hypervalent_iodine

That was quite an impressive act of thread necromancy, Acme. I assume that after almost 10 years, the OP has probably moved on.

! Moderator Note Rajnish, You have been asked before not to make posts that don't actually contain anything of any substance. This has to stop if you wish to continue posting here.

I'm not an expert in the philosophy of morality, but I'm sure I read once about instinctive or base morality, which are traits that appear to be shared across people of different or no religious affiliation, ethnicities, etc., and form part of the social glue that has kept us working together in a cooperative fashion throughout the ages. IIRC, it's mostly in reference to things such as murder and theft. A quick Google search gave back this wiki article, which is more or less what I recall having read about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_morality

What the other two have said is spot on - practice. That's the bulk of what there is to it. I myself get incredibly nervous when I have to speak in public, despite being quite vocal in group meetings and whatnot. The best way I found to be successful in it was never to write a speech and to practice it until you could recite it in your sleep. My process is to put together lecture slides where appropriate, or a small page of bullet points with how I want to cover my argument and then just sit in front of that page or those slides and talk until it's over, fix any errors in my speaking along the way and making things more concise, and then go through it again and again until I could repeat it without having to think too much about it. At that point, I often record it and listen to it the next day to see if I need to make changes and go through the process again. I still can't get rid of the nerves when I initially get up there, but having my talk completely memorized beforehand means that I don't lose track and I can progress at a regular speaking pace without anyone noticing how badly my hands are shaking. One other piece of advice if you are presenting lecture slides on something is to make sure that you fully understand every single thing you put on your slides. Even if it's just a mundane graph, you should make sure you know the ins and outs of what the graph means and how the data was acquired. Question time is where people screw up a lot and some people can be quite nasty with their questioning. Another trick is to be deliberately vague about certain, incidental things in your talk to lead people into asking you questions that you are well prepared for. Learning how to be confidently evasive when you don't know an answer is also fairly important.

I've learned never to promise myself that I'll do something, 'when I wake up,' because invariably I will wake up and my bed will be even more comfortable than it was when I went to sleep and sleep will seem like an infinitely better thing to do. One day I hope to reverse my attitudes in the morning vs. when I am supposed to go to sleep. I am terrible at procrastinating. Most of my assignment work at uni was done on the occasional wave of motivation and inspiration. I got a tonne of work done during those hours, but they weren't as often as they should have been. During my honours year I managed to surprise myself by having my research proposal and thesis written weeks in advance of their due date. I think the major difference for me was that I was genuinely interested in what I was doing and found it much easier to want to research and write about it, whereas a large portion of my undergraduate coursework was not very interesting for me. During my years in high school I was not allowed access to the internet or simply didn't have it, TV was restricted (and not appealing to me anyway) and I didn't have a phone that I actually used until my final year. I really didn't have anything better to do except read (which I did a lot of) and all of my work was done well ahead of time as a result. Of course, this doesn't help you at all since you clearly do have access to these things and honestly, nothing I say *could* really help you (especially as far as English is concerned), since I haven't managed to figure out how to fix it yet either. Maybe next week.

Then what did you want to know?

Lightmeow said 1 hour as well. He can't be wrong if Olinguito is right.

! Moderator Note Gees, calm down. There's no need to get so defensive and personal towards iNow.

Just FYI: I've pinned some old tutorials related to this subject in this sub-forum. They may be found here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/4108-calculus-i-lesson-1-a-background-to-differentation/ http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/4182-calculus-i-lesson-2-a-continuation-from-first-principles/ Edit: actually, I decided to move them to the tutorials forum: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/88-mathematics-tutorials/

I think his point is that when you said in post #20 that you had told him he was correct, you were wrong. he presented his answer here, and your response to that answer is here. You didn't tell him he was right, although you didn't tell him he was wrong either. Your quote was directed at Olinguito's post, which contained the same answer, not Lightmeow's.

I continue to be absolutely amazed at how much biologists spend on those kits. The RiboMinus or Dynabeads kits I usually use for isolation tends to do the trick for most of my work, it's just that I work almost exclusively with totally random non-model species and they don't always like to do what the kits tell them to.

Definitely not, no.

Well sure, but how the media responds to it would depend largely on whether or not the claim stands up, if not now then certainly how they continue to report it after the initial furore has died down. I can't remember what the details were exactly, but I recall that there was some meeting he had with staff a little while ago that indicated he was telling the truth about not knowing about it. I couldn't tell you anything more specific without trawling back through my history. Even if it is true, it of course doesn't excuse the fact that it happened; it might help this not become such a huge issue down the track, however. Given that he is certainly going to be running for presidency, his actions in NJ and elsewhere are going to be in the news regardless of this event and how the media choose to run it. He seems to be quite well liked by the media on both sides though, insults about his weight notwithstanding (seriously, what was that all about?); his apology conference seemed to be week received, at any rate (based on the Slate and PBS sources I was reading). My personal view is that this will die down very quickly and the public will stop caring about it, unless it is revealed that he was definitely lying, in which case it will drag out some more and possibly affect his running chances. I am not going to respond to the remainder of your post, as it is off topic (and in fairness, I shouldn't have responded to it in my previous post either, so I am sorry for that). However, if you wanted to discuss it elsewhere, I'm sure I'd be happy to participate.

