Mr Skeptic

How do you cheaply cool the electrons to ~ 0.000001 degrees kelvin?

Do sewer rats get high off this stuff too?

Hm, you might just be right. Indole can be derived from shit and seems to be the base for Tryptamine, which is the base for many neurotransmitters and hallucinogens.

Political Correctness: avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Tact: consideration in dealing with others and avoiding giving offense wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Political correctness is very restrictive, and has little to do with with what the speaker actually feels. It is not very personal, being about avoiding offense to groups. It sometimes gives the impression of being a bit dishonest or superficial. Much about it is about avoiding forbidden language. Tact, on the other hand, is much more personal and less superficial. Tact is considered a virtue.

I believe the term for that is "Oops!" Ah, but that would require that the deadly strain didn't get to them first. If there were systems that didn't get infected with the deadly strain, then it wouldn't cause extinction whether or not there was a less deadly strain. ---- I think a perfect extinction germ would be one that causes permanent sterility. That is deadly for its host from an evolutionary standpoint, but not to the bacteria, which will have as long as it likes to spread.

Acceleration is the rate at which your velocity is changing. Measured in distance per unit time per unit time, such as meters per second per second or miles per hour per second. Velocity is the rate at which your distance is changing. Measured in distance per unit time, such as meters per second or miles per hour.

No, it is what the Constitution demands for all powers not specifically granted by the Constitution to the federal government. Those are for the states, or the people, to decide.

Ug. One would think people should know better. But they would be wrong. This is probably more dangerous than most illegal drugs. Is there a specific chemical responsible? I know it would have some methane and some CO2, but I doubt either of those are responsible. Probably some nitrate from the urine. Anyone know?

Unfortunately, though, most people (and scientists not in meteorology) will get a good portion of their information indirectly.

So, basically you agree with everything I said (except the rant on nuclear), but think that I also said a study was biased? JohnB is the one who claimed that there was bias in the IPCC, and you dismissed that as irrelevant. I disagreed and said it was relevant, that you can't just ignore JohnB's claims as irrelevant. Elsewhere (on a thread about opinions, not this thread) I said that I think that the entire subject is dripping in bias, but I am not stupid enough to try to prove that the biases are large enough to discredit the studies. Most of the bias would be in the reporting due to opinionated journalists, rather than bad studies.

Don't work rotating shifts. It is very bad for your health, and shouldn't be allowed IMO.

Get 3 numbers, average them, and hand them out anonymously. Add your salaries to the number, and tell everyone the sum. Add all of those together, divide by 3, and subtract the average of the random numbers, to get the average salary. Use more than 3 numbers for greater secrecy. You could split your salary randomly into two pieces and tell each of the others one portion. Then add the portions from the others, and tell the sum. Sum that and divide by 3, and you get the average. However, if the others tell what you told them, they can find your salary.

The rules require *maturity (age and not having medical mental problems), *excellence ("cool" and unusual and stupid), *self-selection, *removal from gene pool (usually death because it is hard to accidentally sterilize yourself) *not taking out innocent bystanders (participants are fair play, especially if they are your children). Not having children in the first place is a bonus, but not required. Since your kids have some genes from their mother, they might not have your gene that won the Award. The award is given for improvement of the gene pool by removing yourself from it while simultaneously demonstrating that that is an improvement. Elimination of the entire species does not follow the rule of no innocent bystanders, unless everyone participated.

The right to free speech does not trump all other rights. It is occasionally trumped by the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and perhaps others. Free speech can be overridden by various things from endangering other people's lives to simply being a nuisance. Speech, like any other action, will have consequences. Sometimes those consequences will hurt you. If you say "I did it" when defending in court, you might end up in jail for it. However, it is the action, not the speech itself, which can get you in trouble. Some actions may be illegal even if they are accomplished through speech. The speech can be legal and the action illegal. But, your honor, I was just "pursuing happiness", as is my right... Not going to work.

Time for some context. --- Seems to me you said that bias is not relevant to the data. If I misinterpreted you, I did not do so on purpose. I thought we were talking about whether or not bias affects data. You can argue about the data itself with someone else if you want to. I never said that bias disproves data, only that it biases it toward a specific answer. I was just suggesting that it was a rather long and tangential train of thought and most people wouldn't have followed it from where you left off. Meant no offense. But if you did think that far, than would that mean that your claim: implies that you "focused on" your previous claim: which you now claim I "misinterpreted". If I misinterpreted it, what did you mean? If I didn't misinterpret it, then it seems you didn't "focus on" it enough. Yes, all of them. If you followed my previous reply, you would know that I was talking about "the people who think global warming will kill us all". Who's doing the misinterpreting now? Yes, I heard you the first time. And you are the one complaining about ad hominums. I don't mind, though. What specifically of mine did you think was retarded?

