SH3RL0CK

You are correct, certainly there would be no influence as long as the atomic structure of the nucleous did not change. Most radioactive elements have a reasonably long half-life so that the vast majority of the atoms in a sample does not change appreciably. However, the production of the radiation is associated with changes in the nuclear structure. So when an atom gives off, say an alpha particle (which is a helium nucleus), the atomic structure is changed and therefore the electon shells must change as well. This requires any chemical bonding associated with that atom to change as well.

This doesn't seem entirely correct to me. Wouldn't a change in the number of protrons in the nucleus via alpha particle change the number of electrons in the shell? As such, couldn't Uranium oxide, for example, turn into another element which require a different chemical structure for the oxide? Or possibly the production of Radon (a noble gas) and free oxygen? Since the Uranium is diluted by the oxygen, and therefore in a given volume or mass there is less Uranium, I would suspect the radioactivity to be somewhat less.

Very well said. We cannot ignore ethics. In addition to ethical and moral limits, science is also limited by funding. I 'm not sure if science has sufficient funding (IMO it does not), but this situation isn't going to change in my lifetime. There simply isn't (and will never be) enough money to fund all the possible research available and we must decide which projects are more worthy of funding than others. Another current limitation is the lack of quality researchers. People who really, really understand certain fields and can therefore advance the scientific knowledge base are quite rare for lots of reasons and throwing money towards research won't help without the right people working. As with the money, I don't expect this to change in my lifetime. In both of these, I think it is right to have limits. If everyone were scientific researchers with unlimited funds the world would be lacking in other things which (in addition to knowledge) give life meaning and prupose. There is much more to life than simply knowledge, there must be a good balance.

I still don't buy that a larger sample size will reduce a bias if the selection method is inherently biased. If I survey the Boston Celtics, I suspect a very large percentage of them are capable of slam-dunking a basketball. Were I to expand that to the entire NBA, I'd probably get the same percentage. Even expanding to all of professional and college basketball might not reduce the percentage that much. It wouldn't be until my sample size exceeded the boundaries of the possible bias (there are not 50,000 people in professional and college basketball programs) that I could find a more "correct" percentage of people who could slam-dunk a basketball. Keeping only to an internet survey might be the equivalent of asking only NBA players if they could slam-dunk as there are definite biases in the demographics of internet users. However, one other item I thought of after I posted was that she might well be doing other surveys as well (i.e. non-internet based). It would be the total work involved that goes into her report, of which only one datapoint, possibly only for supporting evidence, might be this internet survey. As such, the problems of nonrepresentative sampling, unverified qualifications of participants, duplicate responses, jokers, etc. might not impact the entirety of the study in a significant manner.

iNow, that does not make sense to me. If by increasing population size she increases the "insincere participants" as well, then a larger population size won't wash out insincere results. In fact, I tend to believe a larger population size via the internet is more likely to add jokers in the mix than not. I do suspect the original poster is not necessarily being "sincere" herself in that if I were to try a survey, the last place I would go would be an anonymous internet forum. I can't imagine how I could possibly screen for sex and sexual preference (as she explicitly requested) let alone account for other possible factors such as age, marital status, education status, etc. I admit, I'm cynical. I suppose it is possible that she might have ways to do such (at least sufficiently for her purposes) as I don't know enough about social sciences to say for certain. I'd be most interested in how she plans on shipping the promised crate of beer to the winners in, say, Nigeria. I do not consider it out of the question that the study might be about something other than the "relative attractiveness of faces"...or maybe this is actually spam disguised as a legitimate study. But I'm also not interested enough to click on the link.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/04/budget_battle_r.html I am looking forward to the details when they become available; though I still belief in my previous statement that all government budgets are artificial "wish lists" and have little bearing on the actual financials of the government. Not that this matters, the Democrats are currently running the show and until their unity breaks and/or poll numbers drop significantly (both of which will almost certainly happen at some point...) they will be pushing their agenda without any inclination for compromise.

I understand the problems of funding...maybe Laura would be willing to come back and explain how she intends to account for possible bias due to the fact she is using the internet for the survey? Were there any attempts to screen the participants so that they took the survey only once? Were there any attempts to screen the participants so that they were who they claimed to be (hetero males)? etc., etc... It would be even better for her to come back later with the results of her work (perhaps after it has been graded)?

Considering how BOTH parties spend, spend, and spend some more, what is the point of a budget which will not be even remotely close to the actual financials at the end of it all? I, for one, commend the Republicans for at least being honest and clearly stating by their actions that Congress (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) has lost all financial restraint.

where is your evidence to support this? Many newspapers and journals are currently going bankrupt. See for example: http://tech.yahoo.com/news/afp/20090331/tc_afp/usmediaindustrynewspapersinternetsuntimeslead_20090331161650 "Chicago Sun-Times owner files for bankruptcy (AFP)" Yeah, I know this isn't exactly a technical journal...but you get my point. I could easily find examples of extinct technical magazines (since some I had subscribed once to are now gone). there are lots of ways to do this without violating copywrite laws. This is what libraries are for. Most universities have excellent libraries.

