Area54

The behaviour would be inappropriate if the partner felt uncomfortable about the comments. If they felt very uncomfortable then the behaviour would arguably be immoral and certainly crude and uncaring. However, as String junky and Prometheus have pointed out, most (many) people are not concerned by it. One could use this argument. If one is in a positive and rewarding relationship, this relationship has arisen because of our ability to find individuals attractive. That ability is an innate and instinctive part of our make up and as such is an integral part of our character. To deny that ability now would be dishonest and undermine the foundation of the relationship. People are diverse. Don't sweat it.

That would have been more informative.

Or to tell us when it's time to shoot.

And here was I hoping this was a discussion of plate tectonics!

It might help others if you were to state which grade you are in (also which country!). In addition what resources do you have available to you? For example, did a rich alumni gift the chemistry department a high specification Mass Spectrometer-Gas Chromatograph? Do you need to conduct an actual experiment, or could you submit very detailed plans, with abundant, relevant references for a an experimental program to assess the extent and character of soil pollution?

That's because you are living with limeys!

Well, my apologies if your intentions are genuine. The style and content of your OP were reminiscent of many posts I've seen that are designed to promote some product or service by appearing to be a genuine appeal for help that "just happens" to "mention" a supposedly relevant site. I can see the potential benefits of having another party proofread your work. However, to even consider using such an entity to create your work from scratch strikes me as simultaneously ethically appalling and monumentally stupid. On what basis can you possibly defend the idea of having someone else do your work for you? Poor you! You find writing such essays difficult. What made you think the educational process was meant to be easy? It is by tackling the difficult problems head on that we enhance our skills and build our character. On the other hand, if you wish to go through life with major gaps in your skill set and a minimal moral fibre, it might be the right approach. Secondly, if you avoid developing this skill you are going to be at a loss if and when it is called upon in the real world. Worse yet, you will have habituated yourself to avoiding challenges. Hardly a sound combination for developing your career. You say you overthink things when trying to write such essays. Without the details any advice could easily miss the mark, but for what it's worth . . . . . Make a simple list of all the ways the two subjects are similar, grouped hierachically if appropriate. Make a second list for ways in which the two subjects differ. Rearrange the lists to reflect relative importance, or some other significant aspect of character. Write comments on each point, using progressively clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections depending on their importance. Add an executive summary at the front and a set of conclusions at the back. Job done.

And?

The "he" referred to here is you, so now I am the one that doesn't understand. Would you like to explain?

A situation, I suspect, that you are intimately familiar with. Thank you. I have had a disappointing evening, so I found the above really amusing. It cheered me greatly. Not because it is sub-standard, badly written, or irrelevant, but because you patently do notunderstand its significance. Perhaps you would care to use your superior comprehension skills to explain how the document supports the position you appear to be taking. For example, the following extract (2nd paragraph, page 117) describes a situation that runs exactly contrary to the claim for commonality of behaviour by race. Most human genetic variation—approximately 85%— can be found between any two individuals from the same group (racial, ethnic, religious, etc.). Thus, the vast majority of variation is within-group variation. Unrelated people of the same racial, ethnic, or religious group are not particularly similar to each other. This means that people of the same race, ethnicity, or religious background do not necessarily have a great deal of shared or common ancestry; they are not necessarily closely related.

Pay attention! I referenced monkey wrench in my earlier post. It was the 7th wrench related pun in it. Thus: " Well that's enough monkeying around for the moment."

I found these sentences difficult to parse. However, based on what I think you were saying here are some responses: 1. While certainly some legislation "seeks to open or limit environmental conditions" this is not an end in itself. The objective of the legislation is to change behaviour. 2. As you say ignore the (changed) conditions at your peril. That is, you will experience pressure to modify your behaviour. That is precisely what I am saying, but I sense you intend to disagree. I hope you can clarify. 3.I have no idea what the last sentence means, or rather I have about five distinct possible meanings for it. Again, can you clarify. This is self evident and entirely consistent with what I have been saying. That is why, in order to change behaviour and attitudes, small steps must be taken. Attempting a major cultural change "against the tide" will not work, whereas a small change can and has been seen to do so.

I've placed this in Earth Science, rather than Astronomy, because it is, in essence, a geological tale. And I've put it in Earth Science, rather than Science News, because I'd like to see this sub-forum get more traffic. Three interesting papers have been presented at the 49th Lunar & Planetary Science Conference in The Woodlands, Texas that address tectonics on Venus. The lithosphere of Venus has been broken and, in places, mobile Venus crustal tectonics analagous to jostling pack ice Life potential on early Venus connected to climate and geological history The majority of planetary scientists consider Venus to lack plate tectonic activity. Though some researchers have occassionally pointed out features that could be evidence for plate tectonics, these notions have generally been dismissed and Venus has been viewed as having a stagnant lid - a single, fixed lithospheric plate, rather than the multiple mobile plates found on Earth. This lid is thought to have overturned in the last billion years as a mechanism for heat loss, a heat loss otherwise restricted in the absence of plate tectonics. The first two papers discuss an alternative, presenting the evidence for thin crustal plates that engage in small, irregular movements at their contact areas. This is not the large scale movement, with subduction, generation of new crust and creation of transform faults, in which plates can be transported across the planet, broken up and welded onto other plates, but a comparatively minor "rubbing together". Nevertheless this can modify the topography and facilitate heat loss. The third paper considers the impact of Venus's tectonic regimes for supporting viable conditions for life (as we know it). This article from Science News contains a digestible discussion for those who do not wish to read the papers themselves. Understanding the range and character of planetary tectonics will be essential (though obviously not sufficient) in properly estimating the probabilties for life on exoplanets.

