Slashdot Mirror

Do you have any trustworthy sources? (Seriously? About.com?)

Well, I already showed the NewScientist one, so I'm guessing you missed that one, how about these? 1 2 3 4 Or are these not good enough for you? I'm of course assured you have many trust worthy sources that can show that a gay couple raise horrible children? You have yet to show one granted, but I'm sure its just because your saving the best for last.

Sure, you can find edge cases where a true marriage might not result in building a family.

There are absolutely no gay marriages that can build a proper family.

If you can't see the difference between a few fractions of a percent and 100% - well, it's not worth talking to you.

Many edge cases? Ignoring that oxymoron, its not as uncommon as you seem to want to insist on. The issue with abuse and bad parenting is not many people speak up about it but it happens more then enough that its a well know issue that these things happen in heterosexual couples (and is well documented from MANY cases, not 'edge cases' like you wish to dismiss them as). Granted I don't see many, if any, issues of home abuse by gay/lesbian couples, so it kinda shows that the more toxic homes are the heterosexual ones :)

Also, what is your definition of a 'proper family'? What the bible tells you? Bible tells many things, with many of them contradicting itself, like Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill.", only to have Jesus himself command you in Luke 19:27 to "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before me". So much for don't kill. When you put your morals in a religion, you need to question what it says and not blindly follow. This happened in the Dark Ages and is now forever known as the worst times in history.

Behavior is irrelevant if genetic material doesn't survive, so your theory fails on a very basic level. However, there is emerging research that makes more sense.

Yeah, if you're used to running on your toes, running on high-heels wouldn't be a big problem (assuming they aren't ridiculously high).

http://www.livescience.com/animals/running-shoes-barefoot-running-100127.html

BTW, not sure why the researchers in that article don't think that the optimal would be to use shoes and run "toe-first". To me it seems obvious - you get the benefit of both worlds, shoe protection and a lower impact running style.

It's called synesthesia.
http://www.livescience.com/health/050222_synesthesia.html

There are just as many conservatives who are "liberal" in their thinking as liberals. Conservative vs. liberal political ideology have nothing to do with open-mindedness or eclectic thoughts. To extend your thoughts: if conservatives think everything is peachy (are optimistic about the present) the way it is and that old ways are best then liberals think the world is not peachy (are pessimistic about the present) and that new ways are best. This means that conservatives are happy/content now but liberals are happy/content in the future (again, I'm just providing a corollary to your black and white stereotyping of liberals and conservatives).

I think it is rare to have a conservative who is not open to new ideas, they just believe that traditions provide a secure foundation for society and are reticent to change. Liberals want to change and want to eschew the traditions of the past.

Besides, in my experience (I know that anecdotes do not mean much), the conservatives I know are much more open-minded than the liberals I know. I know some truly open-minded liberals and some truly open-minded conservatives but on average, by experience, and in practice, the conservatives I know personally are less dogmatic than the liberals I know.

Further, there is some evidence that conservatives are more open to reading opposing viewpoints from theirs than liberals are: "People with stronger party affiliation, conservative political views, and greater interest in politics proved more likely to click on articles with opposing views, according to the Ohio State study." (source: http://www.livescience.com/culture/090608-media-message.html).

But that's just my experience and opinion, take from it what you will.

Unfortunately, nuclear bombs don't produce useful energy. We've had nuclear bombs for decades, but other than a deterrent against enemies, they're really not very useful devices.

The Russians might disagree with that:

http://www.livescience.com/technology/russia-nuke-gulf-oil-well-100512.html

We absolutely MUST replace coal fired electricity generation with low CO2 methods. Coal is the worst CO2 emitter.

I didn't say anything about replacing coal in the post you replied to. All I said was that nuclear power appeals to state planners not businesses.

I very much doubt that current renewable technologies are sufficient. The only stuff that is immediately deployable is wind and solar.