I haven't taken a look at the pics (and I won't for lots of reasons) but from the sounds of the above, perhaps the study should be about peoples reactions to broken javascript instead? That might make more sense anyway, IMHO, as there is no way to analyze the people viewing the website in depth. How could the researchers determine if the viewers were actually who they say they are, for example? or that they were serious in their responses? Not meaning to be critical as I don't understand social sciences very well, but doesn't not knowing your participants make any conclusions...questionable?

Of course these motivations are why so many people do enter these fields. In fact, I really do enjoy the work I do. And a science career isn't a bad career IMO...but my point is that there is a practical side to be considered as well. Why work so very hard for almost no pay in the hopes that you might land one of the very few decent paying positions? Instead, I suspect some people are chosing to work hard for a degree that will pay well and/or doesn't require as much work. The motivation would be, of course, to do be able to do something you would enjoy such as travel the world (with the extra money) or go fishing (with the extra time).

I would think that at least a small amount of heat is added by tidal forces caused by the sun and moon as well.

Why should women (or men for that matter) go into science, when the big money is in other fields? Society rewards the actors, CEO's, athletes, etc. much more than scientists in terms of pay, respect, working conditions, etc. What scientist ever got a million dollar or more bonus from a company needing hundreds of billions of dollars from the government just to survive?

Umm...there have been different color choices available for kitchen appliances for decades. Surely you recall the horrific Avacado green and Harvest gold from the 70's and 80's? Today, as then, there are many color choices available. Although most people chose white for appliances, but if people are willing to pay they can get the appliances any color they want (and if not, a can of paint will do ). See for example Home Depot: http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Navigation?Ntk=AllProps&N=10000003+90401+502371&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053&langId=-1 where there are at least eight different choices of color provided for the applicances: Beige/Bisque , Black, Gray, "other", Red/Orange, Stainless, Stainless Look, and of course, White. Or how about Sears: http://www.sears.com/shc/s/s_10153_12605_Appliances_Refrigerators_Side-by-Side#viewItems=21&pageNum=1&sortOption=ORIGINAL_SORT_ORDER&&filter=Cubic+Feet|Bigger+(22.0+-+25.5+cu.+ft.)&lastFilter=Cubic+Feet where the color choices are black, metallic, off-white (biscuit, bisque), stainless steel and white. Anyway, I'd suggest to these legislators that they pick the low hanging fruit first, so that the efficiency gains are more significant. These would be "smart" traffic lights (so fuel isn't wasted at a Red light when no one is coming the other way), higher efficiency standards on cars, lower speed limits, better mass transportation, etc.

I, for one, am glad that some of the executives are resigning (though I would prefer them to be fired). To me, the problem isn't about the bonuses but rather the incompentence and greed of these people. I also do have a problem with the high salaries/bonuses as I cannot imagine just how these people are worth this much money since a baboon could do just as well. How could I get a job like this? I could have done much better by simply doing almost nothing. But then, I've never been able to waste more than $10-20 at any given time...these guys can spend Billions with nothing to show for it. I still say the gov't, which now owns 80% of AIG, should clean house and hire totally new people to do this job (and at a more reasonable salary..maybe cap it at $200k for executives and $100k for middle managers). As a sidenote, I still cannot understand why an employment contract would provide a guaranteed bonus regardless of overall company performance (such has never been offered at any place I have worked...so I question watiforufos statement that it is a normal part of business). Isn't a guaranteed payout regardless of company performance as long as you are employed there called a salary?

The net energy gain depends on who you ask. Most credible sources seem to indicate an EROEI of about 1.8; meaning that for every 1 unit of energy expended, 1.8 units are recovered. But also keep in mind that the EROEI isn't necessarily the best measure of the usefulness of corn as a biofuel. For example, after the ethanol is obtained, the "distillers grain" or remnants can still be fed to livestock as is 91% dietary equivalent of straight corn. In other words, we would have grown the corn anyway to feed our cattle. Another point to consider is that if we have abundant and cheap solar, wind or other energy sources (just not in a liquid fuel form and because of our infrastructure it is necessary to supply liquid fuels to run our cars), then even a dreadful EROEI might not be bad. Consider a hypothetical example where electricity is so plentiful it is free. Then the EI part costs nothing...and the cost of the ethanol fuel might be extremely cheap even with very poor EROEI...so much so that it might replace other sources of liquid fuel with a much better EROEI (it is the price at the pump that matters to the consumer). I'd suggest you do a search for this as there have been many useful threads on this topic within these forums.

CP, If the $26000 just disappeared, you would not be hearing about it as it wouldn't have been entered into any police records (unless of course you were a building contractor and a police officer starts building a new addition on his house). Once it is in the police records, that would actually be better than a receipt insofar as establishing where the money now in the possession of the police department came from. Seriously, what would keep the officer from taking the money for himself and saying nothing...no police report filed?? Now I'm not so naive to believe that the money was obtained legally (though it could have been), it is much more likely that it was stolen, or drug-related cash. Which only makes the possibility of corruption more likely as the drug dealer might be more than happy to let the money go (if its not too much) in exchange for no police record (or a lesser police record such as trespassing).

