dichotomy

Speaking of really solid evidence... I am by far no expert on shooting men up to the moon for a walk and getting them back in one piece, as most of us realistically would be. I am still only about 90 percent convinced of nasa achieving this feat. The only thing that I find a bit puzzling and that would make me 100 percent convinced of a moon landing, which can hopefully be rectified on this forum, is that I have tried, without result, to get a Russian and/or Chinese scientific reference that makes it clear that a moon walk was indeed achieved by NASA. I’m not even asking for all moon walks to be proven to be 100 percent convinced. I’d be exceedingly happy with just one. Why do I require a Chinese or Russian scientific reference? Because they are the only two truly independent nations that are unlikely to collude, and or be pressured politically, economically, militarily. Is this a reasonable request to make to be 100 percent convinced? I would hope providing this reference would make the majority of reasonable sceptics 100 percent convinced of a manned moon landing and walk.

I watched the doco and listened to one great lecture that I found more interesting than the docu. And thus far found Jared Diamond's theory to be fascinating - "Diamond argues that Eurasian civilization is not so much a product of ingenuity, but of opportunity and necessity. That is, civilization is not created out of sheer will or intelligence, but is the result of a chain of developments, each made possible by certain preconditions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel Has anyone bothered to read the book? Any views?

I put it to a test with these - Thylacine (tasmanian wolf) and Macropodidae (kangaroo) 50 mya Thylacine and Canis Lupus (wolf) 154 mya I arrogantly thought I could trip it over with one try…. A great tool! Is there a link to other group of specialized science calculators like this one? Thanks for this link CDawin!

I agree with this debunking. But I do believe there is a human mindset spectrum that exists from psychopath to 'empathiopath' (my creation ). Any extreme holds it's own special problems, and I think such a person would find it pretty hard to survive independantly without being surrounded by firm, fair, regular type people. "A group of highly empathetic individuals with the condition mirror-touch synaesthesia is helping researchers understand how humans are able to put themselves in another's shoes." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12084-extreme-empathy-leaves-people-really-touched.html

Hi iNow, so, do sodium and potassium cause an increase or decrease in the conduction of the impulse through the nerve cells? What chemicals do cause an increase? I'm guessing that an increase is not necessariliy a good thing?

I thought there where studies on caffeine and cigarettes showing increased mental processing, or was it just alertness? I think a need a coffee...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141108.htm An article that shows a possible link between how morals are formed and our ancient inherited physical responses to taste, poison and disease.

Even more reptillian politicians perhaps? I’d guess the old classic pressure will dictate: drastic environmental changes and limitations - due to things like, war, resource depletion driven by consumption, overpopulation and natural disasters. I’ll put my money on good old power and control (war) as the first likely drivers that will cause us to adapt or perish. Short term – Technological, better sticks and stones. Longer term – fantastic natural brain/mind mutations (i.e. substantially increased intelligence and consciousness) that will be the main driver of a H. sapiens speciation, branching off into a more dominant species that obviously uses their closest ancestor: ‘H. sapiens’, as their cattle/slave type ultra precious resource. It’s interesting to me that H. sapiens are and have been predatory and parasitic to their own kind in crude and subtle ways for a long time and are continuing to this very day. You can almost see how a speciation can and eventually will take place just by observing economic segregation in ones own nation. Consider the fact of economic social classes predominantly breeding with their own, royalty’s selective breeding program? This must have similar functions to a herd being separated from other parts of its herd until a speciation eventually occurs? On a lighter note, the new H.sapiens brighter species might be that much more conscious and intelligent that they treat all lesser powerful species with great love and care?

Second attempt after feedback... Obama –election scenarios What do you think is most likely out of these scenarios? option 1. Obama will be elected president, without vote rigging. And without knowingly deceiving the public. option 2. Obama will be elected president, without vote rigging. But with knowingly deceiving the public. option 3. Obama will be elected president, with vote rigging, and without him realizing that it’s being rigged. option 4. Obama will be elected president with vote rigging, and with him realizing it’s being rigged. And with him knowingly deceiving the public. option 5. Obama won’t be elected.

