layman77

No, take a look at this one http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=L3ScJ5FZTYrQyQHcf5Ljy1r29qWGDXSzfVQK8M6Fhl450jP1JkdB!1521901969?docId=5000287889 As far as I know, there is no law stating you must discipline your children. There are plenty of spoiled children, mainly Rich ones that are now adults, Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, etc. But there is nothing that say you must discipline them, not that I approve of not doing so, but it doesn't mean you have to hit them. You're missing the point. Yes, we are mammals and have the same physical characteristics. We have hair, sweat glands, three middle ear bones, but one thing makes us more distinct then animals, our reasoning abilities. Animals leave their extrement wherever they care to, eat their meat raw, and eat carrion sometimes, getting rabies. To claim that it's ok to hit kids because animals do it is crazy. Do you use the same justification for eating your meat raw because animals don't, there's a chance you won't get worms or salmonella from doing it does that make it perfectly safe? Take a look at this, sometimes animals rape HUMANS: http://faithallen.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/recovering-from-childhood-animal-rape/ Actually, no. Note the distinction between man-made and natural objects, which is often pointed out. There's no way, without human intervention that all the metal and uranium and other materials will assemble themselves into a nuclear power plant. It requires human intervention. Likewise, when lightning hits a tree and starts a fire, that's natural, it doesn't require humans at all to make it happen. But, when a human flicks a cigarette into the brush and starts a fire that isn't natural, because it requires a human to make a cig and light it, it wouldn't have happened without humans to do it. "Leverage your physical dominance to take charge" What a great way to parent, scare them into it. How about explaining the dangers and why they shouldn't do it, perhaps even showing them why and how serious it is, instead of hitting them and hoping they'll understand

Well, in this case I mean race with regard to biology. Strictly speaking, there are only 3 races of humans, Caucasoids (whites), Negroids (Blacks) and Mongloids (asians and people from Polynesia and North and South America)

We aren't animals. Animals also regularly kill and rape each other, should we permit that too? Just because it happens in nature doesn't mean humans should practice it. Mammals also, without training, regularly dump their bodily wastes anywhere it's convenient. We should use our highly evolved brains to think of better solutions, rather than going on instinct.

Well black people either have more melanocytes in their skin or they produce more melanin. That's genetic isn't it?

Since when does yelling cause physical pain? Do you have evidence not hitting your kids would make them drug addicts? Kids usually try drugs because of peer pressure. I don't care what your soul says, provide some evidence it fosters good children, studies show it's more likely to make them abusive, whether it's beating or hitting. See this: http://www.stophitting.com/disathome/effectsOfCP.php There are already some in some countries. It would be helpful to examine the prison population. In the 70's and generally before that parents were big on corporal punishment, how many kids who grew up then are in jail right now? Did hitting them make them better people? If so, why are they in prison? See this also http://www.naturalchild.org/research/corporal_punishment.html

Does anyone know what genes determine say, whether a person will be black or white if the child has a black father and white mother? Or Melado?

I agree, but why do so many parents not get it? Well, technically, by american law, assault is the threat or implication of physical harm, battery is actual doing of it. It's going to keep happening until it's outlawed, which it isn't yet. Apparently not to the lots of parents who do it, and approve of it. That say "It made me a better person and my kids need it to." As far as I know there are no laws that say you can't hit your child in my country, there are certain things you can't do. You can spank them with your hand. You can't pull them by the hair, or hit them with an object such as a frying pan, but you be able to with a belt, switch or fly swatter. Is hasn't been completely banned in the US in other countries, and many parents are of the opinion that it fosters good children. This also brings up another issue. Do you think it's sexual abuse to insist your child kisses or hugs you or his grandma or anyone else? I definitely think so, and growing up I told my father not to and he still would.

I wasn't really sure if they are chemicals or not, but I was told in science that ionic bonds, by definition do not make a molecule.

I'd have to dig up some research, but I've heard that hitting your kids is more likely just to make them abusive later in life. Now, don't get me wrong the kid can turn out good if he gets hit when he's a child. I got hit until I was around 13. But, you can also be a lifelong cigarette smoker and die at ripe old age. It's definitely not guaranteed you will die early but it definitely increases the chance of you getting lung/throat/mouth cancer/ephysema, etc. You can also run across the highway at rush hour and not get by a car, but that doesn't mean it's perfectly safe, it's just means you were lucky. What about the same principle we apply to crimes, the punishment should fit the crime, I know someone who only hits his kids if they hit someone else.

