zapatos

I agree CP. People like being part of a group, but only when there is an opposing group (Cardinals fan vs. Cubs fan, Christian vs. Jew, Prius owner vs. Humvee owner, etc.). I believe we won't really feel so much a part of a global group until we find intelligent life elsewhere. At that point we will very much feel we have something in common.

You don't trust Google or you don't trust the Google search results? You don't trust Google but you trust the people on this site? I imagine a lot of answers given on this site come from a Google search.

Lots of people know approximately what it is. You can Google something like "total human population of Europe" to quickly find out yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

Using your definition, the only thing I can think of that is productive is starving to death.

One of the reasons you attack command and control centers is to deprive your enemy of the ability to command and control their air defences. If you want to establish and maintain a no fly zone you have to keep your own aircraft safe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aircraft_warfare

I know some conservatives, but they don't tend to be in your face about it. More like they are tolerant of my misguided ways. Yeah, that was a bit over the top. It is more like some people on this site tend to be outspoken about why Christians are intellectually deficient (or whatever), and the Christians that I deal with on a regular basis (not talk show blowhards) don't really talk about non-Christians at all. That is, people don't talk about non-Christians just because they are non-Christians. I don't see any distinction being made based on religion. With the people I know, religion is more in the background, sort of the basis for why you do and think the things you do, but not something out front and obvious. Most Catholics I know you would never know they were Catholic unless you asked.

My background is Catholic. Twelve years Catholic school for me, same for my kids, several priests and nuns in my extended family, and eight years of Catholic school for my wife. My point being, I've been around a lot of Catholics and other Christians over the years. When I hear people criticize Catholics and/or Christians it usually has to do with birth control, one true religion, sex outside of marriage, infallibility, and the other usual topics. But more specifically, the way Catholics/Christians impose their beliefs on others. What I find interesting is that while the Church has very specific views on these topics, I very rarely find any individuals who feel the same way. The last person I knew who followed the rhythm method of birth control was my grandmother. I don't know anyone who abstained from sex before marriage, and I don't know anyone who feels (or at least acts) superior to anyone of a different religion. What I do find is a very diverse, inclusive group, pushing the idea of service to others, forever raising funds to help people in need, with a propensity for drinking beer (sold at nearly every church sponsored event I've ever been to). So it makes me wonder why it is that so many others such as yourself are always running into Catholics/Christians who are "offended" by non-Christians, who have a problem with non-Christian holidays, who feel non-Christians are heretics, who don't want to admit others are non-Christian, who don't want non-Christians to have a good holiday, who feel non-Christians are hell-bound, who are intolerant, and above all, who are apparently expressing these beliefs to anyone within earshot, else how could you and others know that they feel this way. In fact, I see more intolerance on this site toward Christians, than I've ever seen anywhere exhibited by Christians.

That's a relief to know you think so. Rather than viewing this in context you seem to want to use this as an opportunity to criticize democrats in general and Obama in particular (although no one seems particularly anxious to join you). Perhaps a little more debate and a little less rhetoric may garner additional support for your views.

Obviously tough to predict the future, but the price of oil dropped immediately after the UN resolution authorizing force to stop Gadhafi's attacks. And the sooner the crisis is resolved, the sooner the oil will be flowing again.

I am. It's just not that often that I see someone imply that the president is taking action because it is what is in the best interest of the US (steady supply and price of oil), and then say that they find that ironic.To me it would have been ironic if, for instance, the president did things that interrupted the supply of oil and increased price volatility.

So you find it ironic that the leader of the United States does what is in the best interest of the United States?

And to swansont's point, you can walk away from the light bulb you are sitting under, and you will no longer be exposed to its radiation. Since you cannot walk away from the light bulb you swallowed you continue to be exposed to its radiation.

Of course you may die long before the tsunami on you first long road trip... So when the water comes in, while everyone is running for high ground, you propose to go underground where the water is going to flow? And if you don't drown because your underground shelter is flooded, but is instead airtight (even after the earthquake), then you suffocate? I'm holding out for another solution.

It helps people retain moisture , protect organs and prevent infection. Some people use it as a canvas for living art. It has also been used in book binding.

