iNow

I studied economics and psychology with a heavy emphasis in statistics and research design. Minor in education. Having been corporate for a few years now, and advancing through the food chain, I'm considering an Executive MBA, but need to find funds first. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but not if it's a CAO Brazilia.

Wow... so you're right and those folks at NASA and other well researched areas are wrong? Who'da thunk it? http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/stellardeath/stellardeath_3.html Seriously. If you're going to make such outlandish claims, at least offer some outlandish evidence, or better, some real research supporting your position.

Erm... Yeah. That's about how I thought you'd respond.

To Farsight's point, some off topic discussions are required when providing detail on the discussion at hand. However, they should be brought back into the scope of the thread quickly. If these diversions from the primary topic cascade into further and further tangents, the appropriate choice is to open a new thread for these separate discussions. Posting Etiquette or Netiquette. It's like Kleenex versus tissue paper.

It's important to look at the answer to this question controlling for population and sources of "dirty air." The standards were set to improve the air, but there were fewer cars back then. The standards helped improve the per car output of each vehicle. Today, there are many more cars (and other non-automotive pollution sources). So, yes, the per car contribution to "dirty air" is less than in the 1970s, but due to the greater number of cars on the road today, the air may, in fact, be less clean than it was then. However, without these standards in place, the air would be EVEN dirtier than it is now.

Why not discuss it here then? I would suggest that such discussion would not only benefit the OP, but also the general membership. I, too, would enjoy it.

Why do people let go of their adherence to evidence in favor of social grouping?

Yes. You just keep taking half of what remains, then take half again. You take half over and over until you are left with the undefined. The question then becomes, how does one take half of undefined? It's called absolute zero. It's like celcius or fareheit, but is zero on a scale called Kelvin. It translates into zero motion. No movement, as movement is molecules banging and hence friction... hence heat. The issue is that absolute zero, in many senses, implies stoppage of time. Now, if your question related to humans, we can only get so cold before our physiology breaks down and we cease physical existence. The heart dies, the brain dies, and we remain only memories to those who have not reached the same state... So, metaphyiscially we don't die in the minds of those still alive, just in our own reflectance of the universe. This is a philosphical question. One would imagine that, after a certain point, matter broken down too far itself no longer is matter. However, there is a lot we still do not know. If anyone offers you an absolute answer, they are a liar... Unless, of course, they tell you that they do not know. I don't follow this question. Sorry. Too many glasses of red. It seems to touch on entropy, which is a constant (you don't leave your room with toys all over the floor and return to find them in their proper place unless energy was added to the system), but regardless your point... Energy is constant, just changes forms. Heisenberg was not named Martia nor was he a Changeling.

What an interesting question. Everything is energy. A photon being no exception. Just a different form. Your question of "where" it gets it's energy is almost religious, but gosh, how I despise the idiocy which is religious lack of curiousity. We too are energy. Mass equals energy... if we multiply ourselves by the speed of light squared. What exactly are you asking? Why can't we travel at the speed of light? What is energy? Why do we ask questions beginning with the word why? Try Bud dry.

Pas de probleme, monsieur. Avez-vous des examples?

Tell me vato, what is the exact middle of the universe? Vacuum has two u's.

Perhaps there is no such thing as zero either? [/TongueInCheek] Try quantizing love. When you fail, it does not indicate it's nonexistence, only your own inability to quantize it.

Reading the posts they've made during the past hour, I'd suggest it's: Vocabularial Obfuscation of the Intentional and Self-righteous variety, complete with superiority complex.

You eeidiot!! Mozerella is for the congregation!

I think part of this is due to the robustness of this proposed mechanism: We know stars get so hot that they fuse atoms into heavier elements. We know that stars can make elements all the way up to iron (26 protons). Once it's converted everything to iron, they're out of fuel. Mathematically, we know enough chemistry to understand the fusion energies involved, and we can measuer the fusion energies of stars and other celestial events. Supernovae are the only events which we've observed which have the required energy. Of course this doesn't prove that there are no other mechanisms for heavier element formation, but it is an extraordinary probability that these explosions are the primary events. Below is a link that is really simple and clear. It was presented on NPR (so you can listen to the story too!), and much of the data came from Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7397200

Actually, we are a representative republic with an electoral college and hanging chads. Despite the questionable circumstances which put the current administration in place, they are there until the end of their terms unless we can impeach them. Impeachment rules are implicitly vague (for good reason), and proving high crimes and misdemeanors is troublesome. Further, were Bush impeached, Cheney would remain, and many in the US populace see that as a far worse potentiality. So... many recognize the problems, ask for change, and want better... but must wait until the next election cycle. Unfortunately, we are continually fed cookie cutter candidates who are clones of one another and pander to the issue which will draw them the most votes. There are inherent flaws in the system, which worked with tremendous success during centuries past, but which now is struggling to find traction in today's modern context. Further, the ideological divisions of a bicameral system are outdated, and we need individual leaders, not party voting robots. Maybe we should start texting votes for president. It seems to work for reality TV. Rock the vote baby!

Perhaps if tracking their motion or electromagnetic signature has too many problems, you might look into their olfactary signature... i.e. Measure their chemical scent.

Fear of the unknown and transmission of information across individuals via story telling. Campfire elders describing the cosmos thousands of years ago to the young ones in the tribe. Some of these oral epics merged, and soon common stories were used as truth to many. Fast forward to today and you're left with what Klaynos stated above. Go Giants! Jets should get their own stadium.

Yes, this has been available for a while and I've seen it before. I enjoyed it, but unfortunately it just pissed me off and reaffirmed my disgust for people's decision to squelch their own curiousity. Flying spaghetti monsters accept parmesan sacrifices.

I completely appreciate your frustration, but I'd suggest that you are painting with too broad a brush. Americans are like people any where else, and there are individual differences. Some people buy into the nonsense, others have palpable disgust. To say that "Americans" do one thing or another like some collective hive mind is way too general. The polls speak a bit to this also. If ~20% of your country said one thing to a question, I'd be wrong to state that your entire country believes that one thing. Again, I appreciate your point, but it's not just a phenomenon of where one was born or currently resides.

I'm personnally curious how age, nationality (although potentially important outside of the US, not so much within), and relationship status have any relevance to a resume. In fact, most US laws on hiring state that, due to the risk of discrimination, one cannot take such factors into account when selecting a new staff member. I'd remove all three. Best of luck to you both.

I don't think it's limited to DNA, but if you spend about 10 minutes getting familiar with the below site I think you'll find some uber cool animations and models: http://www.umass.edu/microbio/chime/pe_beta/pe/protexpl/frntdoor.htm

As for something more "down to Earth," http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99242.htm

Dude, are you high?!? :confused: The article said that $24B was devoted to highway and bridge projects by law. This number is 8% of of the $286B Highway Bill. You said that $286B was collected from gas/diesel taxes, and that only 8% of these funds go to highway and bridge projects. You also implied that the remaining monies collected from gas/diesel taxes was being used to build sports stadiums and the like, yet the $286 had nothing to do with gas/diesel tax. I called you out on this blaring inaccuracy, and showed as clearly as possible that your facts and figures were, quite simply, false. Yet, you responded, "Thanks for confirming my post." Wow. Just... wow. See point #2 in post #2. Thanks.

Yeah, but we're talking about humans here. Females can make a baby (maybe up to 6 with the help of fertility drugs) every 9 to 11 months. Males can make 9 to 11 babies every few hours (depending on stamina). Hence, different strategies have proven successful through the years.