Phi for All

Did one of the wall-mounts from either of those sites I gave you spark any interest? How many seats are you going to be sitting in? Can't the TV be positioned to face the ones you use most often? And how much will you need it to move if all the seats are filled? And if all the seats are filled isn't somebody going to end up with a side view no matter where you move the TV? The wall mounts from the links are for motels and hospitals where multiple users will have multiple preferences. Chances are you're going to set up the TV and maybe need to move it once or twice in several months time. Are you sure it's worth it?

Why bendy? Are you really needing to move it to different angles? Or is it because you want to move it out of the way when you're not watching?

If you insist on a bendy floor mount I'm not sure you can do it. There are some great wall mounts with a great deal of range that can handle 3-4 times the load you've got. Try tray TV mounts or this place for some more. The second site has floor mounts but they didn't look very bendy.

Not only does sound require a medium, it also requires a detector. Anything you use to detect sound is going to produce some sound as well, whether it's a microphone or the human ear.

For a homemade device, how about suspending it rather than supporting it? If your need for range of motion is not great you could attach a short 2x4 to the ceiling to pivot 360 degrees, then attach a simple pulley to the arm for vertical motion. Not as rigid as you may like but doable with inexpensive materials. I have to say, it's a real PITA having to get little bits on info on what you would like to do. If you could describe exactly what you're attempting and why you want to attempt it we could probably think outside as well as inside the box.

Please use the Search function. There are several threads on this and I don't want to waste everyone's time on the same debate. Here are some: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18477&highlight=%22intelligent+design%22 http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18628&highlight=%22intelligent+design%22

Start at the beginning and tell us what you're trying to do. Nothing in the bendy cable category is going to support that much weight. Chances are there is something out there already you can use that will be cheaper than trying to make it yourself.

What about televangelism? I feel like I need some soap after flipping past one of those channels.

I'm betting if something organic is sitting on a bar of soap it'll cause mold. Soap isn't magically cleaner than anything else, but the glycerine in it breaks the surface tension of water to make it... wetter. When I first heard about anti-bacterial soap, I remember thinking, "Hasn't soap ALWAYS been killing bacteria?" Rude awakening, believe me.

Could the mousetrap arms be extended and used to pull a loose collar down a threaded propeller shaft? Something along these lines only smaller and lighter weight. Carved and waxed balsa wood comes to mind. You could even cut most of the mousetrap away (at least the metal U part) if that's legal.

Don't they taste like honey mustard and ranch dressing?

Ah, but when said paste is molded into dinosaurs, the resulting educational value seems to overcome any gastronomical objections. At least from kids....

I don't eat burgers much anymore. Grinding tougher cuts of meat to make them palatable is what ground beef is all about. Quality over quantity has become my new motto in the last several years. I'm no longer in stressful daily situations where I have to resort to filling up quickly on fast foods. I spend the same amount of money, time and effort and have a more enjoyable experience, better health and am less of a "consumer" by cutting down on portions and buying better goods. I also hate being ripped off, and many people don't realize that fast food places sell their main menu items at a slight markup so they can really cash in on the side items. Fries and soft drinks have the highest markups of any foodstuffs in the industry. Ten years ago I used to get glares from assistant managers when I would order two burgers and nothing else.

It seems to me there are at least two distinct issues here. Cruelty before slaughter and production processing. For cruelty, "He uses a long knife and must hit exactly the right spot to kill the animal humanely. He hits that spot again and again" after the cattle have been knocked unconscious suggests they are efficient and have minimized any trauma to the animal simply because it would disrupt the line if they didn't. I have no problem with having someone "reach inside cattle and pull our their kidneys with his bare hands, then drop the kidneys down a metal chute, over and over again, as each animal passes by him", or rivers of blood cascading down on the slaughterhouse workers. How else are they going to do it? If you eat the beef you have to accept that the animals must be killed and there seems to be no unnecessary cruelty in the slaughtering process. The misleading vividness of the blood and the saws and making it seem like the cows are "tricked" into walking obligingly to their deaths is hand-waving to me. Production process is where I have a big problem. I once read that one out of every nine cows you see in fields in the US was destined for McDonald's. McD is known for using every bit of the cow in their ground hamburger, including hooves faces and tails (but not intestines). All ground hamburger has fat added to it (no more than 30%) and contains some less than desirable bits; ground beef does not. I always buy beef from stores that offer organically fed cuts from cows that weren't fed antibiotics or hormones. If it's ground I buy ground sirloin or ground chuck so I know which parts are in there.