They are sufficient now. Those who build off the grid do so every day. And yea, solar and wind is employable today unlike nuclear power. According to Infoplease the Palo Verde 2, Ariz. is the largest reactor in the US, at 1,335 MWs. According to Wiki construction started in 1976 with it's first year of commercial operation in 1988, 12 years later. Now take wind turbines, erect and connect 10 5 megawatt turbines a month, and there are larger turbines, and in 1 year you've added 600 MWs or in 2 years 1,200 MWs. That's almost as much as Palo Verde 2 provides, in 1/6 the tyme. SciAm's A Solar Grand Plan says solar power "could supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050." The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the Unites States, created by the National Renewable Energy Lab of the Department of Energy, details the wind potential of various regions of the US. The Rocky Mountains along contain enough potential energy to electrify the US, but that's not the only region with large wind potential. On the East Coast from Massachusetts to North Carolina offshore wind farms could "supply all the energy needs of much of the East Coast and then some". From British Columbia to Southern California on the Pacific Coast could provide a lot as well. Actually hook a hard left in S Ca through AZ and NM to western Texas and the wind potential grows.

For baseloads geothermal is good though not for all of the baseload. Until large scale storage is available currently used power plants could provide the baseload.

Enhanced geothermal is very promising but there is still no commercial size power station.

Ah but there is commercial scale geothermal right now. In CA geothermal provided 13,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity in 2007. It provides 20 percent of Hawaii's Big Island electricity. Geothermal provides 27% of Philippine's energy. Geothermal is even available and used in New York City.

If it comes to raising the planet's temperature by 5C or nuclear power, I'd have to say nuclear is the clear choice.

Fine, let businesses pay for it not taxpayers. No loan guaranties, limited liability, or other subsidies. However left to their own devices corporations will not build nuclear power plants.

When all is said and done, I think that the carbon pollution problem will only be solved by inexpensive clean electricity. Some hard choices will have to be made.

Unfortunately there is no inexpensive clean electricity. Well, except for the Negawatt, the energy not produced due to energy efficiency or simply cutting the energy used. Therein lies the hard choice, people don't want to give up what they have even if they will s

No, not brushing/flossing would ruin your teeth.

Sugar is just a common scape goat for not taking proper care of your teeth.

The reason is that sugar doesn't rot your teeth. Surprised to hear that? Tooth decay is caused by acid-producing bacteria in your mouth that feast on carbohydrates, be it sugar from candy or starch from wholesome foods such as bread.

We're already producing more food worldwide than needed. Our problem is the allocation of those resources, and that's a question of politics - nothing else.

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/09/science/scientific-advances-lead-to-era-of-food-surplus-around-world.html

As to power: Solar is currently doubling in efficiency every second year. In 20 years we're thus able to supply the (known) energy requirements of Earth with solar alone.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080219-kurzweil-solar.html

As to space: Urbanization has been going on for quite some time. Let's look at some popular population densities and project that crudely over available land mass:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density

While Swedish myself (and we have a LOT of unpopulated land available - welcome over!) I like the Netherlands. Wonderful country. Pop. density 400/km2. Pop. density on the available landmass (excluding Antarctica) today, 50/km2. That is, without changing anything else, and with everyone living the good life of people in the Netherlands, we'd already be able to support comfortable living space for 72 billion people (and please remember that millions of people are happy to live a lot more urbanized than the average of the Netherlands).

So, the question is simple. Why do you claim things that simply aren't true? What's your agenda - and why? Is it important for you to claim that the world is overpopulated for some other reasons than you've posted so far?

And this, too

This livescience.com article on about the navy seals said:

"Their capacity to excel mentally and physically is widely known. These findings suggest that this may be achieved not by greater effort but by reducing effort when not needed and increasing it in relevant conditions. They appear to be able to appropriately tune their behavior to the environment."

If you're going to eat meat, you might as well enjoy it whatever way you like it[1], and so far lots of animals prefer cooked meat to raw meat:

http://www.livescience.com/animals/080922-nhm-raw-deal.html

Most humans have evolved to have a major part of their digestive systems outside their bodies.