Oh, good. Another feces thread. You are now up to five. Were the others listed below answered to your satisfaction? I think your name is quite appropriate. Mystery_of_GodST, on 13 January 2011 - 07:44 PM, said: Say you had a substance, let's say feces and it took up most of a big country of the globe but if you took a small peice of every feces you had and put it on each road on the planet and it covered it seems like it could happen but i dont know why because if the substance is smaller than the country, how could it expand to every road on the planet? Quote The total land area of all continents is 148,647,000 square kilometres (57,393,000 sq mi) Approximatley, how much would it take for one average human feces spread out on the ground would it take to cover the entire land area of all continents? Quote How much area does one average human stool amount to? And The total land area of all continents is 148,647,000 square kilometres (57,393,000 sq mi), or 29.1% of earth's surface (510,065,600 square kilometres / 196,937,400 square miles). How much of those one average human stools would it take to cover the entire earth's land area? Thanks. Quote Akward questions: 1. Approximatley how big does one average human stool expand too in measurement? 2. Approximatley how much of those one human stools would it take so that every little spec of the entire planets land (each continent) is covered with it? Hope to get benificial answers from the knowledgable users on ScienceForum.Net

A frog in a blender.

I understand what you are saying but I think you should be careful in interpreting the comments of people as being representative of the site. They only represent themselves when they are participating in a thread. I find this place to be full of individuals who are fairly representative of society. Most seem happy to discuss ideas at a very high level or to bring it down to the level of someone who is a neophyte in their area of expertise (usually me). I also occassionally run into people who seem annoyed that someone with my level of understanding would dare to step into their conversation, although this happens very rarely. And of course every other type of personality in between. Just like in any bar I happen to spend time in. Most people also seem ready to be very direct when questioning someone's comments. I don't think they mean anything personal by it, and I don't take it that way. It's one of the reasons I like this site. And if it ever does get personal, it is typically forgotten by all by the next day. So if I seem to annoy someone, I just stay away from them. But I'm certainly not going to let them interfere with my enjoyment of this site. I get too much out of it. On a personal note, I've been around long enough now to know what people I like to gravitate toward when they are involved in a thread. You are one of those people. I've never found you to be anything other than a thoughtful participant.

One of the guidelines I've always tried to live by is "Don't make people uncomfortable". And this guideline is even more important when I am a host. What that translates into for me is to allow my guests as much flexibility with regard to my rules as I can. For example, in my house you cannot sit on the kitchen table. But if I had a guest over and he sat on the kitchen table I wouldn't say a thing, since I can live with that. On the other hand in my house you cannot smoke. If someone lit up a cigarette in my house I would ask them to put it out or go outside because that rule is more important to me than my guest's comfort. So, if a host asked me to take my shoes off I would. If a guest was uncomfortable with the idea of taking their shoes off, I would let them keep them on.

As I recall parts of the North American continent have been 'rebounding' since the retreat of glaciers from the last ice age. As sea levels rise can we expect the ocean floor to sink due to the additional pressure caused by so much more water over it? If so would the sinking ocean floor in any meaningful way mitigate the risks due to rising sea levels? If the sea floor sinks would that result in any kind of corresponding lift of land not covered by ocean?

Citation?

People used to say 'Merry Christmas' and have Christmas parties at work every year. Then it became politically incorrect to say 'Merry Christmas' and Christmas parties became 'holiday parties' due to the fact that some non-Christians might be offended. I think the people who get in a tizzy over 'happy holidays' object that such an important celebration in their religion is something that should be hidden or is somehow offensive to others. It is not the non-Christians saying 'happy holidays' that is so objectionable to Christians, it is the Christians who say 'happy holidays' due to political correctness, instead of openly acknowledging the holiday that celebrates the birth of Christ.

I don't know why it would be unfair for people to give money to any grouping they wish. It probably even falls under freedom of speech. Here are some good ones: "The only scholarship for left-handed students is the Frederick and Mary F. Beckley Scholarship of up to $1,000. This scholarship is awarded to left-handed students who will be attending Juniata College. Tall Clubs International (TCI) offers a $1,000 scholarship for tall people. The Zolp Scholarship is restricted to students at Loyola University in Chicago who are Catholic and whose last name is Zolp. The Patrick Kerr Skateboard Scholarship awards one $5,000 and three $1,000 scholarships to skateboarders who are high school seniors with a GPA of 2.5 or higher on a 4.0 scale. The Western Golf Association sponsors the Charles "Chick" Evans Jr. Scholarship for golf caddies. The Icy Frost Bridge Scholarship at DePauw University is restricted to female music students who can sing or play the national anthem with sincerity. The Coven of the Sacred Waters offers two scholarships for Pagan and Wicca students." http://www.finaid.org/scholarships/unusual.phtml

As far as I could tell, this is a motivational video extolling the impact of positive thought and how it adds its spider web of positivity to the dense vibrating matrix that is reality. Includes a mixture of pictures of Einstein and the movie The Matrix. I didn't see anything about quantum physicists but it was making me dizzy. I need an aspirin...

In what scientific way does extreme belief in a mind-based event affect the likelihood of it occurring in reality?