iNow

Here's another: http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/releases/detail/1668 Read more of the article at the link above.

This link has about 30 of them. Maybe you'll find it there. http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html And for the folks who don't like reading much, you can get some video feed here: http://abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20050321/default_3.htm

For a note from the SciAm editors on Duesberg, see this: http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/SciAmPerspectivesMay2007.html'>http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/SciAmPerspectivesMay2007.html http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/SciAmEdNoteMay2007.txt'>http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/SciAmEdNoteMay2007.txt And for an all around fun time, watch the spanking which occurs here to he and others of similar ilk: http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/

It's useful to remember that, in science, there is no such thing as absolute fact or certainty. What you have is a collection of evidence, taken in different settings and contexts, repeated over and over by different reseachers. The evidence often implies specific outcomes with a high degree of certainty, and in the case of HIV -> AIDS connection, the connection is overwhelming. However, it's always possible that new evidence will come along the next day to disprove everything currently thought. Note that the video you linked provides zero alternate information that counters the mountain of evidence currently available to us which is indicative of the fact that HIV causes AIDS. Maybe it comes from kissing frogs, eh? Or unicorns from the dark side poking you while you sleep?

I agree. Wu-Tang Clan lost ODB back in '004. I will state that you cannot stop terrorism with more killing. There are too many heads of the monster to cut off. Terrorism is only stopped by leading in such a way as to sway hearts and minds to your side. Easier said than done, I recognize that, but I stand by my claim all the same.

No worries at all, mate. Thank you also for the fine explanation above.

Compares how? By length? By topic? By setting? By time period? By some subjective property like readability or enjoyment?

Is it possible that it could be both... that there is overlap in definition/use?

So Bascule, your point about HP is that the books are crap, yet you've never read them?

Are you truly asking a question shygirl, or are you trying to make yourself feel superior to a group of people who enjoy discussing such topics? If the first, then please use words. We're not here posting on our cell phones, so it seems rather unnecessary 2pst w txt spEk. The folks here are more about l33t anyway, but the point is to be legible to any readers from any country (it's especially challenging if English is not a first language... proper language structure allows the maximum number of people to understand you). If you're trying to feel superior, then I'd suggest the best way is to truly spend some time learning about the universe, and sharing that knowledge with others, so we as a species won't die out due to a lack of ability or coherence. Btw... I didn't mean that in the quantum sense. I'm a lot more fun in person and after a few margaritis. Don't take it personally.

Farsight, I've read your "Energy Explained," "Charge Explained," "Mass Explained," "Money Explained," and "Time Explained" posts elsewhere, and whlie you are a very good writer (presenting ideas in a friendly, informal, readable style, with lots of neat pictures), your "explained" topics tend too frequently to have multiple inaccuracies. This, my friend, does not help your awesomeness. Please, keep up the good work. However, please don't disregard existing data which is contrary to your presentations either.

Wow dude. I'm not a big fan either, but I'd f*&k you up if you shot my girlfriend. Perhaps extremism is a sickness unto death.

I'm not a mathemagician, but I'll share what I think. Be sure to check this data before relying on it. Linear growth is steady, increasing by the same amount with each step... like grains of sand dropping from top to bottom in an hourglass... grain by grain by grain. Exponential growth implies that with each step, the growth becomes greater... like population. More people are born, more people to have children, even more people born from them, even more children... and the process repeats at an ever increasing rate. Geometric growth is where you multiply the preceding term by a common ratio... I think interest on a bank account may be an example, since the principle is multiplied by a common percentage (like 5%). See wiki for some clarity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series

Animals compete to maximize their chances of passing on their genes to offspring. Competition is directly related the ability to attract more mates. Following the above logic... organisms cooperate when it increases their likelihood of survival and chances of passing on their genes... organisms complete when it increases their likelihood of survival and chances of passing on their genes. What needs to happen is for reproductive success to no longer be contingent on selfish motivation, but instead social vision and peaceful intent. Unfortunately, our evolved biology is lagging somewhat behind our tecnological advances and societal ails. ~ J. Robert Oppenheimer

You state openly what you seek to show. You then run the test. You then either confirm or refute the opening hypothesis. It's not an issue of phrasing it positive or negative, but what you anticipate happening before the experiment is performed. Hypotheses should be framed in such a way as to mandate their proof or disproof. Now, there are some little caveats where you might try to "market" an idea by positioning your hypothesis a certain way, however, as a general rule this isn't appreciated by the scientific community, and you should state clearly what you seek to validate empirically.

