iNow

I hope you realize, Jackson33, that the CNN (or AP) report had to get IT'S information from somewhere regarding the 8%, and it's THAT somewhere that I was asking you share. Saying you saw it on the news is a bit of a BS response, since the news just spins the true data, and you didn't even bother finding the specific reference. Where's the true data? Where's the beef? EDIT: Since I seriously doubt you care, I've found the article you reference FOR you. Is it really that hard Jackson33 to support your claims? Come on, dude. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/09/bush.newser.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch Here's what you wrote:

Wouldn't this just reinforce my comment that financial well-being is secondary to health and fertility? That said, I don't disagree with any of your other points.

I'm still weighing the different sides of the issue myself, but I'm a bit confused about your comment to SkepticLance and Bascule. Weren't they just speaking of past actions and outcomes, also sharing convincing reports of the current state of affairs with the community here? I saw none of the "pessimism" or "self-fulfilling defeatism" in this thread which you referenced, but maybe I can't see all of the same bits of text that other posters do??

While the presentations of these may vary by culture or era, cues to health and fertility are the consistent themes in sexual attraction. Financial well-being, while important, tends to be secondary.

Can you please advise the specific source from which your data above came?

I think all of us are annoyed by that, and it's not party specific. The system itself has become overwhelmed by ideologically cancerous representation. Where it hits home with me is healthcare. I can deal with some offroading in the truck due to a bit of cracked pavement or shaky supports, but when kids die by the thousands because of faulty spending, that's pretty sad, and speaks very poorly of the integrity of the system. I wonder if Donald ever served as an apprentice...

This is a big post, foodchain, and warrants it's own thread. Might I be so bold as to suggest that you start a thread on your own for this? Perhaps a title of "Quantum Systems and Material Consistency - I need help on the basics." Collapsing wave functions in an entangled way...

Two quick points: 1) That $155B is to fix existing problems, yet roads and bridges degrade each day. Hence, suggesting "problem solved in 2 years" only considers the current state, not future disrepair. 2) Why not raise more money AND spend it more wisely? It seems unecessary to treat the two approaches as mutually exclusive. Further, the tax on gasoline is an added incentive to get the populace to support... no, demand... renewable energy. I'd say that is a step in the right direction. Do I like paying more for gas? Absolutely not. It sucks actually. However, I'd sure rather not keep polluting our planet and would appreciate having some better options available to us than our current dino fossil drinkers with wheels. London bridge is falling down... falling down... falling down...

Perhaps an analogy will help. If you construct a building using straw and cracked twigs, it will stand. It will provide you shelter, and a place to sleep protected from the outside. For a while. Since the foundation of the structure is relatively weak, each environmental stimulus has a greater impact (it takes a greater amount of damage with each gust of wind, each drop of rain, each day of hot sunlight)... and, eventually, the structure just collapses. You'd have to build a completely new one. If you were instead to construct a building using high quality materials, taking care and effort to engineer how they go together, making each bond a point of strength instead of a weak spot, and doing so with an awareness of what the environment will bring so you can improve your building's ability to survive the elements... that building would last despite what the weather brought... and would last for decades. No need to rebuild. Now, replace "building" with your "body," and replace "poor construction" with "treating your body like crap." You are what you eat, and you're building your body with crappy materials. Also, you'll never have the opportunity to just "build a new one" when you body "collapses." Even a cardboard box can be used as shelter, but a chateau is much more enjoyable through the years.

Hi spooky, One possible route for you to follow is to type the term "describe modernity in sociology" into a google search, then try to look at just the ".edu" addresses. Alternatively, you could just do a search of the term "modernity" on scholar.google.com. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=modernity&hl=en&lr= After that, I would just suggest doing the same on whatever today's equivalent of Lexus/Nexxus is at the uni's libraries. Good luck to you both on the project! EDIT: Apparrently, the term "great transformation to modernity" is a direct quote from a dude named Giddens. Maybe this will help. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=great+transformation+modernity+Giddens

I suppose it's helpful that the evidence about global warming is far more extant than just one NASA study. The eggs are in many baskets.

I believe the poster meant that it was a portion of the speed of light. What happened to number 2? Of course there are real scientists. Many kinds. There are also people who are "just interested in" science, and people who know very little. Science is an approach to the universe, and some people are just lucky enough to get paid pursuing that path. According to classical mechanics (this is where you'll hear the name Newton brought up), this seems likely. Like, if you're in a car going 50 miles an hour, and you throw a ball in front of you 10 miles an hour, the person standing on the road sees the balling going 60 miles an hour. However, your example above cannot be accurate, because of c (the speed of light) being a fundamental maximum speed any object can go. Well, the fastest the bullet could get to the star is at the speed of light... c. So, if the star is 10 light years away, and the bullet is moving at the speed of light, it will get there in 10 years. It cannot get there any faster. Well, if you shot the bullet, it would be going faster than you. However, it still could not surpass the speed of light. So, to the folks on Earth, the bullet would get there before you because it's moving faster than you are. Again, the bullet will not go faster than the speed of light... That said, you will definitely see the bullet get there before the people on earth see the bullet get there. This is simply because you are closer, and doesn't have much to do with relativity (that I know of anyway). If we are both driving down the highway and pass a gas station at the same time, but then I pass you, and you are going 50mph and I'm going 100mph, who will the people at the gas station we just passed see arrive first at the exit down the road? Same with your bullet example. Where it gets somewhat odd is when relativistic speeds are involved. Did you check out the simulations I shared at the below? http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=352768&postcount=33

