starbug1

Is there even a "reliable" scientific model or equation that maps out "the Butterfly effect?" Has it ever been proven? To me it's just a flimsy and transient theory with a mysterious catch-phrase, "When a bufferfly flaps its wings in Asia, a series of tornadoes will result in Kansas." how cute. The reverse: it's me saying that I can go swimming in the Gulf, and 2 weeks later Japan is under water from a series of killer tsunamis. What a ridiculous and irritating attribute to chaos theory. It's an arcane theory within another arcane theory. But yes, hopefully, debunked. Imagine a world where this was reality, it would be damn windy all the time.

I had heard that medicinal marijuana (i don't know if it was Marinol or not) did cause hallucination in some cases. But, this might have been early in its development. anyway, I think I'll go for saliva, especially the sex products.

From what movie?

yeah, but try explaining that to a member of answersingenesis.com or any staunch creationist for that matter. They try to throw in blatantly false facts with a bit of digusting dry humor and expect you to believe them! How did he so eloquently put it? ...and He says "thus" like its a declamatory statement set in stone like one of the ten commandments, "Hear ME! I have the answer explained in just one short paragraph!" I can hardly understand why no one believes him.

This link on fecund universes is very similar to your ideas about 'rebirth' in the universe. ...which would use entropy as a motivator for the expiration and posible rebirths of new universes. This is where it differs. Giving rise to many new universes. This works on a more prolific multiverse theory, but basically runs with your original idea. Also agreeing with evolution's trial and error and the creation of humans (and other intelligent life). And, as so masterfully pronounced, Asimov's story incorporates humans interactions and the 'manufacturing of new universes' essentially. By the way, I strongly agree with your theory. It makes a lot of sense even if, like the radical parallel universe, multiverse, and fecund universe theories, it can't be considered solvable.

that's still remarkably large. So does this mean we have giant squid and giant jellyfish? What's next.

it's mad, isn't it?

I thought I'd share this site I stumbled on. but lets get serious, how did the dinosaurs get here? ...hmm interesting take, seeing as how that's more examples than the creationists have. Evolutionists don't know what happened, though, in fact, the evolutionists think they do just as much as the creationists 'think they do.' enjoy home page http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/gospel.asp

My thoughts exactly.

I never eat pink hamburger because of what I've read about the ecoli and other deadly bacterias. I was wondering, (I know some people that eat hamburgers that are read in the middle, medium-medium rare) what is the probability of getting a disease from bad meat? How often is the bacteria inside the hamburger "harmful" bacteria?

I read SciAm, and I also dabble in Discover, though its not as 'scientific' as SciAm.

Sadly, they did.