BLASPHEMY!!! From As You Like It: All the world's a stage And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages. At first the infant, Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms. Then the whining school-boy, with his satchel And shining morning face, creeping like snail Unwillingly to school. And then the lover, Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier, Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard, Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel, Seeking the bubble reputation Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice, In fair round belly with good capon lined, With eyes severe and beard of formal cut, Full of wise saws and modern instances; And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts Into the lean and slippered pantaloon, With spectacles on nose and pouch on side, His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice, Turning again toward childish treble, pipes And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all, That ends this strange eventful history, Is second childishness and mere oblivion, Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans every thing. -William Shakespeare

People, people, people, the OP clearly states that her specific survey question asks ONLY those who are OPPOSED to abortion if they would consider allowing them in the case of rape victims. There are other threads to discuss other aspects of abortion.

This is the assumption that always spoils the whole God concept for me. I think if God exists It exists as the most powerful being, but not an "All Powerful" being. Omnipotence gives credence to the six day creation, the notion that God could wave his hands and right all wrong, and brings up the paradox of imperfection from a perfect creator. Why can't God work within the boundaries of the universe and physical laws? It would have to possess knowledge of those laws that we don't in order to do the things God is attributed with, but does It have to be capable of circumventing physical laws? As to the OP's question, doesn't Revelation end with Jesus saying the time of his coming is near and that when that happens everything prophesied about him will come true? I think that's supposed to mean his side wins.

Now you're just copy/pasting from other websites, and not even giving them the credit. This is not your work and is a violation of the copyright laws and forum policy. What I'm looking for is a discussion of the information you present, started by you as the original thread starter. Posting up facts you glean from other sources as some sort of academic course is NOT what this forum is all about. If you're going to post the work of others, please give them credit and a link, and if you're going to post facts as threads then we want some comments from you that give direction to a discussion. If we wanted to learn the above facts we could just go to OnlineConversions.com.

Just make sure you learn enough to be absolutely certain you can't change or help it, then you can let it go. If depression isn't physiologically linked to some disorder or imbalance, then you can fight it with laughter and positive thinking. I believe you can make yourself addicted to negativy in the same way an alcoholic will drink so he can blame booze for all his problems. Pile up all the negative things that happen to you in a day and you can get sympathy from some p[eople, and blame your lack of progress on society and circumstances. Or.... You can pile up all the great things about you and your life and realize that it's all perspective. You're a magnet and it's up to you whether you present the positive or the negative end of yourself. You will attract what you look for.

The fact that 15% of your time here at SFN was wrapped up in one thread that got closed may justify the huff in which you find yourself storming off, but I feel you're leaving for the wrong reasons. I think tempers have calmed now. You should accept Dave's offer of speaking privately about your reasons for re-opening the thread. I've seen other members successfully plead their case regarding uinfinished discussions and none of them were lawyers like you.

With talk like this it's a wonder Santa hasn't gone postal like in Weird Al Yankovic's The Night Santa Went Crazy: There's more but it ain't pretty.... Seriously, just because science deals in facts doesn't mean the full truth about every subject needs to be told to every child. How graphic do you want them to be when a child asks questions about a dead relative or the effects of a bomb?

Out of how many papers and exams? You noticed a trend after a couple of coincidences and now you add any new 79 to the list and reject anything that isn't a 79. In your mind you are turning these exam numbers into a curious statistical anomaly. It's not a large enough sampling to justify any conclusions.