Doesn't look like we have a logic/morality forum, but I wanted to bring this up. What do you think of it? Some countries have completely banned corporal punishment of kids by their parents, such as Norway. And, some other countries like Kenya and the Dominican Republic think is it a perfectly acceptable practice which fosters good well disciplined/well behaved children. While some agree that there is a certain degree that you shouldn't hurt your kids too (such as giving them bruises and broken bones) some believe that any form of hitting your kids is total child abuse. I was in one class where a girl was talking about how in the Dominican Republic they lack emergency phone numbers, and your parents can hit you even if you are adult. She cited one example of how a small child in the united states where she was living with his mother from the Dominican Republic stole a piece of candy and was hit by his mother over 50 times, and that they tried to call the police, but for some reason (I don't quite remember) she wasn't arrested. I don't care if he literally burned the house down, any woman who does that should receive a 10 year sentence if you ask me. What about studies done it? While a lot of parents agree that beating your kids would cause them to be abusive later in life, they say some physical discipline is ok. Ever hear of Richard Kuklinski, the mafia hit man? He received regular beatings when he was a kid, and actually his father he beat one of his siblings so badly he died and told the police that he fell down the stairs. Richard died a few years ago, but he was in jail for multiple life sentences and freely admits to have killed over 100 people. While I agree what his father did was total child abuse, what about hitting them at all? Is there any reason at all to hit your kids? Why can't you just take away their privileges/give them timeout/ground them. In worse case scenario's call the police, unless of course they try to stab you or something, in which case defend yourself, but that is unlikely when they are 4 to 16 years old. And, if you catch your child smoking pot in his room when he is 16-18 and he tells you to screw, you've already failed as a parent and didn't raise them correctly. With these studies, how do they rule out that the reason the child is abuse is because he was hit earlier in his life? What if say he gets into an argument and beats someone brutually, how do they know that being hit as a child was the cause? What if he had a fight with his girlfriend, or someone he loved died, or he got fired from work, or is it debt to the bank, his car got repossessed or he got kicked out of his apartment, how can they narrow it down to just getting as a kid that was caused him/her to be violent?

Probably the simplest question on chemistry you could ask, but why do so many definitions use the word in the very definition itself? You can't use the same word to describe a word! For example, this definition from dictionary.com chem·i·cal Audio Help /ˈkɛmɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kem-i-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a substance produced by or used in a chemical process. 2. chemicals, Slang. narcotic or mind-altering drugs or substances. –adjective 3. of, used in, produced by, or concerned with chemistry or chemicals: a chemical formula; chemical agents. 4. used in chemical warfare: chemical weapons. Well, yeah, but what's a chemical process? How am I supposed to know what a chemical process is if I can't find out what a chemical is? This assumes you already know what it is. Strictly speaking, what is the definition of chemical? Is it basically any molecule where the atoms are connected by covalent bonds? Hydrogen Peroxide would be a chemical, Water H20 would be a chemical. But salt, sodium chloride would not be a chemical because it is bonded by an ionic rather than covalent bond, and an Ionic bond doesn't make a molecule, only covalent ones do, nor would atoms connected to each other in a piece of pure iron by sharing electrons be a chemical, for reasons I'm not aware.

I read this 5 years ago now. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/flying-car.htm They say within the next decade, and this is something I've always been looking forward to. Realistically though, what about it's fuel requirements? Not only do you have to power it's systems so it can move in the normal two dimensions a land car would have to, but you also have to contend with gravity and keep it above the ground. We don't even have self driving cars now (at least they aren't readily available at local dealer as far as I know) They have the parachute as a failsafe, surprised they don't have anything else, like a system which will automatically land the car before you run out of fuel, or just plain tell you that you don't have enough gas to get to your destination.

What kind of things are problematic for a 3D printer? First it would need the right elements, say silicon, etc for making transistors, what about running wires in whatever you are trying to make, making them in all three dimensions.