What exactly is so smooth about it? Both parties have the right to free speech yes. However, the ones who are speaking out against the other are openly encroaching on this vested right. Protestors are using their free speech to villify an author's rights to free speech. You are presenting contrasting ideas. If the book is threatening, then don't the people still have a right to choose. I'll have you know that what's harmful in society is not weighing much on books. In fact, its rarely a problem. I'll mention the only time in recent American history that its ever been a problem. The book, "The Catcher in the Rye" by J.D. Salinger, has been linked to the assassination of John Lennon, and the assassination attempt on President Reagan. Is the author responsible? no. Is the book responsible? possibly. The fact of the matter is that Chapman (Lennon's killer) and Hinkley (Reagan), who also stalked President Carter, both had histories of mental illness. It's their obsession with the book that caused them to do it. Okay. I can admit this is a problem. Yet, you don't see it very often, so what's the craze? Also, even in the case of Hinkley, the book wasn't the main "poison" I'll call it. He, in fact, attempts to assassinate the president because of his brain-washing infatuation with the movie "The Taxi Driver." This instance as well as the many deaths and shooting regarding restrictions on video games and the dangers of tv is a much more powerful "harm to society" than any book I can think of. I don't believe that any book even comes close the danger that video games and t.v pose. These are substantial motivators to do crime. A superlative example is those idiot kids who went out and hurt themselves after watching Jackass. Again, the Columbine shootings. Again, the taxi driver... The stimuli responses, urging, and motivation are much more potent in tv than in books because there is proof. And while video games can be said to have its benefits, such as better hand-eye coordination, can this be said to have more benefits than literature and reading? I don't think so. As to immoral atrocities in a book, rape, pornography, racism. These are taboo topics and the author knows it. Generally, he knows what his audience is. I'd like to think that the people who don't approve of this type of literature won't read it, but you always have those that stumble upon it, or even go out of their way to find the book and locate all of the injustices in it. I agree that there is some problem with these "restricted" subjects. I DO NOT, however, agree preventing the people from the exposure of knowledge and oftentimes truth to these books. If we were without these topics in some books, do you really think that society would be better? The reverse repercussions, I think, would be the same if not worse. We would be ignorant and much more suceptible to ideas when presented them. If you absolutely revel in fire and just love seeing pages crinkle in the flames, you can burn your fill of books for all I care. Mass book burnings, on the other hand, are NOT acceptable. This is a form of extremist censorship that has no benefits other than for the dictatorship ideal. Preventing free thinking, and free publication of ideas has never lasted in the end. And by preventing these things, along goes the freedom of speech and religion, it's a whole meltdown, as in the case of nazi germany, that rules out freedom altogether. Criticism, to me, is a very natural process when one reads any piece of work. I also love to read what the scholarly critics have to say about my favorite book or play. It's amazing because some books of criticism are actually longer than the actual book they are criticizing. Hamlet, for instance, has so much literary criticism that it outranks any other collective criticism for a single piece of literature. Criticism of books is healthy. To the point of protest for the feeling that this book will cause immediate danger is a different point. Anyone can criticize. Not everyone can devote the time to picket or form groups to get a book off the shelves. What I want to know is why they think the books are the immediate problem. To me they patronize youth, thinking they can't think for themselves rationally. Of course, there are exceptions, and there are measures for keeping such influences away from these exceptions. Again, you have the right idea, but still not sure where you stand. Harry Potter is an interesting case. So many books sold at the time that it looked like it would outprint the Bible! It's much easier in this case to see why people were worried. Some of the protests might have been valid, but their explanations weren't. A lot of it was embarassing and downright stupid. In addition, i know kids whose parents won't let them watch or read HP because "it's witchcraft." I mean, only someone of the most thickheadedness and naievity could see past the wonderful story of friendship and hardship and see the devil. I firmly believe that the books are the most furthest away from this notion that I have ever read. The books cannot be judged by headlines and articles and reviews. One has actually go to sit down and see from the book the moral and ideas it conveys. I will disprove and stamp in the dirt any claim demoralizing Harry Potter. The books have boosted youth reading, and boosted younger reader book sales, which is something that can't be faulted. I have yet to read about of group of teenagers forming a cult and performing a sacarifice to bring back "the Dark Lord."

does it really have to be that complicated?

of my syllables I never really knew well caught now! Haiku cop! six on right, eight left! I find it hard to shake hands let me go, please go! I go straight to hell syllables and poetry not cut out for me

That sure changes things. Though it was still pretty much obvious, except for getting around the priests delving into sinning, which is in fact not true now!

Do you mean are both orientations applicable in comtemporary psychology? They are. Herey's why, psychology, broadly, is the study of the mind, and both introversion and extroversion are studied because they are aspects of the mind, although leaning more strongly towards introversion. This is a lot of times the main orientation for people with neurosis, psychosis, and depression, so therefore clinical, school, and therapeutic psychologists work with them more.

Walmart, a big bully the world's friendly superpower I'll never go near one

one die with four rolls yields a 2/3 probability for any one number. With two dice you always take the number of sides (6) and raise an exponent with the number of dice (2). Therefore, you get a 6^2, which is 36. So, then, the probability of getting two sixes is 1/36. 2/3 > 1/36

and there's nothing wrong with that.

