DJBruce

There are many reasons most third parties fail. The fact that they normally present a very narrow platform centered around one specific issue means the appeal to a very small percentage of the electorate. Also this specific agenda often is eventually adopted into a major party's platform, like the Green Party's environmentalism become party of the democratic party or the Free Soils ideals being absorbed into the Republican Party. Once a major party has stolen a third party's stance on an issue, most supporters of that policy will migrate to the major party as they feel the major party has a better chance of winning and thus implementing that policy. Another issue that plagues most third parties is the lack of appropriate funds and resources available to the major parties. The American election system is also set up against third party candidates. Most election laws and procedures are written by Republican and Democrats and they normally write the laws to favor the major parties. For example it requires substantially less signatures for an "important" major party candidate to appear on the presidential ballot than a third party or an independent. The fact that the electoral college is winner take all, at least in most if not all states, also greatly hurts third parties. The fact that a third parties rarely achieves any electors helps perpetuate the idea that third parties are a waste of a vote. My final two reasons why third parties generally fail comes down to the American electorate. A large portion of the American electorate is apathetic and is unwilling to research third parties and simply vote with what is familiar. The name recognition of the RNC and DNC is amazingly helpful. Also many Americans feel that a third party cannot win and thus believe a vote for a third party is a waste of their vote. As for whether this is good or bad I would have to say that it is normally good. The two party system gives our government a remarkable amount of stability, and although it is true third parties can spur change our two party system allows for the change to occur prudently which is not bad in the least. Here is a link where a Harvard Professor discuses the restrictions placed on third party candidates attempting to be placed on the ballot.

My top few are: The Universe: Beyond the Big Bang Einstein's Big Idea Cosmos Atom I also love the movie Hawking I know it is not a documentary per se, but it is amazing.

The good: I just got a raise/promotion.

Conservative not necessarily republican more libertarian.

This only happens once the projectile has the escape velocity needed to become a satellite, which as I showed is 11.2 km/s not 2 km/s. Until the bullet has escape velocity the bullet is falling to Earth faster thane the curve of the Earth is falling away. Also the currently accepted model of our solar system heliocentric model not a geocentric one, so the point about the sun is just plain wrong. Also if anyone would carry to check my answer it would be appreciated.

How consciousness works I cannot say, but the basic working of neurons is as followed. Electrical impulses travel along the axon, the speed of this impulse is impart determined by the amount of myelin, until they reach the the axon terminal here those impulses are converted into a release of certain neurotransmitters into the synaptic gap. These neurotransmitters then travel through the synaptic gap to the receptor on a dendrite, thus causing another impulse.

Even if you shoot the gun "parallel to the slope" it would not stay at a certain height because Earth's gravity would be pushing it downwards.

No one, other than yourself, said it had the needed velocity to do so. If the bullet had the needed velocity, 11.2 km/s, once it reached space its orbit would decay slowly not quickly as you say because the air resistance is very small in space.

Here's how I did it: First I broke the vector into its components: [math]v_{y}=2000Sin(45)=1414 m/s[/math] [math]v_{x}=2000Cos(45)=1414 m/s[/math] Then I used the equation for a parabolic projectile to find out how long it is in the air: [math]d(t)=-\frac{1}{2}at^{2}+V_{0}t[/math] [math]d(t)=-\frac{1}{2}(9.8)t^{2}+1414t[/math] I graphed this and found the x-intercept. I found the projectile is in the air for 288s. I assumed that the wind only effected the horizontal velocity. So: [math]v_{x}=1414-103=1311 m/s[/math] None I simply multiplied time by the bullets horizontal velocity to get its horizontal distance: [math]d_{x}=(1311 m/s)(288 s)=377,600 m[/math] That seems to big for me, but that's the process we used in physics. Also I know that is the probably not the proper way to deal with drag, but I assumed that wind would only affect the horizontal velocity and as I said this is the way my basic physics course dealt with a similar problem.

I am not sure normally puzzles similar to this has two choices: heaven or hell, life or death, path of enlightenment or path of darkness, etc, but I don't think it matters all that much. If you rephrase the question, would the other guard say the hamburger is poisoned? I think you get the same results. If the hamburger is poisoned and you ask the liar knows the truth-teller will say yes and therefore says no, if you ask the truth-teller he knows the liar will lie and say no so he tells you no. If the hamburger is not poisoned and you ask the liar he knows the truth-teller will say no and therefore says yes, if you ask the truth-teller he knows the liar will lie and so says yes. So by asking that question then and then only eating the burger if you are answered yes you should be safe. I hope that makes sense I could not think of how to make a truth table for it.

Ask one of the guards which hamburger will the other guard tell me to pick. If you ask the liar he will tell you the poison hamburger as he is lying. If you ask the truthful one the liar will pick he will tell you the truth and show you the poison hamburger. So ask that question then pick the opposite hamburger.

Julia sets are a specific type of fractal named after Julia Gaston in the early 20th century. Bellow are some links that I hope might help: Wiki on Julia Set Basic Information on Julia Sets A Site that lets you zoom in on a Julia Set MathWorld on Julia Sets I hope this helps give you the general understanding you need. If you have a more specific question just ask.

His first article is directly from the all mighty and infallible Wikipedia. His second is also from Wikipedia. For my money I take Klaynos over Wiki any day.

Remember what change in kinetic energy actually means: [math]w=\Delta KE=(KE_{f}-KE_{i})=(\frac{1}{2}mv_{f}^{2})-(\frac{1}{2}mv_{i}^{2})[/math] Power is the rate of doing work so: [math]P=\frac{w}{t}[/math] To find force simply use Newtons second law: [math]F=ma[/math] You know m but you need to find a so simply use the definition of acceleration: [math]a=\frac{\Delta v}{\Delta t}= \frac{(v_{f}-v_{i})}{\Delta t} [/math] or if you want to do the first problem another way do it another way: [math]W=F\cdot d[/math] You know force and to find the distance simply remember your kinematic equations.

