zapatos

Here is an article about some amateurs, including John Kanzius, doing well. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/19-the-amateur-scientists-who-might-cure-cancer-from-their-basements

Assuming we are talking about the Catholic church, its use is discouraged equally amongst the poor and the rich. There may be more poor who are affected by it, but not because of selective discouragement by the church. Well, the purpose is to save their souls of course. (whether or not that is the actual result)

Would it make more sense to say 'if it disagrees with actual experiment it's probably not correct.' or 'if it disagrees with actual experiments it must explain the results of actual experiments.'? For example, in the past I might have come to the conclusion that light acts as a wave, even though you had experimental evidence that light is composed of discrete particles.

A Short History of Nearly Everything - Bill Bryson

That doesn't seem possible. There must be a huge number of resources, or combinations of resources, that a form of life could take advantage of. When a new form of a bacteria shows up that can cause illness, isn't a new niche being utilized?

Is it possible for someone to carry a virus or bacteria in their body without it causing a disease in them, then later infect themselves? For example, cold virus will typically infect a person when a person transmits the virus on their hand to the nose or eye. Is it possible to eat something with the virus on the surface of the food, have the virus pass harmlessly through the gut, end up on the person's hand, then finally make to the eye or nose where the person then gets a cold? There are also many bacteria in the digestive system that cause no problem to humans. Could that bacteria pass through the intestines, encounter a tear in the skin on the way out of the body, and cause some kind of infection in the person now that is is out of the digestive tract and into the blood stream? And an add-on question, why is bacteria allowed in the digestive tract? Does the body recognize the bacteria as 'self', or is the digestive tract somehow not covered by the immune system?

Do you think it is the fundamentalists who are manipulating people by claiming the war on Christianity, or is it the politicians? It looks to me like the fundamentalists are usually preaching to their own, and it's the politicians who are doing the manipulating. While I believe the following trend is not due to a war on Christianity, this may explain in part why some Christians feel like they are in the hot seat. I also think this is kind of funny. Lying about being devout. Heh heh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States

Just once I'd like to see you get through a thread without antagonizing someone. I know you couldn't care less what I have to say, but your attitude really does get in the way of the pleasure of reading your well thought out and insightful posts. No sarcasm intended. I'll do my best to stay out of your way.

Thanks for the links. The 'Republic vs. Democracy' made clear to me the point you are trying to get across. I do however still think it is a stretch to say the US is not a democracy simply due to the fine points of how it was implemented. I agree that the whole apparatus has an impact on who we get to vote for, but I don't think it is as bad as you are making it out to be. The final two we get to vote for may be chosen for us to some extent by the heads of the party, but to even be considered by the heads of the party these candidates generally had to move their way up the hierarchy through local politics. They have proven they can get the votes (and dollars) and that they represent an 'electable package' long before the heads of the party even considered them. Please feel free to ignore any of my future posts.

Can you give me a source for your statements that "Indirect democracies are not really democracies at all.", and " the U.S. is ... not a democracy"? I keep running into definitions of democracy, and examples of democracies, that say otherwise. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_democracy#Types_of_democracy

From your link: First, this is the definition for 'pure democracy', not 'true democracy'. Second, nowhere does this definition say "every single citizen has an equal say in everything that effects their lives. The smallest issues are decided by the people at the polls". Third, if this is the definition you are using, then you are indeed trying to make a distinction between direct- and indirect democracy as I pointed out in my previous post. And if it is an example of successful direct democracy you are looking for, how about Town Meeting Day in Vermont? http://www.sec.state.vt.us/townmeeting/citizens_guide.html

That seems to me a ridiculous definition of 'true democracy'. For example, under your definition of true democracy, before I can pick up a jar of peanut butter at the store, my whole family has to go to the polls and vote on whether the peanut butter should be chunky or smooth. But if that is the case, then I say that any time you have a single person living in isolation, you have a true democracy. It looks to me like you are trying to make a distinction between direct- and indirect democracies.

US, Switzerland, Denmark, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden, Iceland, Britain, Canada...

I'm trying to see things from your perspective, but I can't get my head that far up my ass.

If you don't mind me asking, have you found support for your theory elsewhere? Are you reevaluating your theory in light of the responses and suggestions you've received on this forum?

"I'd give my left arm to be ambidexterous!" "You can observe a lot by watching." "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." -Yogi Berra

I believe one of the main reasons they wanted to create the virus is so they can quickly identify when this is happening naturally. Recognizing a new virus that is potentially devastating prior to its wide spread could save many lives. I don't see the link between the two. Can you expand on this a bit?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/health/fearing-terrorism-us-asks-journals-to-censor-articles-on-virus.html

I believe that rather than all particles receding from each other, you would have superclusters receding from each other. Dark energy is not strong enough to break apart gravitationally bound systems (or rocks).

Ok, I get it. So from a practical standpoint, how should I deal with the risk of unintentionally insulting people when comparing them to others? Obviously if I know my audience well I don't much risk comparing them to someone they dislike. And it's probably low risk comparing people to famous singers or athletes, but maybe a good rule of thumb is to not compare someone to a religious figure (or politician, for that matter) unless I know them well. Or to get to the point you were making, maybe I should just say they sing well and leave it at that.

Not at all, but I guess I am. Let me try again. When commenting on someone's singing, is being called Sinatra-like not always necessarily seen as a good thing by the recipient of the comment?

Is your objection that you are compared to Christ, or that you are compared at all. For example, if I said you made pie as good as my wife does, or your singing reminds me of Sinatra, would that be objectionable? If singing is a big part of my life I think high praise would be to compare you to someone I thought highly of. Are comparisons to religious figures different than comparisons to other figures?

I drink a reposado called 1921. Very nice. It is not the one I get drunk on though because I wouldn't waste it by shooting it, and it costs too much to drink too much of at once.

Because I know it is good for me I tend toward lean meats, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, non-fat dairy, beans, small amounts of nuts, and healthy fats. I don't buy organic or avoid salt and sugar. My water comes from the tap. I don't take vitamins. I drink alcohol, usually Johnnie Walker Black scotch or Old Bushmills Irish whiskey, and beer. Most of my worst drunks have involved tequila. I don't drink much wine, and will try any food or drink. And most important, I never let a good diet get in the way of good food, no matter how bad it is for me.

Yeah, it may be an emergent property of religion, but I've always thought it was probably an emergent property of people. I know this is anecdotal, but over time I've found that the groups of people I've thought highly of for one reason or another, all turn out to be just about like any other group. It seems all groups have a similar percentages of people who are nice, smart, jerks, arrogant, helpful, etc. At first I was shocked when I heard priests had molested so many boys, thinking there should not be many people like that in the priesthood. Then it seemed like every other priest was involved. Finally I heard that the percentage of priests molesting boys was roughly the same as the percentage of people molesting children in the general population. I'd guess it would be the same for other attributes as well. If an evangelical today who thought only his type of person would go to heaven was suddenly sent to 1930's Germany, he would probably make a great Aryan. That is, he would express his high esteem for his group, whether his group happened to be religious or of some other type.