j_p

Demo: I think we are agreeing here for the most part. However, my understanding is that the Senate is defining itself a single continuous entity and apologized for previous acts of that entity, though not of any individual senators. Is the Senate's view of itself valid? If so, the apology is valid. If the apology is valid, is it important? My initial response to both questions is, "No". But I would like to be talked out of it. As to your other point, "I'm sorry" is not always an apology, right? [Though the resolution explicitly "apologizes".]

Over your lifetime you will get shorter as your backbone compresses. Maybe an inch or so over several decades.

You heated KOH in water? Are you certain the glassware was clean?

Demo: I'm not certain how I feel about this apology; I think it is just a self-serving empty gesture, but people more intimately damaged by lynching that I have been apparently disagree. It is fine and right for people to apologize for their offenses. For some-one else's? I don't think so. But that's not really the point I wanted to make originally. I just wanted to pointed out that there are reasons other than expected disapproval by constituents that would cause a Senator to not co-sponsor a non-binding resolution that would pass with no dissent.

Why not? I really don't know the details; did they refuse to co-sponsor, or did they lack the opportunity to co-sponsor, or did some decide one representative [that is, one Senator] of a state co-sponsoring the bill was sufficient? And I would most graciously accept your apology even if I still wanted to cut your heart out with a rusty spoon. However, if you were to apologize for something truly evil your grandfather had done to mine, I would, just as graciously, refuse the apology. You have not harmed me; if you feel guilty about what your grandfather did, that is the sins of the fathers being visited on you. There is no remedy. The dead can not apologize. No, it wasn't. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109iiykY9::

Still looking, and I have found no mention of growth in the closure motion. I have found the Nature article which attributes the rapidity to mechanical factors. But I haven't read all 70,000 links yet; I'll keep you informed.

Dish soap [for hand washing, not the machine] works on clothes.

Two possible acceptable reasons: 1.] They were out of town, and knew their signatures were unnecessary or no-one got around to asking them to co-sponsor the resolution. [Call me cynical, but if I were a Democrat party-politician, I wouldn't be chasing down Repulican Senators asking them to sign on.] And most of the Deep South states had at least one Senator co-sponsor the resolution. 2.] The non-signing senators think that apologizing for something that you didn't do is meaningless and self-serving; I believe that no current senator ever blocked an Anti-Lynching Bill. I think the second reason has some validity. What is this apology, what force does it have? 4,743 are still dead. The Federal Government still did nothing to stop the murders. And African American social structures still reflect the deliberate destruction of African American family structure well into the 20th century. "Sorry" doesn't cut it.

Born in poverty in the Jim Crow South, raised in poverty in violent Northern industrial slums, finally rescued by a strict and active father [a role that has been historically discouraged by oppressive economic and social structures in the US]. She was the first African American on Forbes List, and is still personally active in and financially supportive of multiple charities. You think a bunch of white boys whose daddies' money bought them their offices are more deserving of the title? I think she is a fine symbol of what the US has achieved in the latter half of the twentieth century. She done good, and she still does good. Einstein was an American citizen.

I wasn't going to start with that' date=' but if we don't know what consciousness is, how are we assuming it? My initial mental response to your statement [i']was[/i], "Define 'conscious' ", but I was afraid of changing the direction of the post. I am having much more fun considering sentient life without language; how would humans even recognize it? Play nice, you are going to need them for your IPO.

[Howl of frustration] Can you find a slightly more detailed explanation? I have always been fascinated by this.

For your scenario the disease would have to have 100% morbidity and mortality AND there would need to be a specific genetic resistance to the disease. I don't think that's likely. However, I have never heard that it takes humans 200,000 years to evolve a trait in response to the environment. It seems to me that a smaller population would evolve more rapidly than a larger one, because any adaptive or maladaptive change would effect a larger proportion of the population. Didn't the AR lead to an increase in population? And didn't it mitigate humans' response to the environment in general?

