Mokele

Because it's *not* ok to discriminate purely based on thought; if it was, there would be no laws against discrimination based on religion. Furthermore, an employer discriminates based on a logical criterion. There is no logical reason why gays should not be married. Every reason so far has boiled down to "They're different and I don't like them." Why should your opinions of someone, positive or negative, have any effect on what they do with their life, like, say, getting married? It's called "freedom". Mokele

Antarctica used to be connected to both South America and Australia. This is why SA has marsupials like the possum (which only came to North america during the last 3 million years, when the Ithsmus of Panama arose). Mokele

Actually, polar ice is far from a constant. For a lot of good-sized chunks of the earth's history, there have been either no or only seasonal polar ice caps. Back in the Paleocene (just after the dinosaurs died), the arctic was almost sub-tropical. There were palm trees with gigantic leaves (an adaptation to the low light levels, and even alligators. Many ecothermic species have migrated across the Bering land bridge (when it's existed) and across Antarctica. Mokele

Wow, that's so wrong it hurts my brain. But that's why I avoid creationist tripe anyway. I'm even more amazed that someone with such an obvious learning disability could even become a senior. Must be a Business major. Mokele

It's true to a limited extent. The walls of the rectum *are* thinner and more easily torn by rough sex, which does increase the risk of STD transmission. However, with enough lube and a properly prepared partner, the risk increase isn't actually that astronomicly high compared to vaginal sex. Of course, this ignores lesbians, who have a much, much lower chance of STD transmission than even heterosexuals. So, if it's all about STDs, shouldn't lesbians be God's Chosen people? Mokele

Cheap monitor lizard food, too. The screams would make feeding time even more fun! Mokele

Hence the appeal of "alternative medicine". Do you want the honest stupidity of a lone crackpot or the dishonest laziness of incompetent middle managers? Mokele, who is now afraid of hospitals, due soley to this thread.

Well, from the herpetology angle, I can say this: If you see any snake, do *not* touch it, no matter how appetizing it looks. Most deserts have a disproportionately high number of venomous species, and many of them are almost impossible to identify unless you *really* know the local reptile fauna. Especially if you're outside the USA (compared to other deserts, we don't have terribly many lethal species, though more are venomous than you'd expect, including several colubrids such as the lyre snake) Mokele

nevermind, wikipedia came to my rescue

Ok, so on this other forum I go to, one of the users asked for help explaining exponents to her kid and how the work for his homework. Most of it I could cover, but one thing I couldn't. We all know negative exponents, and simple stuff like 1/(x^-2) = x^2, and it's easy enough to simply state the rule, but my question is *why* is that rule the way it is? I mean, what's the derivation behind it? I hate to say "it just is that way, kid", but it's been a hell of a long time since I took Algebra, and I don't remember the reasoning for it. So, basically, what I'm after is a logical explanation for the way negative exponents work, that I can present in a form a kid taking HS algebra could understand. To give an example, I explained why 2^3 * 2^2 = 2^5 by expanding it out into (2*2*2)*(2*2), removing the parenthesis, and showing that 2*2*2*2*2 can be colapsed into 2^5. That's the sort of level answer I'm looking for (though I can simplify if needed). So, anyone know the justification for the rule for negative exponents? Mokele

Um, kinda. If you have a symetrical airfoil (teardrop shape), and the long axis is parallel to the airflow, then no lift. But bernouli's principle still applies; the air displaced by moving over or under the airfoil has reduced pressure. It just cancels out with a symetrical airfoil at 0 degree: the air has to move the same distance over the top and bottom, so the pressure decreases but isn't unequal, hence no lift. However, if you tilt that airfoil, the has lift now because of bernouli's principle: now that it's tilted, the air flowing over the top is more decelerated than the air flowing under it, which results in a difference in pressure, hence lift. Also, some airfoils, such as asymetrical and cambered airfoils, can indeed produce lift at 0 degree, or lower (in some very specialized cases). Mokele

I'd say that, while she didn't act in the most rational of ways (likely out of frustration), the problem isn't her, but the hospital's policy on such equipment. That beurocratic ineptitude drove her to do that indicates, to me, the failure here is in the system. Mokele

You're confusing the sequence of events. We evolved higher matabolisms (which are extremely inefficient), which resulted in relatively constant, high body temperatures. Our enzymes and protiens adapted to this new temperature, and, as a consequence, we adapted finer temperature control to keep ourselves at that enzymatic optimum. However, compare us to a python, which never had that initial evolution of high metabolism, and we're horribly inefficient. It's protiens are almost as efficient as ours, and keep their properties (though rates are still influenced by temperature) over a huge range of temperatures. In short, that our protiens and enzymes are most efficient at this temperature is merely an adaptation to make us slightly less horribly inefficient, rather than proof of our efficiency. If you expand your scope to compare our efficiency to ectotherms, we're abysmal. Mokele