Here is a simple description of how they cloned Dolly, although there are different methods.

A friend of mine told me that it was possible to create a keyboard light that is powered by your computer easily. With a few instructions from him I made one and it works very well. Materials: USB Cable LED 100[math]\Omega[/math] Resistor Crimp Connectors Tools: Wire Cutters Pliers Take the USB cable and cut it just below the end that does not plug into the computer. Using the wire cutters strip the outer plastic coating of the cable. Once the outer coating is removed you should see four different wires. The red should be the positive, the black should be the negative, the others are for data transfer and a ground. Strip the coating of the red and black wires, you will want the positive wire to be slightly shorter than the negative wire. Once the wires are stripped connect the positive wire to the 100[math]\Omega[/math] resistor using the crimp connectors. Then connect the positive wire to the longer end of the LED using a crimp connector. Repeat the process with the negative wire. This done you have a working keyboard light if you want you can add a clip to attach to your computer.

I played the free download and all the levels were ridiculously easy. I think it took me maybe ten minutes to finish the demo. Maybe the paid actually version would be harder, but I do not think I am going to buy it and take that chance.

Here is the the MathWorld article that gives the basic discriptions of fractals. PBS' Nova did a video called "Fracatals: Hunting the Hidden Dimension" it is gives a brief history of fractals and then covers topics like the coastline paradox, Mandelbrot Sets, and possible uses of fractals I would suggest trying to find it at a local library. Here is an article on Mandelbrot Sets.

I agree scientist is a term that encapsulates many fields, all with varying pay scales and levels of education; while lawyer and doctor are terms that are always considered to refer to a person who makes a very good living and has received either a MD or JD. Also the term scientist does not necessarily refer to any specific field of employment as a science degree can led to careers. If you were to introduce your self as Dr. SoAndSo Professor of Advanced Theoretical Physics or Dr. SoAndSo Destroying the World With Miniature Black Holes you probably would be put on the same level as a lawyer or doctor

In order to classify something you must first understand the principles behind it and those underlying principles are important things. When I previously stated that I want to know why things happen I did not mean that I wanted a religious answer.

At my high school I am taking: AP English Language, Composition, and Literature AP Biology AP Physics B, C Mechanics, C EM AP Statistics AP Calculus BC All of which are a full year. Then at a local college I am dual enrolled to take: Organic Chemistry I (Fall Semester) Organic Chemistry II (Winter Semester) Social-Political Philosophy (Winter Semester) Introduction to Philosophy (Spring Semester)

I am not quite sure what your point is the ninth amendment simply states that just because certain right are not enumerated in the Constitution does not mean they do not exist. The amendment was adopted to stop the government from infringing on rights simply because they are not enumerated.

Although all the reasons the author sites are very valid and many scientists are driven by the goal to create an easier life personally I find the importance of science to be in simply explaining the world we live in. To me the it is more important to understand why things happen compared to classifying materials and applying the science to everyday life.

According to a CBO report military personnel on active duty report lower levels of satisfaction than than those who are not on active duty. The report then says that Tricare users report similar levels of satisfaction when compared to civilians. The one question I have is although the report is a few years old there seems to be a difference in the percentage of civilians who are satisfied with their healthcare. The current number I hear being reported is roughly 80% will I think the CBO report cites about 50%. Here is another link to an older report on satisfaction.

I apologize for my delayed response but I became slightly disillusioned when I accidentally deleted my original reply as I was spell checking it, and then became quite busy with school and work. In clarification of my opinion I think there is a large difference between the government providing healthcare as an entitlement for citizens and the government providing healthcare as part of a benefit plan for its employees. When the government provides a healthcare plan for congressional representatives, military personnel, or military veterans they are simply providing a benefits package to their current and retired employees like most private companies do. This in my opinion is perfectly fine, reasonable, and should be expected. On the other hand, when the government starts to provide or create healthcare for citizens I feel that the government has overstepped its boundaries. I am against plans like Medicaid and Medicare, but they are now so deeply entrenched into our society that they cannot be removed. In summary the government, providing healthcare plans for employees, like congressional representatives, military personnel, or military veterans, is completely fine, but the government should not provide healthcare for ordinary citizens. As I stated in my previous post the idea that it is not the government’s job to supply healthcare is simply my opinion. This opinion is rooted in the ideas that the government can only do what is enumerated in the Constitution and that when discussing the constitutionality of an issue it is necessary to consider the thoughts on issue in question. That said when I consider the constitutionality of Congress creating a national healthcare program I find the two parts of the Constitution that might be used to justify the program to be found in Article 1, Section 8; more specifically: With regards to the first quote it seems that the crux of the issue comes down to the term “general welfare.” When I consider what term the meant to the founders I find that Thomas Jefferson said it best when he said, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” Then since I do not see the power to provide healthcare enumerated anywhere in the Constitution I would hold that Congress does not have the power or the duty to provide health care. When I consider the “elastic clause”, I believe that the key words of the clause to be, “carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” To me the clause can only be used to create legislation to carry out Congress’ existing power. Since as stated above that Congress does not have the power to create a healthcare system I do not see how this clause could be used to justify the creation of a national healthcare system. As for your other questions Bascule, currently I am completely satisfied by the health insurance and do feel that the private insurers provide better coverage than the government could. I am not scared that my health insurance could be cancelled during a catastrophic health crisis.