ewmon

Most of the people I've run into who deny anthropogenic GW are old people (senior citizens, etc), and compared to us (especially the young ones among us), senior citizens have already lived most of their lives, and this fact combines with GW to produce three negative feelings. #1 - What they've done their entire lives (drive ICE cars to work, stores, hospitals, vacations, etc) is now redefined as "bad", #2 - They have little desire to change the status quo for themselves (because they'll be dead soon), and #3 - They live on a fixed income and have precious little discretionary funds to throw at the problem.

I haven't voted yet, but I want to say that the 0.72°C effect was due to the wind turbines mixing the cooler layer of air at the surface with the warmer layer of air above it. It was the surface temps that rose 0.72°C, and this means that the layer above it cooled, probably by a similar amount. Heat was not generated, right? Some farms use the downwash from helicopters to prevent frosts from ruining crops.

... for a car. I should have mentioned that I can't afford a champagne appetite on a beer budget. Considering everyone's advice, I think I need to stick with a traditional [and inexpensive] suit.

source: Human Osteology source: Taphonomy

About 100 to 200 pounds of chemicals ... AND ... how they have changed or impacted the world. As to some other aspect of our being (call it a soul, mind, spirit or whatever), it's nice to think that fully-functioning people who suddenly dying continue to exist vivaciously in some spiritual form. We certainly see some people's souls/minds/spirits decay to the point of nothingness (brain dead, flat line, etc) before the plug is pulled, but we never hear about these feebly-functioning people existing in some sort of morbid, minimal spiritual form, sitting and staring at a spiritual wall. Instead, we tend to hear of them remembered in "better days". It's the same thing with near death experiences. Has anyone ever experienced descending into a fiery lake of hell (or other less-than-ideal afterlives), and then being told to go back? I've never heard of it happening ... it's always a bright, warm, cozy, lofty, pleasant experience.

In addition to their biomass (apparently, greater than that of caribou in the north) and their place in the food web in their adult form, also consider their impact in their larval stage. And if you miss their soothing, melodic sounds , then you can find them here.

I should probably ask this in a fashion forum (uh, where would they be?), but here goes. It's time for me to buy a new suit for the technological workplace (on the job, on interviews, etc), and I'm wondering what is considered fairly standard out there. Not being a fashion horse, I simply don't know, and I don't trust the retail people not to push me into a suit that's out of fashion. I'm average height and weight: 5-10 and 160 lbs. So, for example, I'm looking for something standard/formal (ie, "timeless"), so I'm thinking dark blue, two buttons, no vest. So far, so good -- I hope. But pleats are out of fashion, aren't they; and if so, how long ago (because I have a suit with pleated pants that I like)? Other than that, I personally don't like pants cuffs, and I know there's three general styles of suit cuffs, but I forget what they are or which is the most "timeless". Other attributes: lapel width, number of vents, pocket design, etc? And what about dress shoes and ties? As for fashions, does the science/high-tech industry have different standards from the rest of business? Any suggestions?

OMG! Enough with the chemical treatments, you're scaring the kids. And then there was the time I tried sulfuric acid and chamomile tea combined with chemo and radiation treatments, but that didn't seem to help... (Actually, I'm a little surprised that you didn't try athlete's foot cream or triple antibiotic gels.) It sounds like the bacteria had a battle, and yours lost. Diet contributing to body odor makes sense; also, eating what your wife eats might also change the environment of your skin due to what's excreted in the sweat, giving her bacteria an advantage over yours. Who knows, it might also change your gut bacteria. BTW, it also seems that you might not like the way your wife smells? That would be a cause for concern for me. If I'm sharing a bed and having intimate moments with someone, I would want to like the way she smells A LOT. I would also guess that your [future] kids will smell like her too, because they will be born from her body and nursed at her breasts. I think you're outnumbered.