Third and fourth parties go a long way to minimizing the Plutocracies that exist in many nations: "In a plutocracy, power and opportunity are centralized within the affluent social class. The degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low." They may even substantially delay the inevitable fall of nations by getting good numbers of "new blood" into power? I find this literally unbelievable. At least in democratic Australia, a party can come from nowhere and get a say in things, if it has the votes behind it. And eventually even get into power, if things go well for them over time.

I speculate that’s it’s a finite recurring pattern that sits within infinite ‘primary’ space. I agree, this is very important and should be taught, but so is belief. We are the most creative species. We need belief, without belief we don’t fantasise, we don’t make inventions, we don’t have a thirst for discovery, we basically remain in trees and pick nits off each other. Scientific accidental discoveries are scientific beliefs gone wrong in an good way, they show a new fact. Our accumulation of facts are accelerated through our mistaken and correct beliefs/fantasies.

Sorry, I don’t agree at all with you here. Members here are more intelligent than general, so I don’t see why I’d try something like that here. I’ve made it specific in order to give people a better opportunity to either agree, disagree, or, even ignore all together if it seems like I’m plotting "putting words in their mouths". If you see it as a Push poll that’s your opinion and I respect it. I intended it as a perception gauge for a few specific questions. Maybe I should post some more polls so it doesn't 'look' like I'm trying to Bias results? As if my little poll has any impact on the results anyway, I wish . What do you think this poll is attempting to bias towards anyway, this might be interesting?

Hi big314mp, Can you work out DH’s simple high school algebra. I’m a virtual mathematical dyslexic. I really only wanted a rough approximate personally. I was originally guestimating something quite a bit smaller than the earth, maybe about the size of the Moon once the iridium sphere's gravity compressed itself.

Agreed. I should have definately inc. that one. It's not about what's actually going on. It's about peoples perceptions of this particular campaign. I don't follow you on how a question can be overly specific and biased? Polls have a bias to find results. My poll has found, thus far, that the general perceptions on this forum are that Obama will win. I suggest that this is due to him being percieved as a genuinely favored candidate that the general public want's in power, and one that doesn't rely on any secretive rigging of any sort to win. Ha! this is like an unintentional ink blot test:D. I just realised that the way you must have interpreted this is that - the 'U.S., including its people, are the ruling elite of the world'; as opposed to what I mean: the small number that make up a ruling elite of the US, or any other nation. Appologies for the confusion, I could have made the same error.

What should the other options be?

This is the conspiracy theory (that are generally wrong) option - Say I was part of an evil Russian leadership. I could construct an election that looked like there where definite good guys and bad guys in political opposition when in reality they were both on the same side (Pro Russian supremacy). Now if the election was rigged so that the good guys got elected, this would give their main rivals in the western world the impression that things where softening up in Russia, becoming more friendly. This might prompt the west to start giving them technology that increases Russian power. Maybe the U.S. might start to reduce the number of nukes they have, thus exposing them to greater security risks, all because of this new perceived friendliness. Now say that Obama makes a great choice of showing the US rivals (china, Russia, etc) a new ‘real’ friendliness that is simply an instrument for greater US control? …Or maybe this would just make a great movie script? Also, polls can be very wrong and often, I’ve seen this occur at home, even ones that predict a landslide victory. Maybe US polls are more accurate? This is just me gathering a handful of opinions on the perception of US elections. From my home tv it really looks like a circus with the narrow minded and senile villains – McCain and Palin, and hero’s of the ‘new’ US glasnost - Obama. Sorry, I write it all out next time instead of on the fly. No it's not a slam against the US. More a gauge on perceptions of politics.

What do you think is more likely out of these three scenarios? The extended versions of the options below - option 1. Obama will be elected president because the US and the world genuinely need this perceived positive change: accepting an intelligent black, result of a mixed marriage, Christian, outsider, who has taken drugs and had a ‘raised Muslim’ father. option 2. Obama will be elected president by vote rigging, to soften up the US international image on a surface level only. This would be useful for making US opponents more pliable. Getting them to more readily give up their nukes, power, alliances, and to sell their resources, etc. option 3. Obama won’t be elected. I hope Obama gets elected because he's genuinely voted in. But I really don't thing he'll be elected.

