Today I saw a posting on a storefront window saying they were looking for someone for a CDI (that means a job contract that goes on until you quit or are fired, unlike a CDD, which is for a specified amount of time) for... guess how many hours a week?
Five.
Five hours a week. That's half a day of work. I didn't even know it was possible. It's absolutely ridiculous.
And yet guess who's going to apply? >.> I'd take one hour a week at this point. Still, I can't imagine it's worth it for the employer to pay benefits and all for an employee that only works five hours. Maybe they don't have to provide any benefits until a set amount of hours?
If it was a CDD, I'd say "well, they're looking for an extra pair of hands for the summer, makes sense" but here, it's like... Really? You need someone to work five hours a week possibly forever?
Ozone, gravity? Rocks, planet life, bacteria, all take certain spices, certain elements. Was it pressure, heat? What helped create these things ozone, gravity? What helped created ozone, gravity?
How was the ozone created, how was heat, pressure created, how were bacteria created, how were various different rock minerals created, how as plant life create, how was h20 created.
Could some one please answer a few of these questions? Thank you.
If you could relate the evolution or process of all characterization on earth, the initial influence of minerals, life, bacteria all to one thing, what might it be?
I finished re-reading Eragon yesterday (probably my favourite book I've read), and decided to watch the film. It was godawful. They just missed so much out, and changed so much! It was like a bad ripoff! I know that they have to change somethings to make it work as a film, but this was just way too far. Some of the details they changed mean that films for the rest of the series is impossible. They changed the species of an important character, they changed how another key character died, they left out several key characters, they killed off two of the key villains for the next book and they left out the crippling wound eragon recieved which plagued him for the next book, and they completely changed the penultimate fight (before it involved a rigorous sword fight, which eragon lost, then one of the characters broke a gigantic gem above the chamber (again, important in the next books), distracting the villain, which allowed eragon to kill him. In the film the sword fight doesn't happen, instead it's all aerial combat.). They also missed out large amounts of the book, including important plot loops. To get an idea of how much they missed out, the book takes place over at least 6 months. The film takes place over the course of one day.
The film had so much potential to be a major film franchise, but that has been completely ruined. Not that I'd want anymore of that quality. Boo.
To answer all your questions would take a small library of books. You should read wikipedia on each of the topics you mention. And then come back here for specific question.
For a start, the origin of the earth, from wikipedia:
Scientists have been able to reconstruct detailed information about the planet's past. The earliest dated Solar System material was formed 4.5672 ± 0.0006 billion years ago, and by 4.54 billion years ago (within an uncertainty of 1%) the Earth and the other planets in the Solar System had formed out of the solar nebula—a disk-shaped mass of dust and gas left over from the formation of the Sun. This assembly of the Earth through accretion was thus largely completed within 10–20 million years. Initially molten, the outer layer of the planet Earth cooled to form a solid crust when water began accumulating in the atmosphere. The Moon formed shortly thereafter, 4.53 billion years ago.
The current consensus model for the formation of the Moon is the giant impact hypothesis, in which the Moon was created when a Mars-sized object (sometimes called Theia) with about 10% of the Earth's mass impacted the Earth in a glancing blow. In this model, some of this object's mass would have merged with the Earth and a portion would have been ejected into space, but enough material would have been sent into orbit to coalesce into the Moon.
Outgassing and volcanic activity produced the primordial atmosphere of the Earth. Condensing water vapor, augmented by ice and liquid water delivered by asteroids and the larger proto-planets, comets, and trans-Neptunian objects produced the oceans. The newly formed Sun was only 70% of its present luminosity, yet evidence shows that the early oceans remained liquid—a contradiction dubbed the faint young Sun paradox. A combination of greenhouse gases and higher levels of solar activity served to raise the Earth's surface temperature, preventing the oceans from freezing over. By 3.5 billion years ago, the Earth's magnetic field was established, which helped prevent the atmosphere from being stripped away by the solar wind.
