ewmon

Hmm.... Cops who are laid-back, don't mind being videotaped, and wear baseball caps!

Do you have any vague areas of biochemistry (ie, substances or reactions) that interest you?

Alcohol abuse and alcoholism Aboriginal civil rights The Lebanese "thing" And all the women seem to be named "Sheila"

What kind? Mechanical? Electrical? Chemical? etc

What the OP proposes would be "environmentology". I think that if the influence of the environment were significant, we'd have heard old wives' tales about winter babies, spring babies, etc. So, such an influence is likely not significant.

It seems to me that π was used originally because the diameter of an object was easiest to measure, along with its circumference, thus the calculation of 3.14159... (π). The value of 2π does seem to occur much more frequently than π, so the use of τ might be in order. The difficulties I see is that τ is not as distinctive and, thus, not as easily recognizable as π (and π actually looks like two τ's stuck together, so there'll be some confusion about which one is twice the other). So, call me old-fashioned, but I think we should stick with π. I mean, for cryin' out loud, look what the revisionists have done to Pluto. (And what'll they say next, that Donald isn't really a duck?!)

Translating word problems into algebra can take some practice. Try, So, the variables are the abuse (A) with subscripts indicating whether the women live on the street (S) or in domiciles (D). Thus, AS > AD

Extrapolation, hence the "~" symbol. Please explain how we can extrapolate that there's 10 times more species than we know exist. To me, that's like saying there's ten times as many elements in the universe than we know exists.

Ecological pyramids consist of animals at various levels. The highest levels consist of the top predators (eg, tigers, eagles, tuna, etc). A sufficiently large and healthy ecosystem can sustain these top predators. The number and health of these top predators correlates with the size and "health" of the ecosystem that sustains them. Modern science has allowed us to recognize this fact. People in the past only had a vague understanding of it. They considered top predators to be auspicious, that is, good fortune, even though these beasts also posed a danger to humans. For example, if you live near a forest that sustained tigers, we now know that the forest is large enough to contain sufficient numbers of the predator's prey species (eg: deer, elk, goats, wild boar, etc) which, in turn, indicate that the ecosystem also contains enough grasses, bushes, trees, roots, nuts, berries etc to sustain the prey animals. To prehistoric "hunter-gatherers", the presence of top predators signified prosperity: animals to hunt and fruits and vegetables to gather. So, these top predators were considered auspicious. It's no wonder that prehistoric people revered or even worshiped some of these top predators. On the other hand, an endangered top predator is an indicator that its ecosystem is in decline. Nowadays, it's generally assumed/known that humans have wrecked their ecosystem (pollution, deforestation, over hunting, over grazing, etc), so people tend to feel guilty about this. The most natural response would be to restore the damaged ecosystem to its original condition, thus allowing it once again to sustain its top predators. However, this sounds expensive. Efforts to artificially preserve the populations of top predators are more economically feasible. Just out of curiosity, how do we know the other 90% exist if we haven't discovered them already?

Extemporaneous and out of the box... Airbags. Air crashes differ significantly from car crashes --- typically longer times scales: longer warning period and longer crashes. So don't use the typical car airbags. Maybe airbags that inflate slowly (~a period of seconds), not "explode" open. They would have slow leaks in the direction of the person's face (through some sort of fabric/cloth) to allow people to breath during the long crashes, and they would remain open until the air supply is cut. These airbags might be purposely designed to comfortably sandwich people between the airbag and the back of the seat to prevent people from being thrown around (back and forth) during the crash. Parachutes. What about a parachute for the entire airplane?

I've read that right-left facial symmetry correlates with "beauty" regardless of culture. If someone thinks, "Hey, aren't we all symmetrical?", here's photos of British journalist/broadcaster Alistair Cooke. With his head straight in the first photo, his left eye is about a ½ inch lower than his right. Putting his eyes horizontal (probably to see straight) in the second photo, his head ends up tilted a bit.

Yeah, the human body compensates for the alcohol, which is why some alcoholics can can develop a "physical dependence" on it. Going cold turkey off alcohol isn't merely screaming, shaking, and hallucinations of pink snakes. Going cold turkey off heroin feels like you're dying (think a thousand times worse than having the flu really bad), but you won't die. However, going cold turkey off alcohol can kill you.

I would agree. Yet, it seems logically/mathematically more suitable to use hydrogen as the "unit" (ie, the smallest whole number), and hydrogen seems as common as carbon as a molecular component.

Fairy coherent rings propagate through the soil.

He's saying "ickumpucky" which seems to be some sort of sealant/gasket substance ... probably is not Akempucky.

~ Dante Alighieri, 1265–1321

What do you mean by "best"?

I said "doh" because the RAT already exists (or used to exist), is proven, is made for emergencies, and can easily be retrofitted --- and there I was trying to re-invent it in my mind. The German V1 buzz bomb used a propeller to measure distance. Speed is simply the derivative of distance. A pinwheel would be a stone age RAT. So, it seems a "stone age" device needs to be a simple device using simple physics principles, and have a simple, accurate, precise, and robust operation -- and also one that's easy to "read", that is, one that requires little/no "instrumentation". By "robust", I mean one that performs in all sorts of situations: daylight/midnight, all-weather, all-altitude, all-temperature, all-attitudes (RPY), etc. How about a multi-string aeolian harp that produces different tunes at different air velocities.

Ask your lab director.

Try googling genotype parent or allele parent.

Ram air turbines.

Maybe because the OP is spammy and it's claims are overblown.

All the Christians I know disagree with this announcement because the Bible simply says no one will know, and they're concerned about this overindulged silliness as being bad publicity about their faith.

You're right, and thank you for the correction. Yet, most Christians I know apply that warning to the whole Bible (both OT and NT), so it's a fairly mainstream idea. I suppose they might claim the author had "prescience", and I would guess offhand that many Christians know very little about the canonization of the Bible.

I agree 100%. On the whole, any discussion on "Abortion vs Christianity" by non-Christians can be fraught with misconceptions (no pun intended). For example, most Christians I know interpret the Old Testament (OT) (ie, the Tanach or "Hebrew Bible") in light of the New Testament (NT). Am I the only Christian here? To begin with, the Christian "love" commandments would override and negate forcing a rape victim into such a union along with other forms of corporal punishment ... for example, Christians also do not advocate chopping off hands of thieves or cutting out tongues of slanderers. Many non-Christians miss this point, sometimes entirely. There's also an implied severitability clause with Christians. For example, just because Christians have negated the laws on corporal punishment, doesn't negate the entire Old Testament (for example, false testimony is still wrong). Lastly, The New Testament admonishes people neither to add nor subtract from the Bible, so to one degree or another, Christians try not to read into the Bible more than is there. So, that's why you see me say things like, "The Bible does not address the disposition of the souls of the unborn or of children", and "neither the OT or the NT mentions [elective] abortion".