npts2020

One thing you might ask your pastor is, how and where to go about getting a job where you live. Being able to earn enough money to support yourself is hugely important for any consideration of emancipation both legally (in most places) and practically. If you are considering something drastic like open disobedience or running away, make sure you know what the emancipation laws for your state are first, as in some states you don't even need any court involvement. Another angle you might consider, is accelerating your schooling (you did say you were home schooled?) so that you can start college early, or even take college classes before finishing your high school curicula. If I am remembering my teen-age years correctly, one of the hardest things to do is have patience. I couldn't get time to move fast enough either. Seriously though, google emancipation of minors/whatever state you live in and see for yourself if it is an option you can use (or threaten to use).

It is certainly feasible but not very practical. I am sure somebody, somewhere has probably built one just to show it can be done but unless you have a very large tank or one that can be pressurized to many thousands of psi your range until refilling the tank would pretty limited.

The idea that solar and wind energy are not viable because of variability in production would be a fair criticism if we had no way of storing energy. However we have today many methods of storing it, with more being developed all the time. When you have an intermittent power source you store it, whether it is using a rachet to store the potential energy of a wave until the next wave pushes in a tidal generator or making hydrogen or ethanol with excess from solar or wind generation to run another generator when there is a deficit (do you guys really not know this?) I have never said that nuclear power does not have its uses but I do not believe generation for widespread use to be one of them.

Possibly you get the notion of a moral component by my question of why we even have immigration restrictions, it was badly framed since I am well aware there will be control of some kind. What I should have asked is why any qualified applicant is ever turned down? BTW I personally try to avoid terms like left, right, liberal, conservative because they have so many different meanings to different people that they are fairly meaningless in the end.

Taco Bell: I can't help but smile that you are on a forum laden with nerds asking for advice about interpersonal relationships but here is my 2 cents for what it is worth. At some point in your life you will have to stand up to your parents if you ever wish to lead your own life. IMO the first thing I would do is ask my mother about her dating and what she would have done differently, if such a conversation is possible between you. Then I would have a similar talk with my dad. It may turn out that all you have to do is ask if your friend can go along on a family day trip or can you both go on a church outing or other chaperoned activity. If you cannot reach satisfaction or come to any sort of agreement via that method you may want to start researching emancipation of minors for your state (the laws vary widely from state to state, with many gray areas). In that case, make sure you have a job and place to live beforehand. Running away should be your very last option, since that will often get you into the juvenile system, not the best place to become an adult for most. You should under no circumstances get your friend or anyone else pregnant before you have been on your own long enough to be financially and emotionally secure.

I hadn't heard this. I have always thought (maybe wrongly) that warming followed CO2 concentrations pretty closely with the increasing temps lagging some time behind increasing CO2. Maybe somebody can be more definitive about this than I

Martin: Thanks for the clarification, I don't believe that we have any serious disagreement on this. It is just my opinion that when you define the universe as infinite with no further elaboration, that includes all components of said universe. Now, if you wish to say that time is not part of the universe and exists completely on its own (possible but must be defined as such when defining an "infinite" universe), that is an entirely separate discussion.

True but you wouldn't know it from most of the posts. I have seen a lot of discussion on this thread but very few opinions of the effects on the economy. BTW what effect did you say it would have, I musta missed it.

Well, if time is part of the universe and the universe is infinite, as postulated by Boise State, why does that not imply that time is also infinite or does infinity only go in one direction? IMO infinity only exists as a mathematical construct like a circle or a line, any sufficiently large number to be incomprehensible to the human mind will seem like infinity. I do not suppose that the debate over the size of the universe has been settled but it seems certain to me that it could be much larger than the part we can see.

How can you say that proliferation is not a dangeous thing? Or claim that with more individuals versed in nuclear technology that chances of proliferation are not increased? You have never seen me make any statement about the safety of any reactor only statements about proliferating the technology being dangerous. Why is anything needed before making a transition to other alternatives? It seems to me that erecting windmills, solar panels, building tidal and geothermal plants can all happen at least as quickly as building any nuclear power plants and without the problems. I agree that building a power plant or a bomb are different but not so different that a person who can build one couldn't build the other. So why is it again that chances of proliferation won't be increased? Last question I have is why is concentrating energy production in fewer hands a good thing?

I am not at all surprised except that Obama was as close as he was. McKinney-90% Nader-83% Obama-70%

Nuclear power is both unnecessary and dangerous or I would whole-heartedly support it as well. There are so many alternatives and more being developed all the time that we can supply all of civilizations energy needs without it. If we build more nuclear power plants we will have that many more individuals with the knowledge to proliferate all kinds of nuclear technology. How is the increased chance of misuse of the technology going to be dealt with? The main reason I can see for more nukes is to keep generation restricted to a few entities, therefore giving those producers more control. Would California have avoided energy problems if Enron was in control of nuclear power plants instead of conventional ones? IMO not.

I don't see how one could either support or oppose immigration without some "ideology" being involved. How would it be done without consideration from some philosophical perspective?