Recreation overcomes procreation. With religion ignored, I think there's the natural discomfort of subjugating the primary purpose of sex (procreation) to its secondary purpose (recreation), the downside being, not a sunburn on the beach (from overdoing otherwise healthy exercise) or a few extra pounds (from overeating during the holidays), but a life hanging in the balance which abortion then takes away and which it does so by violating an important purpose of the woman's body to protect and nurture this new life. Abortion is not contraception because the baby is already conceived, it is "contralife" in that there is a new and unique human life, but it is not allowed to develop as nature intended. In the US, abortion was campaigned for the married, worn-out middle-aged mother of several children who was tired of being a baby factory and simply couldn't handle the burden of another child; however, as it is practiced today, the majority of abortions are performed on unmarried, healthy, childless young women, which is what the prolifers had envisioned -- that it would be abused by uncommitted or careless young women, and that it would foster an unnatural "antilife" attitude (ie, that a fetus is "bad"). I think that if past generations had spoken openly about sex and considered sex as being "sacred" (not in any religious sense, but naturally sacred), then we would never have come to this problem. Naturally sacred in the same sense that our forests, rivers, oceans and atmosphere are "sacred', which we must protect and preserve and not pollute. But Victorian/Puritanical thinking hushed up the topic and allowed misinterpretations to flourish. Sex is not dirty or raunchy, it is sacred in that it is the only way in which our human race has survived and will continue to survive. "Life is sacred, and is not to be played with. Take great care, daughters, to whom you expose your eggs. Sons, take great care, to whom you give your sperm. Sons and daughters, make sure you do so under the correct circumstances because we're talking about the possibility of a 20-year commitment. When you do it properly, only then can you enjoy it 100%. Life is 100% or it is nothing; you can't turn it on or off like a light switch -- that would trivialize it. If you act as though you're making a 20-year commitment, but it's not in your heart to stand by such a commitment, then don't do it. It's as wrong as claiming to enter into marriage for the rest of your life, when your heart is only interested in the next five years. It's as wrong as being paid to perform work that you have no intention of performing. Be honorable: commit honestly from your heart, and stand by your commitments. And sex is so intimate and you expose yourself so much, that you must also take care not to acquire any sexually-transmitted diseases. The more partners you have, the more risk you take." When was the last time a child has heard such a speech? I very seriously doubt that it is being heard or given today. The mentality: Seeking short-term consequences, and ignoring long-term consequences. The topic of sex and abortion is simply more of this mentality, which is generally acknowledged as the fall of civilization. We see it in various addictions (alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex, etc). Go for the quick thrill; ignore the long-lasting after-effects. Do whatever you want, then take a pill/etc to fix it. Thrill-seeking. As for scientific evidence, it has been found that men who become fathers (who experience the natural consequences of sex) undergo lower testosterone levels, settle down, become more faithful and family-oriented, and perhaps this is how it works. A conclusion: Contraception/abortion naturally drives men and women to be less committed to relationships and to seek more sex.

Three or four reasons I think: We are a violent nation both of our citizenry (crime, etc) and of our government (executions, wars). We have lots of personal freedoms, and some people make bad choices. Our black population is over represented in prisons (4x), and I see it as a clash of two cultures. Then there's welfare and the entitlement mentality.

