Mokele

Why not? Imagine we all live on a space station, with no supplies from Earth. The station can grow a fixed amount of food, filter a fixed amount of water, and generate a fixed amount of oxygen. Since there are no supplies from Earth, no expansions can be built. Now, one of the couples wants to have 6 kids, pushing the station beyond its maximum capacity. If you allow them, that means someone else must sacrifice their ability to have kids, and what if nobody else volunteers, or everyone has already had 2? What do you do? You clearly can't let them have the kids, as everyone will die. The survival of the whole group vastly outweighs the one couple's right to decide on their own reproduction. As you're probably figured out, this is an analogy for Earth. Mokele

How about something simple - the insect left some sort of stinger or proboscis in you which broke off. Your body would get used to it, possibly encapsulating it in connective tissue. Whenever that tissue capsule breaks, or your immune system gets hyperactive, it attacks the embedded foreign tissue all over again, and you get a reaction. Not for sure, but a relatively simple hypothesis. Mokele

Thanks everyone!

The eggs are larvae cannot survive without being in water. Mokele

Hi, everyone! Long time, no see! Sorry for the nearly two-year hiatus, but as you'll soon hear, I've been quite busy. Let's see...::Checks last posting time::...March 21, 2007. Well, most of the rest of that year was consumed with the increasing workload of my MS thesis on arboreal snake locomotion, resulting in my first publication in October of that year in a top tier journal (Full pdf at http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/210/21/3862 ), describing a new mode of snake locomotion. At the same time, I was making preparations for my wedding, and applying to PhD programs. In May, I completed my MS, and in July I married Gemma (she was here very temporarily a few years ago), and had a lovely honeymoon in Grand Cayman. More recently, I started my PhD work at Brown University, exploring the mechanics of muscle-tendon systems via frog jumping. It's an amazing group: 6 faculty members, all working on biomechanics of everything from dinosaurs to fish to bats (most universities have only 1 or 2, or frequently none), with the best technology in the field (because it was invented here) - a 3-D, high-speed X-ray video system I'm currently using. On top of everything, this unique group is supported by teaching the medical anatomy lab, with grad students TAing, which means I'm currently taking it, and will get to teach it. So, what's everyone else been up to? Mokele

What the hell are you jabbering about? Here's a news flash: you don't make yourself look smarter by using the most big words and the longest sentences. You make yourself look smart by communicating your question or idea simply and effectively. Mokele

Fnord!

Honestly, I don't think it would make a difference, because it wouldn't take long to figure out that most people just don't have it in them to kill someone except in the direst of circumstances. Plus, there are ways of dealing with an armed opponent, such as sheer numbers or distractions. Honestly, I think the most useful thing would be a non-lethal, minimally painful weapon that effectively and temporarily disables the target, kinda like setting one's phasers to stun. That would have the effect of thwarting the crime in progress (and allow easy pickup by the cops) but without the moral dilemma of shooting someone, meaning people would use it much more readily. Of course, this still wouldn't eliminate crime, but I think a weapon that's essentially consequence-free would be more likely to be used. Mokele

Actually, no, I just tend to ignore lucapsa. Of course. Part of the trick of brainwashing is finding what appeals to people, and though the 'hook' will be different, the result will be the same. Kinda like how a used car salesman can scam a wide range of people by adjusting their pitch. yeah, I'm wondering that too.

The current major theory on the origin of life if the "RNA world". Unlike DNA, RNA is capable of catalyzing reactions like proteins do, and unlike proteins, RNA can easily store information. We've already made "ribozymes" which can do this, and now all we need is one that can self-replicate. It's thought that the original RNA cells eventually moved over to proteins for reaction control and DNA for info storage, leaving RNA with a much reduced role, and only in the ribosome, where proteins are assembled, does it still catalyze reactions. Mokele

Fallacious arguement. Even if someone were arguing that scientists *must* be liberal (which nobody is), then this is still inapplicable. You're pointing out something that, you assert, mostly liberals fall for, and asserting this undermines that currently the liberal party attracts scientists, ignoring that it's unlikely that scientists themselves are falling for this, and they probably well know that both parties are filled with fools since, after all, they include the general populace, 90% of which are morons. Mokele

I love that. "It's always right, except when it isn't."

