Realitycheck

Yeah, I was going to add that all of those bees also serve another function impregnating flowers.

I agree that now isn't exactly a good time, since we put so much debt into it. Was it this argument that initially caused it to be paid for with debt, I wonder. I've seen lots of posts and articles lately deemphasizing the relationship between tax increases and spending habits, after all its only 2% of payroll (5-10%). Excuse me, regarding the cost, I was forgetting some of the costs of the overhaul and its all-encompassing nature.

Well, it looks like there was a lot of wrangling about the initial cost, starting from 634 billion ranging up to 1.5 trillion. A substantial amount was estimated or allocated for a reserve fund to cover unforeseen circumstances, IIRC. With all of this new debt on the books, I can see why there is a lot of resistance to raising any taxes, but it's just a matter of time. I think most people wouldn't have cared about a measly one or two percent while they were still working to adjust for inflation properly rather than wait till it got out of hand. Tax rates are pretty low right now.

Total taxable income currently is around 7 trillion dollars per year. A 2% increase in ss and medicare would decrease the annual deficit by at least 140 billion dollars a year. This little increase provides a potential breakeven since total taxable income will increase each year, along with the population. From one perspective, its easy to say that the payroll tax rates were never properly set, if it has run away from us, but the increased rate of inflation in the medical field likely accounts for most of the runaway effect. Medicare tax rates (and ss, to a small degree) have just never been adjusted accordingly. Waiting till people are in retirement to admit that a mistake was made seems pretty irresponsible, considering that budgets are already pretty tight in most every direction. This new system we seem to be borrowing for ahead of time. Not really sure yet why it's costing so much.

This may help: http://www.superstringtheory.com/experm/exper5.html All of the other dimensions are considered spatial in orientation. Also, I found this other site which was a lot more comprehensive in that aspect. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/imagining-other-dimensions.html

I was thinking something along the same lines ... but, The more massive something is, the more gravity it has. Around a gravity well, it is hidden and distorted, but matter gives itself mass via the gravity it imposes. The more mass it has, the more gravity it imposes. Therefore, gravity is responsible for giving mass to matter. I might propose that you're never going to find evidence of a Higgs except out in deep space because of gravity wells.

Ahh... gravity is an acceleration, not a force. Does this make sense as the solution to everyones' problem? http://milesmathis.com/quantumg.html

I've been reading up on Calabi-Yau and Green and it just seems unnecessarily complicated and hardly representative of reality, at least from my perspective. Green doesn't seem to talk with a lot of confidence about the theory saving the day. Since so much of it has QCD and the Standard Model incorporated into it, it's hard to really assign it much value, other than an essentially meaningless umbrella construct, don't mean to step on anybody's toes. The Standard Model makes sense. Even QCD makes sense, considering that all of these new parameters had to be devised and assigned. It doesn't make sense that it should all just be thrown away like a house of cards because you can't find evidence of a force that gives mass to matter. Gravity is your answer. Surely, someone thought of that. Surely, the issue isn't exactly as I have described. Is gravity inconsequential at the quantum level and that's what the issue is all about?

Could you extrapolate? How do you translate 3d space into 9d space? I read something about space curling up into itself and a box inside a box representing 1 extra dimension, but the string materials I have looked at so far don't really explain that facet of the theory much. Is this like a whole book I need to read to understand this concept? I went up through Algebra 2 and Calculus 2, Trig, Stats, so it seems like it shouldn't be that hard to comprehend. And I was one of the ones keeping up in class.

How do you utilize or delegate the other 6 dimensions? What do the other 6 variables stand for?

The only reason why I posted a link to a meager discussion was because it happened to raise many pertinent issues of the subject, but to summate things, it comes from Old English, where all kinds of seemingly sesnseless vestigial artifacts from the past have a way of clinging on despite inventions like the metric system. re: ewmon's post, nice link. I had a feeling that it had a Germanic link, but had not dug that deep.

http://www.antimoon.com/forum/2004/5133.htm

For what its worth, I agree that it was indeed a quite rare trial combination that just happened to find itself in the right place, at the right time, nestled into a little lipid vesicle with another chemical or two to produce the perfect combination. But other people have come up with other equally sensible explanations that are not easily shrugged off. So maybe life is more common than you think, considering all of these different ways with all of these trial combinations. All it takes is a way, then it is just a matter of time till the pieces fall together in the right place at the right time.