Actually, where I live in America (and, I think, most of America), the justice system has a very wide consideration in sentencing, and I am familiar with the options. I've seen sentences such as 5 years suspended with 45 days to serve (as a slap on the wrist, or to give him a taste of prison life). And I've seen a young gang member paroled on Friday with the stipulation of staying out of a certain neighborhood, only to be in the local lockup by early Sunday morning for violating that stipulation. What would normally be a 5- to 10-year sentence can be, for a first-time offender, incarceration on weekends for three years (ie, about ten months' worth of prison time), with the remainder of the time "hanging over his head" (that is, suspended -- if he is arrested/convicted again, he does the remainder). And that could be for a violent offense, but it allows the defendant to live at home, work, and support his family, but feel punished in a very real sense. And then, of course, there's probation and parole. The idea that prison hardens some criminals is true, but the broad statement that prison hardens criminality in general, is simply incorrect (and a lot of prisoners would agree). There's something that other prisoners tell the whiners: If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. A criminal full well knows that he's violating the law, and so, deserves the punishment if caught, but he doesn't think that he'll get caught. If he thinks that he absolutely will never get caught, then he's living in a dream world disconnected from reality, and he deserves everything he gets, punishment-wise. I don't doubt that prison hardens some criminals, but I'd say from my experiences, that those particular criminals would have continued down that road anyway, and the soft punishment would have simply validated their unrealistic belief that they didn't do anything wrong that deserved "real" punishment. The other prisoners, guards, and staff that deal with prisoners on a daily basis can sort out the ones who are serious about not coming back and those who are "doing life on the installment plan". This information finds it's way back to the judges. Almost always, defendants get what is they feel is appropriate. Sometimes the judges slam them in the beginning to shock them, knowing that an appeal will lower the punishment to a level acceptable to the defendant. There's a story, perhaps apocryphal, that a judge sentenced a defendant to 15 years, to which he replied that he could do that "standing on his head", so the judge gave him another 15 years "to get back on his feet". It's that kind of defiant criminality that deserves and gets long sentences. The question of "why so many prisons" should, more accurately, question overall capacity. Many facilities may be outdated or overcrowded. Some prisoners are double-bunked in 6-by-8-foot cells, It was seen as a temporary fix to the rising prison populations in the 60s and 70s, but has become somewhat standard. Some prisons are outdated and dangerous.Overall, building more prisons is far past due.

Unfortunately, we are not talking about dungeons of bygone times. The argument of "reductio ad absurdum" does not answer the question of what to do with people such as Bernie Madoff, Rod Blagojevich, Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling. So I'm still waiting to hear about a punishment for these people. Let's focus on Bernie Madoff for now — what alternatives would you, dimreepr, choose to punish Madoff? I'll even add another reason why we put criminals in prison: #4) to protect the criminal from revenge. Bernie Madoff stole $65B from people. I would say that there would be plenty of criminally-minded people who would gladly put a bullet in Madoff's head if paid a small fraction of $65B ... say $1M. Prison only serves to harden criminality? Do you have statistics to back this up? Sgt Bilko, your BJS statistics don't support your conclusion. Where is the control group? Last but not least, has anyone posting here ever gone to prison? or to jail? or a police lockup? Who here has only been arrested? Has anyone here ever visited someone inside? True, one needn't go there to know about it, but the people who have been through the justice system, tend to know it up close and personal.

Traditionally, incarceration served three purposes: protect society from those who are reasonably expected to harm it, punish those who harm society, and rehabilitate them. Non-violent offenders shouldn't go to prison? People like financier Bernie Madoff, Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, Enron's Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, drug traffickers, currency counterfeiters, computer hackers, virus writers, identity thieves, phishing scammers, etc? They shouldn't go to the "time out" corner? To punish wrong-doers and protect society against them.

One sample a month for 12 months results in 12 samples, and depending on the statistics you use, 12 samples may be an insufficient amount from which to draw reliable conclusions. I always understood 30 samples to be a minimum number. This would be one every 12 days for you. As to showing cause and effect, would a Pareto Chart be appropriate?

I'm not savvy about how to predict the performance of generators. Multimeters have multiple scales for each type of reading, so you can try different scales.

In the general Boston area. Underwear showing? Not usually on professional or older women, but it seems okay for plenty of young women and teenagers.