The problem is that it's not what we do. There are people who are professionals at shaping public opinion, who spend a long, long time learning how to do it, while scientists are lucky if they're able to squeeze in a few interviews and soundbites between research, teaching, and paperwork. What we need is basically a PR firm for scientists, but that run afoul of getting money, since there's no way in hell the government would ever foot the bill for something like that. Mokele

One's a stupid self-help gimick designed to do nothing more than separate the gullible from their money. The other is, essentially, brainwashing people to ensure they never leave the cult. Mokele

I agree that it probably does rub people the wrong way, but the only way to educate positively would be to force everyone back to school, then massively overhaul it so that a US high school diploma is worth more than used toilet paper. The ugly fact of the matter is that you cannot teach everyone everything they need to know on this without several years of college courses and intense studying. It's the same in other fields. I take other people's word about this 'dark matter' stuff or nanotechnology or computer chip design, because there's no way in hell they can give me enough of a grounding in it where there's not some element of just accepting what the experts say. Similarly, people take my word about snakes or about animal locomotion, for precisely the same reason. Yes, in an ideal world we could just explain things to everyone. But in the real world, people don't have time for the sort of extensive study that's required to *really* understand the reasoning. It would also be nice if the public could get over this rampant anti-intellectualism and realize that we call people experts for a reason, but it won't happen. Granted, I do have a way to solve it all, but my fiancee has firmly forbidden me from carrying out any plan that results in a global human population of less than 1 million. Mokele

How is that liberal? It's just another stupid self-help gimick, not a political ploy.

Yeah, but this isn't directing a stream of particles, it's a rail supporting a several hundred ton ship, possibly filled with explosives. The forces on the rail themselves would be enormous. Any slight irregularity would have the same effect as the proverbial penny of the train tracks. The switching mechanism itself would have to move several multi-ton tracks from one position to another extremely fast and result in perfect alignment, and with no residual vibrations. Mokele

I tried it once, and in spite of how cool the Tyranids are, it was just no fun; way too slow, way too many nit-picky, unrealistic rules, and it mostly seemed like a giant, over-elaborate game of chess. Mokele

Consider the logic behind that argument, though. Why do you get so worked up about a triviality like crime when accidents cause far more deaths per year? Why do you get so worked up about accidents in the fact of heart disease and cancer? Expanding that beyond the US, you get to include the AIDS epidemic depopulating Africa and lovely things like malaria. Hell, the per-year murder rate in the entire US is nothing compared to how many people die every day because they don't have access to clean water, common vaccines, or antibiotics. The sad fact is that people's responses aren't scaled to the actual risk. We're scared of shark attack, but how many people speed? Mokele

Oh, no worries, it's pretty simple: this university doesn't really have any worthwhile clubs except the Alliance, so when I first got here I attended some meetings, made some friends, and then met their friends, went to the local gay bars, etc. For all the drama, there's a very real sense of community and acceptance. Thanks, yeah, that's the one! Thanks, glad that could get cleared up. Not really. Unless I'm being quoted, I tend to just skim. Plus right now I'm so overworked I'm amazed I'm even cogent. Mokele

Bisexual, and most of my friends are gay. Well, currently the republicans are associated with the religious right, but I do agree that's merely a momentary thing; they've been associated with the democrats in the past, and other parties before them. Depends on the context of a public smoking ban. If they're banning it in bars, yes, you're right, but if they're banning it in, say, courthouses or other public property, that's fine. I disagree. You can't force them to listen about some meaningless trivia like whether the soda machine has coke or pepsi, but you do have a right to force them to listen if it's something like workplace safety where there's a real, genuine hazard. From my POV, intentions of any sort are irrelevant - all that matters is the effect. Whose goals are nobler is just crap to be trotted out during election season, the real issue is the actual effect. Mokele

