silkworm

Jesus, really? I think there are more unicorns in Kansas than that. That's unfortunate. Is there anything different about the wolves in Sweden than in other places? Either way, it's still too bad and I'd raise a lot of Hell if I were you. I saw this thing on TV once about some odd animal that I think was part wolf, part fox, and part kangaroo in Australia became extinct from the same thing. The show started with a farmer shooting one and then the narrator saying something like, "Little did he know, he just caused an entire species to become extinct." Now wouldn't that be heavy to be that guy? There was one still alive in captivity but it was already getting old and had no one to mate with, needless to say their next few generations would be severely inbred anyway and repopulating from there would be difficult. I'm lucky I live out in the middle of nowhere in Kansas. Randomly there are armadillos, deer, turkey, rabbits, squirell, all sorts of hawks and birds, all kinds of snakes, bobcats, turtles, frogs, all kinds of bugs, etc etc and a mountain lion on two occasions. They enrich my life. You can learn a lot from wild animals, the most important being that you're a domesticated one. I've noticed that my friends who grew up in Wichita are generally sort of freaked out when they see something that isn't a dog or a cat or a bird outside of a zoo or dead on the side of the road, so I could see a reaction from them to kill everything that looks dangerous. But it's strange that farmers are taking that route, because it seems like an old route here. I totally understand a farmer taking measures to protect his livestock, the farmers in my family just use big dogs and llamas (they're mean and beat up on coyotes pretty good) instead of killing them, which essentially only protects your livestock from that one specific animal, but having a guard dog there and an electric fence does a pretty good job as a constant deterrent. As for dogs going out and getting attacked, that's generally their fault. Many times I failed to keep a pup from running out to some howling coyotes only to know I'll have to clean him later if he's alive at all. It's just a fact of life. If people think that wildlife isn't as important as their dog, I think they've missed out on a lot. Don't let them do it. Start an electric fence and llama business.

Depends on the mass of the object inside the sphere, but if you're dealing with an object of negligible mass inside the spere the smaller object will accelerate towards the center of mass between the object and the sphere, which would be towards its center. If you're dealing with a small object with intense mass inside the sphere the sphere should accelerate to put its closest part physically against the intense mass if this intense mass is greater than that of the sphere, if the intense object starts off center because the part closest to it feels more acceleration from the object than the further parts and should over power it to determine its motion. But if the intense mass starts in the center of the hollow sphere it should just remain there as the sphere accelerates to keep the object at its center. I haven't done any calculations, but I'm basing that on what I know about gravity. I hope I'm answering the point of this post, because this depends on many variables and the assumption that the system has the only objects in the universe.

Thanks for the help' date=' ecoli, otherwise I never would have known. I know the expression "on the other hand," but if it wasn't for you I never would have connected these dots. I was proving a point. I'm too tired to know if you're joking. Preaching to the choir, however a crowd of English speakers can sing with us too as long as the song isn't in Latin, and understand the song too if the lyrics are clear and composed of words free of double meanings. Actually, I personally won't benefit from it very much because I've already dealt with the symbols problem, however I do see the possibilities easing the process of learning science and math for to those who are doing it for the first time by unified symbols. So I guess I will benefit, by society benefitting as a whole. Why would you want to make more work than necessary? Why make any effort less productive than it can be? That's like arguing why make a car engine more fuel effecient, I only got 10 miles a gallon in the 60s? I don't see the basis on calling me lazy or arrogant, if you knew me you'd think that is incredibly silly. Don't you think it's lazy and arrogant to not to want to fix flaws in a system just because you suffered by them and you find ammusement in others suffering as well? Embracing any tradition as the final system leads to paralysis, and I thought science was about progress. Who says they have to be letters? They can be shapes, little pictures, anything that tries not to look alike (especially when used in the same areas), and mean the same thing no matter what subject your studying. If it's all the same to you, I'd rather make it easier on myself. Whenever I'm learning something in physics or calculus or chemistry that overlaps I normally take awhile translating and unifying the symbols so I understand the point each is getting at. It is true, symbols are arbitrary, but what if they weren't. Say that this symbol he was using for something that you'd seen in another class and you knew what it meant. As soon as he wrote it on the board you'd have known exactly what it meant. And just think, with unified symbols, anytime you'd see a new equation you could potentially have a full understanding of the meaning of these relationships immediately, without having to poke around and find out what each symbol means in this discipline. It would make these relationships more readily available. I can't be the only one who sees the power in this. We need to make science more accessible if we really want to make it more accepted.

