pwagen

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/nuclear-reactor-hobby-project,news-12067.html http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fkvp.expressen.se%2Fnyheter%2F1.2515723%2F31-aring-greps-for-bygge-av-karnreaktor-i-koket&act=url Welcome to Sweden! The second link leads to a translated page of a Swedish magazine. I personally think it's kind of cool that he was self-educated, and still managed to do what he did.

I'm interested in the source. So feel free to PM it to me, or post it in a public place such as http://pastebin.com/.

From a quick search, I found that bones increase in density. I don't read it as they get "thicker" per say, just denser. Which is a good thing, of course. http://www.naturalnews.com/010528.html

Then any old editor could work. I used to use one called MED, but not sure it's been updated in quite a while. You might want to check it out though. http://www.med-editor.com Other than that, Notepad++ is a very solid choice. http://notepad-plus-plus.org/

No he didn't. And even if he did, there isn't anything to suggest dark energy and dark matter have anything to do with each other. Don't dig yourself deeper just because you're wrong.

Aren't they still in the "invite only" phase? If so, I'm sure they'll get more than enough people joining when they make it publicly available.

Sorry you didn't find this forum's proficiency in metal works satisfactory. Here are some other resources that might better fit your needs. http://www.woodworkforums.com/f65/ http://forums.metalworks.net.au/index.php http://www.cnczone.com/forums/general_metalwork_discussion/ http://www.angelfire.com/ks/mcguirk/mwlinks.html http://www.mytractorforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=108

Well, can you blame them? Rather GMC than a Ford! I found another explanation which might explain the interaction between RNA and DNA a little simpler. http://dnaandrna.com/ I'm sure someone more knowing in the field will pop in sooner or later to give their own explanation. But until then, see if you can make any sense of the links so far. And remember to send any royalties my way, eh?

I found this explanation, hope it helps. I'm far from a biologist, so can't really help. But honestly, while it's commendable that you're trying to make a scientifically accurate film, keep in mind that science fiction films that break more physical laws than Lord Of The Rings (I'm looking at YOU, Armageddon) can be successful. http://www.cliffsnotes.com/Section/What-exactly-does-the-RNA-do-.id-305406,articleId-7904.html Some other links that might help: http://www.diffen.com/difference/DNA_vs_RNA http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/biology/what-difference-between-dna-rna http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99410.htm

Most distributions of Linux have been graphics based for ages, and can be run without ever using the terminal. Seeing as you can try it without installing, I'd suggest giving a LiveCD a go. Just remember it'll be way slower than installing it, but you'll get the basic feeling of it. http://www.livecdlist.com/

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. There is also a somewhat simple cipher called the Vigenére cipher, which is a slightly more intricate substitutional cipher. Instead of changing, say E for Y, you use a key to decide which letter E is to be substituted for at the moment. Wikipedia has a good explanation of the process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigen%C3%A8re_cipher#Description The Vigenére cipher CAN be cracked, but you would probably need a large volume of encrypted text, and you basically look for repetition of the key. It's not the safest cipher around, but it's definitely good enough for everyday use. Your key becomes your alphabet, in a way.

Ever thought of using runes? http://www.sunnyway.com/runes/write_in_runes.html With a key, you can learn it pretty much in an hour. Just get a newspaper and translate a few articles by hand and you'll know it before too long. There are also a few different rune alphabets available, so you can switch between different symbols for the same letter, much like I♥Mathematics suggested above. Or you could even mix one of the Asian alphabets, the Persian, runes and why not Egyptian hieroglyphs? If you can remember more than one sign for each letter, that'll make it trickier to work out.

Indeed. Genetic algorithms imitate some parts of real evolution, however I don't think they can be used to predict it, in any useful way. And sorry for bringing in computational terms. I haven't really connected the word "algorithm" with maths (which is probably a reason I still haven't finished analysis), and didn't register you were talking about maths. So sorry about that, moving on.

Regarding your second sentence, genetic algorithms come to mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm The problem is, this isn't very close to "real" evolution. For one, you evolve your programs with a goal in mind (optimization of some kind), which doesn't happen in the wild. The second problem is related to the first of your sentences I quoted here, the massive amount of genetic information and whatnot in a real world situation. Genetic algorithms can be seen as a decent approximation of evolution, at best, but to my knowledge this is about as far as we've come when it comes to "mathematizing evolution" (yeah, I just made up a word). At least when it comes to practical uses.

