Mokele

Well, the actual ancestors are ungulates, but not even remotely hippo-like; they were carnivorous ungulates (some reaching great size and ferocity) called the mesonychids. Google "whale" plus any of the following: "mesonychid" "pakicetus" "ambulocetus" "rhodocetus" "transitional" We have, last I recall, about a dozen species illustrating every step of the transition. Mokele

All vaccinations should be mandatory, on account of herd immunity. See, vaccines aren't 100% effective, in fact not even close. But if you vaccinate *everybody*, the virus will have so few hosts that it will be unable to effectively spread in the population, will die out, and will be unable to re-invade. However, if a sizable portion (how sizable depends on a variety of factors) of the populace refuses vaccinations, the phenomenon of herd immunity vanishes, and the disease can become established again, even attacking those who had vaccinations but whose vaccinations didn't take hold. As such, you cannot evaluate it as a one person system, but realize that if an individual refuses, they aren't just putting themselves at risk, but everyone else too. And excellent article on precisely this can be found here. Personally, I think the government is well within its rights, and indeed its duty to protect society, to mandate vaccinations. Mokele

Alternatively, use a mirror and flashlight and some protection for your arms and hands. This'll avoid cuts to your face or even worse, while needing a smaller hole. Mokele

Yes. If there are bacteria on or in the astronaut, they'll do it. If, somehow, he's totally sterilized (gamma rays or something), he'll just stick around a LONG time, while his body breaks down through abiotic means like erosion, radiation destroying chemicals in his cells, cracking from heat and cold, etc. He'd be sorta like a small, squishy rock. Mokele

Actually, no, the case occuring is very valuable. The worst thing to happen to creationism was when a court case made it to the Supreme Court, who decided that it violated church and state (and that's why ID was invented). If this court does make the correct decision, it'll give legal basis for future judges to automatically rule against ID proponents without these bothersome show trials. If this case is appealed, and I'm positive it will be, then the decision will immediately apply to a wider area. If it makes it to the Supremes, it could kill ID across the whole country. I'm actually unsure whether the Supreme Court refusing to hear it because they think a lower court's decision was right makes it apply to the whole country or just that lower court's area. Anyone know? Mokele

Do you have a video camera or webcam with a long cord? You could tie a string to that (so you don't lose it) and use that to look around down there.

Crap. Multiple mirrors? Alternatively, do you have a nice vacuum cleaner with a *really* long hose? You could map out the vents, and stick the hose down (with the cleaner running) in particular ways to try to just suck the little bastard out. Mokele

Ok, if I'm reading you right, the house, like one of my old ones, has a heating system with ducts that are underneath the house (in the crawlspace) and the heat (and stink) comes up from vents in the floor, yes? Well, could you get a small mirror of some sort, unscrew the grates on the floor vents, stick it in, and with that and a flashlight, have a look around? If you have a roto-rooter you might be able to use that to reach the mouse/rat/hobo/whatever and pull it out. Mokele

When was the last time Taoism or Buddhism caused a war? Furthermore, your information is wrong; while religion has *sometimes* held back science, it has also sometimes greatly aided it. In fact, in Islam, studying mathematics, astronomy and such are explicitly listed as works for the glory of God. On top of that, you assume that what is new is automatically good and progress should never be held back, which is logically fallacious. A world without love? or kindness? Or honesty? Remember, honesty is a moral too. Not to mention things like not murdering random people for the sheer fun of it. Without emotion, life is an empty waste devoid of anything but mechanistic productivity. Without morals and ethics, life would be a nightmare in which the strong hold total control over the weak with no restraint or mercy. Also, remember that wonder is an emotion, and without the capacity to look at the night sky or a coral reef and marvel at it's beauty, science is effectively dead. In fact, one could even consider curiousity, and even more vital component of science, to be an emotion. And if that government goes bad, there's no escape. And what of things that are wanted, but not needed? And things of which there simply isn't enough to go around? There's skill and there's passion. I am a highly skilled engineer, but I lack any passion for it at all, thus I moved to biology. Just because someone is *good* at something doesn't mean it's what they want to do. Good, because it needs to be completely junked. Back to the drawing board. Why? What's so hot about efficiency? Why not strive for happiness or something else? However, humanity is *not* a machine, nor did it evolve to be one. If you attempt to force humanity into an ill-fitting mold, the mold will break. Communism failed in the same way; it didn't account for the fact that selfishness is our oldest and deepest instinct, and so it failed when a few decades of conditioning and authoritarianism couldn't override 3,500,000,000 years of instinct. We're not gears in a machine; we're a horde of squabbling monkeys. The only way to change that is to grow your gear-people in a lab, specially engineered to spec. Yes, because Nash, Hawking, Hooke and others who have had various mental or physical infirmities have never contributed anything. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Your idea is poorly-thought-out, blindly assumptive, and so superficial as to be flat-out infantile. Mokele