Prove it. You assume that suicide is never the answer, but where's the justification for that assertion? Merely because our society is anti-suicide? If you just *assume* it's wrong as one of the premises for why it shouldn't be done, that's begging the question, in some ways. So what? It should be up to the individual. If they're a wimp, so what? It's their life, why shouldn't the be able to do with it as they see fit, including ending it? That it'd be complicated to implement does not mean it's morally or ethically wrong, merely that it may not be practical. Furthermore, in a prior post I can't be bothered to find, someone posted a very well-thought-out, reasonable system that would minimize any sort of risk of the problems you describe. By whose definition of bad? Why should your definitions of good and bad, or your morals, have anything to do with whether or not I can end my life if I'm suffering from an agonizing terminal disease? Mokele

Why should anyone else be forced to live according to your conception of what's moral or normal? It's called "Freedom". Factually incorrect. No person choses to be gay. No competent psychologist supports the notion that it's a choice. No individual with an informed viewpoint thinks it's a choice. Furthermore, I know from direct, 1st person experience, that which gender (or both) you are attracted to is not a choice. Factually incorrect. There are many, MANY more children in need of adoption than there are parents trying to adopt. Gay parents adopting will not take kids away from straight couples. Then try having views not based on nothing more than imposing your obsolete moral standards on others. Those who would legislate their morality on others are the truest enemies of freedom. Mokele

Actually, there are still instances in which gay clubs are treated differently by cops (singled out for checks of underage drinking more often, etc). I recall one annecdote I heard about a lesbian strip club across the street from the regular strip club. Guess which one got busted by cops for every tiny infraction of the ill-defined rules, and which never got touched? However, the situation *is* better than it was 30 years ago, by a huge margin. Generally, this sort of behavior by police only occurs in intolerant areas (such as much of the Southern US). I went through exactly that. But wait, I'm the product of a 'normal', mixed-sex, non-divorced, nuclear family. How did this happen? Answer: because I'm a nerd. *Everyone* gets teased, some worse than others, and it's for the most arbitrary of things. If that was enough to render people unfit parents, we'd ban marriages of smart people (kids will be nerds) and mixed-race couples (kids get teased for that, too). The solution to the problem is for the schools to exercise some control over their students, not to punish the targets of such bullying. By that logic, divorce should be illegal. I think the point is that the option is there, not that all gay parents would take it. If the option is there, then the good gay parents will take it. That the bad don't take it no more impugns the capabilities of the whole group than the failures of bad heterosexual parents impugn the capabilities of *that* whole group. What makes a parent good or bad is a lot of things, but sexuality has not been shown to play any role in that, nor is there any reason to assume it would. As such, there's no reason to expect gay parents to substantially differ from straight ones. Just like with straight parents, you have good and bad. But, let's not forget that they don't just hand over kids to anyone for adoption, so that selection process means that gays who wind up adopting are more likely to be good parents, simply because the bad ones (or at least the worst ones) were denied adoption. ------ Oh, and let's not forget one thing: A gay couple cannot have "accidents". Every child would be wanted. And you wouldn't have couples who're only together because one got knocked up. For a gay couple, children are presaged by long discussions about it and lots of thought, as opposed to being presaged by 'Ooops, the condom broke.' Mokele

True, but I would group that as a problem with societal reactions to gay parenting, rather than the parenting itself. An indirect problem, if you will, but also one that I feel will be solved in time as society becomes more accpeting. Understandably, that may come as cold-comfort to those being tormented now. To say there won't be any problems is foolish, but I doubt those problems will be a direct result of some sort of defecit in gay parent's abilities. More likely they'll be a consequence of social discrimination. Mokele

Well, sometimes they are. See, the fashion's better *and* the sex is more interesting! Mokele

Studies have shown very well that there is no damage or negative effect at all caused by being raised by gay parents. Ergo, there is no logical basis for that rule. Unless you support the same rule for heterosexual couples, the proposal is biased and discriminatory? Why shouldn't I be able to display affection in the same manner as any other couple? Kids? Has it ever occured to you that 10% of those kids are gay? and that those proto-gays might find mom and dad kissing just as icky? If it's OK for a heterosexual couple to kiss in public, it's OK for a homosexual couple to do likewise. There is no logical reason for there to be any difference, period. Mokele

For some people, it's just who they are, and being in a community which doesn't enforce traditional male gender roles as strongly as the rest of the world allows them to explore that side. However, for others (and I may just be being cynical here), it's an affectation they adopt (often excessively and loudly), usually both as a misguided attempt to 'find their niche' and (primarily, in my opinion) in an attempt to actually be unique and different, when they are, in fact, a very normal and boring person at their core. But, even with those together, campy and obvious gays are the minority, as are butch lesbians. I know a *lot* of lesbians who look like any other girl walking down the street. (Also, in my personal experience, most lesbians and bi girls are actually far hotter, on average, than your average straight female. But that could just be me...) Mokele