1. Gasoline powered cars- Use refined oil to make gasoline. Chemical reaction between the gasoline and oxygen pushes the pistons. Their advantages are it's already been done for you, you need to just refine the oil. The disadvantages are oil is a non-renewable resource that we will eventually run out of, and it causes lots of pollution. 2. Biodiesel powered cars: gas can be derived/made from crops. And is less polluting than gasoline. But, we'd need a lot of space to grow the crops as well as well as chemically change it so it can be used as fuel. 3. Hydrogen powered: Uses a chemical reaction between hydrogen and Oxygen to propel the pistons. It would require us to electrolysize water which takes lots of energy to split, but it produces no pollution other than water. Unless you are using a zero emissions power plant, like hydroelectric, solar, or safe nuclear you'd be creating pollution to make the hydrogen. Also, what about other chemicals you could use to power a car? Could you use Ammonia or Methane? Say, if there was a system that could refine your excrement and take the methane out of it to put in your car? I'm guessing you wouldn't get enough to go very far though. 4. Compressed Air powered Vehicle: Uses compressed air to push the pistons, usually requires a large fuel tank though. I saw one today on a documentary. The car was mostly made of aluminum because it is lightweight. The engine could also be much smaller, and is only warm to the touch when the car is running 5. Electric- no emissions, runs silent, slow to charge. Same thing as with hydrogen, you'd need a clean power plant to make it. 6. Solar- uses solar panels to gather sunlight and make electricity. I've heard though that solar panels don't capture all the energy you get from the sun, only some of it, not sure what light spectrum they capture. That they are working on making more efficient ones. Could you have it so that it's always charging even when you aren't driving it. Maybe you could even have enough for your car to last through the night until the next day. I thought of other types of hybrids too. What how would a solar/hydrogen hybrid work in terms of performance and gas mileage?

But how long does it take to recharge? That's one of the reasons people don't want an electric car. And, what if you were nowhere near home, staying at a motel/hotel/friend's house? Electric Cars are a good concept, but as far as reducing pollution is concerned, you'd be shifting it to the power plants, unless they are hydroelectric, nuclear or solar. I was watching a documentary today that said 40% of the US (or the world's, can't remember) power comes from coal.

Could you give me a link or two to a thread? I tried doing a few searches today on this forum, didn't find any.

What about using a zero pollution renewable resource to electrolysize the water? Solar plants would work, as long as there is sunlight. Nuclear (I'd use pebble bed reactors though) is a non-renewable resource but lasts a very long time, and hydroelectric, like the hoover dam, but to split the water rather than producing energy, would work as long as there is gravity.

Thermal radiation is when photons are emitted from the electrons dumping their extra energy, what if no electrons in your body were producing extra energy to emit. Contrary to popular belief, Infrared is not heat exactly, heat is just the electrons moving faster due to an energy increase.

Well, there are some things I don't understand about them. How do they get better mileage and cost you less? Take a gas/electric hybrid for example. What is the advantage of having both types of fuel in your car? To refuel it wouldn't you have to both charge the battery AND fill the gas tank? If both were used, you were using half and half wouldn't the be equivalent to a pure gas or pure electric car? There must be something I'm not getting here. And, there this site http://www.runyourcaronwater.com, are these HHO/gasoline hybrids for real? I just spent about half an hour looking (through my firefox history) for this youtube video that I saw earlier tonight of someone refueling and only spending a dollar and some cents for gas. When do you have to put more water in it? I'm wondering if they have solar/water hybrids. No need for gas if it works.

This is what I've been wondering. I got some answers from this web page http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=741 But, there are some other things I'm wondering about. It says you won't freeze immediately in space because of the vacuum, but why would you freeze at all? I thought vacuum is basically the ultimate insulator. Heat always moves from something hotter to something colder, but if there's nothing for it to move to, there's nowhere for the heat to go and it would stay hot. I can also see why something could get hotter because it is exposed directly to the sun's rays, but wouldn't that depend on how far away you are from it? Why is it that there are cold things in space, like how on Pluto the ice is a lot colder and harder than granite, assuming something can't get colder in space? I'd understand that it's far out and doesn't get much or any sunlight, but it can't have retained all the heat it's always had, otherwise it wouldn't be cold. Also, wouldn't the vaccum make your lungs collapse, or at least take all the gases out of them? Gases fill the volume of their container, and vacuum "sucks" it into itself, so wouldn't it take the air right out of your skin, mouth nose and any other body openings, causing your internal spaces to collapse?