Acme

What I said was 'bit of a strawman' and then added 'or is that a red herring'. I was both making a 'bit' of a joke and making a point that there is more than cattle ranching that contributes to and suffers from the California drought. As far as the Texas thing I was making a point that you make a lot of statements and claims and yet provide little to no backup. That's not say you are wrong, only that this is a science forum after all and science is all over facts and precision like mushrooms on cow pies. Drought is a problem. Nothing new there. The drought in the 1930's combined with poor farming practices created the infamous dust bowl era throughout the Midwest US. Was it a disaster? Mmmmm....definitely. Was it the end of civilization? No. Did people learn from it and change? Yes. Did it take a lot of work, scientific/logical thought, and meet resistance? Hell yes. We're in a similar circumstance now. Corporations, climate change deniers, wealthy folk, etcetera all resisting change to further their own interests over the better interest of the whole. Disaster? Too early to say. Are we all gonna die? Not likely. Well, other than we're all gonna die sooner or later. That you have read enough to feel alarmed is evidence enough that smart people know more than a little about the current and future problems and are working to ameliorate the damage. Knee-jerk ideas like everybody become vegetarian do not help in this regard. Mm'k? Agreed; desalinization may help for coastal areas if things get serious enough. The greenhouse project; very nice. Distribution of food the real cause of hunger; absolutely. Rather than gild the lily and say 'economic resource', let's just call the probelem what it is; greed. The challenge is not simply solving problems, the challenge is overcoming greed. The earth supplies enough for everyone's need, but not everyone's greed. - Mahatma Gandhi

Well broad remarks seem to drive your and Ed's arguments. Yes we eat too much meat and a lot of the wrong kinds of meat (that is, factory raised fed on grain and pumped full of antibiotics is the 'wrong' kind). No one is contesting that. But it's a fallacy to go from that to conclude everyone should be a vegetarian and/or vegan in the future. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Café standards? Hold on while I look that up...OK, got it. I don't see your point there. I waited in gas lines in the 70's and I agree the lesson was quickly forgotten. Since hydrocarbons fuel not just passenger cars but farm equipment, as well as natural gas and coal being the basis for fertilizer production, there is certainly a sustainability problem inasmuch as hydrocarbons aren't renewable. As to silver bullets, it sure looks to me like that is what you are ascribing to vegetarianism. Yes, I have heard of those loses. But again you broad-brushed your original statement when you said Texas was the second largest food producing state. I do appreciate your narrowing the scope to some specifics.

Navigate to the forum section that relates to your subject and on the right-side near the top click the button marked Start New Topic.

I'll have a look at whether Texas is 2nd to Cali in food production or not. Little doubt that the oil production in Texas is not sustainable though. As to population, the US exports food so demand isn't tied to just our population. Speaking of popular demand not shrinking and California drought, it is neither vegetable nor animal food production sucking up & polluting water resources in the North of the state; it's weed. This makes your argument above something of a strawman. Edit: Or is that a red herring? Marijuana farms worsen California drought

Protein is not the only nutrient that meat provides and getting those other nutrients in a vegetarian diet takes a considerable variety of vegetable foods and a consequent amount of knowledge, expense and time for planning meals and seeking out the sources. From the Wiki article I quoted in post #34, many of these special cases are cited. [Note: My link in post #34 is incorrect and I'll ask staff to fix it as my opportunity to edit has expired.] The link is here: >> Vegetarianism @ Wikipedia You disregard the [uS] folks who can't make the choice; the poor that I just referenced for example. What is their way? Is it just their own damn fault or bad luck that they are poor? Whose fault is it that the food they have access to and can afford is too high in meat & fat and low in vegetables and raw grains? Again, not everyone has a choice. Whether meat isn't available as in some cultures or vegetables aren't available as in others, choice is limited. I don't see that changing any time soon. Nor do I buy into the guilt trip of eating our fellow creatures. How do you feel about killing those same creatures to feed our pet fellow creatures as I earlier alluded to? While I'm on the topic of humans feeding animals to animals, there is the matter of zoos. We'll ignore the issue of whether keeping animals in zoos is 'good' or not. I haven't found data for all zoos, either in the US or worldwide, so I'll let just 1 stand as representative. Animal Food & Nutrition Center @ St. Louis Zoo Holy mackerel! Is that sustainable? How many people would that feed? (I notice there is no red meat listed there and wonder why. What -and how much- do the large carnivores eat?