Two major models have been proposed for the rate of continental growth: steady growth to the present-day and rapid growth early in Earth history. Current research shows that the second option is most likely, with rapid initial growth of continental crust followed by a long-term steady continental area. On time scales lasting hundreds of millions of years, the surface continually reshaped as continents formed and broke up. The continents migrated across the surface, occasionally combining to form a supercontinent. Roughly 750 million years ago (Ma), one of the earliest known supercontinents, Rodinia, began to break apart. The continents later recombined to form Pannotia, 600–540 Ma, then finally Pangaea, which broke apart 180 Ma.
Volcanoes have fascinated mankind for centuries. The ancients held the explosions of molten rock and gases to be the work of the gods. Johannes Kepler, the legendary astronomer, believed them to be the Earth’s tear ducts. The early planet was covered in volcanoes. These volcanoes had a major effect on earth and helped to create the atmosphere and possibly even complex life forms.
Although today we think of greenhouse gases as an evil that must be stopped, in Earth’s early days these gases allowed the planet to develop the conditions to support life.
The sun did not shine as brightly 4.5 billion years ago as it does today. The early sun was about 25% less bright than our own shining star. Without the heat of a brighter sun, the Earth needed something else to ensure it wasn’t just a gigantic frozen rock. Enter volcanic blasts.
The Early Atmosphere
volcano
Our atmosphere today contains mostly nitrogen and oxygen. The early atmosphere was quite different, and contained far more greenhouse gases than we could stand today. Volcanoes helped create the warm Earth with their eruptions, which shot a mix of water vapor, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrochloric acid, methane, ammonia, nitrogen, & sulfur gases into the atmosphere.
Those emissions did two things for the Earth. All that water vapor the volcanoes were spewing eventually condensed and formed the oceans that covered the earth. All those greenhouse gases kept the Earth warm enough for the planet not to turn into an icicle, for a while at least. Water stays warm and on the surface, and all of a sudden there’s life.
Once there was water, life was possible. Nobody really knows how life started on the planet, but there is a volcano based theory. Many scientists believe amino acids, the building blocks of life, arrived on the planet after collisions with meteors. These amino acids, however, need to combine into peptides, a protein that forms the basis of cells, before life is possible.
One theory of how peptides were created deals with undersea volcanoes. Scientists at the Scripp’s Research Institute in California showed that carbonyl sulfide, a common volcanic gas, helps amino acids form peptides. They theorized that undersea volcanic eruptions could have spurred peptide formation and resulted in the first proto-life forms. Of course, this could all be wrong. It’s one of like 10,000 origin of life theories. Moving on, life now exists in a very very simple form, cyanobacteria.
Aw. I was hoping that I'd get to answer. Only that my answer was more along the lines of a string of gravity based puns with some vague handwaving at the end. Just wait until someone figures out TOE and then all your questions will be answered.
Aw. I was hoping that I'd get to answer. Only that my answer was more along the lines of a string of gravity based puns with some vague handwaving at the end. Just wait until someone figures out TOE and then all your questions will be answered.
Could some one please answer a few of these questions? Thank you.
Damn, there's actually a killer graphic novel on the topic, but "as usual", only available in French and German (German author, but published first in France. Figures.). Hardcover, 360 pages, large format... of course, a rather superficial treatment of how the earth came to be. Mesmerizing nonetheless. I think I'll read that tonight and let the Count of Monte Christo rot in prison for another day.
Damn, there's actually a killer graphic novel on the topic, but "as usual", only available in French and German (German author, but published first in France. Figures.). Hardcover, 360 pages, large format... of course, a rather superficial treatment of how the earth came to be. Mesmerizing nonetheless. I think I'll read that tonight and let the Count of Monte Christo rot in prison for another day.
Americans are supposedly more restricted by what they teach, learn than other countries. I hear that other countries are more philosophical and take science in unique, extraordinary, daring areas.
