imatfaal

Yes. But only one side has been investigated multiple times mainly due to concerted partisan pressure in the legislature giving rising to a crucial talking point in the most important election for many years.

Nope that wasn't a dream - it was a presentiment of the next level of ScienceForum.net Smoking Counter-Measures (patent applied for) Level 1 - Support Level 2 - Phi's mockery Level 3 - Complete Nuclear Annihilation

But the move to proscribe abortion, contraception, and women's self-determination over their own reproduction in general are clearly based on the patriarchal nature of abrahamic religion. And they are being actively pushed at every level of legislature in the United States.

Landslide or laughing stock? Sounds like a dream ticket right about now.

! Moderator Note you are Reiku, Gareth Lee Meredith, Gavin Meredith, QuantumClue, Graviphoton and many other noms de plume. You have already been banned on this site on numerous occasions - the opening of sockpuppet accounts is also not allowed. Thread locked. Account Closed.

FFS Mike do you actually read any of the responses to your posts? I reckon a small but significant proportion include the phrase "because that is not how science works" - you have probably even been told watch Feynman on Magnets half a dozen times. After all this time and 2805 posts do you not take any notice of what the other people on this forum say?

Why won't you either do a proper energy audit or a work energy analysis and post it here/ So far you have made assumptions - that everyone here knows and has pointed out - that have rendered your efforts incomplete and your answer wrong. Also bear in mind you are challenging one of the bedrocks of modern science - do you really think free energy would be that easy; in the words of Oliver Cromwell "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken"

! Moderator Note OK stop with the personal attacks

"People in favor of stoning as the penalty for adultery" are you sure of that? My very quick read of Pew data would make that People who are Muslim AND who are in favour of Sharia Law as National Criminal Code AND who think Death Penalty for Apotasy / Stoning for Adultry . ie they didn't ask the 10% Christian Community about Sharia - and they didn't ask the quarter of Muslims who didn't want Sharia about the punishments. It is still pretty dreadful - but the way to present information is honestly; as soon as it looks as if there is massaging going on then ... - and that figure of actual number of people you have given does not seem right in those circumstance. Perhaps I have looked at the wrong survey - but then as you did not give a full source I had to guess. "And these results are only from 3 or 4 small countries." Pakistan is the sixth most populous country in the world! Egypt is the most populous country in the Middle East. Small countries?

! Moderator Note Can we stick to the OP please and avoid making this another thread rehearsing badly understood notions of islam. There is a new thread for people to discuss the alleged protection of islam from criticism http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98484-do-liberals-think-islam-should-be-protected-from-criticism/

I have started this thread as it was a major branch from a thread on irrational ideologies of the liberal left from here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98459-irrational-ideologies-of-the-left/

I do like it when two different analyses match up - it gives you that nice feeling that you have arrived in the right place; lots of different ways to get lots of different wrong answers but all correct routes lead to just one answer. And in this case it keeps Homer Simpson happy

No. The ball is where it started from and no useful energy has been extracted - however you have spent 20 joules

1. Always take a stab at an answer to get a rough idea. The area shaded is clearly all included in the area bounded by x=3 and y =9 that means it must be less than 27 square units 2. Your answer looks as if you are actually finding out the area under the curve y=x^2 between x = 1 and x=9. That is not what the question asks - can you see now what you are meant to do?

! Moderator Note This thread is about Hillary Clinton. Can we stick to that topic? Could members also take another look at the rules - cos some of the posts were coming awfully close to breaching rule 2.1 Continued breaches will lead to warnings http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules We will start to hide and trash branches that spread too far from the topic. There is plenty of room in this subforum so open a new thread - as I see has already been done for one topic Thanks.

"prop store" - Actors only get their grubby hands on props at the spacing runthrough or one of the technical rehearsals and they should have learnt their lines by then - and heaven defend them if they venture into the prop store to help themselves and actually try to use a prop. Sorry - but I was the sort of techie who thought actors were an unnecessary inconvenience to an otherwise well run show. Frankly mimes would be an improvement - wouldn't have to listen to the jumped up... By the way love the shatner tag

When I was trying to get my dissertation finished I would make a mug of espresso in a 24 cup stove-top espresso jug which I had stolen from the prop store at a regional theatre. And yes, once you get it bedded in, best coffee ever

I think one could be entirely understanding of one's insignificance and yet lead a very blameworthy life and alternatively think that one's desires and actions are crucial and important on a wider stage and yet lead a virtuous life. Civilised in philosophical contexts normally has more to do with size and structure of polities - the rules, the interactions, levels of infrastructure etc. Your definition would rule out classical Athens for a start (perhaps rightly) - but also every other city in history ( qv definition citizen) That is not a usual use of emergence (see your own link) - which is normally defined as a property of large systems and the interaction of sub-systems; in the case of morality it might be more usual to say that it is an emergent property of society or that its roots are in the pscyhology of the individual, or even the interplay of both

re 3 - I wikied rift lakes and it said they could be exceedingly deep so I made a bad assumption that most were flat vs level - OK so they are a flat inclined surface rather than a level surface which would be both flat and perpendicular to radius?

Studiot - can I re-iterate to ensure I have this straight in my head 1. the lake is a rift lake 2. the particular formation of this lake means that its lake bed is ruler flat (ie does not follow curvature) 3. it is also exceedingly shallow for such a lake 4. the water therefore conforms to the lake bed and is also ruler flat

! Moderator Note Guys n Gals. Whilst the motivation for the experiment (from elsewhere and titles) and the obvious other tests to show that its conclusion is flawed are interesting - they are not really part of this thread. Can we keep to why the experiment showed the result it did - personally I am finding it very interesting especially Studiot's contributions; let us not derail that with an argument we already know the answer to.

! Moderator Note Sorry but that attitude really does not belong here. You have already been told to reply to questions. Thread Locked. You do not have permission to reopen a new thread on the same topic Do not respond to this moderation other than via the reporting system

If it is at sea level you don't have 100J of PE. Do your calcs bringing the ball back to the same point. It is pretty simple if you are making a claim of breaking the conservation of energy. You have a 10 m tank - start the ball either 10m up or on the floor outside the tank (if you start the ball inside the tank then you need to audit the water too); show a simple energy audit that you have returned to the same point and been able to extract energy

http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor/so_you_thought_you_knew_what_spinning_planets_look_like_surprising_shapes_of_rapidly_spinning_planets-155538 Your link was not working - try this one. An artefact of cutting and pasting was screwing with it

! Moderator Note granpa You insufferable attitude will not be allowed to continue. You are making bold claims which to an extent run against the current ideas - when people ask questions you MUST answer them. Expressions of incredulity concerning members lack of knowledge, tantrums suggesting others should look it up themselves, claims to have already answered, and straight ignoring requests will not be tolerated. If you continue I will lock the thread. Last Chance. do not respond to this moderation except via the reporting system. NB. I have hidden your response to your previous warning