YT: I suspect the 15:1 ratio is observer bias, simply because you don't notice the non-campy ones unless the openly say they're gay. In my experience of the gay community (which, given that I'm bi and frequently visit gay bars and am otherwise moderately actively involved in the community), I'd say the actual ratio is the reverse, and that many gays have a similarly "oh grow up" view towards campiness. Mokele

Actually, most ecotherms are quite disease-resistant, and handle parasites very well (at least in the wild). Ironicly, their lack of a constant temperature is this strength; pathogens have problems adapting to an environment that, besides trying to kill them via the immune system, has a temperature that fluctuates by up to 20 degrees C. Interesting side note: reptiles can get fevers too. When injected with a pyrogen producing bacteria, reptiles spend much more time basking, and maintain their body temperatures at a significantly higher level than usual, until the disease is vanquished. So it's a fever by behavioral thermoregulation rather than hormonal. Neat, huh? Perhaps not something that trivial, but thanks to out large mass, it'd be fairly likely that we could easily maintain a higher than ambient body temp. For an example of this, a recent study showed that large South American rattlesnakes (Crotalus durissus if anyone cares) actually become temporarily endothermic as they digest their meals. The metabolic effort of digesting such a large meal raises their body temperature by as much as 1.5 degrees C. may not sound like much, but for an elongate ectotherm, it's pretty impressive. Well, as I noted earlier, endothermy makes up for it's cost with benefits in endurance and maintenance of high activity levels, as well as opening new ecological niches. In another thread (in the evolution forum, the recent one on intelligent aliens), I also point out how endothermy facilitates the evolution of increased brain size (with the roughly correlated increases in intellect). Mokele

While that's true for experience, many "lower" animals can benefit from age. For instance, many of the larger reptiles have disproportionately long lifespans (50 years max for some pythons, 30 for large monitors, over 100 for crocodiles), and chelonians, well, there's even questions about whether or not they do ever die of old age, versus just accumulated environmental insults. The benefit is indirect: Reptiles never stop growing, though the growth rate slows considerably after maturity. Thus, while a Saltwater croc is sexually mature at 10 feet, an 80 year old male can be as much as 18 feet long. This massive size increase brings advantages to both sexes. In territorial species (where the male is larger), the old, big males can defend more territory and mate with more females. For females, though, advanced age, and it's consequent massively increased size, brings another advantage, of the sort most favored by evolution: more offspring. A just-mature, 10 foot female burmese python might lay a clutch of 20-30 eggs, while a 20 year old, 17 foot female can lay a clutch of over 100 eggs. Extremely large females can even double-clutch, effectively doubling their already huge per-annum reproduction. So age can have more benefits than just experience. Mokele

Quite a bit moreso, yes. Well, possibly. Reptile brains *are* different, but that doesn't necessarily mean inferior. In fact, many species with rather small brains demonstrate intellectual capabilities on par with dogs, cats and pigs, in terms of problem solving to get food. However, I *do* think that warmbloodedness is essential to human-level intelligence, for an only tangentially related reason: metabolic cost. Brain cells are very expensive, and I've heard that our brain consumes 25% of our calories (though that may be an exaggeration; I don't remember the source, but I recall it being non-technical but mostly trustworthy). Think of it like this: Say we have a 100 lb hominid and a 100 lb monitor lizard, populations of each. Say an individual in each population manifests a mutation that increases brain size by 20 cc's, with similar increases in congitive capacity. Now, bear in mind that the default hominid needs to consume about 20x as many calories as the default lizard. So each one gets more brain, which has benefits (better problem-solving) and drawbacks (metabolic cost). For the hominid, with it's already high energy requirement, 20 cc's of brain matter is just a drop in the bucket, probably representing a 1% increase in total metabolic cost. But for the lizard, with it's extremely low metabolism, 20cc's of brain is a *huge* metabolic investment, probably increasing the amount of food needed by, say, 10% or more. So, as noted, the increase in brain has a benefit (l33t skillz) and penalty (needing more food). If the benefit outweighs the penalty, it'll be selected for, and you know the rest. But while the benefit is mostly the same for the hominid and the lizard, the penalty is much higher for the lizard; it'd need to get a *lot* more use out of that 20 cc's than the hominid to make it worthwhile and selectively advantageous. Add to that the the hominid has an entire extra field of problems (social interactions) that the lizard barely has, and the chances of a big brain benefiting a lizard go way down. Of course, given this situation and the seeming incogruity between reptile brain size and apparent intelligence, I'm tempted to wonder if they haven't simply found another way, a way of making their brains more powerful without more cells, more space, and much more metabolic cost. But that's just me. Anyhow, I trust I've explained the barrier that ectothermy poses to the evolution of large brains, yes? Mokele

Yep, seems right to me