However, AIG was certainly not obligated to award then regardless of how well any particular individual at the company did. And certainly any reasonable employee would/should understand that a company going through financial difficulties (such as AIG) might not award a bonus regardless of how well the individual did. I'm strongly in the "fire them all" camp not because they received bonuses. Its because they clearly are incompetent, having caused AIG to fail. IF they were the "best and brightest" as they claim, then wouldn't the company have suceeded instead? Seriously, could baboons have done any worse? Baboons at least would not be as arrogant. Now I can't make a blanket statement for all of them, but certainly I can generalize as only one bad manager could not possibly have caused this level of failure. Another sign of incompetence: what kind of manager hires other managers with guaranteed bonuses regardless of the overall company financials? That seems pretty stupid to me. You should instead set a goal for that individual and promise any bonus should the overall company financials permit it . I work for a company where the management doesn't claim to be the best and brightest and its in pretty good financial shape, all things considered. I do not believe it to be a systematic failure of the banking system because my neighbor is a bank president (for a small local bank) and they are in decent financial shape, despite the problems with the economy. Yes, times are not as good as they were, but the bank isn't going to go under. I really think congress should fire the AIG management team and hire him instead. He's probably paid well, but certainly not nearly what the management team at AIG was getting paid. And based on performance, he would certainly deserve better pay than them.

This is really beside the point of my original question which was: However, to address you point, business ALREADY have a say in what I do in my "free" time. If I do drugs, that is grounds for being fired. If I were to be convicted of a felony, I could be fired. I could be fired, or at least suspended, should I be even accused of a felony. My health insurance costs may go up if I am a smoker. The list goes on and on. And I don't agree that there must, in all cases, be written agreement to any and all restrictions, after all credit cards can and do change their terms and conditions effective immediately and without notice. Additionally, the terms of a contract do not necessarily overide local, state, and federal laws which may be applicable.

Legally, unfortunately, that is true and in a court of law I think AIG would prevail. However, ethically it is very wrong. A contract certainly cannot anticipate all the ingenious ways a shady character could twist the law. As a case in point, I once heard a story (I beleive it to be true) where a President was promised (by contract) a large bonus if he could reduce the warehouse storage costs for the company. He did so by putting all the merchandise on trucks and constantly shipping them back and forth...the warehouse cost goal was met, but the shipping costs were astronomical. He was fired, but in the end (after a long legal battle) he did receive his bonus. Do you think the shareholders and board should have anticipated this, and any other possibility in the contract? At some point you should be able to enfore the "intent" of the contract, not just the specific wording. I would say it is time the shareholders (80% owned by the US government) should outright fire certain executives at AIG. I would not be opposed to heavily taxing their bonuses and other unusual "perks" either when its value increases above some debatable income level.

That image absolutely did not make the surface area requirements clear to me. First, I must assume the number of people are the same, though I'm not sure that is entirely true (I think I count more cars than bicycles, but its really difficult for me to determine for certain). That the picture is framed such that the cars go right to the edge gives the probably mistaken impression that the line of cars continues beyond the picture. The picture for the bus and bikes show the horizon unlike the picture for the cars, giving the impression that there are fewer of them than there actually are. Also, the people are not standing in the exact same place in each picture giving different images of the background, further making comparisons difficult to me. But more importantly, the images are at different scales (notice the people and the road are not the same apparent size). If you were to scale the pictures to where the people and road are the same size, the space used by the cars, while still more than for the bus or bicycles, isn't as much more as appears at first glance. In short, I don't believe everything I see and neither should you (although I do agree with the underlying premise despite the apparently intentional bias of the photographer). Is it possible to dig up actual data? How many people/how much area is necessary for each?

The laser can't really hurt anyone immediately if it can only be pointed into space whereas a kinetic impactor could be launched into a sub-orbit to crash on a city within a few minutes time. But then, this technology has already existed for a long time. Both have the potential, in the wrong hands, to alter the trajectory of an asteroid such that it could land on a city. Hopefully, there would be sufficient time to respond and move the asteroid away should this unfortunate event happen. If we want to develop the abillity to harness these technologies for good purposes (i.e. saving the earth), then we need to accept the challenges of preventing its use for harm. I'm not of the opinion that we should not develop technology because it "might" harm others, as long as it also has potential to help others as well.

Fixed...I'm sure you meant "could" and not "had to"

Buying products that "can" be recycled does nothing if these are not actually recycled. A very large portion of the recycleable material consumed winds up in landfills. While not much is mentioned of this, I would bet a very large portion of the items I put in the "recycle" barrel doesn't get recycled as many people think they do. As IA pointed out, recycling is often more expensive than virgin material, and there are lots of other reasons not to do so (reduced quality of product, possible contaminats, questions regarding health, etc.).

Well, you have to understand that bankers are far more important that engineers in our society. As are actors, athletes, and many other professions. Society can do without engineers and scientists, but without athletes it would not functions. Likewise, how could ING perform as well as it did unless the very top talent was hired and retained by appropriate pay. This is why the pay scale is the way it is. [/end sarcasm]