GutZ

Thank you all and to whomever put the effort to doing this! (not fake! sincerity, the real deal) Pangloss, you just got a bajillion respect points for that.

To seek truth you have to be willing to let go any personal views and attachment to what you feel is correct because that may change as you discover more. It's not an easy thing to do. There is chance that you can convince someone otherwise, but ultimately it's up to the person. It may just so happen while discussing it with you. The fear of abandoning an idea that you hold to be true is scary, it mean you were wrong. Then you have to ask what else are you wrong about. It's for some people better to defend then it is to attack their own view point. The only aspect I hold reserve to is the future outcome of GW. We haven't seen nature take it's course. I also know that there has been tons of research involved, and if I want to abandon the research then I might as well abandon the concept of gravity. I can attack the work that is being done, but I don't have the knowledge to do that. Maybe I have faith in scientist that they themselves are skeptics, that they test their models and theories. In that aspect I see no reason to doubt. I may not doubt it, but I am sort of glad others do, however misguided they maybe. It seems to me that things in life are not one or the other. There is wide range view points that comes natural. I would not be comfortable knowing people like john b don't exist, that everyone places faith in the same thing because human's make error, of all types. Lastly I think what a lot of people don't get bascule as well and I am pretty sure I am correct in saying that you hold your reserves, you haven't permanently settled your idea of what the world is. You're willing to change if information comes about, I've seen that (bastard! you let us to drown in that thread way back there!) People don't see that when you are arguing a point. It's just not a relevant thing to constantly state or prove, when you are debating "whatever". The other person or other people will view that as if it were "us vs them" it's natural and makes it easier. While all you are really doing is defending facts, not your person view (though I am sure the truth is something you want to be your view to be). Then you have to accept the fact that your POV can fall into the paragraph I was stating above. being a true skeptic is not an easy lifestyle. It almost seems that holding any view is pointless. Main point you're screwed either way. Keeping a distance, is all you can do.

Have I told you all how dazzling you all are? You know how your intelligence seem to have no bounds.... Could such outstanding gentlemens (and ladies) delete or tell me how to get rid of the advert of my blog. I really had no intention of doing it it. I apologize, I am a bad boy, and I have reflected and I carry my shame. I have issues with having things there that don't need to be there...it's beyond bugging me at this point. Any help is appreciated. I'll give fake sincerity to anyone who does. XD

Isn't planck units just a way to normalize values to a number that is easy to use? Like the speed of light © = 299 792 458 m / s If that is true wouldn't you need a value first before making another planck constant. What significant for making one for mass?

quality film. Same with the escape from NY/LA Snake Plissken was the man.

None of you ever seen army of darkness? UD_82kvQLkA

Exactly. There really isn't a debate there. I think it would also be more fitting of a science forum to have a section of geology. We have soft sciences such as politics and psychology. I am sure it won't be the most popular section, but till will also bring interest. I am surprised that they have don't have or popularized a topic analyzer for forums. Like how you guys have keywords for subjects, have the forum read for key words and automatically place it in the correct forum.

I don't think we can manipulate any dimension can we?

hmmm I think you're right. I guess that solves that.

lol I mean more selectively and precise. Like genetic engineering. Bad example: metal gear solid (got to keep the theme of fantasy) http://metalgear.wikia.com/wiki/Les_Enfants_Terribles

ahhh, I see. Do we have the ability yet to create mutations? As in like force DNA to make errors (or however the process my be) If so that will be an interesting time to live in.

Noted! Say though you could like clone billions of these things and expose it to an environment over and over again for millions of centuries is it possible that something like that would happen, hypothetically accepting a scenario like that is feasible? or do I need to read more on evolutionary biology lol. I thought mutations are random for the most part and that selection deems which mutations are beneficial.

