Mr Skeptic

Hydrocarbon molecules are fairly stable. They're volatile because the intermolecular forces between them are weak. This is largely because carbon and hydrogen have a very similar electronegativity.

Yes, but is that design even possible? How can you move your blocking thing so quickly?

You might be able to make yourself a closed micro-ecosystem. Kind of like those enclosed goldfish bowls. You'd need to have photosynthetic organisms and something that eats them, you'd have to keep it illuminated, and I don't know if there is any way you could prevent something from killing off a necessary part of such a small ecosystem. Space scientists tried to make a similar closed small ecosystem with humans, but it didn't really work. Anyhow, I think dead, stained critters is probably as good as you can get for a permanent slide.

For completeness it should include interviews with addicts and ex-addicts. Something a bit more down to earth than just statistics.

Well, there's two aspects: one is bragging, my ******** is bigger than yours. Then there is the second: we're doing a test here don't misinterpret it as an attack and nuke us.

Incidentally, don't get tetanus. Dying from your muscles involuntarily contracting hard enough to break your own bones, not a good way to go.

There are, if I recall correctly, only 3 ways cells can reproduce: binary fission, mitosis, and meiosis. Which of these three methods would separate and recombine genes?

Right, I can't see terrorists using an EMP to nuke our satellites, for which they'd need both an intercontinental ballistic missile sort of vehicle, when they could more easily nuke Washington and leave our news network intact to cover it real good. I mean what kind of terrorist goes after satellites? As for that affecting anything on the ground, EMP bursts do follow the inverse square law and in addition the atmosphere will block some of the higher energy radiation. Maybe they can reboot your computer, but I doubt that. If they used an EMP bomb (non-nuclear) over a major city they could make a mess I guess.

That's neat and all, but can you do with a few milliseconds exposure time? In the end, that is what will matter.

How can it be anything but the laws, responsible for people being in jail? It's pretty simple: if you don't prescribe jailtime for some activity, then that activity does not lead to jailtime. From those tables I can only conclude that using marijuana within the past month compared to withing your lifetime, decreases your chances of being unemployed. So recent marijuana use --> employment. Well I certainly didn't see jailtime listed as a possible side effect of smoking pot. In countries where smoking pot is legal, it doesn't seem to lead to jailtime. I conclude that making pot illegal leads to pot smokers landing in jail. Ie, they are in fact a victim of the system, unlike what you claim. No. I'm saying criminals tend to end up in jail. You are making an awful lot of people criminals, and wanting to put them in jail. I see little benefit in this. And asking the folks in jail whether a leaf threw them in there or a cop did, the usually say it was the cop. Silly people, playing the victim. Yeah? I'm pretty sure if a parent got caught teaching their kids to use drugs they'd end up in prison (even if the drugs are alcohol and tobacco). If that is true then perhaps your faith in the free market's ability to lower prices is misplaced. Or, the heavy regulations have allowed things to be even worse. I think the problem is that they legalized brothels, not prostitution. Essentially, now the pimps have legal protection. But if it were illegal, then it could lead to jailtime! Oh? Who's rights does recreational drug use infringe on, that aren't also infringed on by alcohol or tobacco? And I would give the middle finger to the government and use them anyways. I don't appreciate the government telling me what to do, even if it is because they think they know what's good for me. OK, yes we all know there are bad effects. That isn't the question and never was. How does that compare to this?: The Psychological Impact of Incarceration: Implications for Post-Prison Adjustment It never was a question of whether pot has any bad effect at all, it is whether the situation is improved at all by criminalizing it. Also, don't forget to factor in that people currently both use pot and go to prison, so remember to add the pot effects to the prison side of the equation as well. That's funny, I thought the reasons for making it illegal were spurious and based on faulty assumptions.

Not to worry, for today only everyone will see their own name as "omgponies" and the matching avatar. Be careful what you hear today, it is April Fool's Day. If you log out and check the thread you should find everything is still in order.

Lots of really bad arguments there... So why don't you advocate this? How is throwing them in jail an improvement? The question wasn't whether either was good, it was which was worse. How many? Most of them, I'm sure, given the statistics of percentages who smoke pot. But why are you wanting to imperil children just because their parents smoke pot? Why ruin the child's life by throwing their parent(s) in jail? Why do you assume that a parent who smokes pot will tell his child that pot is safe and good, contrary to plenty of evidence from parents who smoke or drink? Those who engage in illicit anything are not the sort to stay out of trouble. 100% Solution: make the drugs legal, then these people won't be doing illegal drugs. And do you think that the many many folks who use marijuana and don't have trouble with it are going to be going to you for help? But do tell: did these people tell you that they tell their children that marijuana is safe, or did you make that up? We do have legal requirements on minimum standards for taking care of children. But what about less pimps and dealers? Cheaper drugs mean people don't have to turn to prostitution to fund their habit, and mean that the risk to dealers remains while their profit margin plummets. What about for things that aren't illicit? There's a black market that sells computers; should we make computers illegal? Enforceability is an aspect of making a law: there is little sense in outlawing something that can't be enforced and where the law does more harm than good. These are illegal because they infringe on other people's rights. We are trying to protect children and wives by legalizing marijuana. So how does throwing them in jail improve things? ----- Also, what happened to you being a Free Market Capitalist? The free market has spoken: the peoples want marijuana.

That's because the telephone cable is really really long piece of metal, and can conduct the lighting rather easily straight to your ear. A lightning rod works better to attract lighting, and even better a kite with a metal string or a rocket trailing a metal wire. Basically anything that provides an easier path for electricity than the air (such as holding a metal golf club up), increases the chance of lightning taking that path. You don't want lighting taking a path trough you, so make sure lightning always has an easier path than through your body.

Well, lets say there's a limit to miniaturization. How about is we can have a single atom perform the function of one of today's supercomputers, but no better. Then, we are limited by the amount of material we can reach. Suppose we can travel at .99999 c, just a hair short of the speed of light. We own a sphere of the universe of radius .99999 c * t, where t is time. The volume of the sphere increases as the cube of the radius. However, a cubic increase will eventually be smaller than even the smallest exponential (larger than 1) increase. Expanding at the speed of light just isn't fast enough to maintain an exponential growth rate.

Well things do have common properties. That is the whole basis of categorization.

And that is the problem with these laws.

So has alcohol. I know: how about we ban alcohol?

Federal Judge Finds N.S.A. Wiretaps Were Illegal Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAlso, a city in Kansas has renamed itself "Google, Kansas", and in response Google has renamed itself Topeka

Various websites have chosen to temporarily alter their front page to raise awareness of an issue. It usually looks drastically different than their normal page. (BTW, I think they got that ad off their front page already)

Now now, you know that this not their main page. Why don't you hit the button at the bottom to go to their main site, and then compare?

Interesting. I guess this could quickly get both Democrats and Republicans agreeing on this, for different reasons. I certainly can't see Republicans supporting federal control over states rights.

Well, you got the part about conservation of energy right. Energy is conserved (there will be just as much energy later as there is now), but it can change form. However: Energy does not counteract energy. Also, what you are calling "momentum energy" is usually called kinetic energy. Although if you are using the relativistic energy equation I guess calling it momentum energy works out. If you want to know more about the interactions and trades between kinetic energy and potential energy (they don't counteract each other but they are traded for each other, eg a ball rolling up a hill, slowing down, and then rolling down again) you might want to look at Lagrangian mechanics

There will be a lot less propulsion the farther you get from the sun.

And you would describe something not part of this universe how? Wouldn't we still describe things via chance and non-chance?

We can do a little better. We can do abstract thought, create formal systems for thought (logic), and create devices that help us with thought (notepads, computers).