If I understand current theory correctly - which is not a necessarily the case - space was created by the Big Bang and so did not precede it. Alternatively - and I'm on stronger ground here - there is no such thing space, but rather something called spacetime. If so, that would also contradict your thesis. I don't know if you are out to lunch, but I think you may at least have ordered in a sandwich.

Seat belts were required to be fitted to new cars from the early to mid sixties. The government understood that it could not change culture overnight. The requirements were progressively tightened till, as you point out, wearing them in front seats became mandatory in '83. This was followed, a few years later, by compulsory fitting of rear seat belts and a few years after that compulsory wearing of them. This sequence of events supports my contention of cultural change through legislation. A similar argument applies to the drink driving, that I shall make later, but I just tracked down a feed where I can watch a replay of the Konta-Mertens match.

Then how do you explain away my two examples? EDit: cross posted with String Junky And I recall very clearly the arguments being used by the general population against the use of seatbelts.The three main ones were: I am a good driver so I won't be in an accident. If I am in a crash the seatbelt could trap me in the vehicle. My uncle Charlie [insert appropriate relationship, individual, etc.] only survived the crash because he was thrown clear. If he had been wearing his seat belt he would be dead.

Here's a singleverse, what I wrote. I hope it don't get on Goku's goat. If YouTube's where the theory's located I think it's author will get frustrated at many requests for proper citations and more explicit condemnations. There is no way to coat with sugar. 'Tis another case of Dunning-Kruger.

Precisely my reading of it. We know from other situations that when something becomes habitual ones attitude to it is likely to undergo a change. My assertions, with which I think you agree, is that in some instances modifying behaviour, where the change is reluctant, will later lead to a change in attitude towards that behaviour. Teaching children to appreciate certain foods is an example some of you may be familiar with. So, I would modify your suggestion slightly, that there must be an agreement in principle from the population to one where there is not strong opposition.

I thought about this and reached the conclusion you can legislate for better culture. To avoid off-topic discussion I've opened a new thread on the subject.

Earlier I said " Surely, if you wish to turn a believer, you should torque to him. " Any one that will let you socket to him. Edit: On further reflection you may want to be adjustable in the approach you take. The whole subject is open ended. It's very easy to ratchet up the associated emotions. You just don't want to come out of it looking like a tool, or putting a spanner in the works. Well that's enough monkeying around for the moment*. * We all know what moments are associated with, right?

In the thread "Gun Control, which side wins?" John Cuthber made this remark . . . . you can legislate for better gun control, and you can't legislate for "better culture" . . . I reflected on that and reached the conclusion he was probably mistaken. It would have taken the thread off-topic to discuss there, hence this new thread. I support my doubt with a couple of examples,, both from the UK, both relating to automobile safety. 1. When I got into a car in the UK in the second half of the 60s and put on my seat belt, I automatically apologised to the driver for wearing one, noting that it was not because I thought he was an incompetent driver, but because of the other crazies out there on the roads. That has been unecessary for several decades. The legislation enforcing the use of seat belts is primarily responsible. You can argue that extensive advertising campaigns have contributed, but for me the sequence is this: Legislation requiring seat belts >> penalties implemented >> behaviour changed >> leads over time to ---attitude change = changed culture 2. Again, in the 60s and 70s, drink driving was commonplace and rarely frowned upon. Not so today. The same sequence of legislation, enforecement, behaviour change, attitude change, culture change, applies. I am interested in reactions to my general thesis, for or against, and in any telling examples supporting it, or demonstating that the claimed examples are faulty.

Surely, if you wish to turn a believer, you should torque to him.

It is statistically probable. (Figures available upon request.) What makes you think I believe it to be the case? (The post was an attempt at humour. It required I adopt that viewpoint.) What makes you think the parochial are less advanced than the cosmopolitan?

The story is almost certainly apocryphal. There are plenty of online sources debunking it. Here is an extract from one taken at random: " Neither Galileo nor any of his contemporaries mentioned the Tower of Pisa story during Galileo's lifetime. The source of the myth is Galileo's first biographer, Vincenzo Viviani. Viviani is not considered a credible source because of other errors in the biography. There is documented evidence of two Tower of Pisa experiments during Galileo's time, neither conducted by Galileo. One of the experiments was done by Vicenzio Renieri, a Roman Catholic monk and professor at the University of Pisa. Renieri was a friend of Galileo's and reported it immediately to Galileo ( see Galileo's Contemporaries ). Another experiment was done by Giorgio Coresio, another University of Pisa professor. " From this website.

We solved the problem 'offline' via pm. Anyone interested in the solution can pm me for the simple spreadsheet.