That might work if they get shot in the stomach and it so happened to land exactly inside or something, but how does a bullet get into the intestinal track after being shot in lets say...the leg? The only thing I could think is that there is mechanism within the body that will recognize a bullet or metal or whatever and cause it to either to be incased with some super protective layer of something and have some super strong acid break down the bullet and have the body push it out like a pimple or something. Then they would also need to reroute all important components of the body in such a way that when the body repairs itself there is still the essential path to carry blood and such throughout the body. If not then they need a whole new system that doesn't rely on the circulatory system, which kinda makes lungs and hearts pointless. I am not sure if this is evolutionarily possible. Maybe by genetic eng. You would need an environment where as a species you get shot a lot or someone constantly trying to gun you down, I think the pressures would be so large that you would never get a chance to have the right mutation to come about.

Integrity apparently is not a useful trait to have when you are working for the government so no I don't think there should be any program that is not link to the public or an extension of the public. I hate to treat the people behind the curtain like children but, if they act that way why I should I put my trust in them to do the right thing. If you keep throwing the ball against the wall I am going to take it away from you. With dick cheney's record he's like that problem child everyone hates. You can't trust to be alone for 2 minutes. Accountability is huge problem in politics. You don't really want public servants going out because some minor issues, same time you don't want to have people completely untouchable. I will admit that...the extremes of both sides are easier to gauge and implement. If you were to do it properly and have a functioning system in place it may slow down progress due to having to make those difficult decision on whether or not this person or that person did something that they should be accountable for. Which leaves it up to the populous to put the right guys in power. The greatest thing politician have done in the last 20 years or so is to manipulate the public in think that they are those people. You can nearly flip a coin on each thing a candiate says and the odds of them following them through can be determined by that coin toss. I think in these modern time we people need to adapt as well to the new political landscape and have a group that represent the needs and strong reasoning behind them. The average citizen has far too much going on to really be involved. Then again who says those people will keep their integrity, it doesn't pay nor does it make it easy for the person. It's more a problem of every human being. We take the path of least resistance a lot more than we should. Then again maybe it because we realise the fight is just not worth it...I don't know.

I was watching some show on TV where they were discussing topics around the use of scanning a person's mind to see the effectiveness of a given advert or commercial. As I was watching it I felt slightly uncomfortable by the concept. Especially as we advance technologically and scientifically how affective can they make these things? Will there be a point where it becomes more mind control when they can trigger any response they want? even if they can't totally do that, is there a line? What about politics, the media, everything, any message could be manipulated. Maybe I am going to the extreme here but what do you think?

Would contaminants be better? It fits the definition of a pollutant. What would make you change your mind on that. There are videos on youtube where you can watch someone prove it live. Something you could do at home if you have the equipment. It traps heat. "Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution "Carbon dioxide emissions cause ocean acidification, the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans as CO2 becomes dissolved." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution#Ecosystems I don't get why you are rejecting that aspect as if CO2 is like inconsequential. I can see the your doubt in how it will play out but...It's not something we have the ability to collect data on human contributions. This is the only time that we know of that any species evolved to start having an effect on the environment, there are other examples that express that we do make an affect. Of course if you feel that what we do is inconsequential to overall ecosystem than you kind of have to prove that I would think.

Well I would say lacking the ability to learn it, or bluntly just not having the intellectual capacity to do it. I think I COULD do it but I have a very visual mind. I see everything as images or video or simulation. I don't see sentences naturally (which is very limiting in a lot of ways but great for other things), and I think the only way for me to get a idea as to how physical concepts work is to understand the math behind them. For that I have to go back and take a lot of classes. As well I don't have the money, I don't have much at all so I would have to do it while I work in my field that I just finished schooling. Based on the simulation in my mind I don't see it being possible at my current age personally, others maybe able to do it but....me....I doubt it.

lol I just made my post more personal to get the idea across. I am pretty much in a field where I use physics to do labortory testing and I plan to go get my radiography testing certificate. One of my courses required me to calibrate a optical emissions spectrometer. I do dabble in it somewhat. I just seem to have a passion for physics, it just interests me the most out of everything. For me I see multiple road and there is no way I can see which is the best road for me. There are so many things in life, I am jsut trying to see if a person seeks happiness or creates happiness.

