doG

You're comparing apples with oranges. Evolution is NOT about the origin of life like theories about Intelligent Design or creation are. It is certainly possible that designed or created life could evolve but that provides zero support for ID or creation as an origin of life. If you're chasing support for ID or creation you need to look elsewhere, evolution is not it.

Carbonated water is the first one that comes to mind for me. BTW, you can buy CO2 in tanks for carbonating your own drinks at home. Could you not use these for your source?

None that will work in a Beakman's motor. Since the wire acts as an axle of sorts in the commutator it needs to be fairly round even after the insulation is scraped off on one side.

Why not use a hosting service as cheap as some of the rates are now? You can get better bandwidth for the money than you can get from your ISP.

Kind in mind that a vacuum is nothing more than the absence of atmospheric pressure thus, a perfect vacuum is simply 0 PSIA.

Yes, you will need magnet wire to build a motor like like Beakman's. Magnet wire as a very thin layer of insulation so that it can be wound in tight coils where the windings do not short circuit with each other. Some simply has a thin varnish on the wire that you can scrape off with a blade of some sort. In a Beakman's motor you scrape it off on one side to form the commutator.

There must have not been any hanging chads.....

I wonder how much these stimulus checks helped the economy: I'm sure the State is entitled to it's money but this sure seems counterproductive to the results intended from the stimulus effort.

Agreed on all the rest except this, doG...We can still take the government back. This looks contradictory. First you disagree then in the end you agree. IMO we do not currently have a Congress that is working for the people but one that it working against it and yes, we need to take it back.

IMO this is just one more example in a long list of Congress' dereliction of duty. The people and the States are having the same problems getting Congress to do anything about illegal immigration, tax reform, lottery litigation and frivolous lawsuits, domestic energy policy and exploration, etc., etc.. Representation in our government is malfunctioning at an astounding level. It seems it is no longer of the people, by the people and least of all for the people. It has become the people vs the government

Here's a simple motor that may help, http://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/electro/electro.html About halfway down the page you'll see a part about stripping the magnet wire on one side. That's the commutator. HTH

Actually I think most ISPs will give you a static IP for a higher rate. I know AT&T offers it. Heck, for enough money they'll give you a full T1.

Will she be the next Ross Perot?

I think it will be bascule...

How could the distance between two objects be less than zero?

Your questions are too broad and too generalized. There are over a hundred families of spiders, each with dozens or hundreds of genera each with dozens or hundreds of species. If you do want to take care of the particular one you've captured try feeding it a cricket or roach. How long can they go without food? I have had one or two of my tarantulas go more than 6 months without eating. Sometimes they just refuse to eat during the short days of winter or on approach to a molt. As for water, I have an Usumbara from Tanzania that never drinks, ever. I guess she gets the fluid she needs from her food but she never goes anywhere near a water dish I keep in her habitat. OTOH, my theraphosa leblondi goes through about 2 ounces a day. Sometimes she attacks the stream of water when I fill her dish. She is a thirsty glutton. This is in addition to the fact that she eats a mouse a week so she gets plenty of moisture from her food as well. At any rate, put the spider in a small aquarium with some ground cover, a small water dish with a small sponge in it and some type of hiding place it can go into to get out of the light. They are fascinating pets for observation but keep it at that, taking them out and playing with them stresses them out. Treat it as you would a pet fish.