These digestive system compartments include: The Kitchen and The Dining Table. They allow humans to eat a wide variety of foods that otherwise would be unedible or unpalatable (some stuff is poisonous till cooked), without requiring them to carry around huge extra stomachs.

[1] If you like it rare/blue/"well done"/poached go ahead. No point making two animals (you and your victim) suffer. If you don't like meat, please don't eat it.

There are other articles with more coverage -- Live Science, BMC Biology (PDF of 20-page article with pictures available), New Scientist, Nature, and others. The provisional PDF available at BMC Biology is the full article as it was accepted, and details the experimental procedure that confirmed that these were completely anaerobic organisms.

I really don't get all of this "LCD screens are going to make your eyes cry out in pain while E-ink is just about the same as paper" stuff floating around. Reading pulp fiction paperbacks in low light is surely the cause for my need of glasses today - way before LCDs ever hit the market.

I doubt it. See Livescience:

Myth: Reading in dim light ruins your eyesight.

Fact: The researchers found no evidence that reading in dim light causes permanent eye damage. It can cause eye strain and temporarily decreased acuity, which subsides after rest.

... and the OP should actually link to the article, not another summation of the article!

Here: http://www.livescience.com/culture/video-game-boys-learning-100316.html

Not to mention, the study did a, well I don't know what you'd call it in those circles, but there was a starvation aspect to this study.

The kids were pining for a video game console, they didn't get one, the parents caved, they played a lot and neglected their studies. Big science or coincidence? Hard to tell with this limited view IMO.

I'd prefer to see a few follow ups in the long term to gauge the real potential for video games to inhibit learning.

I'd also agree with some that perhaps it's not video games per se as the learning inhibitor, but mostly the fact that their finite amount of time was spent playing a video game rather than doing home work, reading, or other activities.

We definitely limit the amount of screen time our children can have, per day, any device included in the time allotment. 1 hour max except on some rainy weekend days.

-- editorial comment --

So /. is now posting stories to synopsis sites/aggregators like Yahoo? rather than the original source? Seems like a big FAIL to me.

Source story: http://www.livescience.com/culture/video-game-boys-learning-100316.html

I somewhat concede your point "Well - there is evidence that they had engineering skills in Egypt that we can't equal today.", assuming you mean we can't do things exactly the way they did, or don't know how they did some things.

But that doesn't mean we can't build a pyramid. We just can't do it using the exact same methods the Egyptians did (since we don't know exactly what they did thousands of years ago).

There are some interesting theories though: http://www.livescience.com/history/070518_bts_barsoum_pyramids.html
And some arguments against it (of course :) ): http://www.cmc-concrete.com/CMC%20Publications/2007,%20The%20Great%20Pyramid%20Debate,%2029th%20ICMA.pdf

Building a pyramid is a fairly parallelizable problem. Once you are willing and able to throw enough resources at the problem the issues become more of project management and logistics, than technology.

To me building a nuclear powered aircraft carrier is a far more difficult problem. It involves relatively high level mastery of far more different technologies, sciences and methods (in addition to project management etc).

> Can YOU come up with a method of moving those tons of rock, that doesn't require electricity, or gasoline or diesel power?

A modern construction firm would prefer to use electricity, gasoline or diesel.

That said, there are lots of Bangladeshis breaking up ships using human power (google for it ). So if you give me enough money (upfront) and reasonable time, perhaps I can convince them and others to build a pyramid. Then with your generosity, I can provide them with far better living and working conditions than what they are experiencing daily, and a better salary too.

I assume one would be allowed to initially transport the workers from Bangladesh, India etc to the building area using modern tech ;).

Maybe just find a source of real light bulbs. I'm in the US and get incandescents all the time, no problem, there must be some source available of them in your area.

Since fluorescents and LED cannot be dimmed, and do not work properly with motion-activated lights like I use throughout. The CFLs actually take too long to turn on -- and fluorescents suck a lot of electricity when first powered up, making them horribly inefficient for these applications.