Pouring money into failed financial institutions and subsidizing farmers is welfare for the rich (the STRONG). So the current administration must believe that welfare for the rich, at least, is a real good thing. socialism, facisim, capitalism... Lables are pretty useless, when really we should look at what works for societies and what doesn't. Look at societies that do work, per capita, and the ones that don't. "Finland, Japan and Korea were the top finishers in an OECD (http://www.oecd.org) study that measured 265,000 15-year-olds' literacy in reading, mathematics and science", why? here's a couple of reasons for Finland's success - they have Higher education places for 65% young people, they have the second-highest public spending on higher education. (Source: OECD)

You assume a lot; maybe you have a crystal ball? These sorts of statements always speak more about the originator than the intended person. “Exploitation - 1. The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage: exploitation of copper deposits.” Exploitation can be accepted and even enjoyed. It’s not necessarily “bad”, it’s just how life operates, a truth. Parents are willingly exploited by their children to give them a good start in life. The altruistic are willingly exploited and enjoy it because they believe it’s for the greater good, and it often is. Possibly you think exploitation is something evil that’s done against ones will, or awareness perhaps? We exploit our environment every day, that’s how we survive. There is nothing particularly wrong or depressing about that, unless you are brought up to believe that it is. But then, you’d probably just starve if you truely believed that… “altruism 2. Zoology - Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.” You see, It's accepted as being part of nature. Well, you're exploiting the opportunities in the job market, and your employer is exploiting your skills. You and your employer are in a constant tug of war to expolit the best from one another. Nothing surprising here...It's just the way you associate the word exploit. And if you think that being a volunteer is somehow not attempting to get a bit of power and prestige, then you are wrong. Many people use it for this purpose, and many others use it to be altruistically and happily exploited. Combination and fluctuating levels of socialism and capitalism are both vital to successful societies. They both have advantages, and therefore both should be explored and used to exploit these advantages. I personally lean towards socialism, but I don't delude myself that's it's the only effective magic key to grow healthy, flurishing, long term societies. I especially like the ideas and implimentations of public health systems, public transport, and public education. And some of the most attractive things about the western world would collapse without volunteers organising community events.

An iridium sphere that has 1g surface gravity.

This isn’t an extreme, it’s a reality. All people are exploited to their individual maximal extent. When people reach beyond their maximal extent they stop work or get sick, or both. Parents are exploited by children, children by parents, workers by bosses, bosses by workers, husbands by wives; we even exploit our selves until we can no longer operate. Capitalism, socialism, whatever, they are simply dumb labels with the same outcome: someone is exploiting someone else in order to survive the best way they can. Oh boy, in Australia we got our supposed basic necessities (e.g. food) taxed at a lower rate, which of course it great, but then there are the inevitable odd political decisions like sanitary pads/ tampons that are considered luxury items?! I think I know a way to get more female votes!

Basically I thought you could have a sphere of pure iridium floating in space and it would be quite a bit smaller than the earth and still have the same gravity. Why? Because it is a heavier material than what the earth is composed of. I wasn’t sure how much smaller it would need to be to match the earth’s gravity. Hope this clarifies things? So, an iridium sphere could be quite a bit smaller than Mars, and still achieve the same gravity as earth?

Good socialism = Propping up irresponsible banks with public funds, banks that caused the current economic crisis. Bad socialism = Not giving dumb banks public funds to continue operating. Corporate welfare! Blahh In all honesty though, in many nations, socialism has been operating alongside capitalism for many years now. Volunteers, social security payments, union protection, public hospitals, public transport, public utilities, public toilets, public swimming pools, public schools….. It is obviously a sign of a healthy growing community when the two systems are used effectively together. The only problem is that self motivator's bruise egos higher up in the pecking order. Hence the preference for yes men, of whom many actually are undercover self motivators ready to move in when the big egos fall.

Wow! that's quite a bit larger than the radius of Mars - 3397 km. I thought something as heavy as Iridium might be quite a bit smaller and still match the earths gravity.

I’m going with infinite space and a finite universe (yes, I’m suggesting that many universes sit within a space medium). Everything is a pattern of sorts, so why shouldn't that apply to a universe too? But obviously, we don’t have enough evidence to conclude this, or the other speculations yet.