I agree, poor choice of words. All of the quark gluon plasma was ... funneled in from that great supercollider in the sky.

I would suggest that you are going about it wrong. Once life has a toehold, there are just too many ways for it to maintain its condition or improve upon it. You would have to essentially completely destroy/remove the atmosphere to achieve total annihilation, and even then, there is no guarantee, organisms can find sustenance in the ground. The destructive ability of the world was essentially rendered lame once life achieved a toehold. There are just too many variables enabling its continued existence. o On the other hand, I believe you could easily make a case for life's ability to assemble itself from scratch in a number of potential conditions. The one constant existing in our universe is the potential for organization. Formless matter organizes itself into atoms, which fuse themselves into larger and larger, more complicated atoms, which organize themselves into the basic precursors of life, developing into larger and more complicated life forms, which eventually progress to organizing and creating their own life forms, where we are today. Where you say that life is a miracle and driven, I would contend that it is fixed into an equation, rife for a number of potential circumstances. Sure, you can say that life is a miracle and driven, because the universe was geared for it. o I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Bost sides essentially saying the same thing, one side just calls it a law and the other side calls it a will, nevertheless, it adds up to the same thing, albeit with the will substantially reduced down to size.

Makes you wonder if the Arsenic substituting Phosphorus experiment was just a big joke. You are free to believe that the world absolutely will end, despite every innovation mankind can ever devise. Just remember that no matter what happens, the total amount of phosphorus on this planet will always be the same, and if they recently discovered greater reserves and new sources, you still have no idea what other potential sources remain to be found. It all just contributes to the total reclaimable amount throughout the world, of which hardly any is reclaimed. I wholeheartedly agree with you that is a limiting factor on the sustainable population of the world, but so was total arable land and total fish stocks and whatever, but we will innovate, restrict, manage, you name it. LOL

All I've ever said is that problems are solvable and I guarantee you technology is going to make solutions easier. Why are we even having this conversation? Is it ignorant to have faith in the world to solve its problems? Somebody's working on it.

To go with the flow? To congregate with a "responsible" group of people? Because of a spiritual or God experience you had? To find a "good" girl? Because you were just raised that way? Because it just makes sense, in a philosophical sort of way? Just to be on the safe side? Because it was written?

Hmm ... a social organization for the development of technology. That's a good idea, but who has time for social organizations? The world is one big social organization.

Mining asteroids wouldn't be very efficient for phosphate due to the immense volumes used and relative low cost. It would be more efficient to use manure (despite the unpleasantness), rotate crops, etc. A 10,000 ton shipment would have to be multiplied by 100-1,000 to be of any substance and even then, 10,000 tons is a considerable mass to land on earth somehow.

I think all of the talk about multiverses is just a result of people trying to dream up their own news. Kind of irresponsible if you ask me, though it seems like more of a fad than anything. Has there been anyone other than Kaku that has supported the idea and to what extent did he support it? I can't imagine it being anything more than bold speculation out of anybody's mouth, so why is the idea so popular? Whats the likelihood of a Big Bang happening in each bubble? Or do we just throw away all of that BB data? That's really what it boils down to, right? Multiverse equals no Big Bang? So a different model for our universe needs to be offered, but I thought our BB model was pretty well established.

Most financial planners would typically only advise putting a certain percentage of money in stocks/funds in the first place. My personal family would typically lean to the conservative side, interest, etc.

Aunt Mable wouldn't be riding a rollercoaster with her lifesavings.

Time is a system of referencing duration elapsed between different periods.

A fifteen mile wide point. I thought Hawking was describing it. All neutrons and electrons, merged together, no space in between.