The CFLs are supposed to last longer, justifying the price or something like that. In my experience, not the case, whenever I tried one somewhere, it wound up burning out within a few weeks, and so did the replacement, whereas incandescent in the same place lasts months. I suppose I could have just gotten two bad ones in a row, but i'm not chancing that again.

Or... time to make your own then?

Admittedly inefficient at 1500 Watts, however, lighting your house with homemade bulbs could get expensive and have certain dangers, and other aesthetic problems, but may be worth it.

Still, you could probably obtain a softer, less harsh/stressful color temperature than that fluorescent mercury-filled crap, with enough effort.

Actually, those predictions came about for entirely different reasons than global warming, namely that hurricanes come in predictable cycles. Unfortunately this time the cycle wasn't predictable enough.

That's not the answer they give.

And even if you're not bullied later in life (eventually mostly because you're so alone ..) the lack of understanding social situations may still affect many aspects of your life.

Other interesting (I hope) articles they had linked from the same page:
Understanding the 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors
10 Things Schools Don't Teach Well

If you (the reader) got bullied in school go ask yourself how well you master the following skills all from the article above:
* Listen to others.
* Follow the steps.
* Follow the rules.
* Ignore distractions.
* Ask for help.
* Take turns when you talk.
* Get along with others.
* Stay calm with others.
* Be responsible for your behavior.
* Do nice things for others.

Speaking for myself I know which ones I would had rated quite low.

That's not the answer they give.

And even if you're not bullied later in life (eventually mostly because you're so alone ..) the lack of understanding social situations may still affect many aspects of your life.

Other interesting (I hope) articles they had linked from the same page:
Understanding the 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors
10 Things Schools Don't Teach Well

If you (the reader) got bullied in school go ask yourself how well you master the following skills all from the article above:
* Listen to others.
* Follow the steps.
* Follow the rules.
* Ignore distractions.
* Ask for help.
* Take turns when you talk.
* Get along with others.
* Stay calm with others.
* Be responsible for your behavior.
* Do nice things for others.

Speaking for myself I know which ones I would had rated quite low.

She doesn't say how she arrived at that number, but this video does shed some light on the fabrication/testing. http://www.livescience.com/common/media/video/player.php?videoRef=LS_100129_metal-foam . She has a paper "Evaluation of Modulus of Elasticity of Composite Metal Foams by Experimental and Numerical Techniques", to appear in the Journal of Materials Science and Engineering A. I guess we'll just have to wait.

TFA is a poor re-blog of the original article here, which has this video, where you actually hear how it is made: Hollow steel balls are pored into a from, (and presumably agitated to settle them in a uniform matrix), then aluminum is pored over them to fix them there. So yes, should scale up well.

TFA is a poor re-blog of the original article here, which has this video, where you actually hear how it is made: Hollow steel balls are pored into a from, (and presumably agitated to settle them in a uniform matrix), then aluminum is pored over them to fix them there. So yes, should scale up well.

.
Windmills have a 20 year lifespan meaning they tend to last 1/2 to 1/4 the time of other alternative power generation systems.

Not to mention that wind power is subsidized at a rate nearly 15 times nuclear. We're subsidizing wind at a rate of $23.37 per MWhr, and nuclear at $1.59 per MWhr. Coal is at $0.44 per MWhr and natural gas is just $0.25 per MWhr.

For widely dispersed populations where the cost of transmission lines per user are high then distributed wind may make sense; as a base-load or substantial portion of a high-density energy system, however, wind is more expensive, less consistent, and require more maintenance and replacement than the alternatives.

Personally I think China in it's present form is toast, first the Himalayan glaciers are receding precipitously due to Black soot particulates,which will devastate the Asian watershed, we're heading into 30 years of mini-ice age, Beijing was hit by its heaviest snowfall in 60 years so Asian agriculture may be in for quite a hard time. Cold, thirsty and hungry people get mean, and some kind of massive change is coming as far as China, the magic eight ball says "it's a good time to get the hell out of Dodge".

