CDarwin

What Mr. Skeptic was saying, though less helpfully, is that there is a distinction between the common use of the word "berry" and the actual botanical definition. All the fruits Mr. Skeptic listed were botanical berries. Strawberries, raspberries, and so forth are berries in the familiar diction (there is some overlap). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry

Geez, are you people not versed in Bushisms? What about the thinking skills that good math instruction fosters? That's the answer my pre-calculus teacher gave to all the whines of "when are we ever going to need this?" Of course, I probably will need some of what we learned in there. Too bad I don't remember 90% of it... Which shows you I think how much about instruction it is.

I think a lot of common joes suffer if you get a recession. I'm not necessarily defended the Fed's actions; I'm not an economist. I don't think that they're ethically sinister in motivation, though.

It is an interesting corollary.

Why is it that most web pages all scroll up to down vertically? Why not side to side horizontally? Why do pages have this vertical orientation? Is there any practical or psychological purpose to this or is it just a quirk of history?

What do we do with think tanks? Do they serve a valid purpose, or are they just the tools of science-for-hire machine? What separates a think tank from a valid independent research institution, like the HHMI, say, or the Max Plank Institutes in Germany? Are there think tanks that you just write off studies from out of hand? Personally, I know when I see American Enterprise Institute or Heritage Foundation I become immediately skeptical, because I know what they do is political and I know the sort of idiotic positions they've taken on things like global warming and the cancer risks of smoking and evolution. Should that reflect on their economic studies? I don't know. What about the Brookings Institute? Should I be just as skeptical of them?

Hey, as someone who has been to Arkansas once I am very offended by that.

*whistles innocently*

I know that in horses, breathing while running is coupled to the strides, so that a horse can only breath once per stride. In humans, this is decoupled, so that humans can breath as much as they want per stride, and this is often cited as some very monumental thing in human evolution. My question, if you will forgive its naive obviousness, is whether-or-not this has coupling has actually been demonstrated in quadrupedal primates or if its just a thing in striding animals like horses and carnivores and the like. Those are the only animals I've ever heard actually spoken of as having linked breathing and running.

I'm not entirely sure why you want to take anthropology unless you're just interested in the subject, but if you are, go for it. It's just a generally useful field in the modern world, and I imagine it would give insight into the cultural context in which science occurs. Perhaps I'm stretching a bit.

Russian and English composers, pretty heavily. I love my Beethoven and Sibelius too. And They Might Be Giants. Them too.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/73372 Fire away, Paulites. The article is mostly about the conspiracy theories surrounding the formation of a "North American Union," parallel to the European Union, and Paul's particular affinity for the notion. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but that notion doesn't particularly frighten me. I haven't seen the numbers crunched, obviously, but I don't see any reason why this is intrinsically a sinister thing. I'm a pretty rabid free-trader, though.

I suppose this is a response to Phil as much as it is to you: It doesn't really matter if Chavez is "liberal" or not. The only important thing to Pangloss's point is whether-or-not American liberals view him as liberal. Now what hasn't been established is that A) American liberals think such a way, and B) That we should care.

As opposed to mud animated by... God?

I would call intelligence "using learned behaviored to survive." That would would distinguish "intelligent" action from those that are done out of instinct. Learned behaviors can also be communicated and improved upon communally, which is a hallmark of human behavior and what really gives us our competitive edge as a species. Put Albert Einstein alone in a desert, he would die. It doesn't matter how 'smart' you are intrinsically unless you can communicate and learn from your fellow man. Put a culture in that same desert, and it will thrive. Thus, humans are the most "intelligent" because we rely on learned behavior more than any other animal.

I'll ask these questions to two camps: A. People who are teaching freshmen in an American college setting, do you think that the high school science/math that they've had was really up to what they should have had, or do you find yourself having to backtrack over topics that should already be familiar to them? B. People in college in the sciences/math, do you think that your high school science/math experience adequately prepared you for science in a collegiate setting? Did you have to go to fairly extraordinary measures, like taking classes at a college or AP classes (which my high school at least doesn't even offer) to get the education you needed? Obviously more education is better, but do you find the current situation to be 'dire' in any sort of way?

Much like the entire thesis of this thread? So what if 'some liberals' support Hugo Chavez? Some conservatives support Alberto Fujimori. Some people who wear glasses support killing Jews. Unless you can proffer some sort of evidence that there is a plot in the works by liberal senators and congressmen to prop up Hugo Chavez, then I really don't see what the point of this is. It's completely an ad hominem, of the original definition.

I posted a screenshot of that in the other thread earlier that didn't work. It was over the evolution forum, oh ho ho. Is anyone planning on seeing this thing? Part of me feels guilty for really not wanting to. Stare into the abyss and the abyss stares back?

Well then this is just a discussion over an ad hominem. Who cares what Hollywood does with its money? I know I won't be jetting down to Caracas any time soon, and I'm sure most Democratic policy makers don't have framed pictures of Chavez in their offices.

Or people get just a little more upset about losing their own freedoms than people in another country losing theirs? Just a thought. I'm not saying it's not hypocritical, but it's pretty natural. A person only has so much outrage. It seems logical that he'd use it on causes that effect him directly.

If you're of the proper age (16+ probably), check local paleontological digs or archaeology labs. Often they'll take volunteers. In East Tennessee I know of the UT Archaeology Lab and Gray Fossil Site both of which you can volunteer at. That's probably completely useless to you, but it's an example of what you can find. You can also do internships and things with veterinary clinics, zoos, even some hospitals if you're so inclined and can convince the people you're worthy.

I wouldn't call the powers "near-dictatorial." The reforms would have dropped term limits for the president and given him more power legislatively, as well as some other socialist things (6 hour work days). It would have given Chavez more power, but I think you're dramatizing just a bit. Chavez is more Huey Long than Saddam Hussein. I wouldn't say that there was "no" chance either. In fact the early polls had it pretty close, and some saw the reforms as failing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7119371.stm Great for democracy, yeah, sure, I guess. Better for Venezuela if it means they can stop Chavez from running their country into the ground sooner, but that's only if there's another good choice which there doesn't really seem to be.

I'm not expecting to publish on this or anything. Just a bit of idle discussion.

Well obviously, but the point's pedantic. The important thing isn't the fossil itself, it's the information the fossil contains. When Robert Broom fell to his knees in honor of "the ancestor" when the first saw the Taung skull, it was obvious to him that that particular individual could be our actual ancestor; it was only a child when it died. Nakalipithecus almost certainly isn't the *actual* common ancestor of all the African apes. But it's close, and it tells us things. For one, the common ancestor stands a good chance of being gorilla-sized.

And (South) Korea is a success story not because of the US military but because of economic development. I'm not arguing with you or anything. Just putting that out there. That's the best role for the United States to have coming out of this, I think.