SH3RL0CK

I had thought Social Security was peanuts compared to Medicare/Medicaid.

Riogho, it is more complicated than you make it out to be. Here are some of the things that are bothering me. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111967642552909.html The title echos one of my concerns: And further into the article: Given the above, and granting this is an op-ed peice which does have a particular political slant, I almost have to conclude that either Coleman's handlers "fixed" the election beforehand and Frankens lawyers are now cleaning it up. Or, Coleman won and now Frankens handlers are "fixing" the election. Which of these do you think is more likely? And either answer bothers me greatly.

Maybe so and maybe not, but I really don't have the expertise to know for certain. Again, to be clear, I do not have a preference in this race but I am very much in favor of clean elections as I beleive the consequences of voter fraud could be far more severe than other people might think. (As an extreme example, we could speculate on whether or not Nixon aides would have ordered the Watergate burglary had they believed his 1960 election not been stolen for Kennedy?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_presidential_election#Controversies Franken has picked up far more votes in absentee ballots, etc. than Coleman. Since the overall vote is roughly 50-50, why is it that these ballots are overwhelmingly for Franken (I would have expected a roughly 50-50 mix here as well)? Can anyone explain what it is about Franken voters such that only they incorrectly submit these (or conversely, why only these have been originally rejected)? It smells very fishy to me.

I don't really drive fast and the trains are comparable to the car speed. The difference is that I work and live on the outskirts of the metro area and the train lines only meet in the central "hub". As such, to take the train I have to go all the way in, then all the way back out as opposed to a direct path. The alternatives to connect while still on the outside portion of the metro area are taking multiple buses and/or walking which adds to the time required. I just don't have the option to take the hypotenuse of the triangle. The other problem is that one of the lines in particular has many stops, which adds to the time required.

On a personal note, I live just a short distance (easy with a bike) and I work about a block from a train station in a major U.S. city (Chicago) which incidentally has great public transportation (I would judge it to be comparable to the European and Japanese cities I have visited). However I still chose to drive to work (about 45 minutes each way) because the equivalent train commute would take around 3 hours each way (1 transfer) as the system will not take me directly. With several bus and train transfers I could potentially cut this down to about 2.5 hours . So while I would like to take the train, its very inconvenient and I'm not planing on doing so.

I don't have a horse in this race either way, but for Franken to pick up this many votes on the "recount" could it be that voter fraud is happening?

Another direction being considered is the production of bio-butanol : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol From the article: "Butanol is considered as a potential biofuel (butanol fuel). Butanol at 85 percent strength can be used in cars designed for gasoline (petrol) without any change to the engine (unlike 85% ethanol), and it contains more energy for a given volume than ethanol and almost as much as gasoline, so a vehicle using butanol would return fuel consumption more comparable to gasoline than ethanol. Butanol can also be used as a blended additive to diesel fuel to reduce soot emissions...Butanol can also be produced by fermentation of biomass by bacteria. Prior to the 1950s, Clostridium acetobutylicum was used in industrial fermentation processes producing butanol. Research in the past few decades showed results of other microorganisms that can produce butanol through fermentation." I am beginning to think this will be an even better approach than ethanol.

Reaper, Thank you for that great correlation chart! Considering the recent, drastic increase in pirates, especially in the waters around Somalia, we can look forward to an ice age within the next couple of days, or hopefully hours. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1120/p25s22-woaf.html You have proven dioxyribonuclei correct! Seriously, I think it is best to stick to real data and not conjecture. While there is a great deal of debate about specific aspects of global warming/climate change, the undeniable facts are 1) the CO2 has increased drastically in the last few decades, most likely due to the use of fossil fuels 2) this must produce some amount of warming (although the exact amount is still uncertain) 3) the earth has increased in temperature over the very recent past, most likely due to this CO2 (although the details connecting this to CO2 isn't fully understood as there are other variables we don't know how to account for yet). 4) It would be wise to reduce the emitted CO2, although no one has an idea on realistically how to do it such that a real difference would be made.