I'll take that to mean, yes, you do want me to explain. We waste loads of time arguing "across the aisle." People aligning themselves by party instead of by issue. The party system worked in the past because the issues were local to the colonies. There was a relatively small population that could actually be represented by a select group of individuals weighing the opposing ends of the spectrum. Now, fast forward a few centuries, and put the context in terms of a global population over 6 billion. The bell curve is smoothing, and the individual differences are countless. There are parallels among many of us, but you'll be hard pressed to find two people who agree on every issue. So, why align with one group instead of representing your people as an individual? Why fling mud at others for being the same as you, but with a different label? Six to one, half a dozen to another, ya dig? Now... the broader point (which I think is magnified on a forum such as this) is that it's archaic to continue thinking as a small collective in a township or a nation. We are connected globally, instantly, and our activities are not limited to our backyard, but the entire sphere we call home. So, why waste our lives arguing with one another about what color shirts we should wear... when we could instead spend that energy improving the future of ourselves, our children, and our planet by realizing that we're but a fraction of a speck of nothing suspended in a moat of dust, and will accomplish more by realizing this greater connection we all share? Is there any benefit for remaining a two party system? Aren't the two parties just different shades of the same gray? Is there any benefit for continuing to think of ourselves as an isolated country instead of an isolated globe?

Can I treat your question as rhetorical, or do you really want me to explain this? To get a sense of the context in which I stated that, please click the username portion of my signature and listen (and if you're so inclined, the link in the quote is pretty shnazzy too, but off topic here so not appropriate to this conversation).

You should look up the work of Albert Bandura (I think he was at Stanford at the time), and his research on social learning theory... aka "modelling behavior." I think you'd like it. Per your point above on language only being to "transfer the mind," I think you are sorely mistaken if you see no other evolutionary benefits (I am not sure this is the case, so will point it out just to be sure since your post seems to imply such). Language is vital to social groups... to society in general... and need not be defined only as that which is verbal. All of those modelling behaviors you list above are language, just nonverbal. Even tiny organisms navigate using patterns of scent and electromagnitism, itself a form of language when the organisms manipulate and perceive these. Further, think of pack behavior (wolves, hyenas, dolphins, etc.) and successful hunting groups... even the military. Language is vital to the successful hunt, vital to the successful mission, and those who communicated well tended to have greater chances at survival... itself translating into better chances at passing on their offspring. "I see," said the blind man to his deaf daughter. Fox trot charlie two to base nine. The eagle flies at midnight. I repeat, the eagle flies at midnight.

I guess I should have used the TongueInCheek tab. [/sarcasm]

Your premise implies that Jeffrey Dahmer is more evolved than the rest of us. Wouldn't eating fellow humans be more of a function of the available quantity of other food sources, not natural selection?

I appreciate that this may be the only time you perceive hearing it, but I can honestly state that it's not the only time I state it. We're a planet, not a country... not a state... not a city... not a county... not a street... not a house... not a political party. A planet.

A form of kung fu, rooted in the Shaolin, complete with animal forms and weapons.

When are we going to leave these archaic divisions of Democrat and Republican behind us and wake up to the fact that we are a global community of living organisms? The time we waste arguing with people who choose to wear a different button on their chest... I swear.

Here's a press release from Keck: http://www.keckobservatory.org/article.php?id=114

Does this mean that creationists don't get horny? EDIT: Maybe that's not such a bad thing.