Cap'n Refsmmat

Well, now that we see why there are differences in the analogies, I think we can have an actual discussion. Would we care to move on and start discussing the actual topic again?

I didn't state that you weren't in favor of birth control -- merely that you thought not having sex to be an important part of birth control. Does that cover your position better?

I think DrDNA's biggest point is that not actually having sex is a very important part of prevention, whereas Mokele merely sees birth control as the prevention. Hence the disagreement on analogies. Would both sides agree that this is true, or have I misread?

Wireshark is good, although it's a bit lower-level than you want.

A lens can focus the beam onto a smaller point, but it can't make it more powerful - you'd have to somehow add more energy to it to do that.

International All Those Other Things That Aren't Worth Having A Day For Day.

Is it the mere fact that it has a brain that makes it a human, or the fact that the brain grants it the ability to feel and percieve?

So, it's okay to have a discussion about gay marriage as long as we don't do it civilly... only if we start calling each other stupid and swearing and testing the limits of Godwin's law? (Hint: The answer is "no." Calm down, everyone.)

So I've been thinking about abortion after a recent thread, and I realized the debate can come down to a simple question: at what point does an embryo get the "right" to stay alive? In the interests of moral consistency we'd have to justify our decision, of course, rather than just saying "at x number of weeks into the pregnancy" or something. Here's three justifications for three different views: Only those capable of feeling pain have a right to not suffer. Ideally followers of this view would determine when an embryo begins to feel pain and then disallow abortion after this point. All "humans" do, regardless of whether they're an embryo or a 35-year-old man. This would preclude abortion. All life does. This would preclude abortion. (Note: These are all based on the view that abortion causes suffering in the embryo, or at least that it could. I can't really find justification for the argument that while an embryo might not feel pain, it is alive and deserves to live. On a related note, see #1 below.) So which view do I subscribe to? Well, here are a few problems with these views: If only those capable of pain and suffering should not have pain inflicted upon them, what makes it immoral to, say, rape an unconscious person? That person cannot suffer, and if they never find out what happened, they never will suffer from the incident. One might argue it was done without the victim's consent, but if consent is what is needed, no embryo can consent. If all humans (i.e. organisms with a human genome) should not be killed -- what is to distinguish a human embryo of one or two cells from one of any other species? The only difference at that stage is really only the genes, and surely they do not make it any more "sacred." So should we also forbid the abortion of animals? I can't really argue against the idea that any living thing deserves to live, except to ask for justification. Also, what of antibiotics and squashing flies? So you can see I'm just talking myself out of every possibility I can think of. What's your view on the matter, and how would you answer my questions while keeping your morals consistent? (Please, let's not bring religious arguments into this unless they can provide significant justification. I'm looking for justified moral arguments, not "my religion says killing is wrong." It's all about the why? I, or other moderators, will be forced to abort your posts if you veer too far into religion. And we have no ethical qualms with doing so.)

As soon as it reaches the incline, there will be only one force acting upon it: gravity. Break that gravitational force down into its components (the one opposing the motion and the one perpendicular to it) and you should be able to calculate how quickly gravity will decelerate the disk. Remember F = ma.

Oh, right, I forgot about rewriting it as [math]\sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} \left(\frac{x}{2} \right )^n[/math] Oops. Thanks for the moment of inspiration.

(This would ordinarily be in Homework Help, but we are not actually graded on homework and it fits better here.) I have a problem which looks like this: Find all values of x for which the series converges. For these values of x, write the sum of the series as a function of x. [math]\sum^{\infty}_{n = 1} \frac{x^n}{2^n}[/math] I don't really know where to start. Intuition tells me I could just declare x < 2, but I do not know how to go about finding the actual sum of the series or proving that my intuition is actually correct. I'd imagine I am supposed to create a sequence of partial sums and see if the sequence converges (via a limit), but how would I do that for this function?

You've got it right. You just forgot to square the units all the way: kg x (m/s)2 kg x m2/s2 which is the definition of a Joule. You could even simplify it down to kg x m x m/s2 and a kg m/s2 is a Newton, so N x m which is another definition for a Joule.

How about a Briggs-Rauscher reaction? It would require no input besides the three chemicals, and changes colors repeatedly by itself. http://chemistry.about.com/cs/demonstrations/a/aa050204a.htm

This isn't science-y, but you could throw in one of these:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Should be fixed now. Stupid folder permissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_Domestic_Product#GDP_income_account GDP can be measured by consumption of final goods or by looking at incomes. The numbers should be about the same. It's the business cycle: if you buy something with money, you must have gotten that money as income at some point.

I don't think that the physics concept of waves is meant to be exactly the same as the traditional "wave" concept you see in water. All physics says is that particles have certain wave-like properties, not that they behave exactly like a water wave does.

http://sensibleunits.com/ <-- a fun website. Just type in "5 kilometers" and hit Show All.

White phosphorous is not the only way to deliver smoke. Smoke grenades typically use a different chemical mixture (Wikipedia it) and are far safer. Tanks often have smoke grenade launchers mounted on the turret.

I have a soldering gun that looks almost exactly like that.

Your income is part of the GDP, which is "the economy." (If you look at GDP from the income perspective, of course. You could model it in terms of consumption as well.)

The amount of work would be the same in either case, as work is force times distance -- a decrease in force would require a corresponding increase in distance. (You'd have to push the lever farther if it's easier to push.)

That would probably release chlorine gas, which would not be a good thing. (Chlorine gas will attack your skin and lungs.) If you want to try that, try it in a fume hood or something that will otherwise protect you from the gas given off. I don't really know how effective it would be -- just saying that it would be dangerous.