admiral_ju00

before applying, think long and hard about what you want to do with your life. this is my 2nd university i'm attending. while i always had love for science, at first i thought it would be good idea to go into computer science. needless to say, i did it, and i waisted over a year and a half plus got my self in a hole for about 10K in tuition. i dropped that 1st university because it was completely worthless as they did not teach me anything that i didn't already knew, plus i had problems with some of the professors and the way they did things. then i waited for about 2 years before going into the current university and finaly doing the things i love it's just too bad that i've waisted so much time/money in the 1st place

go here: http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=fh;[ln];kbhowto err, copy&past the link above, go to it, and search away.

if i had the time or the patience' date=' i would take it upon myself to [b']Egdumaticate[/b] you on marcian ecology, but you're starting to bore me with this nonsence of yours.

well, i've heard this expression from someone or somewhere(don't care which is it, really), but it might help. If someone (person A) calls you a cow - You easily refute it If someone (person B) calls your a cow again - You Ponder If someone (person C) calls you a cow once again - You accept the predicament/inevitable as a fact and go eat some grass...... so while this doesn't directly answer your question, it is still in the same general criteria, or at least i think it is

A: Hell NO! Q: What is the precise definition of E=MC2?

because it give 3 of it's ions to O

Color would tell you and everybody else in the world that these are rocks or not.

rofl. that would depend on when you'd catch me then, i guess. especially if it were right after work or something as the night shift is starting to take it's toll on me it would seem

were you serious? how did the cat get vaporised? by what?

here's the technical stuff, but since i have no love of mathematics(only use what i need) this stuff is greek to me. http://www.lstud.ii.uib.no/~s1422/ber200/oppgave2/ basically, in a nutshell it's when a water is heated in a certain way like in a beaker, but the heat is introduced in such a way that it only heats a very thin(top) portion or layer of the water. placing a bunsen burner underneath the beaker will ruin the gig as the heat will be distributed more evenly and then boil. but if it's(heat) is introduced in such a way that only the top thin layer is heated, it(water) forms a substance like a crust but has a distinct shape of a honecomb. {edit: i think this is better linky} http://www.enseeiht.fr/hmf/travaux/CD0001/travaux/optmfn/hi/01pa/hyb72/rb/rb.htm

i understand how one can produce such an effect, but is there any explanations on why these particular shapes appear and is there any significance to them besides then to release extra heat? and can the usual shape structure be altered or does it always make the exact same pattern?

why do i see many-a-problem with this notion? but you might want to check out some of the genetic research the MIT is currently running for starters

rofl, nicely done.

while the dna goes not code for such things directly, there are 2 things that may explain it: 1) we do not know what all dna or better yet genome does at this point it tims 2) while it might not code directly for intelligence, it might do so indirectly, at say during the embryonic stage? for instance, one of the thing that was found in Albert Einsteins brain is an unusually high number of Glia cells. pending further investigation, but more Glia cells may mean higher inteligence.

that's not how a typical Hunter and Gatherer society works, so this wouldn't be an issue.