Expiration dates for most products are set well before the first expected failure of a non-defective item. It would do you no good to tell you the cartridge needs changing after you are already out of ink but you have to keep in mind that it is to somebody's advantage to sell as many cartridges as possible, also. Many people will automatically change it but I tend to try to squeeze every drop I can out, like you guys. I can't speak to your antivirus mail (spam?) but a computer geek friend of mine recommended AV6 antivirus at free.avg.com and I have had no trouble since, although it has only been a month so far. Another geek friend swears that his apple needs no antivirus protection because of the difference between windows and apple programming, his has been on line at least 3 years with no adverse effect. That is as much as I know about that topic (mostly what friends have told me). Medicines are a different matter. All medicines that I am aware of lose effectiveness over time. Having said that, I know that I have taken aspirin (not recently) that was at least two decades old and survived to tell about it so I cant imagine that many over-the-counter medicines would pose much of a threat from simply being outdated. A doctor or chemist would know better than I. BTW big pharma wants you to buy as much of their most expensive medicine as they can sell you (how many drug ads compared to other products are in the media?). Most expiration dates have some basis in reality (I would say all but I have seen them on things like bottled water!) and can be used for reference. Depending on how critical it is you can ignore many of them but things like medicines, food, and replacement parts for a nuclear power plant I would not push it too far, my ingesting ancient aspirins notwithstanding.

Isn't that exactly what just happened with the recent Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008? Still enforcing a ban on incandescents, imo a net positive thing, seems less reasonable than taxing them to death and making revenue in the meantime.

Personally, I advocate automating the American road/rail system and powering the whole thing with solar and wind energy. We can debate how long that would actually take but it would convert over 1/4 of our national energy use from petroleum to renewables and save over 40,000 people from gruesome deaths every year.

ParanoiA: Explain to me exactly how current regulations keep "free market" principles from operating in Americas health care system. It seems to me that anyone who wants to can provide health care so long as they meet the requirements for the service they are providing i.e RN's and LPN's meet training requirements, doctors have graduated from medical school and served an acceptable residency etc. BTW anarchy is the "philosophical compliment to individual liberty", is that what you are advocating or just corporate anarchy?

to Pangloss: I am not sure what ideological message you are referring to. Of course every nation controls immigration, where has anyone on this thread proposed not controlling it? What I have suggested is that it might be too controlled, maybe an affirmative statement to you but not meant as one. As you yourself point out, more immigration is not popular among the majority of Americans, so why would either candidate stick their neck out on this issue in a close race? Your talking points seem right off usillegalaliens.com but really are only applicable to illegals and not naturalized citizens. I could be wrong (I have had trouble finding some actual numbers) but it has been my impression that naturalized citizens generally had better upward mobility and lower crime rates than the general population. Finally, if paying taxes is not an issue why worry about whether any of them collect any of the things you mention? to Bombus: You, like Pangloss, are so bogged down in the "immigrants only fill the lowest paying jobs" mindset that you cannot consider any scheme that would only allow mostly entrepreneurs and skilled workers to immigrate. I am glad you mentioned Norway, unlike America, not known as a nation of immigrants. In 2004 abou 7.3% of Norways population was foriegn born (according to the Norwegian government) vs. the U.S. at around 7.9% in 1990 (according to the U.S. census). Some other countries with higher percentage of foriegn born residents; Canada, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Luxembourg with the last 3 being 2-3 times the American rate. Obviously civilization as we know it is about to end in all of those countries......not. You both assert that immigration causes insurmountable problems but have shown zero data for your reasoning. IMO you have illegal immigration confused with legal methods of staying in America and have used the actions of illegals (who are probably not too concerned with laws anyway since they are breaking it by being here) to infer the behavior of all immigrants.

Possibly because water vapor reaches equilibrium for a given temperature? You may certainly have locally thicker clouds but for the entire earth the average water vapor remains fairly constant, only increasing as much as temperature increases.

Jack Chalker in "Midnight at the Well of Souls" describes three legged creatures that tip themselves hoizontally then rotate their entire bodies. Supposedly thus spinning they were able to achieve higher speeds of locomotion.

If the universe is infinite it has no beginning by definition.

If you can make it work, will it be cheaper, easier, or more reliable than other methods (ultrasound, x-ray, magnetic resonance, etc.) of doing the same thing?

One point and one question. Question first, what is the purpose of having limits on immigration to begin with when anyone who is not native American is an immigrant or directly related to one anyway? A point, nearly everyone who lives in America pays taxes even if the IRS cant keep track of them, eg. I defy you to buy a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. without paying any federal or state taxes on it.

Well, from the discussion above one could be led into believing gravity was the only force involved in potential energy. It is not true.

If one really wanted to keep less educated and unskilled laborers from immigrating the rules could be constructed in such a way that they stay illegally if they are here at all. What I am wondering is at what point would an influx significantly effect the economy and would it be positive or negative, thus my speculation about the effect on real estate at the beginning of the thread. BTW I believe the increasing of minimum wages has something to do with a "war on poverty" begun in the 1960's.