OldChemE

The crux of it is as Fiveworlds says. In the US, at least, there are many laws in force concerning what things a company must and must not do involving their employees, which are not applicable to someone who is freelance or a contractor. Its a matter of legal obligations (Social security, tax withholding, etc, etc). Thus, there is a difference in legal status between the two.

Way back in the early stages of this discussion there was the implied statement that if God does not exist there is no purpose in life-- or something like that. Without evidence I offer the following thoughts: Of all the inhabitants of earth, only mankind seems to possess the intelligence to be religious. I believe this is because religion requires beings of sufficient intelligence to be dissatisfied with the limitations of life, to wish for something better, and to be able to visualize what that better something might be. When viewed with this perspective, I believe the history of religion makes sense. Early man was essentially powerless in nature. He could hunt and forage for food, build shelter and care for a family, but he and his family were largely at the mercy of the natural elements. Having the intelligence to be dissatisfied with this situation, man began to wish for something better and to visualize beings who had power over the elements and did not have human limitations. This is the origin of Gods. Thus, early gods tended to reflect the needs of mankind: Gods of the hunt, the harvest, and of all things good in life. As mankind grew and developed into larger tribes and had territorial conflicts, the Gods of battle and war emerged-- because a warrior who could win was what mankind needed. As man recognized the limitations if death and yearned for more life, gods became immortal. When civilizations developed and mankind had a better lot in life, such as early Grecian and Roman societies, mankind yearned for pleasures that the moral standards of society tended to limit, and the immortal gods emerged that had to power to have limitless love affairs and debauchery. In simple terms, our Gods have always tended to represent the things we wish we could have in life but cannot always have due to our human limitations. As civilizations progressed, however, God became more sophisticated. At this point I could discuss more than one religion, but I will focus only on the God of the Hebrews and the development of the Christian religion. As civilization progressed and human knowledge expanded, certain very intelligent humans began to realize that what they really wanted in life was to live a full and happy life within their own families and societies. This led to dissatisfaction with the baseness of pagan gods. Gods of sex, war and debauchery were not the answer. Thus, philosophers or religious writers began to develop a vision of a God that represented all that was best in life. A Moral God. A similar trend occurred elsewhere, producing Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and other modern religions. This new development of a Moral God had one problem: not all mankind has the intelligence or inclination to accept a moral code on face value. Just as children must be disciplined in order to teach them proper moral behavior, there are many members of society who never outgrow the need for the discipline of an elder. Some people simply do not want to be moral. For early societies, such as Israel, this led to a situation where the founders of the religion could not simply appeal to higher instincts of their people, they needed to keep God as a physical person, just like the earlier gods. Thus, although the Christian God (among others) represents a moral ideal of proper behavior, the Church still needs to have God be a physical person who will punish those who misbehave. This is why we have problems in modern society with religion not reaching all the people. In our modern society with all our forms of communication and broad education, it has become obvious that God does not punish the bad elements of society (hence the modern pre-occupation with the question of whether or not God is dead). God is not dead-- God was never alive in a physical sense. The problem is that only portions of mankind have the intelligence or will to recognize that the moral teachings of religion are important to living life properly. The rest will only obey God when God appears to them and punishes them. Since God is not a physical being, that isn't happening and isn't going to happen. So, if you are looking for moral purpose in life, religion is one answer-- but not the only answer.

Yes, there is a difference between speculation and hypothesis. In the Scientific Method, a Hypothesis is formed after first collecting observations. The purpose of the hypothesis is to explain the cause of the existing observations in a manner that permits a prediction that can then be verified by further experimentation. This is more rigorous than speculation. If there are actual observations of events that might imply negative mass, then it would be appropriate to attempt to develop a hypothesis that would predict the conditions necessary to achieve negative mass, and then one would construct experiments to verify this prediction. A speculation need not form the basis for an experiment, while a hypothesis is not proper unless it is sufficiently structured to permit an attempt at verification. However, a speculation based on actual observations might be a good starting point for more detailed work to form a hypothesis.

The solution I'd like to see is driven by the situation wherein those who make the laws and enforce them also tend to exempt themselves, which I believe lessens their incentive to get it right. My suggestion (not original to me) is that the US constitution be amended to require that all systems (retirement, health, etc) developed by the Government are mandatory for all government and elected officials, not just the rest of the population. If Congress had to depend on Social Security and Medicare for health (not Tricare or other plans) they would have more incentive to do their best.

