Where is the line drawn within America, a nation built on a strong defense. Do we take away high capacity and high firing rate weapons? Do we increase restrictions on owning a weapon? If so, does this make our right to abolish more unrealistic? Would this also affect the integrity of the US national defense? And finally, my last question before I digress. If you rid of all guns, would this truly cut down the violence in the United States?

When you talk about the deaths of significant others, saying that they went to heaven is not a lie. Despite my disbelief in a heaven, it should be considered as a different way of viewing death. The gift of liberty, that many people fought and died for, should be granted to all. So tell them the truth and give them choice, it doesn't have to be made gruesome or unsavory. Put it like this, 'Throughout the world there are a lot of people. There are also a lot of different beliefs on how things work. Some people believe there is an afterlife and some people believe they go to sleep for a long time. But no matter what you believe, the fish won't come back. But he is still here, in our memories.' Then you smile, give him a hug, and go grab some ice cream. If he grieves then that is healthy. At least he knows the truth and he is hopefully tolerant to different beliefs. Same way I was raised and I think I turned out alright. (Except my incredibly horrible nightmares about my cat. Meee-ow!)

Screw nanobots. Hello synthesized cells!

Or you can create your own environment using gas that is denser than our air. Fill up a tub with Sulfur hexafluoride and then throw in your plastic bottle. I don't have any equations handy on me to see if it would work, but it is worth the experimemt if you want to have fun with it. Mythbusters did a similar experiment except it was with foil boats, not plastic bottles. I would try with and without helium in the bottle as a start.

From an educators standpoint, genetics has little to do with the ability to learn. Some people learn differently than others i.e. audio, visual, and tactile learners. Not everyone in the world can just flip through a textbook and call it good, that is why there are lectures and hands on projects to appeal to the three styles of learning. And as someone mentioned above, it has a lot to do with the environment in which you are brought up in. Take for example that if you miss an early stage in Erickson's eight stages of development, you are going to have trouble making up for it within a certain duration of your life, and this could impede learning because you should be focusing on the next stage. As well there is something called Maslow's hierarchy of needs which basically means there are steps you must reach before you are actually able to function, or in this case learn. Kids out there, with your example of ghetto children, are not going to fail at becoming a genius because of genetics or that they are black. They're going to have a hard time because in the ghetto you're poor, you might not feel safe, or you're abused. All those obstruct your ability to learn, not some lack of intelligence gene only seen in a select group of people.

Then you're fooling yourself if you believe that you can convince what you believe to be fools. I don't believe you are a fool for your beliefs, just different in our ways of thinking. If you were told by your parents your whole life, and the people around you, that unicorns existed and the sky was pink, you'd believe them. Just like religion. If your parents or peers give you no freedom of choice to pick what you think is right, are they your own beliefs? I was born into a Christian family and was told, by my parents and peers, the different systems of belief. I chose science because of its appeal to reason and evidence that offers detailed explanations on why things are. What appeal does the belief of Krishna, in absence of reason and evidence, have to mankind?

As long as credit is where it is due and people are recognized for what good they did, I say shoot.

Calling someone a fool, idiot, rascal, sinful, and worst of all mankind doesn't support your argument. It's actually counter intuitive. Why don't you just humor us and actually take your time to understand science rather than shoot it down because all you know and were brought up to know was your religion. If you think about it, when have you ever tried to understand science? If you never took the time to understand it, how do you know it's false? And by understand it, I don't mean read biased opinions of theists. If you already have tried to humor science, I'm afraid you're looking in the wrong place or are just taking it wrong.

"`1st of all you want to see Krishna The Supreme personality of Godhead or want to understand him direclty right ?" I want to see the evidence of his existence. "just tell me are you able to see anything in the morning without sunlight ? and what to speak of darkness of night with light ? and still you are so much puffed up and `1st look at the position of your gross material eyes. you are already blind even in the morning without sunlight and what to speak of darking of night without light ?" I can see many things in the morning when the sun isn't up, I.e. light from the moon or an artificial source. As well, my eyes see just fine, if I was blind I would not be able to react to stimuli from the light. "and 2nd thing is this that you want to understand krishna ? but look at the position of your intelligence. and my `1st claim is this that you are all idiots." Your 'claim' is irrelevant. If being an idiot is to approach things with scrutiny and to not take things on faith, then I must be one. "simply tell me all details about your *`1 cheap minute ?* ( details of every single second that what- what you have thought or done on every single second ) and if you *cannot* tell me about *`1 cheap minute* then how can you will tell me every single detail of your *whole hour, day, week, month, year or your whole life ?*" If a person remembered everything that occurred in the past with uncanny accuracy, there wouldn't be any room to learn new things. But our brain has a miraculous function where we can remember important details about our past. No matter, what would an incredible memory prove? That we aren't perfect? That is a give in. "then what is *use* of this your *so called education* if you cannot tell me or any`One everything *as it is* ? *and in same way you forgot your past life also and you are forgetting everything now also.* therefore your mind is not very broad. what is that called ? " Crippled."" Education is meant to prepare to work within your society. You are so quick to dismiss the value of education that you haven't realized that you would be illiterate without it. And in no way is education simply, remember this, remember that. It's about understanding things and learning new things. "and still you are so much falsely puffed up at your gross material eyes and intelligence ? but you are not even able to tell me who is your real father without help your mother. what is your position ? it is nothing and still like fools challenging that i want to see your god or show me evidence." I did list the DNA test as a means of identifying your biological father, you not reading does not mean that I was not able to tell you, that is your fault. My position is that Krishna does not exist unless if such evidence were to be presented to support it. You simply can't indoctrinate a scientific community based on faith. "therefore so called experts like you who are simply mental speculators and you are suffering from what we call "Doctor Frog's philosophy."" I'm no expert and never have I purported to be. Experts in their respective fields aren't speculators. Speculation is where you make a conjecture, or an opinion accompanied by a lack of firm evidence. Experts have dedicated great parts of their life to research. To call them speculators is a disgrace for the work they have done to make the world a better place. If we didn't have scientists modern day technology would not exist. "Our faculties, experience, and powers of speculation are always limited. The frog was always thinking in terms relative to his well. He had no power to think otherwise. Similarly, the scientists are estimating the Absolute Truth, the cause of all causes, with their imperfect senses and minds, and thus they are bound to be bewildered. The essential fault of the so-called scientists is that they have adopted the inductive process to arrive at their conclusions." And scientists think in terms of internationally set measurements, i.e. the metric system. They don't estimate, they use the scientific method accompanied by mathematics. No scientist today is going to get away with spouting conjecture backed up by inductive reasoning, and then all of a sudden it becomes a fact or truth. It will undergo critical peer review by experts before it is even thought of as a serious theory to be considered by the scientific community. And with that requires vast amounts of data, time, and research. So far you haven't provided any evidence, only biased philisophical views and attacks made towards other posters. Please take a moment and formulate some tangible evidence that can be used to support the existence of Krisna.