Yes I know. That is well covered in the article I linked to. I don't think it's a matter of whether it's safe or not; it's a matter of whether vegetarianism is 'better'. OK. Shall we convert our pets to vegetarianism? Pet Food Sales Who's complaining now? Are there problems? Of course. When haven't there been? Hand-waving and crying out doom-and-gloom is neither a solution nor a clear path to solutions. As to meat being a dietary centerpiece, I have not made that argument. The argument I made, again, is that humans are omnivores and do best with a balanced diet of meat, grains, and vegetables of moderate portions. I also want to point out that for many poor people, fresh vegetables [and meat] are simply not available or too expensive. Do you suppose individuals or fast-food purveyors purchase more meat from producers? Why Low-Income and Food Insecure People are Vulnerable to Overweight and Obesity

Thank you for sharing your insight with me. I should have instead followed your example in post #6 The facts are that Ed has offered nothing more than opinion here, and in his numerous threads promoting vegetarianism in which he did provide a link we have found his reading of and conclusions on those articles flawed. Granted that Ed earlier linked to an article on B12, but we covered that issue in one of the other threads. IIRC I brought it into the discussion because a vegetarian diet does not supply B12. The only scientifically justifiable reason for adopting a vegetarian diet -the others being sociocultural reasons- is health, and while studies show there are certain types of meat-eating diets that have higher incidence of certain disease or decreased longevity, there is no evidence that vegetarianism is healthier overall. Even then, some of the aforementioned studies have caveats about compounding circumstances such as vegetarians are less likely to smoke and drink or be wealthy.* Vegetarianism is also an overgeneralized term because of all the variations such as have been brought up already, such as eating eggs or dairy products but not meat, or excluding only red meat, or including fish, and so on. Given that there is no hard consensus among even experts, then it is logical not to accept the advice of amateurs. Omnivores, balance of foods, and moderation in consumption is the most widely accepted healthy human eating condition by my reading of qualified literature. *Vegetariansim @ Wikipedia (bold underlining mine.)

Yes. Here is the thread. >> Direct evidence from the CDC that vaccines cause food allergies

I do not. . Who are you to give dietary advice Ed? Are you a doctor? A dietician? Have any schooling or certifications to support giving dietary advice? Again; humans are omnivores. Past, present, and in the future.

Not sure if you're having a little joke with me, but the word you want there is 'duly'. Dually is funny though, in the context of we two. As to opinions, well, we all know what those are like. I seriously doubt this discussion is proof of little more than that we think, therefore we argue.

Now whether or not you actually use these terms in a reply, your using them here as you do makes clear that not only do you hold these classifications in your mind, but that you find the meaning of 'fool' germane in posting. Granted you can't force a person into acceptance of an argument, but you can certainly achieve the outcome by persuasive arguments in select cases. While common [mis]usage has given 'ignorant' the same implication as 'stupid', the meanings are quite different. An ignorant person lacks understanding, information, knowledge, or education but these deficits can be remedied. A stupid person on the other hand lacks the ability to learn and remediation is to no avail. I would say they 'may' change, moreover a personal limit is just that, a limit. As I said above, there is no remediation for stupid. In the case of this forum, the choice to leave is often not up to those who don't, won't, or can't learn as evidenced by the banned/suspended thread used by the staff. While I think that thread is a good idea, in the vein of this thread it is anything but impersonal. My comments above cover the way you used 'those' words. As to realized intent, if you mean that everyone understands when a poster pretties up a criticism with eupehemisms and indirect terminology that the criticism is actually directed at the person, then I conditionally agree. The Emperor has no clothes and all that. I said 'conditionally' because stupid readers do not understand such nuanced prettifications. As I said early on to Phi, I don't envy the position of staff members in having to make determinations on what is or is not crossing the line. As I am given to occasional hyperbole and per se direct address myself, I resolve to give future responses more consideration. Not to indulge the sensitivities of those stupid morons that I may direct my responses to, but to lighten the burden of those who graciously volunteer to moderate. After all, not only do I enjoy lipsticking pigs, I'm good at it.