Americans are supposedly more restricted by what they teach and/or learn than other countries. I hear that other countries are more philosophical and take science in unique, extraordinary, and daring areas.
Just what I've heard.
Take science in unique, extraordinary, and daring areas? Like what??
Surely it's one thing to be daring in ones efforts to prove/disprove theories or hypotheses, and certain theories can be daring in that they risk upsetting cultural or religious ideals, but how does this apply to your statement or show evidence that America is not willing to teach or learn certain avenues of science?
I just pre ordered 4 of the Sailor Moon manga and the 2 Sailor V mangas because Amazon don't charge till its dispatch so I can cancel if I see it cheaper and if not it wont be sold out.
Take science in unique, extraordinary, and daring areas? Like what??
Surely it's one thing to be daring in ones efforts to prove/disprove theories or hypotheses, and certain theories can be daring in that they risk upsetting cultural or religious ideals, but how does this apply to your statement or show evidence that America is not willing to teach or learn certain avenues of science?
hein je suppose que vous les gens ne savent toujours pas qui je suis, après tout ce que vous faites? Wow il était juste de votre nez et pourtant vous n'arrivez pas à mettre tous les morceaux togther pourriez-vous?
si vede che sono rimasto molto ingiustamente bandito per la creazione di un account comico che in realtà non rompere le regole. Il divieto era solo dovuto essere per un mese così come mi è stato bene male bene aspettare fuori
men så gætte hvad der skete efter den måned var gået? Jeg prøvede at logge ind og fandt, at jeg var blevet ramt med et permanent forbud!
Sein verärgert habe ich versucht im Gespräch mit Menschen, aber sie wollte einfach nicht auf mich hören. Also, was konnte ich tun? Ich hatte auf andere Konten, die immer verboten, weil ich zu Unrecht das erste Mal verboten wurde gehalten zu machen.
ita nunc i scisco aliquam iustum placere RESTITUO access to my originial coolguy721 ratio. I modo ponatur banned mensem! Sinite, quaeso ut reverterentur in pace et bello non ERUCTO sic panton mos opus. Vestibulum vel velit iustum vereor i have hic cyclus repeat
I'm going to lay this to rest once and for all. Hamza, you were originally banned for disruptive behavior. This would've been a short ban, but then you started making sockpuppet accounts. I told you that I would up the ban length for every one, and I kept my word. Then you started harassing me outside the forums. That was the last straw. The bans on all of your accounts, including your main one, are permanent.
Hamza, you've proven that you cannot behave yourself when given a second chance. You have burned all of your bridges, used up all of your chances, and you are no longer welcome here.
I'm going to lay this to rest once and for all. Hamza, you were originally banned for disruptive behavior. This would've been a short ban, but then you started making sockpuppet accounts. I told you that I would up the ban length for every one, and I kept my word. Then you started harassing me outside the forums. That was the last straw. The bans on all of your accounts, including your main one, are permanent.
Hamza, you've proven that you cannot behave yourself when given a second chance. You have burned all of your bridges, used up all of your chances, and you are no longer welcome here.
I'm going to lay this to rest once and for all. Hamza, you were originally banned for disruptive behavior. This would've been a short ban, but then you started making sockpuppet accounts. I told you that I would up the ban length for every one, and I kept my word. Then you started harassing me outside the forums. That was the last straw. The bans on all of your accounts, including your main one, are permanent.
Hamza, you've proven that you cannot behave yourself when given a second chance. You have burned all of your bridges, used up all of your chances, and you are no longer welcome here.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but nice modding... friend.
Are you saying this should be taught in high school or at college?
I would think that neither of those theories is actually provable, but entirely theoretical. How exactly is one to use the scientific method and experiment regarding such things? Futhermore, whether it's actually true or not, what bearing would it have on human life or culture anyway?
Oh, wait. You did say you heard American science classes don't teach as much philosophy as other countries. If this is true, I still don't see how it's practical to do so anyway.