I don't think anyone really does.

I've been thinking (it does happen!), Since I was like say 9, I've always had this desire to seek out the truth in things, and live by the code of "the more I know the more I am free". Maybe I didn't exactly realize it at the time, but regardless I as I grew up the more I wanted to know things. Now I come to a point where I realize I won't ever know everything. I've come at an impass. I would love to be a physicist, but can really do it at my age and my position? no. Other hand is this something I want or need to be free? to be truely happy? I would have to sacrifice a lot. With no chance that I actually make it. I find everything pretty interesting as well, I am naturally curious. So when and how does a person decide what is best for them? I could spend my whole life focused on one goal, and not be happy that whole time trying to do it, or I can keep it as a hobby, and be satisfied that I will never have what these TOTAL COOL AND AWESOME (my nose is so brown) physics experts possess. There are other things as well. Ignorance can be bliss as well, and I think everyone indulges in it from time to time. So how does one find his true happiness? Is it out there ready to be found or is it something you create? There are times where I also wished I didn't care about my own intelligence because life is so much easier when you are dumb, but I know if I am dumb I am also not happy, even though it does take away the pressures of constantly trying to find intelligence. I just don't know, so I am hoping to see some opinions if anyone has them or if they have had the same feelings or thoughts.

I think the question is, Was these ethical allegation based on her decisions as politician, and whether or not there is merit to allegations. Also why did she not get support from her party? Why is no one speaking out on her behalf? If it is true that someone is trying to bury her and she feels that her position is causing it, I would accept her resignation as possible legit solution, but it seems there is more to the story than what is being presented.

You got any evidence to back up that claim? If we are going to argue hypothetical situations in the future, and you're not willing to accept other views in place of your own then there was no reason to actually make this thread. Are you saying that you are 100% certain that GW is wrong? If so what do you base this on? I accept that unneeded debt is bad, but first I have to see evidence to the fact that there is potential for that to happen. If we are going to disregard evidence and purely look at both doomsday scenerios than yeah, I rather be stupid; then dead.

If it were in Canada Ontario area I would take a bus there, but the states is a bit far for me. Someone PM me in the future if this becomes the case.

I think the whole debate has pushed people to the extremes. From what I gather it very hard to predict future events especially if you don't really have the data to do it. Climate change on a global stage doesn't occur over night. It does leave a bit of uncertainty.I do believe that there is a level of faith in many thing just as there is in every day life. I can't say for curtain that the sun will not explode for no reason, but I do have ample evidence that it is unlikely to happen and there for I have faith that it won't. My faith is not unfounded though, it's based on what I know and what science has to say. Not all science is good science, but with climate change scientist have been studying it for years. There is evidence for global warning. Even though I or we can't say for certain that it will cause catastrophic events. The other hand I can say with a degree of confidence from what we learn that the potential is there. This whole issue has come down to who is right and who is wrong. Does that really matter? If scientists are wrong even with all the evidence, than we continue to live a normal life, but if they are right we are setting up a life that will affect generations to come. This debate should not be personal because the dire effects of the potential affects of global warming will not effect us as much as it will the future of species around the global. It's time to look at it objectively. CO2 is proven to trap heat, start there, man-made or not if CO2 is rising then we need to regulate or control that rate to the best of our ability. It's not about us, it's about our kids and their kids. I don't want on my concsious that I had reason to believe something bad may happen and know that I ignored it because of my ideology. Personally I find that it slight pre-mature to say that something so catasphoic IS certianly going to happen without definite absolute proof, but at the same time if a guy with a knife is standing in front of me telling me he's going to stab me, I am not going to chance the fact that he MAY not do it. Objectivity will be the key to handling this situation. edit:: I can't wait till I learn how to type proper sentences lol, I hope you all get the gist of what I am saying.

Sorry I meant make noise...