While I see some good points in the above posts, I have to note that under Obama my medical insurance costs went up with no change in coverage, Our economy went in the tank (median household income peaked in 2008 in the US and has not recovered), a close friend DIED of prostate cancer after the "Improved" medical care system said he should not have his cancer removed surgically because he was too old, and it wouldn't kill him, and many more upsets. Anybody who promises to stop the Federal Government from meddling in my life has my vote.

I don't know what exact type of steel was used in the titanic, but it is worth noting that below a certain temperature, certain steels experience a situation where the yield strength rises above the ultimate strength. The required temperature is warmer than typical winter ocean temperatures. When this happens, and a stress is put on the steel (such as due to an iceberg), the steel fractures instead of bending. This was the cause of some of the Liberty ship hull failures in WWII. The point is that steel hulls can fail even without being weakened in advance.

Maybe the books are mixing something (a typo??) or you are misunderstanding. There are two types of cell division: Mitosis and Meiosis. Mitosis is the normal cell division (NOT sex cells). In Mitosis the parent cell duplicates its chromosomes first, then divides once, producing two identical cells having the same 46 chromosomes (called diploid cells). In meiosis (sex cells), the duplication of chromosomes happens once (like Mitosis) but the division process happens twice, producing 4 new cells, but each one only has 23 chromosomes (called haploid cells, or gametes). Thus, in Meiosis, one parent cell produces 4 sex cells. Could that be the 4 you are reading about??

In some form or another they've been around a lot longer than that. When I entered the US Navy in 1969 the doctors used pressure guns that shot a high pressure stream of vaccine. 5 or 6 vaccinations at a time-- we just walked through the room as they shot us in both shoulders. Based on the link I would say that the 1960's version was cruder-- it left a big enough hole that we left the room leaking fluid.

Carbon has the capability to form bonds using multiple numbers of electrons. it can form single, double, and even triple bonds that are stable and have no charge. This allows CO2 and CO. The problem with CO3 is that there are too many available electrons in three oxygen atoms for Carbon to form a neutral bond. I don't have my chemistry books handy (someone who does can clean up my mistakes on this), but if memory serves correctly: In the case of CO, Carbon can contribute 2 electrons to the bond, and oxygen 4, making a triple bond. Thus, The carbon atom (which has 4 electrons) sees 6 in the bond plus its other two making 8, which satisfies the octet rule. Oxygen, having 6 electrons, sees its two plus the 4 it shares and the two from the carbon atom for a total of 8, which also fits the octet rule ( :C:::0: ). This is stable with no net charge. In CO2, we have ::0::C::0::, where Carbon shares two electrons with each oxygen atom, and each oxygen atom shares two with the carbon. All the atoms still see 8 electrons, which satisfies the octet rule. There just simply isn't any combination like this that works for CO3

It may also be that since Chlorine is much more electronegative (being in group 7) than Boron the most energy efficient configuration favors hybridization of the Boron.

To elaborate a little on what is above, mutations arise from a variety of causes in terms of changes in DNA (cosmic rays, among other things can damage DNA, which can produce a mutation). Mutations in an individuals sex cells can be passed on to their children. At this point, the question becomes "How will the DNA change affect the child?" In the extreme worst case, a mutation can prevent proper development-- and the child never survives to birth. Slightly less worst case would be a mutation that allows the child to live, but either prevents the child from living to adulthood or prevents the adult from being able to have children. Such a mutation will not continue in future generations (it goes away). Next on the list is mutations that are innocuous--they neither hurt or benefit significantly. A good example is ear lobes-- some of us have ear lobes that hang down and some are attached to the side of our neck. This type can be passed on to future generations and adds to our genetic diversity. Top of the list is mutations that actually enable an organism to survive better and/or produce more offspring. Because these mutations survive better and/or produce more offspring, they tend to become a larger and larger part of the population in future generations. The reason for improved survival is assumed to be because the mutation works better in the environment. When an organism acquires this type of mutation we say it has "Adapted to its Environment." The important thing to realize is that organisms do not choose to adapt to their environment-- it is the random DNA change that makes it happen, but because other mutation types don't help survival as much, the favorable mutations build up over time in future generations.

Back to the question of how numerology and mathematics differ. Mathematics is a tool. The numbers are meaningful only in context. In order to use the tool in real life you have to first develop a theory of how to represent a situation mathematically, produce evidence supporting the use of mathematics to make a prediction, then apply the mathematics, and ultimately maybe change the use of mathematics if future observations do not fit the mathematics prediction. Its merely a tool (a very powerful one when properly used). Numerology, on the other hand, appears to me to assume that numbers themselves have some mystic or magical property, and that the numbers themselves confer on the object some property or quality. I would also point out that the principles of mathematics work with any number system (base 2, base 10, Hexadecimal, etc). All the numerology I've seen seems to be limited to base 10.