There might as well be a theory of life or reality, existence. XD because we have several different theories on it already.
Within that, all things within the presence of other things, ya know little pictures inside of the bigger picture, I think I'm entitled to my own opinions.
Most theories of everything entitle you to your science, lol it's just that certain people will some times label more common practices , beliefs of science, maths as a illusion. And that might bother you, that's fair if it does. Because some beliefs of everything seem to use math, science as far as it can take them.
What bearing? Well if different theories of everything turn out to actually be true, I can not comprehend that question. What exactly would be true? Even gravity is still a theory. I'm sure people would still question any version of the truth, inside of this version of reality, truth, we already question everything.
But if that became the primary belief of truth, of reality, then lol, I think reality might continue to change, and escape us.
Do you really think logic is so essential, your brain does logic, but not as your mind does it. And there have been scientific break through that in the kindest words have humbled scientists, made them question everything, and can be quoted as saying, "What the hell do we know?"
Even Einstein thought physical was a mirage, as he can be quoted as saying such...and lots of famous and most prestige scientists go on to say that we don't know anything. And, need i point out again the double slit experiment which undeniably makes us requestion several of our principals...
The more you think you know about quantum science , the out most experts, the more questions you should have. That's a pattern I see...
We're just playing in a very small sand box in schools and that is what I honestly believe. There are several brilliant experts now saying that locality doesn't even exist.
Some are even questioning the "true" existence of matter...Whatever the hell you think "true" means...
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I figure science is more the search for fact, not truth. Further, the "matter is an illusion" idea sounds a bit too much "the Matrix has you" for me.
I'm not much for philosophy anyway, really. Also, it seems to me that many a philosophy professor is highly interested in bashing Christianity and/or the existence of God in general. I've had friends at college who took philosophy and felt rather persecuted by the professor for believing the Bible.
Not that I intend to steer this thread into a religious debate. I just feel that my personal understanding of truth negates the need for me to question such as the existence of matter. So, for myself I would say it wouldn't make a difference what philosophers thought about the true existence of matter, as it has no bearing on reality anyway.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I figure science is more the search for fact, not truth. Further, the "matter is an illusion" idea sounds a bit too much "the Matrix has you" for me.
I'm not much for philosophy anyway, really. Also, it seems to me that many a philosophy professor is highly interested in bashing Christianity and/or the existence of God in general. I've had friends at college who took philosophy and felt rather persecuted by the professor for believing the Bible.
Not that I intend to steer this thread into a religious debate. I just feel that my personal understanding of truth negates the need for me to question such as the existence of matter. So, for myself I would say it wouldn't make a difference what philosophers thought about the true existence of matter, as it has no bearing on reality anyway.
Many famous scientists are, were philosophers and artists. And mnay beliefs that they went on to be proven were nonsense at the time, but never actual nonsense. Or were they?
I guess it's hard for some one to consider they don't truly exist when there are so many indictators and beliefs to that person about existing. It's a hard thing to grasp, especially when you "exist" and the argument sounds nonsenical as it exists only to be impossible to dispute that you exist.
What it gets down to is the rejection or acceptance of beliefs, and I think facts are only tied to other things that can be considered facts, and some where along the line of your facts and logic, scientist have more than once found that they had reached a point where things weren't coherent, and as linear as they would have expected.
You, or any true scientist should bite his tongue or be very careful when trying to make facts for everyone, especially those who study these facts, and find other possible explanations , interpretations surrounding these facts.
Facts, yeah...they do determine certain patterns, predictable outcomes, as your brain seeks out certain patterns it can follow. But over all , facts don't always work out in a "logical" way, and that is actually reality.
LOL philosophy isn't just a certain manner, or certain way about it, and is often associated with the search for truth. And religion may come up, it's likely to happen, but not all philosophy needs to attack religion. I've been participating in philosophy for a little while since later years of my life. Some will discount God. Well, God was never actually defined, and I think a good philosopher should mind his/ her own tongue.