I can appreciate the problems with the manpower necessary to maintain data that apparently has no value. It is however somewhat difficult to reconcile for me in that the data storage is a very small part of the projects I am familar with. The hard part is setting up the experiment, then analyzing it later. It doesn't seem like it would be too much effort to dump the data onto a private website, but maybe there is a tremendous amount of old data in obsolete formats that would have to be manually converted before sharing. Or maybe, as you alluded to, the data has been discarded. While this is certainly a possibliltiy, especially if the information isn't there, then this should be stated as the explaination as to why someone can't have it. But at the very least, the reasons as to why the data was lost might certainly be useful to someone trying to duplicate/verify/extend the work that was done so that they might possibly avoid the same loss of data. Interesting...where I work we are not permitted to discard any data, even if we know the results are incorrect. We must instead provide the reason for the incorrect data (even something as simple as a thermocouple becoming disconnected from a sample during the test) into the records and store the data. Of course, this test would be repeated to get the correct results which would be in the formal report, but the erronous data is always available, even when it is meaningless.

It would seem to me to be reasonable to still present the information with the disclaimer that the data is bad because of whatever happened, and provide as much details on this as possible. Perhaps someone else might be able to salvage the data where the original researchers did not have the expertise to do so. Perhaps other researchers trying to duplicate, or expand, the test results would then be able to avoid mistakes and therefore provide a more complete dataset. If the goal is truely science, then all the information should be available for further research, even data that appears "bad". My point is that even it appears that no conclusions can be drawn from the data, that isn't necessarily the case. And even if it is true that the data cannot be used to draw conclusions, the data could still have value. iNow, do we know whether or not this information has been requested by any bonafide scientist? It would seem to me to be logical for a researcher to reply to a legitimate request for data, "absolutely you can have it, but it is not valid data because..." I'm not trying to question the motives of anyone here, but it bothers me when scientists do these kinds of things. It does gives the appearance of falsifying the data by cherry picking the results. This, in my opinion, is more damaging in the public eye than whatever mudslinging might be caused by those pushing an agenda as that is usually self-evident.

Being a citizen of the USA and having traveled to many places overseas, I'd have to say it is pretty good in America. As the culture of other places are different, I would want to stay in the USA as I would feel out of place elsewhere. But if I had to leave I would pick Australia first. I'd also have to strongly consider New Zealand (though I've never been) and Canada. I'm not very good with other languages (though I seem to get by when visiting), so an English speaking country would be important.

Is Greed really the basis of capitalism? I always thought capitalism was really more about free-markets as compared to controlled markets such as happens in communism. Certainly, there is a very considerable amount of greed in a communistic or socialist market as well. One can be ambitous (a capitalistic trait) without being greedy. Or thrifty without being cheap. Or hard-working without becoming a slave driver. But I do agree with you that for far too long the greed that was rampant was not addressed as it should have been. First, people who could not afford the homes (or the large screen TV with a home equity loan) they bought should not have been greedy and "stretched" their budget. Or outright lied about their finances. Bankers should never have loaned money to people who they knew couldn't pay. These subprime mortgages should not have been bought by investment firms looking for high yield returns. And so on... All of these bad choices were because someone wanted just a little bit more. The homeowner wanted the larger house (or big screen TV). The banker wanted the closing fees. The investment firm wanted high yielding, even unrealistic returns. The government and both political parties wanted a good economy. Everyone was greedy and so were blind to the economic hardships that would happen when the homeowner, and therefore the banker, investment firm and perhaps very soon the federal government, would be unable to pay their debts.

Umm...how exactly is wool not a similar trait? (FYI, I was unable to open the link you provided, so if there is an explaination there, I would appreciate if you could summarize here).

Greed. Greed caused this financial crisis.

So then what happens when the universe becomes 46 billion years old? (Actually, since the universe is expanding, when the age of the universe equals the distance across at the speed of light)? Or, given that the universe expansion rate is increasing, would this ever happen? Sorry, my math isn't good enough to calculate this by myself...I'm not even sure this calculation is possible given how little we know about "dark energy" driving the expansion of the universe.

