JaKiri

So I see. I apologise for misrepresenting the Congressman's position. So if states outlaw abortion (lets set aside for the moment the rather more prickly issues of abortion in the cases where having the child threatens the mother's life, or of foetuses which are the result of rape) then that infringement on personal rights are fine because it's the states doing it, rather than the federal government? I'm not sure how this is supposed to disagree with my claim. Lets go into the rest of the paragraph that I sourced the quote from. The context seems to support my interpretation, doesn't it. Similar stuff here, with an aside that supports the interpretation that Paul doesn't have the best grasp of the history, context and indeed text of the Constitution (The words "God", "Creator" or "Lord" appear once between them in the Constitution, in the phrase "Year of our Lord"). It must be noted at this point that there are no laws banning prayer in schools, only prayer which is organised, led or otherwise supported by the staff. As the bill states, the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund. He criticises it because he doesn't support sanctions, and thus the restriction of american businesses to do business. This is not what divestment is. There were no restrictions upon trade in HR180.

Torque is the rotational equivilent of force, like angular velocity is the rotational equivilent of velocity. That's the easiest way to think about it, anyhoo.

His "We The People" act (HR300) would cause SCOTUS rulings to not apply to the states, striking down such things as Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Epperson v. Arkansas, and Engel v. Vitale which stop anti-abortion laws, anti-sodomy laws, anti-evolution laws and defend the seperation of church and state respectively. There are many trigger laws in place in many states if such a thing took place, including the banning of abortion and homosexuality. If "We The People" had passed, then it would be illegal for atheists to hold public office in Texas. These laws are not merely remnants of history. Whilst referenda have removed some of these laws from state constitutions, others have been retained by referenda and opinion polls suggest that many of these laws, which directly restrict the liberties which the Supreme Court ruled constitutional, would be supported in the event that they became relevent. In his introduction to the bill, Ron Paul specifically mentioned abortion laws as one of the areas that HR300 was written to address. The Sanctity of Life Act (HR1094) covers similar ground. He wants to outlaw flag burning (HJRES80, HJRES82), repeal the Voter Registration act, which makes it easier to register to vote, (HR2139), repeal the nationalisation clause of the 14th amendment (HJRES42, HJRES46), repeal environmental protection laws, which are an issue of individual civil liberties if you like things like clean drinking water and air, (HR7079, HR7245 and several more) and supports a whole host of other nasties. Here's an indirect source (apologies for its rather mediocre level, but it's 4AM here). I don't think you really have to misrepresent Ron Paul. F'r example: This is without even getting into things like his opposition of divestment in Darfur (HR180) - a bill to stop giving government money to organisations involved in the genocide in Darfur, which many would argue as the "free market" solution to the problem. Paul was the only vote against, and going by his remarks on the topic hadn't read the bill in question. Similarly for his vote against awarding the Congressional Medal of Honour to Rosa Parks - he voted nay to HR573 apparantly due to his opposition of funding the medal with $30,000 of taxpayers' money despite the fact that the bill stated that the medal would not be funded by the taxpayers. I try to think the best of people, and I'd much prefer that Paul was one of illiterate, lazy or incompetent rather than the alternative, which would unfortunately have to be that Paul was evil.

If you're interested in how science operates, then "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S Kuhn and "Conjectures and Refutations" by Karl Popper are two books of scientific philosophy that describe how things go on. You're almost certainly not, though. It doesn't have much of a wow factor.

Ron Paul is a joke, but the level of support he has that ignores his horrific flaws turns it a bit sour. He's a traditional right wing christian who seems to have gotten spinned into some kind of libertarian upon the way. If you want an anti-war liberal, support Kucinich. Except, say, Jefferson. And all the other guys who believed in personal liberty. And before you say anything about Paul's stance, his "We The People..." act would... actually, I don't know why I'm going into this. Read it yourself. Why did he defend the remarks when asked about them in 1996, claiming that they came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time"?

In a classical closed system. SR invalidates mass conservation.

It's perfectly valid, especially in the concept of a thought experiment where people are sitting on poles travelling at or close to the speed of light (the argument still applies if the speeds are less than c, it's just easier to demonstrate that the speed will be greater than the speed of light if you set the speeds to c because you don't have to do any maths at all).

