CaptainPanic

Personally, I would not argue about this. It's clear that the people attacking Obama in this thread really don't care for objectivity, and don't mind spreading lies. You cannot win any discussion against people using fallacies (and getting away with it). Anyway, it's not my election, but I'd like to add my comment from the other side of the ocean. The PRO side should definitely contain "Winning Back Europe's Approval". With Bush in charge, many Europeans started to see America as part of the problem of this world, rather than part of the solution. That sentiment changed back in favor of the USA over the last couple of years.

That's an approach. Some othre people would say: "If we don't know the benefits, but it's also not very difficult to change, why don't we just try it?".

You're not helping...

Atheists believe that deities don't exist. But we know they certainly don't intervene in anything. So, if there are any deities, they seem to be permanently uninterested and uninvolved in the universe. Deities are simply not necessary to explain what we see.

The universe resembles a domino: maybe a god pushed the first stone, but after that, it continued without any divine interventions.

There are physical differences between men and women. Everybody knows that! So, why are we discussing a (lack of) emancipation in physical exercises? It's a logical result of our evolution. It's not discrimination. I mean, how equal do you want it to be? Shoud men become pregnant too, because of emancipation? Note that in non-physical competitions (for example: chess), there are no separate competitions for men and women.

What's a factor of 1000 in such a giant scheme of things? And for that matter, what is the point you're trying to make? Did you spot a bottleneck in the process, for which 14 billion years is not enough? If so, please tell us. If this is "just a feeling", then we might as well close the thread.

If it is anywhere near a star (with any meaningful temperatures), the water would evaporate into the vacuum of space. When it's far away from a star, the temperature would be so low (only a few Kelvin) that (almost) no chemical reactions occur.

Queen of Wands, just out of curiosity, do you work for any of the republican super PACs? I read that the concept of a super PAC is new, and that they are very very wealthy, and that they have a mostly negative focus, so it wouldn't come as a surprise to me if they suddenly appear all over the internet's forums talking crap about Obama. We know from experience that spamming isn't very expensive. Spammers can employ people to write unique, on-topic posts, only to insert a link to their website. So, it's definitely within the possibilities of a super PAC to have numerous people spamming the politics sections of the internet. Although I only have a suspicion about Queen of Wands, I have a feeling that there will be super PAC spammers before the end of the year. And they will be real people, with legitimate accounts. But paid by democrats and republicans to spam.

What's the point of this thread?

If the honey crystallizes, you can just heat it up (place the pot into luke warm water). The crystals will melt/dissolve again. I usually eat honey well before it reaches this stage, and if it does reach it, I actually like the taste of the crystals, so I don't ever heat it... so I am not sure what temperature you need. I've never heard of honey going bad, and I think the "best before" or "eat by" date is just there to avoid lawsuits... Sugar is a natural preservative, like salt.

ROFL! You must be republican Facts don't really matter during the elections, do they?

I think we need to know more about the "other stuff"... I mean, some metal roofs aren't dangerous, unless they are sharp. If it's trash, why would you protect it? If kids aren't allowed into the trash area, why is that? Because it's dirty, dangerous, or because the teachers of the school simply want to keep an eye on the kids, and because it's out of sight?

It doesn't. People are not atheist or any other form of non-believer because they think it's "better". They are so because they see no reasons to think there is a god. There is no deliberate choice in becoming atheist. It is a result of the way you see everything. You cannot choose how you see everything, although education can change the way you see things. As with almost everything, you can be influenced by other people, and by information. You don't choose to be influenced. You just are. Your only choice is which sources of information you allow to reach you, and which you try to block... You can choose to learn.

We should disconnect the harm a drug can do with legalization, because there is no data to support the assumption that the consumption goes up when you legalize it. And since the harm done is proportional to the consumption, which shows no correlation to the legal status, the harm done is irrelevant. I can back that up with this wikipedia site, which shows the "annual prevalence" of cannabis use. The Netherlands is in that list, and the annual prevalence is 2.5 times lower than in the USA, who have fought a bitter war against drugs since decades. The Netherlands has weed tolerated (sort of legalized) since the 70's: you can buy it in a shop, and you don't need any prescription or whatever... it's as easy as buying milk, when you're 18 or older. The legalization did not dramatically increase consumption. It probably didn't increase it at all. It's equal or lower than in the neighboring countries.

Just out of curiosity, how do you go about calculating how much electric power is consumed by an electromagnet made of superconducting material? Since the resistance is zero, it would suggest that the current can be (nearly?) infinite. Wikipedia tells me that the only power consumed in a DC electromagnet is due to the ohmic resistance. Another wikipedia site tells me that superconducting magnets can maintain a current with no voltage applied whatsoever, a property which is used in MRI machines. But what if a magnet does work? What if a charged particle comes near, and the magnetic force acts on it? Shouldn't that alter the current in the superconducting magnet through induction? But getting the current back up to the old level would then again require no power? And is there a practical upper limit to how much current you can push through a superconducting magnet? (Is there even a theoretical limit?)