It's a tricky question, and it seems hard to find a conclusive answer either way. This answer, although from Yahoo Answers, has a lot of information to check out. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090406131730AAQoZEt However, it seems there has not been any studies that investigates your question properly. The results seem to be skewed in one way or another. Even if you pick 1000 whites and as many blacks from a country such as the US, there's still the question of cultural influence. It doesn't take into account any differences in living standards between people. I can't find any sources right now, but I would guess the majority of poor people in the US are not white. And since poor people have a harder time succeeding in school, for instance (it might be a choice between paying for tuition and paying bills), the likelihood of them performing well in surveys such as these are slimmer. Disregarding all this, no matter the general intelligence level of any race, it seems they all have a chance of producing geniuses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_black_Nobel_Laureates http://asianhistory.about.com/od/profilesofasianleaders/tp/nobelprizewinners.htm However, it seems the biggest "race" (if you can count them as a specific race at all, which I'm not too sure of), would be the Jews. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/nobels.html So all in all, my guess, for whatever it's worth, is that skin colour has no impact on intelligence. Ridding a similar sized population of whites, blacks and Asians, with the same upbringing, environment etc, we would most likely see similar intelligence levels across the board.

Not quite true. A white person in a third world country would have a lesser chance of succes than a black person in a developed country. It's more about outer conditions than skin colour. In fact, I'd say it's got very very little to do with skin colour, if at all. Coincidence has it that Africa has a lot of underdeveloped countries, while also having a mostly black population. But don't make the mistake to think that they are worse off because of skin colour rather than other reasons.

No. Which part of that has anything to do with religion? What has religion to say about recycling? Where, in any scripture, can you find references to saving the planet by re-using your waste? Good relations with neighbours? Have you looked at the Middle East lately? Helping exposed people? No. Also, I believe this to be better suited for the religion forum.

I'm glad to see this old thread of mine still alive and well. I'd like to butt in and thank everyone for their contribution. I think I'm slowly approaching some sense of understanding of the whole thing, but it's a big subject to take in!

Excellent idea! If I ever lower myself to discuss the topic with a creationist, I'll try this one.

Fuzzwood is aboslutely correct. Did you notice that he changed the topic when he was proven wrong? Going from "we got here in 6000 years" to talking how the Bible is more accurate and peer reviewed material is crap because it changes with time? Discussing things with people who refuse to see is pointless. For your own sake, don't do it. Also, Einstein disagreed with the aether theory. Good fact checking, mr Creationist.

Are there any clips available (online preferably) that show this phenomena?

If the multiverse theory is true (that ours is just one of >1 universe), I'm curious how time would work in it. On a documentary I saw a few years ago, one theory regarding this says that our universe might have been created when two other universes collided. Another theory says our universe is an expanding bubble in a bubble bath of universes. Yet another says we might be the offspring of a black hole in another universe. And maybe it's a combination, all or some of the above? Now, to me, as a layman, all of these seem to require time to be not bound by a particular universe. Two universes swinging wildly in a void would need time to be present universally? Same with the bubbles. To know if the bubble is expanding, we need to make a comparison between two points in time. Inside the universe, that's all and well, but outside of the bubble, would we have anything resembling universal time on a multi-universe scale? Multiversal time perhaps? I'm sorry if I'm not making any sense. Just throwing the question out there, as I've been thinking about it for a few days. (and still haven't managed to formulate a better question, eh?)

But can they be tested? I think whatever standard model(s) scientists are working with now, are worked on simply because they seem to fit best with our observations of reality. Mainstream science is definitely not guesswork.Surely some theories are wrong in some aspect, or maybe totally wrong. But that's okay, because the more research is being done, the closer we are to a definite theory that describes the universe correctly.

Why suppose there should be nothing rather than something? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/#WhyTheSomRatThaNot

Sweden in a nutshell, unfortunately. We've been been schooled with the Jante Law for ages now, and it seems hard to break out of. This is taking it just one step too far though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law