Oh, and some of the vital components of philosophy and philosopher , science won't discount entirely, such as reality being observation and choice.
Most of the well versed philosophers, the ones above me, are scientific geniuses as well as philosophical brilliants.
Science and math still exists because it allows a predictable outcome within a intellectual discipline that is all, it's a tool . And it's accepted to give us partial control over the elements. Then there are other studies that are a little less logical, things that are a little more out there and that's where the truth within philosophy is OFTEN suggested.
Eh, sentience and consciousness are good enough for me in terms of existing. The world around me, as I observe it, seems to follow basic laws. To say something doesn't "exist" when it is clearly observable and follows a complex set of rules on the basic level, indicates to me enough "existence" that any other definition seems to be semantic at best.
Eh, sentience and consciousness are good enough for me in terms of existing. The world around me, as I observe it, seems to follow basic laws. To say something doesn't "exist" when it is clearly observable and follows a complex set of rules on the basic level, indicates to me enough "existence" that any other definition seems to be semantic at best.
There are many philosophies that actually take the obvious nature of existing as we know it, all the laws and still try to turn things upside down. Do we learn anything , maybe. It's really a habit, obsession, people just trying to search for truth at different angles. I don't think any one discounts this reality, rather they try to see it from a different side, say like the inside of a house, 4 walls seeing on the inside, what it may look like on the outside.
Science is structured mostly on the inside, but there are advanced degrees,subjects in science that theorize on the outside, and those are often a blend of philosophy and advanced science, if not simple science turned inside out.
I find that short answers usually summarize, cover the basic principals and concepts of most scientific things, I don't really need to see the numbers, data to understand how one concept , design concept relates to another.
Eh, sentience and consciousness are good enough for me in terms of existing. The world around me, as I observe it, seems to follow basic laws. To say something doesn't "exist" when it is clearly observable and follows a complex set of rules on the basic level, indicates to me enough "existence" that any other definition seems to be semantic at best.
Well, doodo!, I just watched that video and it doesn't seem to be going on any sort of accepted theory. It's a hypothesis, an interesting hypothesis, but it doesn't have experiments to back it up, as a theory does. You see, theories mean different things to scientists and laypeople.
A theory for a scientist has been proved multiple times under rigorous conditions and has not been able to be disproved. However there is still not enough proof for it to become a fact. Colloquially, a theory seems to apply to any random idea that sounds mildly logical, which causes a lot of confusion when applied to scientific facts.
I mean, the Theory of Relativity is still a theory, but most people agree generally that it's correct since no experiments have contradicted it's existence although many have been conducted. Same with the Theory of Evolution. However, neither can be proved because we lack the technological knowhow to carry out the appropriate tests.
Sorry about the mini rant, but it really grinds my gears when the word "theory" is tossed about to describe every crackpot idea that is remotely scientific. Even calling their idea a hypothesis wouldn't really be correct in this case, since there is absolutely no way for them to test whether or not their idea is correct, since their whole set-up depends on the fact that matter changes when it is being observed, meaning that observation would be utterly pointless as a means of experimentation.
Alright, rant's really over this time. Apologies and all that, but the distinction must be clear.
A friend of mine from high school is pregnant.
It's starting! People my age that I personally know are starting to become parents. It's a bit weird, because since I know I don't want to be one, it might create a gap between us. It's not the kind of thing I would usually worry about, but my childfree friends all told me, when their friends started having kids, they stopped having any time, they started making knew friends who had kids the same age and ultimately they lost touch because they (the CF friends) always had to make all the effort to see each other and it was taxing to be taken for granted like that.
So the fact that it's starting is a bit of a worry. Well, it's okay with this one, we barely talk as it is, so it won't make a difference. I only heard about the pregnancy when she knew the sex of the baby, so... yeah, she's over three months pregnant already :P
Still, it's a bit weird for me. I was sure I'd turn 30 before it happened (since it's the average age for a first pregnancy here).