It would be nice if you START a thread with such a comment... not put it in the 3rd post, in the middle. Sorry to be rude, but I see 3 long posts from you, including a lot of extra links to other pages. Would you mind summarizing why you think there could be a link between the sun's activity and volcano eruptions? (Because I am far too lazy to read all that, sorry!). Maybe you explain the topic for the thread within like 1-2 sentences, and then you can expand with background info?

Most nations and cultures are not bitter about each other at all. Especially if you are not seen as a threat, you are not likely to have problems. If you are seen as a threat, then gorillas and humans alike will defend their territory. I've visited a lot of places in the world, and I felt welcome everywhere... and I guess that's because I did not make a wrong move. But when you are among other humans, it is really easy to make the right moves. And even if you make the wrong move, you are likely forgiven because you're a stranger.

It could work if all people would vote independently. Which they don't. We are not independent. We can be heavily influenced by media (advertisements, the news, religion, ideological spam). And that just gives those media far too much power. Imagine that you're Mark Zuckerberg or Rupert Murdoch. You can reach a majority of a population, because you own Facebook or News Corp. And in a 'real democracy' you decide to advertise for a certain law. And you have a witty (funny) advertisement. Regardless of whether the law is a good idea or not, you probably already get a huge amount of votes. Why does a famous laundry detergent sell better than a cheaper unknown brand? Because the people carefully investigate which is best? Or because the famous brand has a better advertisement (which ultimately shows nothing of real interest)? Why do you think the presidential candidates even campaign? To convince people that they are right? No way! It's more like a commercial for detergents. Politics is a brand... and campaigning is like advertising. They have to become well-known. They give one-liners, not information. Why? Because it works. Because the general public does not care about the details... and they vote just like they buy soap: pretty colors on the packaging and a nice advertisement matter more than contents. Such a public should never ever be allowed to run a country - not while they can be so easily influenced by outside sources. It would effectively mean that we would be run by religion and companies alone. A horror scenario. And since we cannot shut up the media, I don't think we should implement such an E-democracy or direct voting for laws. [edited: typos & adding 1 sentence]

No, no, no... you're doing it all wrong. If you're gonna play on someone's emotions, you should include the children. The argument goes like this: "I'm guessing you can't know how you would respond until your country's government starts shelling your children. Or even better: babies. Wouldn't you want international intervention if your government was murdering innocent babies with tanks?. With such an argument, I am surprised that the B52's haven't taken off yet. On a more serious note: I am not saying that what's happening in Syria isn't bad. I am only saying that it's not the worst in the world. But people die on a daily basis. What's so special about these Syrians? Aren't there dozens of horrible regimes, and aren't there thousands of innocent deaths every day?

I don't believe that the majority of the people can be trusted to be reasonable. People have internal conflicts: they want more for less. The online forum you propose will not solve that problem. Anonymous or not, people want more service/goods for less money/tax. Besides, I don't believe that the majority of the people even see the big picture, so they cannot be asked to make decisions about the big picture. Sorry, but I think that the average guy on the street is pretty dumb, and I don't trust them to make a good decision on anything.

Breakfast is the meal right before you start the active part of the day. Lunch is the meal right in the middle of the active part of the day. Those two meals will keep your blood sugar up while you're working. I guess that's why. For example, I really notice when I eat some fruit. I get the feeling that the fruit sugars get into my blood quicker than almost anything, and I feel more awake and energetic for the first few hours of the day. I immediately admit that I have done no measurements, and this might all be a placebo effect, for all I know. The reason why people advice to get together around the dinner table, instead of the poker table, is that the large majority of people eat dinner every day, but not all people play poker, and only a tiny minority will play every night. But if your entire family plays poker on a daily basis, then that can be a good moment to socialize... Although you might want to seek some help with the gambling addiction. Btw, I think that's not science, just common sense. You have your daily interaction with the kids - without distraction from any computer games or tv shows. Kids can learn a LOT from their parents, if given the chance. Parents are the #1 source of learning for kids. They are the #1 role model. But you need to actually interact with kids to be of any use to your kids. Also, you can keep an eye on the eating habits of kids. Kids tend to want to skip the vegetables, and only eat the best bits. But veggies are good for kids, even though the chicken and fries taste better. Sometimes, it takes a parent to make them eat it.

What makes you think that there won't be horrible (civilian) casualties when the UN, US or Russia would invade to remove the government? I think an invasion would be to cure an itch with an amputation. Besides, the people in those lands still remember the crusades (when the crusaders slaughtered entire cities). They aren't very fond of Western intervention. So, they might even oppose Western troops, instead of welcome them. Would you like an intervention in your country by thousands of foreign troops, who don't speak the language, don't understand the culture and just generally don't have a clue? Or would you prefer to hope that the bloodshed will stop?

Your definition of God is "the unknown". I actually agree with that it comes from the unknown - as in, "we don't know". But I strongly disagree giving "the unknown" a name, especially when the name has to be God... because calling it God suggests a whole lot more than that we're clueless about it. And I disagree with all the added bits.

Aha... so this is just one giant spam advertisement for your own website. If that is the goal of your posts, I see no more reason to discuss.