I don't get what's so funny. It was accidental, a result of erroneous charts, and they agreed to pay the fine. The only theme I detect is "we all make mistakes, and pay for them appropriately." Mokele

Oh, for the love of Godzilla. Thread closed on account of persistent conspiracy bullshit. Keano, come back when you've learned not to believe every loony theory you read. Mokele

Yeah, I've seen the "information" online about it, and it's nothing but ridiculous speculation and conspiracy theories cobbled together with circumstance. Unless you have empirical evidence as opposed to guesses an speculations, stop wasting our time.

He has repeatedly done so, but you've simple failed to notice. And the only reason this one is garnering any attention is that it must be located in a postion that's trivially inconvenient for rich people. If this was a landfill, it would simple be placed in the poorest part of town, without any real consideration. I would also like to note that I have never heard of any such objections to offshore oil rigs and drilling platforms. Guess it all boil down to who can afford the most expensive lawyers, as usual. As ecoli pointed out, the windmills would be barely visible even on a clear day. On most days, they simply would not be visible due to haze. On top of that, beachfront property is inherently temporary in value, and the failure of the owners to realize or accept that is their own fault. You buy beachfront homes at the risk that erosion, storms, hurricanes or somesuch won't render it worthless/destroyed. A trivial decrease in the quality if view is *nothing* compared to the damage mere circumstance can inflict on such proprety. If you purchase a property for "the view", it *must* be understood that "the view" is *not* part of the property, nor do you have any right to it. Yes, it sucks, but that's life, and sometimes the cards don't fall the way you want them too. If I bought a nice bit of property overlooking some woodland, and later that some woodland was built over, yes, I'd be disappointed, but I'd also realize that I didn't *own* that woodlands; the company that bought it did. In this case, it's the ocean (which is technically under government control rather than private property), but the principle is no different. Do we absolutely need that wind power more than anything else? No, but neither does the hypothetical developer in my scenario above *need* to buy and build on the woodlands I have a view of. Sometimes shit happens. Get over it. Mokele

Actually, I was talking about his "Tesla made an earthquake machine" claim.

It means "Newbie with a propensity to believe ridiculous conspiracy theories"

Among other things starting with 'F', yes

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C. Clarke (author of 2001 and numerous other science fiction classics)

We don't typically ban people for simple stupidity unless their stupidity substaintially interferes with the board. Otherwise I'd've banned every creationist in sight by now. Mokele

Well, sometimes animals with different chromosome numbers can reproduce, but the hybrids are sterile (mules are an example of this). In order for there to even be a chance of a fertile hybrid, the chromosome numbers must be the same. However, even if the chromosome numbers are right, other mechanisms at the molecular, genetic, behavioral, or anatomical levels may prevent hybridization. Mokele

Except that there are XX males (the result of a rare recombination), so clearly these individuals would be at a selective advantage, and thus would replace current XY males.

Try reading the thread and actually looking at empirical results next time, rather than spouting feel-good populist bullshit.

Actually, it's not true. Natural selection is a purely deterministic process, without an element of luck or chance. The effects of randomness in evolution are termed "genetic drift". The two interact to a great degree, but the mechanisms are separate, technically. But genetic drift alone is still technically considered evolution. Mokele

Flat out wrong, as usual. Serious, go read a cell biology textbook. This isn't my field, and I've only had sophomore-level cell bio, and I *still* know you're wrong. First, there's a cytoskeleton of actin, intermediate filaments and microtubuules, the former and latter of which have motor protiens which can and do move things around inside the cell. Second, the position and location of intra-membrane structures is controlled by a sequence of nucleotides at the beginning and end of the mRNA, which are used by both the rough ER and Golgi to determine the proper location. Actual movement involves the cytoskeleton. Seriously, you cannot formulate a theory without appropriate background knowldge, yet this is precisely what you are trying to do. Mokele

Except that the ancestor of the chloroplast would not have leaked food into the water, but kept it for itself. Otherwise, how would it survive? Organisms do no exist solely for the benefit of others. Even in symbiotic relationships, the goal is, at the end, evolutionarily selfish. Mokele

Just because two things co-occur does not mean they are causally related.