ydoaPs

If you're worried about copyright infringement(loads of videos get removed from youtube for this), you can watch it from Nova's website.

It's not nice to try to give your daughter an eating disorder.

Relative to what?

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas-a gigantic nuclear furnace that burns hydrogen into helium at temperatures of millions of degrees. The sun is hot; the sun is not a place where we could live, but down on Earth, there'd be no life without the light it gives.

Welcome to Clonaid.

Stand on your head!

Alonzo's point, from what I can tell, is that they are BOTH being exclusive of the other people in the country. What he is saying, is that the Pledge as currently written says that a group of people(in this case, atheists) are not Americans. Sounds a bit like Bush Sr.

So, you didn't read the story? That specific line of reasoning was explicitly addressed. From what I gathered of the story, Alonzo was trying to portray the inherent divisive prejudice of the phrase by altering the affected minority to one which is obvious(it's a lot easier to tell someone's skin colour than it is to tell their religion or lack thereof). You seem to be saying that since belief is a choice(which is itself arguable), it doesn't matter in this context. Would you feel the same way if the affected group were theists, or does that change the game? Please enlighten me if I misunderstand you(I just got off work, after all, so it's a very good possibility). As for if I misunderstood what Alonzo was trying to say, we could always ask him.

Has a government official ever told you fire WILL NOT burn you? I'm going to have to call strawman.

Could you please explain this further? Why is it a strawman(what is the crucial difference making the situations not analogous)? I apologize for not making it sufficiently clear that I would like explanations of the positions about this story.

Unless affected by a nonzero external NET force, you mean?

I recently found this bit of prose which provides a lot of perspective, IMO, on the old Pledge controversy. What if instead of adding "Under God" to the Pledge, Congress altered the Pledge to read as follows:

Only in situations where there is a zero net force on the system in motion. Such situations do not exist(there will always be friction, I2R losses, etc). NO. That is NOT what it says(sorry, pet peeve of mine). If entropy always increased, I'd be out of a job. Again, you're not correct. Newton's first law ALWAYS applies in inertial reference frames. If there is zero NET force on an object, the velocity will remain unchanged. Things keep moving unless acted upon by an external non-zero net force.

Take two of the points and find the rate of change(m) by the equation [math]m=\frac{{y_1}-{y_2}}{{x_1}-{x_2}}[/math]. Then plug m, an x value and the corresponding y value into the equation y=mx+b and solve for b. Then you have m and b and it should be ridiculously obvious how to get the equation from there.

I was actually wondering about that.

Cap'n, you gonna blag?

Without units, the number is meaningless. Is it the mass of the earth in stones, amus, monkeys, etc? When giving figures, one must use units. It's just one more part of being understood.(See how different we are when you try to be comprehensible?)

What do you mean by Me=5.9736x1024? What is "Me"?

ill play en wee kan toally haf fun eem so gunna win ethereal anthropomorphic floccinauccinihilipilification banana radioactive black hole blanket monkey shoe you arre teh suxxorz ewe shal surely loose

Why don't you? It's up to you to provide your "theory". We won't do your homework for you. yer oos uf gamier n lak uf sentens structure make yuo harrd to unnderstand hou can wee help you eef we kant understandd well seriously you came hear four hour help end you expect us to take yur idea from speculation to theroy four ewe wen we kant understand ewe and ewe sed we wer rude? You finished half of a college mathematics text in a week and a half at age five and you can't piece together a sentence, let alone develop your own speculation? NO WE KANT UNDERSTAND EWE WEVE BEN SEYING TAHT FOUR A WILE YOU KNEAD TWO OOS BETER GAMIER EN SPEELING ORE DEW EWE WONT US TO REPEYE SUCH TAHT EWE KANT UNDERSTANNED US? How can we understand your question if you can't piece together a coherent sentence?

Is there a number of warning points for persistent lack of sentence structure?

This just screams John Baez, [acr=In My Opinion]IMO[/acr].

You're from a long line of scientists and no one bothered to tell you what theory means? Indeed. For the love of the almighty [acr=Flying Spaghetti Monster]FSM[/acr], at least break your posts into coherent sentences. It's hard enough for me to understand what you are trying to communicate, let alone the numerous member for which English is not a primary language. Go sit down with your family of scientists and discuss the meaning of the word "Theory." Watch Chapter 6. And read this thread.

So, equivocation....just like I said. If I were to reply to a comment about homosexuality and say that all men(both heterosexual and homosexual) are attracted to each other, would you consider it equivocation or not? What if when asked to elaborate, I began talking about gravity? Stating that you were acting smug is not calling you names; it is an observation of your behaviour.