I'm 23, and I have one friend (well, friend of a friend/acquaintance) who had a kid about three years ago, and another whose son's first birthday is in 12 days.
Well, doodo!, I just watched that video and it doesn't seem to be going on any sort of accepted theory. It's a hypothesis, an interesting hypothesis, but it doesn't have experiments to back it up, as a theory does. You see, theories mean different things to scientists and laypeople.
A theory for a scientist has been proved multiple times under rigorous conditions and has not been able to be disproved. However there is still not enough proof for it to become a fact. Colloquially, a theory seems to apply to any random idea that sounds mildly logical, which causes a lot of confusion when applied to scientific facts.
I mean, the Theory of Relativity is still a theory, but most people agree generally that it's correct since no experiments have contradicted it's existence although many have been conducted. Same with the Theory of Evolution. However, neither can be proved because we lack the technological knowhow to carry out the appropriate tests.
Sorry about the mini rant, but it really grinds my gears when the word "theory" is tossed about to describe every crackpot idea that is remotely scientific. Even calling their idea a hypothesis wouldn't really be correct in this case, since there is absolutely no way for them to test whether or not their idea is correct, since their whole set-up depends on the fact that matter changes when it is being observed, meaning that observation would be utterly pointless as a means of experimentation.
Alright, rant's really over this time. Apologies and all that, but the distinction must be clear.
Well, I never said I thought their video was gospel. My beliefs aren't even the same, well, I do share many similar beliefs. I think some of these thing seem abstract until translated into a different "language" or looked at differently.
LOL testing, how cute...like the human race is really that smart, capable of understanding the universe. Inter dimensional beings might disagree. But, not every one is entitled to ask ...
Well, in a way so are we the interdimensional sort, but it's all about a point of reference which most of us seem to share or don't share.
It's really pointless , but no matter the human ego, and sense of reality is pretty strong, inspired. Yet again I point out how Einstein actually thought the physical was a mirage. But, yes, there's things humans aren't going to understand, comprehend.
Thanks for sharing. LOL the mighty scientist...XD! HAAHAHAHH! *cough cough cough*
*cough cough* humans are still in diapers XD !!! HAHAHAHAHA! *cough cough* Ok, ok, I'm good. I'm good. Whooo boy. Ok you go back to your science and math, hell even think it's "true", "fact", that's ok...
We're all searching for answers in our own way, and yes "reality" is pretty principal and rather influential to observe as is in our and it's current state.
Ok you go back to your science and math, hell even think it's "true", "fact", that's ok...
Don't get science and math wrong there, pal! Math is a system created by humans, and everything "true" in math only remains true within that system. You want an alternative math with equally true assessments, go ahead, it's possible.
With natural science, scientists always know that their discoveries are possibly not "true" forever. Scientists of tomorrow could always find that matters are more complicated than formerly thought. You make up theories and you redefine them until they best fit and reliably predict all observed phenomena. That's an active search for the truth, but always only an approximation nonetheless. Plato's Cave allegory might come into play here.
I'm going to lay this to rest once and for all. Hamza, you were originally banned for disruptive behavior. This would've been a short ban, but then you started making sockpuppet accounts. I told you that I would up the ban length for every one, and I kept my word. Then you started harassing me outside the forums. That was the last straw. The bans on all of your accounts, including your main one, are permanent.
Hamza, you've proven that you cannot behave yourself when given a second chance. You have burned all of your bridges, used up all of your chances, and you are no longer welcome here.
You might want to add that this is not a personal feud on your side, and I can well testify to that. We've been discussing our course of action with all the moderators, back and forth, and the conclusion was unanimous. Over and out.
I called a random doctor I had just looked up to set up an appointment. Monday, he tells me "well I have room this afternoon, unless you prefer Wednesday" I said Wednesday, he asked "morning or afternoon?" and I had an appointment for today at 8am (it's 9 something now).