In order to find a unique solution for each variable you must have as many different relationships as you have variables. The quadratic Equation works because there is only one variable (usually x, but doesn't have to be). If you have three variables in a single equation, such as you suggest, you can find an essentially infinite set of values that will solve the equation, but to find the unique solution you need three different equations all using the same three variables. That means there is no shortcut equation like the quadratic equation (the Quadratic equation is simply derived by the method called "Completing the Square" starting with the ax2+ bx + c = 0, a method that won;t work with multiple variables, unless of course you have multiple unique equations).

It's all OK guys-- remember, this is the internet. The great thing about the internet and computers is it lets us be brave enough to type things we wouldn't have the guts to say to someone face-to-face.

There are other aspects that (maybe) are in favor of Aircraft carriers. The Nuclear powered carriers do not have to carry fuel, which allows them to carry large amounts of fuel for both their aircraft AND other ships in their group-- which gives them added flexibility and range. They have been designed to withstand the blast of everything up to and including small tactical nucs-- such as nuclear torpedoes . It is also very, very difficult to punch a hole in the hull of a modern Aircraft carrier, and they don't have to worry much about being attacked by submarines. Unfortunately, I cannot give you any links to support this, as details are still classified, but I was there for a lot of the design work.

Things progress in a way to get better?? Didn't work for the Dinosaurs, and I wouldn't count on it for us either.

A related topic if you want to look it up is Kohlberg's stages of Moral Development. He basically postulated six stages, starting with total ego-centricity (young children) through the final stage where people recognize that there are moral absolutes that apply even without laws. If I recall correctly, he also postulated that not all adults make it to the last stage. I don't have a non-copyrighted link to offer, but I believe wikipedia probably would be a place to start.

OK-- I have to ask. Let's postulate that "A" is the one that lies, and B is the one who tells the truth. If I ask "A" "If you were your brother (sister) would you always tell the truth?", the correct answer would be that B tells the truth, so "A" will lie and say say "No." If I ask B "if you were your brother (sister) would you tell the truth?", the correct answer would be "No", and that is the answer B would give, because B always tells the truth. Since both will answer "No", how can I meet the original challenge of telling which is which??

My wife an I do not permit news programs in our home (and we never have done so). Way too much sensationalism and depressing. Instead, we read. We wait awhile for the news to make it into print-- which usually allows for the really important stuff to rise to the surface.

Velocity-Boy: "You don't get half a card from each stack for one trait." I agree with your point, but your statement isn't quite correct. You receive one full allele from each parent. Those two alleles, depending on the mix of dominance and or recessiveness (and even more complicated for polygenic traits) then determines the resulting phenotype. Thus, for each trait in the offspring there really is one- half from each parent. What I think you were trying to point out is that the expressed trait (the phenotype) will not be an average of the two contributions, with which I fully agree.

I find the idea that we do not possess free will ludicrous. The thoughts I develop and the actions I take originated somewhere in my brain. Whether I consciously thought about it or whether it emerged from some dim back corner without conscious thought or whether or not someone convinced me to do it is immaterial.-- either way the decision to act came from within. That's free will.

Environment, not socialization. Survival in the environment is the ultimate decider as to who survives, hence what brain capability survives. Pardon my pessimism, but as I look at modern society I have trouble believing that typical social interactions could in any way be correlated to improved encephalization.

I too believe that when you are dead you are dead-- there is no afterlife. However, I maintain that Heaven and Hell do exist and most of us will eventually face them. Most of us will sooner or later in our life evaluate who we are and what we have done. Heaven is within the mind-- being satisfied that we did our best and have loved ones and friends. Hell is also within the mind-- knowing we screwed up and that its too late to fix.

I would say applied math in some form is a must. I took lots of physics and chemistry-- which makes sense since I took degrees in Chemical Engineering and Nuclear Engineering. But-- in the end, you're going to need a strong base in practical math in order to make use of the Physics, and Chemistry. Even Biology has a surprising amount of math if you really want to investigate and correlate information. There were many, many times in my career (I'm retired now) when I needed math as much or more than the chemistry and physics, simply because i needed a result I could apply that was properly developed from the theory.

Lots of good advice. In the end-- as cruel as I know this will sound, you have to let the deniers fail/die/or suffer whatever consequences their bad decision brings about. We live in a very protected age. Everything has operating warnings. We have medical miracles. Many, many people, either consciously or unconsciously don't really believe their actions or decisions will have serious consequences. Someone or something will save them no matter how stupidly they may behave. Some people will only change when they have concrete personal proof that they are/were wrong. Cruel, but. I fear, true.