Nope. I just finished an Atmospheric Physics class. They generally come down flattening into a plate, and deforming into a cup due to air resistance. Like this.

Black Holes Won't Destroy the Earth

"Probabaly."

Wind Mills and Electric Solar Panels are the Alchemy of our Age.

Don't let their green image fool you, the "hidden costs" are big.
Even in the few cases where their appliances are somewhat practical, we have real alternatives available.

Why take energy from moving Air, when you have moving Water?
Why use the thin rays from above (Fire), when you have a molten core (Earth) below?

Let's build (clean) geothermal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geothermal_hotspots.JPG

Photovoltaics can do some:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_land_area.png
but Solar Thermal Power Plants already do it better:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andasol_1
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Solar_One

Let's let them move the water:
http://www.livescience.com/animals/090729-jellyfish-mixers.html ;)

The force of the earth's magnetic is enough to convect outer liquid core a few meters every day. Over the course of time this adds up to an extra core rotation in several centuries. This effect was predicted in a long term computer simulation of the earths magnetic field by a Harvard physicist. It was confirmed by Columbia University seismologists who measured seismic velocities anomalies in the earth's core have moved several degrees in three decades of good data, pointing to core super-rotation.

This is not the sudden "earth tipover" anticipated by apocalyptists. But it is an amazing rapid event in geologic time scales.

Y'know, that graph closely parallels the average increase of the human lifespan in industrialized societies

No it doesn't. Life expectancy and lifespan are completely different things. Life expectancy was low historically because of high infant mortality rates which massively drag down the average. Lifespan OTOH, hasn't changed in several thousand years. More info here: http://www.livescience.com/health/090821-human-lifespans.html/

what are we supposed to do, just accept rising sea levels, melting glaciers and the sahara desert growing 25%?

The Sahara desert was a savannah just a few thousand years ago*. It's currently getting _greener_ - not expanding**. A warmer atmosphere leads to increased precipitation, and maybe it changes a few winds around as well which would rectify the current desert-anomaly, if you'd so choose.

if you don't believe the earth is heating up, you still have to admit the earth has had historic swings in climate, and that we earthlings will have to intervene at some point, correct?

Depends. We're currently nowhere near as "hot" as we've been in recent times***, thus, why should we do anything at all?

IF anything, we should prepare to mitigate the looming ice age.

Sources:

*) http://www.livescience.com/history/060720_sahara_rains.html
**) http://surveying-mapping-gis.blogspot.com/2006/01/greening-of-sahel.html
***) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI

Plants are green given the relative energy and percentage of wavelengths in sunlight. In other words red is easy to absorb and there's lots of it. Similarly blue is hard to absorb, but there's not so much in our yellowish sunlight to warrant reflecting it. Green, though, it's sort of hard to digest and there's an AWFUL lot of it in our sunlight. Hence green leaves.

We have green leaves, but your reasoning may not be completely correct.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070410_purple_earth.html

If the planet has life, and is low in oxygen content, it might actually be purple.

Rule to survive:

If you see somebody driving erratic, keep extra distance behind, then try to pass quickly and check cellphone-use. If positive, take note.

Keeping a tab on positive will quickly convince you that

a - It's a dangerous world out there
b - Darwin's law of survival... holds true
c - Politicians are stupid (CO no-phone-use-in cars was watered down to no-messaging-while-driving)

http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201_cell_danger.html

Have you seen this - relevant to the discussion I think: http://www.livescience.com/space/090718-survivor-microbe.html Could be something like this causing the methane on Mars. And whether or not, is reason to be very cautious about possibly accidentally introducing new Earth lifeforms to Mars in future space missions, until we know what effect they may have on the planet - and perhaps also on Earth if they get returned to Earth after evolving further on Mars. (see my other posts to this topic for why I think this may be a cause for concern and caution until we know a lot more about terraforming).