"... has made contact ..." I am assuming the species has achieved interstellar travel, rathering than having it thrust upon them; also that human would not question virus or bacteria. And if the aliens were here to check out the dolphins, their first act would be to anihilate the species that is wantonly contaminating the dolphins' habitat, so we would have not opportunity to ask questions. But I am really interested in cutting the MBAs a little slack, as the poster really did not seem to grasp even asking question has important assumptions, including, as you pointed out, that the aliens have language. I find it very interesting that very few hard science questions are coming up on the science boards; are we assuming that the aliens would come with the information?

Assumptions 2, 4, and 5 are valid; assumption 6 is questionable in even human to human interactions. Isn't assumption 7 a more specific version of assumption 3?

I think it's really funny [i am usually not so cruel; this is [i]Schadenfreude[/i]]. Talk about a tiger by the tail. An incredibly important story, about incredibly important events. Not just a career maker/breaker, but something that would get your name in the history books. And he finds out the primary source is not only tainted, but one of the most powerful men in the country. After he's gone too far to quietly back away. I'm not surprised he wished he'd known sooner, but I'm glad he didn't. They might not have pursued the story so agressively. I wonder if Bradlee's wasn't responsible for how slowly the story unfolded; he must have been aware of how much the paper's credibility would have suffered had Felt's involvement been know before the extent of the corruption.

Humans, in general, can reproduce; so the definition would apply to species rather than to individuals?

More information: I am having trouble with software running on an old Windows platform; the system does not have Sleep Mode and Defrag is NOT available [i think Defrag is on the computer, but has been locked out], so that can not be the source of the crashes. The application [a generally rugged commericial application] opens and sets up fine, but I get a sharing violation when I try to run it.

I am under the impression that software degrades over time because it is copied and re-written as it is opened and closed. Am I right? If I am wrong, why does software degrade over time?

I thought that in both common and scientific usage respiration is defined as the exchange of carbon dioxide for oxygen, not the exchange of one gas for another. It that movement, or growth? When my plants lean into the sun, it is caused by greater growth on the shaded side; and growth is listed separately from movement. And even if the sunflower has movement other than growth [such as the cells being swollen with water? how does the sunflower work?], my rhubarb does not. But, even if you are correct and "many plants ... burn oxygen while producing CO2" and the sunflower moves it's flower, there are plants that do not.

So, if I come up with the best question, do I get to meet the aliens and ask them in person?

Take that back. I didn't attack any facts, I commented [unfavorably, that is true] on a statement, a tone, and a curious absence of specific facts. If I wanted to attack Bob Woodward I could do a much better job than this. But perhaps you did not read my post as attentively as I would have wished. Well, no, not peculiar, [scans down to make sure did not use that word ...] but evasive. No-one is exactly fainiting from shock that Felt was DT; people have noted for years that Felt had access to all the information DT had, and that he had a non-disinterested reason for sharing the information. But Felt didn't smoke and didn't work at the White House. Yes, Felt could have started chipping in secret during a period of great stress, and [please note the source of the quote]Innocent explanations are quite possible. However, given the overall disingenousness [if that is a word, it shouldn't be] of the article, I am not willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I want these two points in particular addressed specifically. For heaven's sake, are we suppose to believe that even Ben Bradley had "little tendency or time to consider the motives of our source"? That is absolutely silly!

The problem is that any question will have inherent assumptions the validity of which we can not judge, as we have not yet met the aliens. But I'll give it a try. In what base to you commonly do math? is your written language based on ideographs, symbols for sounds [i can not remember the word for that], or something else? Are there other intelligent species on your home planet? What do you use for energy? What are the basic principles of your economic system? How does your society handle the inherent conflict between personal liberty and public responsibility?

You are really not having much luck with this question, are you?

I don't have a copy of a Greek text handy, but I am pretty certain Homer made a few references to the moon. And that predates the previous references by a millenium or so. In fact, I would bet cash money we could find a reference to the moon in Hamurabi's code.

Move? Respire? I'd be startled if my rhubard decided to visit the herb garden. Or if it started releasing carbon dioxide. I thought both were characteristic of animals?