Because of the supposed inforcement of the first amendment, there are no books currently banned in the U.S... Wikipediahas an excellent coverage of banned books, recent and past, and an archive of links to explore on the matter. Here is a list of books banned in the 1990s and another up to 2000. Although I didn't find a list of books banned in 2006, I know specifically that some southern states or even individual schools have recently banned within the past five years, and several states within the past decade, shown on the link. I can name one book, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, which is a coming of age novel, that was banned within the past 5 years. And I'm certain that there has been more in the past 2 or 3 years. If not officially banned, then challenged so much that the protestors took it into their own hands. This seems to occur quite often. Therefore, that's why there are associations like ALA that host Banned Books Week, and you can buy these books from specialized banned booksellers. As a side note, literally thousands of books are challenged every year just in the US. And, as shown in the wikipedia link, there are HUNDREDS of books that were banned continuously, others continously challenged. My point is that quite of few of these books have won awards or are books of award winning authors. Moreover, you'll also find children's books banned, even the Newberry award winners, a distinguished award for children's literature; one of whom Roald Dahl, the creator of Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory. James and the Giant Peach was actually banned! I can hardly believe some of the reasoning behind it. The first amendment is supposed to given us freedom of speech, relgion, press, and we still challenge books for an issue as simple as euthanasia., which a lot of us witness by having our pet dog put to sleep. Others for such things as mild horror elements, such as R.L Stines Goosebumps series. (you got to be kidding me) I'm not advocating book burning or book banning in the slightest. I did not say books "should be burned" my final comment in my last post was a pun on what has actually been proven affective. Just my way of conveying discontent. My arguement is not to give you a book that is currently banned. This does not prove my point. I have given more links above as a way of showing the overall ignorance and disregard for rights as shown by those who challenge books. Read this short essay by Kurt Vonnegut. He says He makes an interesting point here with the accusation that books cause people to rape, or do any other type of crime. It's almost scoffable. Could media, television, high school, every-day life be less self-imposing and suggesting of bad behavior? I think not. Because, you see, media, high-school, everyday life, these things are unavoidable. Books only impress themselves on people, their ideas are only conveyed when people open them and read. I particularly like this quotation: "Did you ever hear anyone say, 'That book had better be banned because I might read it and it might be very damaging to me'?" ---Joseph Henry Jackson Here is the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." which vonnegut included in his essay. ???? Sound a little funny. I don't care if no books are currently banned in the US. Books are still constantly challenged, and, although Vonnegut is an ass, he makes a point.

This works, too. However, because we assume he is old enough to know where he's at in life, I'd think that he would have recognized this sooner; however, this could also be said for his sexuality... Precisely. I'd save that for another thread. So do you have the real psycho-analytic interpretation for us?

The responses I have read connoting the "casual date" by dating for experience, for the fun of it, for sex, for practice, whatever, kinda borders on vain satisfaction of sexual urges. Some of you may be looking for a soul mate or a gratifying personality in the opposite sex for companionship or what have you. That's fine. I might bring up religion for any of you who are religious, just in case you have forgotten that promiscuity isn't always glorified. In some of you it's just sick. It was funny in Seinfeld, but if your going to live that way, I don't know how you can respect yourself, or live with yourself. A few of us on this thread, I've noticed, are teenagers. Experience and getting out every once in awhile are okay, but are we even ready for a serious relationship? The reason why so many teenage relationships end in heartbreak is that teenagers can't be said to be emotionally mature. I'm going to take an educated guess here: one of the main reasons of teenage suicide is from these early uneducated relationships. The teenagers who have nothing else to live for, live for their boy/girlfriends. This isn't healthy. Too many people I've seen have no second guessing with dating, other than its what everybody else is doing and puberty's lovely hormones. Really, my perspective is, if you can get past the sexual urge part, you have these benefits: 1. more money, a big one for some people. 2. more free time. In my case, I've gotten so much more done without dating. I am so far ahead of anymore in my class as far as knowledge goes. I read more books. I have more time for research. I have free weekends. 3. emotional relief. however, this can go both ways. For the extremely lonely, this would be something that could bring them down. Though, I'd also like to postulate that most people usually have more than just their boy/girlfriend, even if it's just one or two others, as in my case, I have several good male friends. 4. less anxiety, timidness, and brain wracking. 5. virginity. Again, this goes both ways, depending on how you look at life. 6. no obligation to see really bad chick flicks. probably the best one The argument is virtually endless. I believe, that if you are not the "dating" type, you either force it upon yourself with a general view of what dating is like, especially in high school. hereme3's case is probably the same for people who only see the shallow form of mass dating, like those in public high schools or colleges. I see the exact same thing. I, however, maintain myself by waiting until I can travel so I can explore variety, get out of a place where dating is just one big party. Far enough away from home as to where I can get a different view as to what other girls are like. Cause right now, I don't have the best impression of both girls and guys. Also, to be emotionally tangeld up in brief relationships and one-night stands like bascule, would kill me. I don't know how you do it.

Nonsense! He was later devised to be a robotic puppy, and he was Scar's evil offspring, and he killed Simba, so Disney