"Observers" don't actually have to be little people sitting there with stop watches and space suits. It's a thought experiment. We're sitting in the frame of the image while this is going on. A is moving at c left. B is moving at c right. C has horizontal velocity equal to B, and therefore must be moving horizontally (from A's point of view) at c as well. C also has a vertical component of motion, however, and therefore will have a total relative velocity of greater than c. This is not an actual object going greater than c, of course, so that's ok. Yes, because each rest frame is equally valid.

That's the biggest load of nonsense I've ever read on here, and believe me, I've read some of the best.

Because the thread linked has a different function and a very old poll. If people are between the ages of 18 and 25, then chances are their answer will have changed.

So you're admitting it's entirely luck based?

A 950MHz FSB? Are you insane? Even ignoring that it would have to have a mere 3x multiplier, that's more than twice what the top of the range socket 939 motherboards can do if you get an especially good one. Three or more times what normal high end boards do.

It's a function of Athlon 64 processors*. When there's no load on the processor, it lowers the clock speed to extend both processor and battery life. There is nothing wrong with the laptop. *http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487%5E10272,00.html

You're looking at it the wrong way. Human brains weren't human brains until relatively recently; you just had ape brains which were advanced and ape brains which weren't (depending on selectional pressures and just plain chance) and the former either died out or evolved into humans, the latter didn't.

Go away you buffoon.

Yes, well, sort of. It would, most likely, be fine if air resistance was taken into account, however.

Louis de Broglie? He noticed that wavelength = h/p for light, and decided it applied to everything else. He was a bit crazy. But right, crazy but right.

2x/2y = x/y = 1000x/1000y. Distance and time increase in exact proportions (1 over gamma), and this only applies for things not moving at the speed of light in any useful sense anyway. SR has two axioms (although these are fairly easily proved): 1. The speed of light is invariant for all observers. 2. All rest frames are equally valid. If I see something going away from me at 3/5 c, then they see me going away from them at 3/5 c. The only difference is when it's a recession speed between an object and a moving rest frame, in which case it's (a-b)/(1-ab/c^2), or the same with + instead of minus. Try that equation with one of the speeds being the speed of light, c; you'll find out that c will always be approaching or receding at c, no matter the speed of the other object. Because the speed of light is invariant for all observers. Given that the boat analogy (if you're thinking of the same one) is used to demonstrate how light is not like a boat on a river, travelling with a medium, its significance is that... light is not like a boat on a river.

Ah, I see we're in the "talk a lot of bollocks and ignore actual physics" zone here on Science Forums.

Well, it would in a sense. When the thing hits the ground.

The ground? The time taken to stop, from when it hits. If it stops instantaneously upon touching the ground, the force would be infinite. Force x (change in time) = mass x (change in velocity). (This is the definition of an impulse, derived from Newton's Second Law of Motion; a Force times the time over which it occurs, or integrated in the case of a non-constant force) Mass x (change in velocity) is a value you can find out from the above information (the change in velocity will be equal to 80m/s, for example) and the mass of an ant, which can be easily estimated. However, you do not know the time it takes to impact, so you can find the impulse it undergoes - but you can't find the force. I'm afraid you do, unless you think that the force isn't proportional to the rate of change of velocity with respect to time. Newton II and all that jazz.

In which case they've entered every world cup for the final 40 years. It is, but qualifying is an achievement, entering is not. 26th, and that's artificially inflated, by various factors. "Some random team like France"? France are hardly some also-rans, they've got guys like Henry and Vieira.

You'd also need to know how long the impact would take.

Lack of selectional pressures to develop it. Remember that the development of the primate brain was, initially, very slow; it's an exponential increase, and it's only in the last few tens of thousands of years that the human brain has reached its current relative stature. It's a self perpetuation thing. The human brain is large because a larger brain makes it more beneficial to get an even larger brain. So, once random mutation brings about a larger brain, it will, if the conditions are good for intelligence to provide a selection advantage, grow. At first it will go slowly, very slowly. Only once it gets large will it grow at a large rate.

Yes. The first match. "Entering"? "Qualifying", I think you mean. Nigh on every country in the world enters the World Cup, and Costa Rica have been at two previous world cups - 2002 and 1990.