This is a thread on generic "hate" crimes, defined as comments suggestive of unlawful violence. brought this topic to light, and the recent Ted Nugent comments has continued it. What legitimate freedom of speech or constructive purpose exists to wish someone ill, especially by an act of unlawful violence? Against government officials such as Representative Giffords and President Obama, such acts come dangerously close to sedition (the stirring up of discontent, resistance, or rebellion against the government), or perhaps treason (violation of the allegiance owed to one's sovereign or state). But even -- or especially -- among common folk (them being the vast majority in this country), what legitimate freedom or legal purpose does it serve for one person to communicate a wish/desire/hope that another person gets AIDS, or gets beat up, or gets a bullet in the head? It's different for someone to say that President Obama should go to prison for what he's done to America, or that all pedophiles should be executed, because those statements are within the framework of legal proceedings (ie, Obama's actions should be illegal, or the lawful penalty for pedophilia should be a death sentence). Imagine taking a walk in your neighborhood, and you come across a paper stapled to a utility pole that depicts your face with crosshairs printed over it. Shouldn't that be illegal? Or you find out that one of your neighbors told another neighbor (or you directly) that someone should rape your daughters. I just don't know what legitimate freedom or constructive purpose such communications serve.

I think that women, with their plunging necklines, short skirts/shorts, and über-tight clothing (undergarments optional), give men more reasons for men to think about women than men give women reasons to think about men. If men walked around in public in shamelessly bulging ballet tights with tufts of pubic hair teasingly popping out above the waistline, I think women would think as much about men as men think about women. Consider bra straps. I can remember when it was an embarrassment for a woman to allow her bra straps to show. Nowadays, we see them everywhere. Same thing with panty tops and thongs. Underclothing is supposed to be under something, right? Then there's the women who seem to run around in public in their pajama bottoms. Somewhere along the way (I think a few hundred years ago), society went from a men-attract-women arrangement to a women-attract-men arrangement. Personally, I think wearing spandex should be a misdemeanor if her BMI is >25 (overweight) and a felony if it's >30 (obese). If you can't buy off the rack, then don't go out in public.

Okay, thank you. With erasers, I was thinking of those ancient pencils we often find tucked away in a drawer, etc. The graphite writes perfectly fine, but when we try to use the eraser — wow, what happened? I assumed that what happens to rubber washers happens to erasers, and I was told that rubber washers used in faucets will "dry out" by simply sitting on the shelf. What about the excipients that give erasers their flexibility — would they eventually evaporate? So, regardless of what hardens soft erasers, not only do they no longer erase, but they leave marks themselves. Flexibility seems to correlate with erasability. I also think everyone can agree that a certain amount of abrading of the eraser occurs with erasing (except maybe with those kneadable grey art erasers ... but are they made of rubber?).

However, the lack of other contents is relevant. Proteins? Essential amino acids? Essential fatty acids? Iron? Calcium? Vitamins?

Throughout all of history, mass has converged and energy has diverged, and I don't see any reason why those two basic facts should change. Just because some loser ancient civilization had a system of calendars that runs out soon? That's lame.

I don't know, but rubber bands and automotive radiator hoses and vacuum hoses also dry out. The rubber becomes like hard plastic and inflexible. Have you seen any old rubber bands?

A voltmeter will show a voltage, whether or not it's connected to a circuit; and an ammeter will show a current only in a circuit. Most digital multimeters (they measure voltage, current, resistance, etc) should be sensitive enough for your use, and you can buy them in many stores. Can you give us an estimate of the voltage produced?

I know that "dried out" erasers don't erase, so softness matters, along with the chemical(s) that make them soft. I also know that rubber washers used in faucets will dry out by simply sitting on the shelf, so if you buy a package of them and use only a few, they will dry out after a few years and not be soft and pliable enough to seal against a leak.

See, science-type people do have a sense of humor. I think partly it's a relief to people that not all politicians are some sleazebag stereotype, partly an affirmation that the people elected someone of good character, and partly that people find spontaneous acts of courage fascinating. I think there's a curiosity about celebrities and other famous people. But just recently there was the boy who leaped into action and saved a kids on a bus, on a Monday morning, no less. Then there was the who saved 100-plus people. I tink it refreshing to know that life is full of heroism. There is who couldn't do nothing any longer. And no one will forget the who stopped a column of tanks.