JMJones0424

I couldn't agree more, though it should come as no surprise that even industrialized agriculture is finally realizing that an appropriate approach to integrated pest management should include ecological concepts. The only thing that's surprised me is how long it's taken to reverse the mechanistic thinking. I did not intend to blindly promote Bt crops. My intention was to combat FUD.

I've been facepalming for a few days, but no one more qualified has stepped in to get this thread back on track, so I'll give it a shot. The first paragraph is pure word salad, but I'm more interested in the second. It appears that your understanding of what takes place when a GM crop is developed is woefully inadequate. No one is building a plant or a trait from "source code". As far as I know, that is far beyond our capability. Instead, they take genes that exist in nature, but not in the target cultivar or species, and insert it. Prior to GM, the only way to artificially spur on the development of a new trait to jump start a selective breeding program was to expose the plant to various chemicals or radiation, and even over many decades and generations, the breeder might not ever find success. The analogy to coding would be as if the breeder randomly hit keys on the keyboard in order to write a new subroutine. However, the analogy for GM would be to identify a subroutine that works perfectly well in a different application and cut and paste it into what you're working on. Bt corn is attractive because it reduces the need for pesticide use, which is beneficial whether the farmer is bored or not. Neither sugar cane, nor legumes, fix nitrogen. Legumes are known for maintaining symbiotic relationships with diazotrophic bacteria, which do fix nitrogen. I was previously unaware of any diazotroph that partnered with sugarcane, but a google search led me to Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus.

No, because the battery is what is powering the alternator. At best, given 100% efficiency, there would be no difference. Power output from the battery to turn the alternator would equal power input to the battery from the alternator. Under no circumstances, in the situation as you have described it*, will the alternator ever charge the battery more than it draws from the battery. In practice, due to inefficiencies such as bearing friction, heat loss, etc., the alternator will always require more energy to turn it, and therefore draw more power from the battery, then it generates and returns to the battery. *Regenerative braking is a way of recovering the energy of the vehicle in motion that you need to shed in order to stop rather than wasting it as heat loss in the brakes. This is wholly different then using a battery to turn an alternator that charges a battery.

This is false. Did you read the statement that you posted? The statement isn't regarding the attack on the embassy, as it was issued prior to the attack.

My first thought is the city, Sydney, so the word is pretty neutral to me as far as ethnicity goes. However, it looks like the word is of English origin.

In my opinion, video links should be treated in the same manner as a link to a lengthy pdf file or a paper with many pages. It is rude, and generally unproductive for discussion, to require members to watch a 45 minute video to see the few minutes pertinent to your discussion. Some direction towards the relevant portion of the video should be included in the post. Note that with youtube videos, if you end the url with the string "&t=xmys", when clicked, the video will start at x minutes and y seconds.

Those were my words. Everything but the illustration came from me. I provided links for you to follow if case I didn't adequately explain something. I do not appreciate being accused of plagiarism without merit or evidence. If you don't understand what I've written, please ask for clarification. What in the world do you mean by "daily Life example what u feel about gravity in your Daily Life"?

My vote is for Colonel Sanders in the immovable Earth video. Evolution deniers are noobs, this man denies the Earth revolves around the sun.

I don't think you're using terms correctly, or at least I don't understand how you are using them. Gravity is the attractive force felt by two massive objects and is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to their distance squared. [math]F = G \frac{m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}[/math] Centripetal and centrifugal forces are a little harder to explain because centrifugal force is only observed in a rotating frame of reference, and thus is a fictitious force. The following image is from the HyperPhysics page on centrifugal force, and illustrates the difference better than I can in words. Basically, centripetal force is the force that keeps you moving in a circle, and centrifugal force is a "fictitious" force you feel when you are turning that pushes you away from the centerpoint of the turn. You can think of gravity as being the centripetal force that keeps satellites in orbit around the Earth. However, none of this is really relevant to your desire to "swim human body in earth atmosphere without reducing its Mass -Density." If you are trying to float in the atmosphere, like floating in water, the only way you'll be able to pull that off is by having less than or equal density as the fluid you are floating in. Buoyancy is the force resisting gravity. Hot air balloons and helium balloons float in air because they have the same density as the air surrounding them. If their density is greater, then they sink, if less, then they rise. So there's no way to swim through Earth's atmosphere without decreasing your density (or the density of you and the vehicle you are riding in). Of course, there are more ways to overcome gravity than just buoyancy, such as thrust and lift, but I'm not sure that this is what you're after. Maybe this will get you headed in the right direction at least.

Nobrainer- Instead of picking through the word salad, I'm curious why the number three is so important to you. I have three toes on my left foot. What does that mean? Why did you neglect gravity in your list of forces? Why did you neglect plasma in your list of "atom densities"? You realize that the way we see color is directly related to the physical nature of our eyes, not any fundamental nature of light, right? Some people are born with only two functioning types of cones, and they see only two primary colors. Most birds and some other animals have four types of cones. An unlucky few have only one functioning type of cone cells, and therefore, their rainbow is made of varying shades of one color. Another group of people have all three cones, but some are not as sensitive as the general populace, or they are sensitive to a slightly different frequency curve than the general populace, so while they have three primary colors, they are different colors than the majority of humans. Confirming one's preconceived notions is a slippery thing. You are tempted to find evidence everywhere, and if you've got no good way of distinguishing between fact and fiction, how do you know you're finding truth in your confirmations? I don't think you understand most of anything you've written in this post.

The picture you posted is from the webcomic XKCD. I'm unclear what "daily life experiments" you are looking for, but what didn't you understand about D H's explanation, or the explanation in the comic itself?

I refuse to concede the point that civil rights are subject to concessions to any crowd, regardless of size or vocality. In that regard, the anti-abortion crowd can stuff it; where they move to incrementally make abortion illegal, they are wrong, period. I see nothing wrong with our current legal approach at regulation, except that in some states, mine included, doctors are now required to harass a woman that exercises her right to obtain medical care. If anything, legally redefining life is the wrong tack, and needlessly concedes the existence of a problem that isn't there. The true problem is that many states now arbitrarily require procedures, counseling, or waiting periods prior to a woman being able to have an abortion.

Unequal reporting rates?

I wouldn't necessarily call it a grammatical error. If I understand the situation correctly, you have mis-characterized eternalism. Clearly, from your point of view, since the event of Shakespeare's death lies in your past, it is incorrect for you to claim that Shakespeare exists for you, right now. Instead, eternalism claims that because of special relativity, different observers cannot agree on whether or not Shakespeare is still alive, right now, for them. Clipped from the paper linked by VikingF, Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View?, on page 5 Let's say you are observer C, on Earth. I am observer A, moving at a relativistic speed towards you, and VikingF is observer B, moving at a relativistic speed away from you. VikingF and I cross paths in time and space at point M. At that moment, (when corrected for the finite speed of light) I observe you on Earth to make a post claiming Shakespeare is long dead at point Q. Simultaneous to me, VikingF also looks towards Earth (and after correcting for the finite speed of light) observes that tragically, Shakespeare has just died at point P. Though VikingF and I share the same present at point M, our "present"s intersect the Earth bound observer at radically different times. Therefore, given Special Relativity, presentism cannot be a valid view. Of course, the explanation given in the paper is better, I have just adapted it to your narrative.