blike

"The unfortunate truth is that 'evolution' has become a controversial buzzword that could prevent some from reading the proposed biology curriculum," Cox said in her statement. "We don't want the public or our students to get stuck on a word when the curriculum actually includes the most widely accepted theories for biology. Ironically, people have become upset about the exclusion of the word again, without having read the document." It's just semantics, the concepts will still be taught. kthx

Georgia Superintendent of Education Kathy Cox's proposal to drop the word "evolution" from biology classes is awaiting approval. Although the word would be dropped, she said, the concept would continue to be taught. The proposal is up for public comment and won't go to the Georgia board of education until May. Some opponents think it won't be approved. "By putting the word in there, we thought people would jump to conclusions and think, 'OK, we're going to be teaching the monkeys-to-man sort of thing,' which is not what happens in a modern biology classroom," Cox said at the news conference lst week

From wikipedia: The kilogram was originally defined as the mass of one liter of pure water at a temperature of 4 degrees Celsius and standard atmospheric pressure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram

Have you tried google?

It does seem rational, however, it would most certainly trigger national outrage (at least in the US). I've heard quite a few people mention this facet of china in a very negative light. Of course, most of the ideas tossed around in this thread would trigger national outcry should they be imposed.

lol, distilling isn't illegal. Nice site though!!

Assuming personality could be transferred, it'd be interesting to study the psychology of it all. Would the parents eventually accept the new "clone" as the original?

What do you mean "time"...?

It's related to your post count, not online time

Well, you can't go .1 more

Like he said, they're always going c, no matter where you are, how fast your moving.

nm, im staying out of this one. ::wanders off to the religion forum::

They do not produce offspring with each other though, which was probably the intended point.

oh in that case..

never herad of it? what is it?

I like the BBC. Many people here use it as a good source for news on US politics because its less likely to be slanted one way or another.

Oh, to clarify, I'm not criticizing your reaction, I'm just ignorant on the subject. Does the man have a history or something?

Indeed. Marriage really has (historically) nothing to do with love.

Rofl, why the kneejerk response? I don't really know much about him, but there was a huge segment on NPR (national public radio) about it yesterday that I listened to. Seems as if the BBC did falsely report some things--they even admitted to it and apologized. edit: falsely identify a source

Homosexuals do tend to change their minds about who they "love" rather frequently I'm sure one could make a somewhat arguable case that homosexuals do not bond psychologically and emotionally as well as heterosexuals.

Seem's as if the BBC is in a bit of hot water recently. I guess this hits closer to home for the british folk. What do you guys make of it?

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hscov0127,0,442476.story?coll=ny-health-headlines Goes into pretty good detail about the final minutes of columbia. Well worth a read.

Well, blue wouldn't be completely filtered out. Most certainly there is a good deal of blue wavelengths still hitting the surface of mars (otherwise the blue on the calibration color wheel wouldn't show up). You'd probably see some blue, but definately not as strong as you would see it on earth. One thing to note about CT's and psuedoscience: They always will find a way to wiggle out of anything! Good luck whippin him into shape. Can I read your response to him?

Seems to me like you have all the information you need. Just pick out where his assumptions are wrong: That's completely wrong. 50% of the light is filtered over the span of the whole atmosphere (from space to the observer). That doesn't mean a difference in the color of a rover standing three feet tall. "The secondary effect of the dust particles would be one of scattering the incoming light, and thus causing objects on the ground to appear turquoise (or 'bluish') by effectively removing the red component from the direct light." Firstly, the red component is not removed. It's the blueish hues that are absorbed by the dust. The red is somewhat scattered, but the martian atmosphere is about 100 times thinner than our atmosphere, and thus, scatters less red light. Secondly, the same dust that is in the air is all over the ground. Whatever blue happened to make it through the atmosphere would be absorbed again by the dust in the ground. This dust would undoubtedly remove blue from the spectrum again, making the ground appear redder than the atmosphere. Reyleigh scattering on earth occurs by particles smaller than the wavelength of the light it's scattering. Thus, its pretty selective for which wavelengths it scatters. On mars, the atmosphere is much thinner, so Reyleigh scattering is much less significant by the atmosphere. However, dust particles in the atmosphere will indeed scatter light. They are much bigger than the wavelength of most (visible) light, and thus, they scatter ALL light pretty uniformly, not just red light. Wrong. See above. Iron Oxide does not selectively scatter red light, but it does abosorb blue hues. Wrong. Scattering gives the atmosphere a uniform, ambient blue, it does not remove blue light.

It's worth mentioning that the Hubble pictures of Mars are composites of various filters.