Acme

This Chart Blows Up the Myth of the Welfare Queen Article source: Spending patterns of families receiving means-tested government assistance @ Bureau of Labor Statistics This graph from the BLS article goes to Willie71's point on education in post #139. Kinda hard for folks to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they have no boots, much less the means and opportunity to acquire boots.

Maybe that's because the manufacturing jobs went overseas.

Since reverse osmosis requires pressurized water, an exact figure on the energy used would depend on the specific pump setup used. This Wiki article mentions a pressure of 600-1200psi for desalinization.: Reverse osmosis Here's a 1200 psi pump setup. PumpTec 80346 Water Otter 1200 psi Pressure Washer Pump Specifications: 14.3 amp 120 volt motor 2.2 gallons per minute Calculate: 14.3 amps * 120 volts = 1,716 watts = 1.7kilowatts 1.7kw * 10cents per kw hour = 17 cents per hour 17 cents per hr / 60 minutes = .28 cents per minute .28 cents per minute / 2.2 gallons per minute = 0.12 cents per gallon 1.7kwhr/60 min= .0283kwhr per minute/2.2gpm=0.01287kwhr per gallon=46332joules per gallon

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814 THOMAS JEFFERSON ON CHRISTIANITY & RELIGION

I guess we need to ask 'they' if what they proffer is proof or no. Well, obviously. But the subject of religion (i.e. metaphysics and God or gods) is, by definition, outside the scope of science (which deals with understanding the natural world, not the supernatural). Erhm...but I posted that obviosity in response to you saying Oh but I see, you meant 'the subject of religion'. But then that too is a subject of science insomuch as science is concerned with identifying the falsifiability of things. Some might. Most don't. And, of course, many of those advancing our understanding through science are themselves religious. Might? Really? Good grief man this very board is littered with examples of religious attacks on science. As to ascertaining whether 'those advancing our understanding through science' (why not say scientists here?), I doubt either you or I can accurately quantify the percentage, much less adjudge each and every instance wherein a religious belief might be in conflict with the science at hand. Demographics of atheism [bolding mine]

Exactly, religion doesn't (or shouldn't) need proof. Science is (or should be) independent of individual scientists beliefs, biases or preferences. Then why do the religious go to so much effort to prove their beliefs by citing scripture and other such justifications? Who are they trying to convince of some truth or other if not unbelievers? Huh? I am saying the exact opposite. Science is obviously not a religion. But religion is irrelevant to sceince; religion is not, by definition, amenable to science. Religion is amenable and relevant to scientific investigation. History, psychology, archaeology to name three areas. And clearly science is relevant to religion else we would not be having this discussion. Sure they do. When reality disagrees with belief the religious set about attacking -whether rhetorically or physically- the presenters of reality or per se atheists. Why Be An Atheist? Mind you I am just quoting parts I find germane to the discussion here.

But many if not most do. Going to heaven, paradise, reincarnate, etcetera. Hedging by 'literal' is a cop out. It's not a matter of proving anything and you seem only to present the old 'science is a religion' saw. Until or unless the findings of science contradict or seem to contradict some particular religious tenet.

Do you have any evidence to support that? I don't believe it is true. The very definition of "god" is in principle disagreement with science inasmuch as science is an investigation of nature and gods are held to be above nature, i.e. supernatural. god @ The Free Dictionary Life-after-death also comes to mind as a religious principle/belief that is antithetic to science.

One non sequitar after another.

In the United States atheists tend to be more intelligent than the religious and also atheists tend to be more knowledgeable about religions, so I conclude atheists are actually more open-minded than the religious. Religiosity and intelligence U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey

Yes; no end of misinterpretation and science popularizing of the grossest misleading kind extant. The Abstract & Summary of the paper I just cited: Shoemaker is/was trying to exclude meteoroids as responsible for large impact craters in the solar system. Whether comet or meteoroid, there is very good evidence for large impacts coincident to extinction events, the Chicxulub crater being of course the first and best known example.

Hold on...I misspoke. I didn't cite the extinction paper. Here that is:VARIABLE OORT CLOUD FLUX DUE TO THE GALACTIC TIDE The extinction idea is that Oort cloud comets'/meteoroids' orbits are disturbed and they head into the inner solar system.

Is this hypothesis something you have a reference for, or is it just from for a speculators? That part is exactly the subject of the first paper I cited on the oscillation through the plane. It does not invoke dark matter. Yes.

That movement -the oscillation- has a period of ~33 million years so we cross the galactic plane roughly 7.5 times for every orbit of the galactic center.

Yes; gravity keeps the solar system and all stars in the arms near the plane. As pointed out in Sensei's link in post #3. Stars escape velocity shows how to exit the Milky Way So, even the fastest moving stars in the Milky Way do not have the velocity to escape the galaxy. Yes. However that is not the oscillation of the solar system through the galactic plane which is what David was asking for clarification on.

No, I don't think the oscillation is the orbit. From the paper I cited for David: The Galactic Environment of the Sun

To be clear, my comment on dark matter was a separate response to the last clause in your question " Is it gravity force or some dark power?". That is to say, I was not saying dark matter keeps the solar system oscillating through the galactic plane; I was only saying that dark matter is hypothesized because of observed large-scale movements for which we do not see enough matter to account for such movements. To be more clear, I do not suggest dark matter is keeping our solar system near the galactic plane. Moreover, I have never read any such suggestion.

Here's a page with some energy comparisons, including explosives. You can scale them to your truck. Comparison of Relative Energies and Powers So for example, your 7,016,409.78 ftlbs = 5,192,143.2372 joules and from the link 1 lb of high explosive releases 2 mega joules so the truck at 58mph has the energy equivalent of about 2.6 lbs of high explosive. Of course without knowing what kind of damage that much explosive does, the comparison is somewhat meaningless. Let us know how it goes.

A quick search finds naught but hand-held portable gas leak detectors. I have a travel trailer that has a propane leak detector that is fixed and it is located a few inches off the floor. If you find a unit simply follow the enclosed directions. In a house with gas appliances, another important detector/alarm to have is a carbon monoxide detector. Mine mounts on the wall a few inches down from the ceiling.

Thanks. But why? What kind of power is needed to change the momentum (and the velocity vector) of each individual star Why it Is working only for above and below the galactic plane? What about right or left momentum? What is the source for this power? Is it gravity force or some dark power? Yes, gravity. Dark matter is hypothesized because of its gravitational effects. Yes. Yes. You would have to be precise about 'nearby' to answer that. Here's an article about our local neighborhood. The Galactic Environment of the Sun

No. Our solar system and [presumably] other stars oscillate with respect to the galactic plane, moving 'above' and then back 'below'. [bolding mine] The Sun's motion perpendicular to the galactic plane

Before one can engage in hermeneutics one must actually read, and per se know, what is written. On this, atheists, agnostics, Jews and Mormons know more about what is written than Protestants or Catholics. U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey: Executive Summary @ Pew Research Note that this is a 78 page report and I have cited only the 2 opening paragraphs. At the link I gave is a link to the full report in PDF. Feel free to not read it at your leisure and/or at the same pace at which you don't read the Bible or the holy books/writings of other religions.

Floating point error? Floating point@ Wii

I mean that if the Bible didn't contain passages by which people justify evil [because the passages are evil], then there would be no need to make excuses/explanations/apologies for them as you just have. The number doesn't matter; what matters is how effective 'they' are at getting the message out. Seems those 3 and 5 reached you and now the rest of us. And after all, Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, Joseph Smith, Ellen G. White, etcetera each and all were and are one.

There would be no need of apologetics if there were nothing to apologize for. There is and there is.