Progress is being made towards just such a scenario; however, due to the computational expense, the only such definition (so far, to my knowledge) is a tobacco mosaic virus in a drop of water.

This was simulated on the atomic level, and according to the article ~50 million atoms were virtualized. Again due to computational expense, the emulation ran for only 50 nanoseconds.

It raises the old conundrum of how accurate a model can be before it ceases to be useful or becomes a copy.

Actually, the vehicle in front also benefits from the drafting. Not to the same degree as the trailing vehicles, but it gets a significant benefit none the less. See http://www.livescience.com/technology/070215_nascar_aero.html for details.

Not only are they cold-blooded and eusocial, they are substantially immune to certain types of pain. Plus, when their burrow is invaded by a snake, they will deliberately sacrifice peripheral members of the colony to protect the core.

We are just lucky that they eat only tubers, and look more or less like vienna sausages with legs, or they would be a shoe-in for title of "socialist supervermin public enemy number 1".

They are both genetic.

I think they should have 2 sets of flights/gates/check-in lines at the airport: one for regular people who would like for their total check-in time to take less than their flight time, and one for the paranoid "OMG! that brown person is speaking in something other than English!" crowd.

This would greatly improve the traveling situation in the U.S. in several ways:

1. Air travel could once again be painless for those who value convenience/dignity/privacy over the negligible improvements in safety provided by excessive security procedures. (Especially if you don't want your wife/children to be virtually undressed by airport security.)
2. As a corrolary to #1, there would be less lawsuits and complaints filed against retarded airport staff (e.g. from a TSA goon forcing a mother to drink her own breast milk) since those subjected to these ridiculous security procedures are now willing participants.
3. If you're a busy person or you're in a rush to get somewhere, you can always hop on a "less secure" flight and skip the 2-hour check-in time caused by someone leaving a nail clippers in their check-in luggage.
4. If the TSA inspectors have less people to search, they can be much more thorough. (mandatory strip searches and cavity checks, anyone?)
5. Since a terrorist is more likely to choose one of the "less secure" flights to hijack, those who are taking the "high security" flights can rest a little easier knowing that their chances of being hijacked have dropped from 0.000001% to 0.0000001%. Also, since those belonging to profiled social groups would likely opt for the less intrusive check-in lines, those on the "high security" flights would also feel safer sharing their plane with fewer Arabs/Egyptians/Persians/Mexicans/etc.

This way, airline passengers get a choice in whether or not they want to take part in the elaborate security theater, and everyone is happy. Heck, even the airlines will be happier since fewer people would be deterred from traveling so their profits would go up.

but I cannot hold a phone to my ear.

because : http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201_cell_danger.html "cell phone distraction causes 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in the United States every year, according to the journal's publisher, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society."

There have been several studies that indicate that using a "hands free" device to talk on the cell phone does not significantly reduce the amount of distraction. All of the evidence I have seen indicates that it is talking on a cell phone that causes the problems, not holding the cell phone to talk.

but I cannot hold a phone to my ear.

because : http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201_cell_danger.html "cell phone distraction causes 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in the United States every year, according to the journal's publisher, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society."

The number of species waxes and wanes. No reason to believe that won't continue to be the case unless we humans or a very large asteroid turn the planet into a cinder.

Mind if I ask where you get this ? Is this some article of faith ? Some political opinion ? It sure sounds like it. I gave an explanation why the number of species (and the difference between species) will diminish over time, culminating in a single set of genes conquering all.

I did not claim this would happen tomorrow (though since evolution is exponential it will happen a hell of a lot faster than you'd think, which still leaves probably several million years).

So where do you get this information that number of species is a random floating around variable that rises and falls ? That sure as hell is not consistent with evolution theory.

And yes that means that all ethnic groups will merge. Blacks will disappear, whites (as in north europeans) will disappear. It is an open question (and probably undecided) what the resulting ethnicity will be. The funny thing is that while it's probably natural barriers that created the ethnic groups, at least some ethnic groups were created by racism, and by the wars and economic disasters it caused over time.