WTF is OTOH? That should be point enough in itself. These misconceptions are cleared up with a solid effort at communication. I'm not saying there still wouldn't be people who would make an effort to be scientifically illiterate, but there would be less scientifically illiterate people if science made an effort to speak their language. I've been studying science for a little over a year, I know that makes me a baby compared to most in here, but the language doesn't bother me all that much but I do notice it is a problem with people who don't take science seriously. The thing that is killing me though is that symbols in science and math are not unified. And when row and p is used in the same equation, Who the hell thought that was a good idea? All of these symbols should look as different as possible and mean the same thing in math, chemistry, physics, biology, whereever, to facilitate in learning and communicating the concept. I don't care about the historical significance of these symbols, and progress is a hell of a lot more valuable than tradition.

This can all be settled with a sign at the airport: As far as I know bipolar is a high and low disorder, no this type of psychosis. I heard this guy was drunk too. He may have committed suicide by cop. I'm not a fan of police and I'm not a fan of killing stupid, drunk, or crazy people but everyone knows the situation and nothing works better at stopping a madman than blowing his head off. They train the air marshalls for situation like that, it's a bullet to the head. Not the arm. Not the leg. The head to stop the threat as soon as possible. If the air marshalls had failed in this they should have lost their jobs, even though they ended up lucky. If he'd have listened, he wouldn't be dead. However, this thread has raised an interesting point. What happens if I see someone I don't like and scream that he has a bomb, even when I know he doesn't? Or if I just think he does because I'm paranoid and racist? I'm never flying on an airplane.

Amen again. I used to make my money writing (everything), and I would tell my fiction writing friends things similar to this, but they were of the thinking that understanding what is written is up to the reader and not the writer and I'd always ask them why they were writing if they have nothing to say. These people are professionals too (with a few awards here and there), so if you don't think fiction is meaningless, realize it is generally put together with the same thought and effort as infant babbling.

Ecoli, I get what you're saying here and I'm usually against condoning government action that results in killing people but when you're in a situation like that the only sure course of action is to blow the person's brains out. This is the way I've been told the scenario. He said he had a bomb and ran off the plane with a bag, his wife screamed, "He's crazy, he hasn't taken his medication." Air Marshall's follow him, tell him to put the bag down while he's still near the air plane, he reaches in it and deadly force was used at the point to insure that whatever he was planning to do wouldn't be done. From the statements I've heard from the victim's family, they didn't know he was mentally ill, only his wife did and an Air Marshall doesn't have time to call a doctor and get the man's head examined before they did anything. The passengers must be protected first, and nothing stops a person's motor function like a bullet in the brain.

I won't speak of the irregularities and the phenomenon that is the Bush administration (as long as he keeps sending money to NASA), but this post was originally a series of quotes that Ali put in here before he edited it.

I have an indian pseudogirlfriend so I think I'm qualified to answer this. I think the culture is addicted to Vitamin D and all want so badly to be the most delightful and cheerful person on the planet. I'm aware of heavy attention paid to shade in black American culture as well. Generally, I think that because the sun exposure in America is very different than the sun exposure in Africa (where the color in their 'race' evolved) and are being deprived of more vitamin D the darker their shade, especially in the northern parts of the United States (in the south, closer to the equator it is less of a deal). White peope are fine in these northern climates because they are similar to the Europe where they evolved into their color.

Hey, when someone is the victor in two rigged elections it doesn't make him the people's choice so don't be saying all American's are stupid because of the inept criminals in the White House. With that said, I'd rather have the devil as my leader than his lap boy.

I've never looked at this as a competition, and I also see our (the US) contribution to air polution as more than substantial.

I'm sorry, I felt I used myself as an example in an earlier post and that being exposed to science through this point of view made me ignorant to its very meaning and it was only later when I rediscovered it after I had completely lost my christian faith did I finally understand how ignorant this had made me. I was cheated, and so is society for condoning this in education.

John5746 I definitely know what you mean here John, and I'd also like to draw your attention to the bonobo if you haven't experienced them yet. They're closer genetically to us than chimps and act more like us. They're also very horny. sickmusic You know, I have a similar problem. This whole Great Wall of China thing. I mean, how do they know it was there? Thank you, come again, but only after you've earned your right to an opinion by investigating the fossil record first. And please, use one published by science and not a religious publication, they tend to edit things to make them sound better (which is sort of funny if you know where liars go). imasmartgirl A woman after my own heart. I love using simple explainations like these in situations like this. I think a lot of evangelicals feel threatened by evolution because it all goes back to a woman's right to choose. Ever heard of the irish elk?