Here's a nifty little link across which I just stumbled: http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/advanced/extras_particlephys.html Be sure to click the link to see the real meat of the page. .

Go make yourself some popcorn, get a highly caffeinated soda like Jolt, and enjoy. Here ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity Animations: 1. http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/MichelsonMorley/MichelsonMorley.html 2. http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/TimeDilation.html 3. http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/LengthContract.html 4. http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/ContractInvisible.html 5. http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/Simultaneity.html 6. http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/TwinParadox.html 7. http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/ClassMechanics/Foucault/Foucault.html 8. http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/GenRel/Flash/Precession.html

It would probably be beneficial for those discussing this to first agree on a definition of energy. You can see, after just a handfull of posts, great amounts of disagreement on the specific questions, much of which I think would be ameliorated by first agreeing on a definition.

Hi Athiest, I'm not sure how much you do or do not understand, so I might wind up explaining parts you already knew. Sorry if I do. The y-axis shows the number of cases of schizophrenia (for each 1,000 participants measured) found in the study. The x-axis shows number of times the participants in that study reported using cannabis. The trend implies that, as cannabis use goes up among participants, so does the likelihood of schizophrenia. The chart was taken from the following study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=2892048&query_hl=15 This team also did a follow-up study in 1999: http://www.springerlink.com/content/yaal2jhavu8kqta5/ Be cautious looking at results in any study though. Some of the studies really only show that schizophrenics frequently use cannabis, and correlation does not prove causation... So just be sure to read closely what you see. I am personally confident, based on what I've read and personnally experienced, that frequent use is associated with greater likelihood of schizophrenic episodes. I hope this helps.

I'm reluctant to think that you'll appreciate this answer, but I suggest Robert Pirsig did a fine job of it.

Okay... so what's your question? Online essays about what?

Well, it's definitely an interesting question, however, I'm not sure how one would answer it with any certainty. First, there are SO MANY factors involved that, at best, you could get an average. And... to get a meaningful average... one would need to test hundreds (if not thousands) of isolated brains to see how long they would live. That's just it though... there's not a whole lot of people rushing to sign up to have their brain extracted from their skull to benefit the science of "determining how long a brain can survive." Also... the brain is but one piece of a very complex central nervous system. Cut off from the rest of it's parts it's just a lump of gray convoluted matter. I'd advise against worrying much about the religious scriptures which themselves are speculations of human minds, however, I concede it's a rather interesting question. To reiterate, I cannot impress upon you enough that the true answer is... it depends on too many factors to make a reasonable guess, and empirical data is rather lacking.

Well, I recognize that we're WAY up to post #25 already, but you may wish to look back at post #19. It's a lot to store in short-term memory, so I won't be too hard on you about it.

Did you bother reading the thread before you posted in it? I'm not against smoking. I smoked for 5 or 6 years daily. I got sad when my bongs would break... Hell, I would name them, and would widdle pipes out of vegetables and soda cans and the most random crap. However, this doesn't negate the fact that there are heaps of evidence that the effects of smoking herb can lead to schizophrenic episodes, and higher incidence of psychosis later in life.

Additionally, look up trichotillomania. It seems to be more common in individuals who are not as socially active (where proximity is the key factor... clearly posting here is social, but does not involve tactile stimulation from another being).

Depends on one's genetics, nutrition, and environment. Think of cancer. Think of Alzheimers. Think of living near a smoke stack. Think of being born to parents who are brother and sister. It depends on a combination of factors. That said... yeah, the brain doesn't have to deal with so many toxins and, although metabolic, really just needs some glucose, oxygen, and electrolytes and it's pretty happy. The brain also tends to be "the last to die." http://www.chw.edu.au/parents/factsheets/brain_death_and_organ_donation.htm?print&colour&sch

Well, technically, the BBC just recapitulated what the NYU site said, but you're welcome all the same.

The way our society and culture have been positioned, "being a scientist" is a bit like "being a reader." Most everybody knows how, it's just that some people enjoy it more, do it more, or have specialites moreso than others. The fact that you're here posting suggests that you, too, are a curious being who wants to learn and share. Nothing wrong with that, eh? (btw... very cute head shot. )