Take your own advice. You just claimed that bias is not relevant to data, which seems like a broad, sweeping claim to me. I claimed that biased people are likelier to make biased measurements (and any bias in data is bias), not that that particular study is full of biased data. Normally, bias can be canceled out by including people with the opposite bias, but if it is as Jackson33 claims that they choose people of only one bias on purpose, the results will be biased. You claimed that is not relevant, which is BS. Me too. You did make some claims re things that are irrelevant to data gathering and interpretation, which incidentally is a claim that data showing that bias affects data, is false data. If you thought about it that far. PS: bias by definition affects judgment, which I think is enough to logically prove that bias affects data. Sorry, you are right. However, these people also complain that solar has toxic chemicals, wind "kills" birds, hydro messes up fish and sentiment, geothermal heats up rivers, that the tiny amount of waste produced by nuclear is going to kill everything... It's like they hate electricity or something. Gets on my nerves. I do believe that nuclear is the only single energy source that has been tested on a country-wide scale and could provide zero emission energy for the entire US, but I may be wrong about that, which is why I think it is the most obvious. Unless you want to wait for fusion, or more economical renewables.

You could make your container out of silica aerogel, which is itself (when evacuated) lighter than air. Then again, you're probably better off using hydrogen gas heated for lower density, which would probably also be safer than a vacuum.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19626281.400-quantum-untanglement-is-spookiness-under-threat.html doesn't help much, though

You're dead wrong on that one. Biased people make biased data. That's why they do double blind studies. Biased people are likelier to round measurements to the "correct" value, etc. I bet you also think that it doesn't matter where the funding for a study on, say, the dangers of smoking, came from. Same thing here, the politicians have vested interests. There are ways to manipulate even the most honest scientists, you know. Just to clarify: these issues give me reason to doubt (not deny) the data/opinions of everyone with respect to global warming. And yet more doubts concerning the effects warming will have. I believe in global warming, but not the lunies who think it will be the end of the world. I think it would help somewhat if people were to focus on the things that should be done regardless that would also help the environment: efficiency, (affordable) renewable energy, independence from foreign oil, the nasty chemical residues found in coal, ... --- Also, I am annoyed that the people who think global warming will kill us all are also completely opposed to the most obvious solution (nuclear power).

Words can leave wounds that never heal. You are only immune from that if you absolutely don't care about people.

Thank you for answering them. Your answers are very helpful and informative. I think I get it. The path out of a black hole would require travel backwards in time, whereas the path in is forwards in time. So it really is like a one way street, you can go in but not out. Like you said, I had been thinking in terms of spatial dimensions. Ah, that question [about the Big Bang singularity collapsing into a black hole] was the very next thing I was going to ask about. I understand what you are saying, since everything is "moving" away from each other, the Schwartzschild radius doesn't apply because it is for static objects. That would also make sense of my calculation that the Schwartzschild radius of the universe would be farther away than c times the age of the universe. Oh, it is certainly good enough for me. My understanding of GR is rather limited, so a formal explanation might be over my head and give me a big tensor headache. Well, safe from one thing. As I understand it, eventually the universe dies, be it by a Big Crunch, Big Rip, or Heat Death. Wow, that is incredibly small. Like 5 and a half hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. Except most of it would be dark matter and dark energy rather than regular matter, if I understand correctly from other places I read about that. If space itself has some intrinsic energy (like from where virtual particles come from), wouldn't that become a dominating factor if the universe continues to expand? I try to be careful, but I do like to entertain as many possibilities as possible. I am skeptical of anything I don't understand, and calculating the fate of the universe is way beyond me at the time. I do stick to the standard models whenever I am not busy being crazy though.

Exactly what I got, and Spyman too.

'Nuf said.

No no no... the correct terminology is "fishers of men". God said so himself.

Free trade of any kind increases efficiency. It is positive, not a zero sum game. The trade (in this case, of labor) should only happen if it benefits both parties. It is (theoretically) possible to rearrange the benefits reaped so that all parties involved benefit. In this case, Americans benefit by having lower costs and higher profits. Some American workers may go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers, but others will be bringing in the profits.