Tolerance, what we have today (in the west, not in muslim countries, not in india, and not in china), leads to mixing genes, which leads to a single ethnicity. It is truly astounding at which speed this is happening.

Everybody knows this graph. The "real" one for research is many times larger. Note how just about all of the lines do not continue to the present. All of those species are dead, every last man, woman and child. Most species were "offshoots" from the hominid family tree and we are *not* their decendants.

Note also how there are large gaps, which must be filled with separate species. These species were so completely destroyed that now 250 years of searching by thousands of people did not turn up a single recognizable bone of them.

You raise some excellent issues. Perhaps humans by nature need religion and/or mysticism. We perhaps evolved with it being part of our culture and thinking and our brain expects it. If we remove that without something sufficient to fill the void, we may be asking for trouble. After all, some studies suggest that Church-goers live longer.

Think of it kind of like physical exercise: We don't require it to make a living much anymore, but our body still "expects" exercise and will get diabetes, heart disease, etc. without it because it's tuned to operate with it.

The part you quote contains a link to another article describing levitating "ants, beetles, spiders, ladybugs, bees, tadpoles, and fish," but that levitation was done using ultrasound, not magnetism.

From one of the earlier experiments.

Looks more like a cheese shredder than a large, scientifically purposed apparatus.

The folks pushing for these cap-and-trade carbon scams are business leaders and gov't cronies who stand to make a ton of cash and consolidate their power in public policy and the marketplace through regulating a previously unlimited resource.

Here's a couple links to get you started:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

People are not equal, true. However it is on an individual basis, not on a race basis.
Saying all black people steal is racism, if if it is not said in hate.
Saying all Asians are smart, also racist.

depends on the joke.
BTW, a dead man will never complain, since they are...dead. Try using actual logical arguments.

no HATE is when you hate.

Many people weren't hatefully but kept n going to 'white only' benches, bathrooms, drinking fountains was also racist.

Blacks, asians, whites are all on the same evolutionary point, so I don't know why you even brought that up.

oh, and studies like that are t confirm anything, there to verify. The fact that you don't understand the basics of science is ot really surprising, based on your posts..

The studies are actually quite interesting. here is a short and simple description of one of the studies. I hope you can read at a high school level.

http://www.livescience.com/health/050120_brain_sex.html

What do you call three Gypsies standing in an alley with baseball bats? Waiting for you.

We are talking about Tachypsychia.

That livescience.com study was flawed. In my experience, Tachypsychia does not improve interaction with the real-world. It won't improve visual response times.

In my case I was riding a bike. A car ran a stop sign, and subsequently over my bike. Time stopped. It just stopped. I had an infinite amount of time to consider my next actions. I knew my life, or at least the integrity of my bones, was riding on choosing wisely.

I couldn't move. I couldn't see anything new. It was like I was frozen. But I had all the time in the world to contemplate my next course of action. I contemplated trying to steer behind the car. Ahead of the car. Jumping up and traveling (sans bike) over the car. I modeled what the car would do. Probability he would see me. Probability he would stop, and where that would occur.

I had this infinite amount of time to consider all these actions (and more). It was like someone hit PAUSE on the world.

I chose to jump off the bike, relying on stopping before reaching the car. The world sped back up. I lived. I thought I was uninjured. (Half a day later I discovered a bruise the size of a watermelon on my leg.)

In a fraction of a second, my bike was under the car, and looked like a pretzel.

During this entire time, my ability to interact with the real world did not change. I couldn't see or move faster than normal. I just had a lot of time to think things through.

Curiously, Beta-blockers seem to impair this ability. When on beta-blockers, if I trip, I find myself on the ground with no real clear memory of how I got there. It just happens too fast.

Thats just your mind filtering all other distractions and focusing on as much detail of the current situation as possible, and is a trick caused by your memory. For more info: http://www.livescience.com/health/071211-time-slow.html