You've got the answer right there: nothing will *ever* push the crime rate to zero. Violence is intrinsic to human nature, and we'll never be truly rid of it. How could we? Even if we banned all weapons, people would still beat the shit out of each other, or bludgeon others to death with rocks. Yeah, zero crime would be great, but so would unlimited free gourmet meals and roads made of solid gold, and zero crime is actually less likely. Hell, even if you did set up society so that no sane person would commit a crime, there's still all the insane people. We accept it because, quite simply, it's not going away, so the best we can hope is to reduce it. Mokele

True, but everything comes back to basic research. There's a ****ton of money going into building better MRIs, but the original technology goes all the way back to basic research on magnetic fields and Helmholtz coils. Similarly, biotech is a huge boon, but entirely based on government funded work like Watson & Crick. Industry is good at R&D for profit, and has started taking a longer view, but still isn't very keen on funding the sort of basic research that, while it may massively advance our knowledge, will take 50+ years to show any payoff. Not that I blame them; such funding, grand as it may be in purpose and motive, doesn't make good business sense. There's a place for both government-funded research and privately-funded research. The Defense of Marriage amendment, aka the Blatant Hatred Cloaked In Faith amendment. I strongly disagree. Those are annoying, yes, but frankly, are trivial compared to taking control of your body or determining that you can lose your home and job just because someone doesn't like you. Smoking and trans-fats are meaningless minutiae in comparison to shipping an asylum-seeker back to the country where he'll be jailed indefinitely, beaten, raped, and probably killed because of his sexuality. Honestly, Bush Sr. once said that atheists should not be considered citizens. How can that compare to banning trans fats? Maybe it's because I'm in a minority group who actually have something to fear from them, but I see the Christian Right as more inimical to liberty than any other modern political movement. I see them flat-out state they want theocracy, and still retain political power. I see them state that 'their[my] kind' shouldn't be allowed here, see them excuse murder based on 'they asked for it'. Honestly, I see them as about 4 short steps away from the Nazis, and truly believe that, if they gained truly unassailable power, they would behave in the same manner. Maybe that sounds extreme, but when was the last time you say a paid political ad say directly that you're immoral scum not worthy of basic rights. When you're on the receiving end, it's pretty obvious who the real agents of intolerance are in this culture. Mokele Mokele

Even directly applicable research isn't always funded in capitalism. My father was forced into 'early retirement' when the chemical company he worked for was bought by one that never had an R&D department (now he gets twice as much for consulting, though, so it's all good). Consider the iPod. Did Sony spend any money on it? Not a dime. They waited for Apple to invent it, then immediately bought one, pried it apart, and made their own version different enough to avoid copyright. And also, in the end, it's basic research that truly matters. gizmos are neat, but where would we be if nobody had gotten grants to study the electron? I have to strongly disagree. Conservatives certianly aren't tolerant of civil liberties: which party was trying to write hatred into the constitution? Which we campaigning to have the ability to evict me from my home simply because they don't like who I sleep with? Intolerance is a tool, nothing more, and has been wielded by both current parties, many past ones, and numerous foreign ones. Republicans currently associate with the hate-filled bigots of the Christian Right, but a generation ago, the southern democrats were opposing integration and civil rights. We've had 'Alien and Sedition Acts' from just about every party that's even existed in the US. Intolerance is nothing but a tool to whip up support from the party core. Watch this election: both sides will say the most outlandish, intolerant things in the primaries to win the support of the party base, but will rapidly drift to the middle when the campaign for the general election starts. That would be about 10-15 years ago. Seriously, among *real* climatologists, the consensus is very, very strong, more than 90%. ---------------------- Ok, I'm not trying to be an ass, but I'm going to start editing out GW parts of posts from here on out, or start splitting them to a new thread. This is a serious OT drift, one that's overwhelming the real topic. ParanoiA and lucapsa, both of your responses spent more time on GW than the actual subject of the thread. I'm not trying to be harsh (believe me, you *know* when I'm harsh), but it's derailing the thread. Start a new thread for it, if you want, but it's too distracting here. Mokele

Yourdad is correct; I grow vining plants, and their aptitude is more to do with random flailing and seeking light/temperature gradients. Film the plant in time lapse and you're see the growing tip waving around randomly until it hits something it likes.