PC, If this were to be graded in a debate class, I am sorry to say that you would have failed. Granted, I am not a debate teacher, but it is clear to me which side is best supported, most logical, and most reasonable. Don't take this as a personal attack (it isn't meant to be - I am actually trying to help you here) but you have done nothing to bring me to your position. Consider the following: 1) A severe lack of supporting documentation. And even the few links you have provided don't back up your statements well. Those presenting the other side of the arguement, on the other hand, have provided a great number of excellent references which strongly support their position. It is fine to argue without references on the basis of logic, but this becomes weak if the other position is supported by good references...as is the case in this thread. 2) You do not stay on topic. As I understand it, your position is that this testing is both unnecessary and ethically wrong. But rather than back up this position, you seem to be spending time and effort in discrediting the other position. If you really had a valid point, you could defend your position and even use your opponents references to support your claims. 3) Your posts are exceedingly long...so much so that I do not have time to read them. As such, if you had done #1 and #2 above (which as far as I can tell you have NOT), I might have missed it. In fact, I am beginning to think you don't have a point and are instead trying to make up with quantity your lack of quality. Mostly because of the time required, but also because it seems to me this thread isn't a productive debate (only one side is reasonable, logical, supported by science, etc.) I really don't want to read anymore.

Why not consider doing both? Its been a while since I was in college getting my BSEE and MSEE (early 90's) but at my school at that time one could get both with only one extra semester of work. I personally decided not to do this as I do not like programming, but if you enjoy it then you should look into this.

Biofuels have great promise, but also they seem to be controversial. There are claims that their use is a choice between food (corn) and fuel (ethanol) although this isn't true for several reasons. 1) The ethanol produced from corn has, as a by product, "distillers grain" which retains most of the food value of the original corn (up to 91% dietary equivalent). http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/overview.htm from the article: "yielding a DE [dietary equivalent] value that is approximately 91% of that found in corn. " 2) As noted by entropy, it can be produced from any cellulosic source, including garbage. As such, there is no food vs. fuel controversy here. When these facilities start coming on-line at an industrial scale, its going to have a big impact on both our fuel (get ready for more E-85) and waste industries. Theres been quite a bit of discussion on these and other controversies in previous threads such as: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32479&highlight=ethanol&page=2

Perhaps PC has some legit links with hard scientific data to attempt to backup the claims PC has made? Considering the wealth of great links provided by those with a differing viewpoint, (s)he will definitely need A LOT of HIGH quality references to even begin to legitimately backup his/her claims. Many thanks for the great work by lucaspa, Sayonora, et al (there are really too many contributors here I should credit) for their time in this link.

If you are trying to "educate", then you should provide valid links to backup your statements. These links should be credentialed, respected, peer-reviewed, and relatively recent scientific sources, not a PETA blogger. If you are trying to propagandize without a supported arguement, then carry on as you are, although I don't think many people here will agree with you.

SL, I have a serious question for you. Since you seem to be very intent on reducing suicides, and since it is not in your power to ban guns, what other steps have you personally taken to address this issue? Any work as a conselor, or hot-line operator? What research have you done regarding causes and solutions to this problem, other than what is related to handguns? Can you tell me what "trigger" events tend to cause people to attempt suicide? What are some warning signs of people who may be suicidal? Where can I find resources to help friends and family who may be suicidal? I think this information would be more useful in this forum, than endless disagreements on gun laws. And for the record, I agree (along with most of the posters here) that elimination of guns won't solve the problem of people committing suicide.

I'm confused, natural gas is primarily CH4. How do we get He from this?

Nan, The other consideration that you are overlooking is the incredible medical benefits that can come from these experiments. I don't like the saying that the ends justify the means, but I think it can be true regarding animal experiments.

Plastic is so very versatile, I doubt any single product could replace it. However, a multitude of products could certainly do so, albeit at a higher price. Aluminum cans or glass would replace it for soft drink containers, for example. However, I wouldn't want to replace plastics with a solution which is less green...

I certainly would if it were known. But that is part of my point, no one really understands global warming. We know the climate has warmed, we suspect this is at least partially due to increased CO2. Beyond this is no longer science but speculation. I'm getting tired as well. I'm not disputing science, but I'm not accepting claims which are not proven either. Agreed, On both sides of the GW debate! This is EXACTLY why we need the science to be absolutely correct. When did I ever say it wasn't happening? I am questioning things like how much warming? how much due to CO2? how much due to other things? If due to other things, what things and why? what will the consequences of GW be? what can/should we do about it? The answers to these questions are not known for certain and the estimates from all the experts are all over the map. Let's be generous and say those who don't want to ask these questions are passionate iNow, I haven't looked at your video yet, I will take a look at your link when I get some time.