I think there should be an Amendment that changes the Electoral College. Right now it is strictly a vote by the states for the Executive. Its like the Senate getting the sole vote on a piece of legislation with no say from the House. It's time that the people, as individuals, should have a say that is separate from the one they are given as sovereign communities. It would end the potential for a winner take all system that exists today because of the state legislatures. In this new Amendment the contest for President would no longer be 50 contests as it is now with contestants trying to win this state and that. On today's map it would be 485 contests, one for each state and one for each separate congressional district. There would still be a body of electors but the state legislatures would no longer control how the electors for the people vote, they would control only the manner by which their own electors vote. The electors for the people would be appointed in a manner as directed by the people of their district, by popular vote, by referendum, by any method they choose. This isolates the will of the states from the will of the people and gives both a say in choosing the Executive. It grants a right to the people, as federal citizens, that is separate from their rights as state citizens. It effectively extends the 14th Amendment to cover Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment, making the Presidential contest one that gives the people a say in where their vote goes. Note to mods: Feel free to break this post and others off into a separate thread on the Electoral College is this is drifting off topic too much.

It's not the the popular vote is overridden by the EC or that it was intended that there would be a vote by the people at all for the Executive. The EC makes the selection of President a summary of 50 separate contests in the 50 separate states such that the states may chose the Executive of their union. It is directed that each state may chose its electors however its legislature choses. It just so happen that those legislatures have chosen to use suffrage by their people as the method.

I think our best first step would be to push for a change in the Electoral College that acknowledges the 14th Amendment. If the Presidential electors for each legislative district are given to the will of the people it will come at the expense of state's rights. This would be a popular motion, since many people don't understand the EC to begin with favor the popular vote, and should be the easiest change to get the masses to support. This would open the door for the people, as federal citizens, to proclaim, "Hey, while you're at it we need to fix the people's representation too. We want more districts." By this time the states should be on the defensive and want a change that fixes their own representation

It would take a vote by our reps to pass an amendment in order to repeal the 17th. What I'm saying though is that it is the state's responsibility to initiate the action that addresses their representation. It is their responsibility to lobby for that change. Imagine how you'd feel if the states initiated an action to change the method of how your representatives are selected. They would be out of place. In short, I think it most proper that legislation to repeal the 17th should originate in the Senate instead of the House. OTOH, I do believe it is in the people's best interests that the constituency of the Senate be returned to the States. It is after all, we the people, as citizens of our respective states, that are the States, the sovereign members of the union, the entities which are granted state's rights in the Constitution. It is the existence of this sovereignty that forms the foundation of our rights as state citizens, our community rights as opposed to our individual rights represented in the House. A foundation that allows us to select our local governments and laws that are tailored to our local populations. A sovereignty that joins us as one in our states in the eyes of the union, that we may speak together on matters of the union that effect us as one.

The original system ran into problems with changing state legislatures sending different Senators to D.C. forcing the Senate to work out who was a qualified candidate for various duties or committees, bribery and corruption in some states and others leaving the selection up to their people by referendum. IMO it is the state's problem to worry about their representation. They are not getting the representation they were intended to have and they need to fix it, not we the people. They need to lobby to have the 17th repealed and they also need to be the one's to worry about the problems above and preventing them from happening again. In the process I do think it would be fair for the Senate to lay down some ground rules that constrain the states choices in the matter to help limit the problems that occurred before.

Yes, I'm VERY much in favor of repealing the 17th distortion....er..um....Amendment.

The Senate can pass no legislation by itself so lobbyists get nowhere by lobbying only the one house of Congress.

FWIW, Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention make available the debates behind the method chosen. There are no transcripts though. You have to step through images of the records so low bandwidth viewers may find it slow. Small counter nit: In the context of the discussion, the Constitution gave only the states a right to vote for the President and, given all of the amendments to date, that is still the case. Only the states have an enumerated right to elect the President and they are instructed to use a manner as prescribed by their Legislatures. The people have no right of suffrage to elect the President. As written, prior to any amendments, the Constitution assumed the only rights the people had were those they had in their respective states. It was the very lack of rights that caused several delegates at the federal convention to refuse to sign the newly drafted constitution. It was also one of the primary arguments used by anti-federalists to try to convince the people to reject the new constitution. It was the ratification messages sent by the states when they ratified the Constitution that lead to the addition of a bill of rights.

Whom are you addressing? You've quoted both Dark Matter and antimatter...