Greg H.

There are two basic reasons people seek medical advice on the internet. 1. They think they may be sick/afflicted with some condition. 2. They want more information about a condition they either have, or know someone who does. On scenario #1, the internet is the absolute worst place to try and get accurate information. Symptoms of various medical conditions can often overlap, and self diagnosis is playing with fire. I honestly wish WebMD had never created their stupid symptom checker. If you plug in fever (99-101), chills and cough you get everything from the common flu to Meningitis. Oh and Anthrax inhalation. However, I use scenario #2 quite frequently. I was recently diagnosed with hypothyroidism, and given pills for it. I wanted to know if there were more effective treatments, and what the effects of the condition were, so I read up on it. In this case, the internet (using reputable sources), saves me time spent at the doctors office, or trying to hunt down the information in a library somewhere, and it lets better arm myself with directed questions for my doctor when I see him next.

What kills me is that this should have been settled by the full faith and credit clause (the same clause that makes sure states recognize things like legal judgements and traditional marriages from other states) . Once they're legal in one state, the other states should have to recognize them, even if they don't allow them to take place within their borders. However, just as with interracial marriages in the 1960s, no one seems to be pushing that issue.

I like to quietly snicker at these people at parties until they ask me why I'm laughing and then say "Oh, it's nothing." I feel no need to educate the ridiculous.

That's what I was wondering, tbh

The spin rate varies by star. You can get some general information from Wikipedia on their spins, and why they spin as fast as they do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star#Rotation

How much mass do heat and light have exactly? And if you do the maths. the amount of mass lost by fusion is nearly negligible compared to the total mass of the sun. See: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html

If you're talking about the words that the language uses to accomplish things, these are called keywords. Some languages also have reserved words, which are used to store literal values. For example, Java has around 50 keywords, and 3 reserved words (that I know of). These are the words that cannot be used (by themselves) in any other manner. So you can't have a variable name called class (which is why you'll often see it spelled clazz in Java source code), because class is a Java keyword. But you could have a variable named classA, or class1984 or myClass. You can see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_keywordsfor the list of Java words. Keep in mind that Java is a complex object oriented language. For simpler, procedural languages, like Basic, the list that John gave is probably all you need.

You see the same thing with the so called "shepherd" moons in a planetary ring system. It's down the ever increasing gravity of the proto planet perturbing the orbits of the particles nearest its orbit. These perturbations result in a path clearing that lines the orbit or the larger mass. As the mass continues to increase, it affects a wider area more noticeably. Once a balance is reached, you get what we see (for instance) around Saturn, sharply defined rings with little grooves in them where the moons are. Also remember that not all particles in an orbit around a star will have the same velocity. As the mass of the protoplanet increases, so does its gravitational attraction to the star. In order to maintain a stable orbit it has to increase its orbital velocity (if I remember my physics correctly), otherwise the increased attraction just causes it to spiral into the star (and leave lines like a spirograph, not an etch a sketch).

Here's another article (from the NY Times) on junk DNA from this year.

Or maybe the horror that someone might be able to make you think yourself to death (in some fashion). It's not a new concept in horror or science fiction.

I've known several deaf people. Some of them were quite advanced in age, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say no, there's no causation here. Based on my layuman's understanding of the issue, I'd be more inclined to look at physical issues, such as an infant's inability to adequately move their head to increase their oxygen flow adequately than I would at the inner ear issues.

That's the problem with trying to hold your breath until you die. Eventually you pass out and start breathing again.

Eh, I try not to criticize people for their spelling too much (unless it's just something so egregious it completely changes the meaning of what they're saying.) My spelling is terrible at times because I type too fast.

I'm happy with a preponderance of evidence. Indisputable evidence doesn't leave room for change.

I'm not sure why. There are reams of documents that support the conclusion. Here's a short synopsis on w.pedia. The key concept to keep in mind though, is that fusion of heavier elements requires the consumption of energy, rather than it's production, meaning that the excess energy that is keeping the star balanced against it's own gravity is suddenly (astronomically speaking) not there, allowing the star to collapse further in on itself. Unfortunately, this also causes the star to explode. It is the extreme amounts of energy released during that explosion that allow for the fusion of heavier (and less stable in the case of things like uranium) elements.

To be fair, I have a hard time taking physics speculations seriously from a chap that claims to have been able to break the known laws of physics. From your biography.

I went back and reread the OPs question and realized I didn't understand it when I wrote my response. His question has to do with multiplying the two together, not setting them equal to one another. I apologize.

There's no reason why not, but I expect the answer will be meaningless. [latex] \frac{16m}{1s} = \frac{1s}{16m} [/latex] Which just resolves to 1. Which makes sense, since you're measuring the exact same event.

I'll make sure to have shillings on hand.

Back up the truck. You have cookies? You planning to share those?

Well, that escalated quickly.

Scientific evidence does no such thing. All science can tell us is that there is no present scientific evidence for the existence of a divine supreme being. Since science cannot prove the non-existence of a thing, all we can safely say is that we cannot demonstrate the existence of such a being. Choosing to reject that existence based on the lack of evidence is rational, but in no way implies that science proved God doesn't exist. To put it more succinctly, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It's a paraphrase of a quote by Yogi Berra

This is like deja vu all over again.