That coat is so stupid. I remember when that first came out. I read about it and was sorely disappointed. I think it may be possible to make an object that will be invisible when you want it to be, however I don't you can make something that can make a visible object invisible. I don't doubt that anything at all is possible, but I think making something that will make something that is already visible invisible would change the visible object chemically, so it would be tedious. More specifically, I think you can make a cloth out of a material that you can change the electronic energy of and make it invisible at will (which I'm not saying has been done, I have just thought about it quite a bit and think it's possible). However, wearing that cloth in hopes of making yourself the invisible man will just get you arrested for public nudity.

Hahaha. I was just a little boy in the 80s but I felt that the speedos came out of nowhere. It's good to know there's a reason for it. I think the next proof will be when the Inuit begin their dominance of Olympic swimming.

I am aware of no compounds at all of Helium or Neon but I am aware of compounds with Xenon and Krypton with Flourine and Oxygen. Dr. Neil Bartlett did this accidentally in the 1950s. Xe(g) + 2PtF(6)(g) --25ºC--> [XeF+][PtF6-] + PtF(5) --60ºC--> [XeF+][PtF(11)-] Later a group at Argonne National Laboratory did this: Xe(g) + 2F(2)(g) --400ºC, 6atm--> XeF(4)(s) This compound is the most stable noble gas compound but reacts explosively with water. There are also a few other compounds involving Xenon flourides and Xenon oxides and even XeO(2)F(2), but all are very reactive. There is also a Krypton flouride. There is a radon difluoride that forms spontaneously at room temperature, but no one is researching it because radon is very radioactive. There has been evidence via spectroscopy of HeH+, ArH+, He(2)+, Kr(2)+, NeXe+, and Xe(2)+ but none of these are stable at all and who knows if this is a chemical reaction or just some other sort of physical phenomenon, I sure don't. I'm curious about Xe and Kr myself, and hopefully will experience them soon in solid form. (Information for this post was taken from Descriptive Inorganic, Coordination, and Solid State Chemistry by Glen E. Rodgers, which I reccomend for anyone interested in inorganic chemistry).

I'd stick Darwin on there like he was being crucified on the F, but with presents under him and I'd add a lot more snow but show that it is melting and have a pool at the bottom with bodies floating in it (ice caps reference). Now that's festive. What you have looks good though, if you're into that type of holliday cheer.

First of all, math is a language (even though it is the most important one). Public policy and education are poor substitutes to studying actual science because if you would have just studied the science you could make public policy and education stances based on the truth and nature instead of socially contrived blah blah blah that's trapped in the human fantasy of self importance. 18 and falling. Plate tectonics explains everything about the Earth's crust, continental drift, earthquakes, volcanoes, everything. Most of Geology is this and superposition. The plate tectonics theory also had trouble by being accepted by the Christian community because it showed (by rates) that the Earth is a lot older than previously thought (or said in the bible), but because the thing that the Christian refuses to accept is that he is an animal, plate tectonics, which does not suffer from this, was ignored by the ignorant and is free to be openly embraced by scientists and students. Plate tectonics is the fundamental theory of Geology. Evolution is to Biology. Laws of Motion to Physics. And none of them are difficult to understand. Most medical doctors have degraded into little more than customer service for drug companies. I'm in school with a lot of people on their way to med school and it's frightening, with the exception of a few they know nothing, and only appear to be in it for the money and the sex and not for the actual science. Also, I wonder how many of the overall physicians feel this way and I'd like to point out that there is a difference between a doctor and someone doing medical research, who would have the understand evolution. This makes you sound incredibly dense. Biological evolution is not exclusive to human evolution, and evolution is not exclusive to biological evolution. I understand you have low standards and it seems that to you the goal of education is to get a job, but a kid graduating high school who understands evolution, plate tectonics, and the laws of motion is a much stronger kid than one that didn't pay attention to them. You feel empowered by the fact that you actually know things that other people equivocate, and that tomorrow you'll understand nature a little bit better. Intellect is actually what makes the human species special, and pursuing an understanding of nature has made me more happy than anything else could. That's incredibly bleak and it's funny you say you're so far into education that you condone embracing ignorance. And I've experienced many time where Joe Schmo and I would get into a conversation and we'd get to talking about evolution and I'd explain the process to him and he'd understand. Generally what follows is a profound interest in evolution, which has been my experience many times. What's unfortunate is Joe Schmo didn't know until then a concept that probably would have helped him in life. He probably should have gotten it in high school. phcatlantis, you can debate policy and you can debate the best pop star of the 1980s but you can't debate the truth. I know that in debate you're supposed to hold your ground no matter what (which I've always felt made debate useless) but no matter what you say or how you say it it isn't going to change the fact of evolution.