It might be better termed as: Descent with Modification It is a Theory that 1) hasn't been proven false 2) at this point in time more than likely, it can not be proven false due to the staggering amount of evidence in support of evolution and 3) the thing that was said by swansont. Agreed on the 1st point. However, 2nd point is a problem. According to pure Darwinism, there are 2 things that make an organism evolve: Natural Selection and Random Mutations. I think that perhaps you were refering to: Theistic Evolution? As It would fit right into the description you've provided. Polyphyletic evolution is slightly different. While Humans, Monkeys and Apes are Hominids, it is Highly likely that Homo Sapiens shared a Common Ancestor with the monkeys. This concusion is derived on the Morphological, Phenotypical and Genotypical traits. Homo Sapiens can be much better compared to a Juvenile ape then a fully grown ape or a monkey. Well, calling it a horrible lie isn't fully right. Misunderstood or MisInformed would be a better choise, in my opinion. While you right, the Homo Sapiens did not directly evolved from Apes, but rather shared a Common Ancestor some 14 Mya. You are also right that some of the Hominids depicted on such a poster have existed at the same time or before/after, but for the moment, it does a good job depicting the species that haven't yet been found. There are also various models that explain/predict such phenomenon. There are major morphological differences between an Ape and a Monkey. Genetically, we are closer to Chimps, but morphologically, we are closer to Guerillas. Not entirely true. Under certain conditions, this can be brue as shown by the H-W, granted that every single one of the conditions are met as required by the H-W. But there are other things that can have an effect as well. Mutations, Changes in diet, Selective breeding, etc. Not true. Even a single mutation w/ in the genome, would mean it's no longer the exact same genome, now wouldn't it? Also, taking in things like a Mutation, not all mutations are expressed or are Benificial or Detrimental. Most mutations are neutral, plus not all detrimental mutations are selected against, for example the Down Syndrome or the Sickle Cell Anemia. An individual with either of these mutations will and can grow up to be a relatively healthy adult. Yes they have. Numerous examples exist, such as the High-Altitude adaptation of the Hymalayans, dentition movement, etc Or unless you're talking about a certain pre-concieved trait, such as developing an ifrared vision or a bigger brain, etc. Then this would explain by the Orthogenesis theory and that is false. Regardless of the man's capability, Natural Selection is still at play, simply look around for examples, these are countless. As far as why didn't the Homo Sapiens haven't completely evolved yet, would be perhaps that we have not found a new niche to undergo a further major evolution? Even thou this may be erroneous, but I think that for the time being, humans are the Pinnacle of Evolution, but this is subject to change should we do find a new niche[i/]. I do believe I've already answered this one, so let's move on. Absolutely beautiful. Well done. Once again, Absolutely beautiful. Well done. What do you mean she was among the 1st? There are others. Lucy is by far one of the most complete Australipithecine fossils found, being at almost 40% complete. Unless I missed other discoveries of such magnitude or there are other Lucy's?!? Yep, that would make better sence if we were created by god. Agreed. Also, it is a morphological disadvantage to be bipedal, for the reason given above. Just because when an organism dies, it does not in no way ensure it to be fossilized. The conditions for such phenomenon must be met, plus considering other factors such as predators or other hominids who might have scavenged the bones for their hunting and gathering life styles. Social Cybernetics can explain these. But as a very brief generelization, groups are systems and must be veiwed as such. Taking a reductionistic approach is a sure way to mmisinterpret datum, so the only way to avoid such major mistakes is the systems's(or network) perspective. That's negotiable. If by that, you mean that a random mutation causing such a (detrimental)flaw would mean instant elimination of the organism, then it's wrong in many cases. There are numerous such 'flaws' that exist out there and these organisms or humans still live. If you meant that such a 'flaw' would mean that Natural Selections selects against one's fitness, then it may be more right, but not in all cases, depending on that case. It can, in a relatively small to very small social structure. No comment. Well, other then the one I highlited, because if this flood has indeed caused such devastation, how come only a tiny portion of the land was covered during this flood as there are other areas where living systems thrived w/o ever seeing this flood? There is much more of the evidence FOR the Evolution then against, unless one is taking sides with the Religious and Creationists. But other then that, the rest is pretty good. True.

and i suppose you can cite your sources???

Bleh. Being Pessimistic is the way to go. I mean think about it, if you brace yourself for the worst, but when you actually do the thing you need to do and don't fulfil your predictions, then it'll be more rewarding

A: ExtraSense Q: How can I plant my "Laser Cannon" on the moon so I can attempt a world domination?

thanks. Z28 Camaro (my baby, she's more like a 2nd wife to me than simply a car) thinking about getting it blown {edit: bleh, damn typos }

oh boy, don't have time to read it all and no hopes of replying at the moment, but just you wait

since we're on a subject, why not an anthropology/geology forums as well? but then again, i don't think anybody else here is into it other then an evolution post here and there once in a while. which'll probably mean i'll have to be talking to myself all day long, d'oh!

all in a word: explosion. - hence the term internal combustion engine the gas(petrol) enters the cylinder through the valve with some air, the spark plug lets out a spark which causes the explosion in the cylinder which cause the piston to go down, causing more gas and air to get in through the valves, it's an endless loop, more or less, or at least it is, untill the engine craps out. not sure about the diesel motors as they don't use spark plugs, but i believe glow rods??? but the process would be similar. except that engines that use Petrol produce HP and engines that use Diesel produce Torque. not sure on the turbine engines except that they take in lots of air which is then detonated, and from what it looks like, it works kind of like a wind mill, i believe.

because the molecules in ice are very nicely and very compactly packed and are not spread out as they are in liquid water. there for, ice weights dramatically less then water.