"For Example :- how can child understand that who is his real father ? would he accept any`One as his father ?" If your speaking about the uncertainty that your father is your real 'biological' father, then a DNA test would have the sufficient authority to say whether he is or not. To say otherwise is to refute the validity of the DNA test, which massive amounts of time, experimentation, research, and money was put into. The problem with the analogy is that I have proof that I've seen my parents, and -if- I've never met them, I at least know that I'm a product of procreation between two human beings, that alone would support their existence. With Krishna, I have never seen or heard of any evidence that proves its existence.

In what relation does the rememberance of your past prove the existance of Krishna? As well, an intelligent man would first ask if Krishna existed rather than try to understand it. Because, how can you truly understand what doesn't exist?

"But I ask you what if you stayed unknowing would the box talk you you???? I am stating that I have been connected to some energy I cannot explain... I am not preaching religion or any restrictive beleifs only any unbinding unlimited timeless connection to some one or something that understands the forces that we are attempting to mimic and signsou are guiding my actions... Soon you will understand but if it does not make sense then it is not you time." Have you by chance recently have taken any psychoactive or illicit drugs? Diagnosed with a mental disorder? Although, however you answer will not affect the validity of your "hypothesis", it simply makes no coherent sense. But then go on as to say you have spoken with an all knowing being, you can't prove it. Don't expect us to take it on faith, we are a scientific community that heavily scrutinizes evidence and claims.

Perhaps trolling is not as bad as it seems. Maybe the people who troll are victims themselves of a social disorder that could have arose from their environment. Abuse, lack of acceptance, missing stages in Erickson's eight stages of development, these are some of the beginnings and causes of mental disorders. Don't mistake my sensitivity for the troll as reason that it is okay, the act is still wrong. But perhaps in the right place at the right time it can be acceptable, perhaps as a jest or a way to prove a point. Regardless, it has little room in the scientific community except for the research on the social behavior of trolls.

As the famous saying goes, "cool story, bro". So I saw you posted this under ethics, is there supposed to be a discussion on whether trolling people is ethical? Or are you simply stating the existence of internet trolls?

Reasonable explanations that aliens would come here are finite. One could be that the aliens faced an extinction level event and sent off ships to different habitable planets for the continuance of their species. Or they may have similar scientific curiosity on sentient life, and perhaps we would not be bad candidates for their study. I can't say for sure, but do aliens need a reason? Who's to say that these alien species has the same thought processes as ours. They could have a hive function where they all think the same or similar, like ants. Lots of possibilities, less sureties, and it's simply alien to us.

I wonder what implications this has at making new medicine and the research for genetic diseases. Yes Moontanman, DNA is DNA. So it would apply to all genomes. Although, specific biological functions of humans are exclusive to the human genome, but might share similarities to other genomes.

I have a sliver of an understanding on what is the best way to run an economy, let alone even to curb poverty. There are so many ways to run the system but not enough to be conclusive on the best way to do it. So many new factors pop up that affect everything, for example when the global market arised, or new technologies that replace jobs and make new ones. For now I will ask questions that might help you make a clearer image of how your idea would curb poverty. First, what economic system does this business belong? Capitalist, Communist, Socialist, resource-based economy, etc.. Second, what industry does the business belong to? How will it be ethical and retain the same appeal as another business in the same industry? Ask yourself if this ethical business would curb poverty more so than the next business. Third, how will the initial funding be achieved? Government funded, privatized, crowd sourced?

In recent light of the verdict for Ethan Couch, a 16 year old who killed 4 people while driving intoxicated, he has been deemed to be afflicted with "Affluenza" and was found a victim and only received 10 years probation. Affluenza is defined as: a psychological malaise supposedly affecting wealthy young people, symptoms of which include a lack of motivation, feelings of guilt, and a sense of isolation. Is there any reliable or viable scientific research that would support the view that people who suffer from affluenza are victims in most cases, esp. manslaughter? CNN: "To the defense, the youth is himself a victim -- of "affluenza," according to one psychologist -- the product of wealthy, privileged parents who never set limits for the boy." http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/11/us/texas-teen-dwi-wreck/

Well, I have neglected to come across this thread earlier. But my name is Eric and I enjoy participating in scientific discussion to help cure me of my ignorance. Thank you in advance for having me.

I stand corrected, well said.