While there is a valid philosophical argument to considering 1 a Prime, there is a much greater set of practical arguments to not consider it so. That all numbers stem from Unity is the very basis of number theory. As do conscientious spelunkers, I roll out a ball of twine as I go. Along the way I also keep it in my mind that I am engaged in a recreational pursuit that is as much -if not more- about the journey than about the destination.

The triangles are interesting, though unlike Ulam's spiral there are many ways to construct them. (There are 8 different orientations of Ulam's spiral, but they preserve the relative positions of the primes.) Have fun and if I think of something else on the theme I'll post.

But I'm even more worried about making blanket assumptions based on "I call them as I see them". It's a horribly subjective litmus test masquerading as common man-common sense. Everyone who tells you he calls them as he sees them expects you to take that to the bank, and those checks bounce often and hard. The "way you see them" is historically inaccurate and distorted by all kinds of biases. I'm not sure I made or implied any blanket assumptions. Can you clarify that bit? Anyway, we both in this discussion are calling things the way we see them. Virtually all of us see things through a lens of bias whether that bias sharpens or blurs the image. This board has a scientific bias, so does that mean it's horribly subjective? As your title suggests, attacking an idea is sometimes inherently personal. If for example a person is asked a direct question that is germane to a discussion and the question is evaded, then it certainly seems right and fair to point that evasion out. Granted there is no necessity to say 'you're a poo-poo head question evader', but surely saying 'you evaded my question' is appropriate. There is no taking the 'personal' out of this kind of 'you' statement. Sometimes the focus of the situation is provocative dress.

But here at SFN, at least, I think we always want to preserve the difference between attacking the idea and attacking the person who had it. Something tells me we gain a lot by adhering to this, IF we can give up our urge to knock the person into the mud along with their idea. No matter how willfully ignorant that person is being. I think the policy is sound and administered well enough. It's the administering that is really at the root of your concern I think and I don't envy you for the subjective tug-of-war you have to engage in. This is why I think the personal labels are misleading and incendiary. I stole a piece of candy when I was eight, does that make me a thief? Maybe momentarily I was. But even if having a moronic idea momentarily makes me a moron, it seems unproductive to attempt argue against a temporary situation. The idea will still be moronic long after I personally have come to my senses. I had in mind before my battery drain to further comment on rehabilitated criminals, or some other such qualifier. This still doesn't change the original offense or offender, which you more-or-less acknowledge. One might say "I was stupid when I was 12" or "I was a little thief when I was 8". In the same manner one might say "I was sharp as a tack when I designed that". Ergo, my fig-is-a-fig and trough-is-a-trough, which is to say, call things the way you see them. Trying to dress things up in some pretty pretense strikes me as rather intellectually dishonest. Lipstick on a pig if you will. . The thing is, in Phi's own words one is making an attack. Regardless of the niceties employed, the person putting forward the idea under attack is going to take it personally. It's their idea and they have enough invested in it to have gone to the trouble to write it out and put it on the wall. So again, there is no separating the person from their idea from their point of view. It's theirs and it's under attack and they know it whether that attack is dispassionate (cold?), sly, or brusk. Aye, and there's the rub. The subjective balance we all must play to achieve and keep as we make determinations about the personal condition(s) of those we engage in discourse.

It's a balancing act. Context is everything and to quote some unattested writer that had Forrest Gump quoting his mother, "stupid is as stupid does". What I mean here is that it may take some time to determine if someone is simply/genuinely ignorant, or willfully ignorant, or stupid. In my humble opinion the simply ignorant and the stupid deserve a break, but not so much the willfully ignorant. It's analogous to legal action in the sense that you must invoke personhood; Jane Doe is a criminal because Jane Doe committed crime X. To be sure this is not so serious an issue as criminality and there is good reason to not have things escalate into flame wars. On the other hand there is something to be said for calling a fig a fig and a trough a trough. But we don't want hurt feelings if we unnecessarily talk about someone's fig, while on the other hand we all enjoy a chuckle at a well placed observation on someone's trough. Yup; a balancing act to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Battery low so gotta run.