I think the goal is to enlighten the child with the truth so hopefully they'll look at education as something valuable instead of something where you spend a few years filling out forms to get a piece of paper. If you teach the kid something real and don't undermine with this attitude like you are doing something evil or creepy by learning science maybe then the child will look at science seriously. There's a stigma enough with being a "nerd," but it's a little rougher when the attitude of the other kids (who adopt the attitude to get out of having to make an effort) is that taking science seriously makes you some sort of creep. High school is supposed to show you the basics and show you what is out there, and I'll always feel robbed (as I said in an earlier post) for not being shown because I had an excuse to not pay attention, the sake of my immortal soul. I think that evolution certainly falls into the basics, along with plate tectonic theory, the laws of motion, and other fundamental scientific concepts. If we can't get kids through high school without fully understanding these concepts then we've failed as a nation.

Diet and exercise. I find this interesting that you have articulated this and I'm delighted about how accessible it is. I mean, the fact that trees age and die is no shock to me. No biological organism is immortal. And everything gets broken down by the weathering. I couldn't tell you how a tree dies of old age, I've never performed an autopsy on a tree but you have gotten me curious as well. But I also find this post interesting because 1) I enjoy the fact that you've recently discovered this and are delighted by it and 2) this can be used as a tool to explain how things that take longer than our lifetimes don't appear to be happening at all if you're not looking for it, because I'm sure other people have had similar thoughts. But you can use someone who can't imagine deep time in geology or that evolution doesn't happen because you don't witness speciation every time you turn on the boob tube, maybe this will help them gain a little more of a perspective.

bascule: It's fictional because it is symbolic and would have no meaning if we had no faith in it. Neither is the money something earns an adequate representation of value due to the human fantasy of self importance and humanity's imaginary divorce from nature. So, money is everyone's imaginary tea party, where the tea isn't finite because it was made up in the first place. And in reality real money isn't finite because it cycles. Throw money at a dying man and see what wins, money or nature. However, if the man had taken better care of himself in cheap ways like diet and exercise (which may even cost him less money than if he lived as an average American), he probably wouldn't be dying that soon. I agree, however global warming and air polution are not inventions of the media. It's really happening. Seems to me that that is the popular scientific opinion anyway, judging by the density of articles I've seen concerning global warming recently. I do agree that it is difficult to predict the weather for the next day or the climate 30 years from now because of all the factors, but waiting for something unrealistically concrete (without any uncertainty) is putting standards against action that can only equal paralysis. AL So, you've picked your poison. I'd rather just avoid poison altogether. Look, I'm aware of opportunity costs but money is not a valid resource when considering this. Valid resources when considering opportunity costs are the real ones such as materials, energy, and labor. For example, while you can trade money for bananas, if there are no more bananas, money can't buy you one until another one is grown and you can't magically change your money into a banana. What I'm getting at is money doesn't really exist so it doesn't matter how much money we spend. It's not like these very valuable faith-based life points just fly off of the face of the Earth when they're spent. They're just redirected. The conservative gripe against Kyoto is that it will hurt the economy. Who cares? I don't. Money is fake, nature is not. That's all I'm saying.

I'm staying as fundamental as possible right now, focusing on Physics and Chemistry. After I get these I'll work on Geology and Biology. I'm especially interested in approaching Geology from a fundamental perspective because it has the most unanswered questions. I may go and pursue a PhD at Colorado School of Mines in Geochemistry so I can also do some work at the USGS and the National Renewable Energy Labratory along the way. I have a lot of my own projects and can only see myself doing research and teaching at a public university and working for NASA.

I'd rather let lawyers decide than schoolboards.

Hell yes it is worth it. Every effort should be made to limit air pollution. Money is fictional, we all just made it up, but our health and our life isn't. I don't trust the science of anyone at all who has a political motivation, but if the projected benefit were only 0.000000000000001ºC, it would still be worth it when compared to saving points in this life that we try to degrade to the level of a video game. We seriously need to take action on this. We may be quickly reaching a point of no return. I feel like the whole world is New Orleans and we're just watching Katrina come and staying in town because we think this is just TV and we'll be saved. That's not going to happen. To sum up, every little bit we can do is worth it. Money should not be considered a factor because it is imaginary anyway.

I've never seen a forum so pretty.