I appreciate that this is a thought experiment, but can't accept the dichotomy you've presented. You are asking whose life or lives would I rather save (assuming that this person would do what I say) where the choice is between a sociopathic murderer (it doesn't matter what they do for a living) or numerous 'innocent' bystanders (I say 'innocent,' because for all I know they could be murderers too). My response is that I cannot rank a life as being more or less worth saving in that manner as I don't believe that it is my position to make that judgement, nor do I think that it should be anyone else's. If I were presented with this question in real life, my answer is that I would not answer, as I have already stated. At best I would say not to, on the proviso that they turn themselves in to authorities. How is that not an appropriate answer to your question? What exactly is compelling me to have to make a choice between the two options in the first place?

You haven't said that this person was a close friend or relative or not, though in either case (especially if they were not close to me), I would probably refuse to answer and contact the police instead.

You shouldn't do, it's set up on an IRC server. It's very quiet in there most times, though I haven't been in IRC for some time.

If I had to vote for a Republican and I had any authority to vote at all in the US elections, it would certainly be for Christie. I don't think anyone doubts that he's going to be a nominee* for 2016, but I'd be interested to see if he can actually make it through to becoming the Republican presidential candidate.* He's much too bipartisan for a lot of Republicans - especially the Tea Party faction - and I suspect that many base Republicans would rather support someone like Paul Ryan or possibly Marco Rubio (maybe Ted Cruz). I wouldn't be too upset if Paul Ryan got it either, personally. He's not all terrible and he's had some decent middle-of-the-road suggestions. How this stupidly names bridge-gate fiasco affects Christie comes down a lot on how true his statement of his not-knowing turns out to be. I was under the impression that Christie was fairly renowned as a bit of a bully, though the purported reasons behind the bridge shutdown seem so trivial and minor that I find it hard to believe that he would actually order this be done. One suggestion I heard, which I would be much more willing to believe, is that the staff responsible were potentially acting under a sort of implied directive. In other words, Christie could well have said, 'do what you need to do to get X done,' and staff could have interpreted that however they wanted without Christie having actually told them what to do or knowing what they were planning. That being said, I like iNow's suggestion also and it's given me something to ponder. Overtone, I'm sorry, but iNow is definitely right as far as MSNBC, et al are correct. I listen to a bunch of different political podcasts since I don't really have access to your news programs, namely PBS's Washington Week, Slate's Political Gabfest, Freakonomics radio (it often covers policy issues or policy related ones), KCRW's Left, Right and Center and formerly, the NPR It's All Politics one (may it RIP). Going from those sorts of sources, which I enjoy and find to be very good in how balanced they approach stories, to CNN or (mostly) MSNBC (or FOX) is like walking into a whole other world full of terrible journalism - and believe me when I say that I get more than enough of that in Australia. They're (again, mostly MSNBC) about as sensationalist, bias and at times, as wrong as FOX news sometimes is, it just happens to be on the left side of politics rather than the right. *Not sure if my terminology is right, there. I'm sure you all get the idea.

! Moderator Note It's probably best that you avoid dispensing medical advice on this forum.

! Moderator Note Alan, keep the personal snipes out of it. If you can't respond to people civilly and with some actual substance, don't post. Edit: Furthermore, it's not Marshalscienceguy's fault that you can't remember your own words. If you're going to engage in debate, perhaps you start keeping better track of such things. Do not respond to this modnote within the thread. If you disagree with it, please PM a member of staff or report this post.

Alan, the point is that you are not responding properly to criticisms or counterpoints by other members in this thread, either by simply ignoring them, going off on some unrelated or factually incorrect tangent or explicitly refusing to as you did earlier with John Cuthbert. This is a discussion forum and that's not how a discussion forum works. If you wish to have an actual conversation here, then you should be willing to do members the courtesy of responding to them when they have taken the time and effort to respond to you. You have failed thus far to provide evidence for any of your claims and yet you sit here and continue to preach them anyway. So, what exactly did you start this thread for? It seems like it was just to have people agree with you, forget what anyone else has to say on the matter, and that being the case, then I'm afraid that staff will probably be closing this. Note also that since I have participated in this thread, none of this is my opinion as a staff member.

OT: I accidentally neg repped michel's last post while scrolling through on my phone. If someone feels like reversing that, I would be most appreciative!

I have had the same one since I was 4 within my family, which I loathe and will not repeat. I have also had a flat mate who used to call me K-dog, though since he left to travel the globe the most common ones have been Kyles or Kywala (as in koala).

! Moderator Note Rajnish, please try to keep your comments on topic. Do not respond to this mod note.

I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect it's to make my life hell when I'm trying to do RNASeq work.

Earlier today, while I was in between making sandwiches, doing the dishes and pining over strong males that might make my abdomen swell and save me from predators,* I found myself here to observe the proud displays of the mighty SFN males in all of their glory. One particular post really caught my eye, but my poor, feeble female brain was too concerned with squawking at my fellow sandwich-makers to be able to make any sense of it. I reported it to some men to do the real thinking and basically, Dekan, oh dominant one, we think your attitude sucks and you're going on a forced holiday for a week. tl;dr: Dekan just got himself suspended for a week by a girl. *Actually, I hate doing the dishes and I was much too busy doing science to bother with them anyway.