You're welcome. Here's a pictorial/graphic arrangement of Primes that may convey the nature of the morass you are planning to jump into. Were there such a thing as complete knowledge of Primes, then this pattern would not be random. This link gives the construction details as well as several other spiral-themed graphs of Primes. >> Ulam spiral @ Wikipedia

You're welcome. One note on size. Given a fixed container volume, the smaller the beads the less is the volume of the interspaces. If you have the resources you might try different sizes and even a mixture of sizes. Idea: Florists often use clear marbles in vases to support floral arrangements. Mmmmmmmm....just had another thought. The beads may act as lenses and burn the leaves or stems if the setup is put in direct sunlight. Let us know how it goes.

Just to throw a Prime trivia factoid into the mix, the product of most Primes and a Perfect number is Abundant by twice the Perfect. For example, multiply the Perfect number 28 by the Prime 5. 5x28=140 Factors of 140: {1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 14, 20, 28, 35, 70, 140} Sum the factors excepting 140 itself: 1+2+4+5+7+10+14+20+28+35+70=196 Then 196-140=56 and 56=2*28. There are exceptions, such as 7x28=196. Find the factors of 196: {1, 2, 4, 7, 14, 28, 49, 98, 196} Sum those factors, excepting 196 itself: 1+2+4+7+14+28+49+98=203 Then 203-196=7 and 7≠2*28 24 is a different kind of exception here because it is Abundant by twice the Perfect 6, but it is not the product of a Perfect and Prime. Factors of 24: {1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24} Summing: 1+2+3+4+6+8+12=36 and 36-24=12 and 12=2*6. So it goes.

Mmmmmm....Anything from dying to growing into the voids and pushing the beads up and/or out. The hydraulic pressure in plants is considerable. If the plant is tightly restricted it may just stop growing and hold a stasis I suppose. The leaves do need to have air for transpiration.

Yes the earth rotation does make the West-to-East trip shorter in duration if a constant speed is maintained both ways and disregarding head/tail winds. It is only because of scheduling of flights that the trips take roughly the same time. The planes do not in reality maintain a constant speed or fly the same speed each way. You have it right except for not understanding that it is the scheduling that makes the flights more or less equal in time taken. I hope that's clear now that I have said it twice. Your 'theoretical' conceptualization is fine. No, not effectively. It is only theoretically perpetual. As the article pointed out you have to be able to actually drill the hole and you can't, you have to stop the Earth spin and you can't, and you have to disregard frictional forces of the atmosphere and you cant.

I used to culture bonsai and keeping a tree in a 'small' pot and regularly trimming its roots back will restrict stem/trunk diameter growth. The stem/trunk length/height are primarily restricted by trimming. Stunting leaves is rather more difficult, though with maples you can pick off all the first set of leaves in the Spring and it will grow a new but smaller set of leaves. (If it doesn't die that is.) Even so, if the tree is taken from the pot and planted in the ground it will resume its normal growth habit.

I'm not sure about hard-copy books but below is a link to an online source geared to youth. Besides having some general information, they have a list of other links he could follow up on including the ghost & blue crabs you mention. Crabs @ KidsConnect

You're welcome. I don't know the theoretical terminal velocity under the circumstances laid out in the article I gave. I'm sure one of the competent folks here could review those circumstances and help you calculate it. (I would quote those circumstances but the author(s) gave a restrictive copyright notice. Interested readers will have to go to the page.) That 24000mph is a mistaken speed for a jet aircraft. It would be more like 400 mph for a commercial jet. Neglecting tail-winds or head-winds and presuming a constant speed of 400mph then the East-to-West trip would take less time than the West-to-East trip. The exact difference depends on whether or not the courses are directly East/West and at what latitude(s) the flights are made.

A spark is not unusual. The motor may burn out if its voltage rating is significantly lower than 9volts. If you know what device it came from and the voltage it used, you may get some idea what to expect and whether or not a resistor is called for . If you don't know the device & its voltage, look for markings on the motor which may give the voltage rating or allow you to do a web search and find the voltage rating. Have fun!