Note that the guy doesn't take appointment on Tuesdays and Thursdays because it's the days he's the one who moves (for people who can't go to the doctor and need a doctor to go to their place, and for small towns that don't have a town doctor, etc).
Then today I go to the doctor. I see in the waiting room his prices (by law they're required to put them up). I panic because he's a class II doctor, meaning he provides extra services that allow him to charge more than the minimum paid for by social security. And I don't have insurance to pay for the difference (45€ instead of the covered 23€).
He walks in, I say hi, say I can't afford his prices and ask if it's possible to cancel. He says of course, but if I'm on welfare he doesn't charge the extra so we can go ahead.
Cue to a first doctor appointment that, as it's a check-up from two years without seeing a doctor, is close to an hour long (bottom line, I'm pretty much as healthy as can be)
I leave with an appointment for bloodwork to check on my chronic everything, prescription for my allergy and ventolin for my asthma (which he says he's gone as far as he can tell but an emergency inhaler is good in case I happen to have an attack) and he made sure to check that they were all free ones.
So I didn't have to even reach for my wallet.
My apologies to people from the US or other places with a sucky health care. But it feels good to think I'm getting taken care of again without it putting me into debt.
Comments
Five.
Five hours a week. That's half a day of work. I didn't even know it was possible. It's absolutely ridiculous.
And yet guess who's going to apply? >.> I'd take one hour a week at this point. Still, I can't imagine it's worth it for the employer to pay benefits and all for an employee that only works five hours. Maybe they don't have to provide any benefits until a set amount of hours?
If it was a CDD, I'd say "well, they're looking for an extra pair of hands for the summer, makes sense" but here, it's like... Really? You need someone to work five hours a week possibly forever?
It's really, really weird.
Ozone, gravity? Rocks, planet life, bacteria, all take certain spices, certain elements. Was it pressure, heat? What helped create these things ozone, gravity? What helped created ozone, gravity?
How was the ozone created, how was heat, pressure created, how were bacteria created, how were various different rock minerals created, how as plant life create, how was h20 created.
Could some one please answer a few of these questions? Thank you.
If you could relate the evolution or process of all characterization on earth, the initial influence of minerals, life, bacteria all to one thing, what might it be?
Thanks for sharing.
Looking for a little science.
Gases and vapors?
Gases, vapors, mutation, radiation?
Characterization or conditions...
The film had so much potential to be a major film franchise, but that has been completely ruined. Not that I'd want anymore of that quality. Boo.
And that was my answer I received.
You can answer here. I won't bite.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvRMYITGGG6UfolwS4W6J7Xsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20110719085452AADqvIt
Damn, there's actually a killer graphic novel on the topic, but "as usual", only available in French and German (German author, but published first in France. Figures.). Hardcover, 360 pages, large format... of course, a rather superficial treatment of how the earth came to be. Mesmerizing nonetheless. I think I'll read that tonight and let the Count of Monte Christo rot in prison for another day.
I answered. I'm k on yahoo. Because I made the account at a time when I was into minimalism.
I didn't see K, my friend. Where is K. LOL I read this after I best answered some one. Do you mean I...
By chance?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvRMYITGGG6UfolwS4W6J7Xsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20110719093708AAToBSU
NOO NOOOOOOOOOOO
Americans are supposedly more restricted by what they teach, learn than other countries. I hear that other countries are more philosophical and take science in unique, extraordinary, daring areas.
Just what I've heard.
No it was the other one, but I guess it didn't go through because it was already answered by the time I got to it.
Take science in unique, extraordinary, and daring areas? Like what??
Surely it's one thing to be daring in ones efforts to prove/disprove theories or hypotheses, and certain theories can be daring in that they risk upsetting cultural or religious ideals, but how does this apply to your statement or show evidence that America is not willing to teach or learn certain avenues of science?
I highly doubt this and some like double slit experiment is american...
I don't even know why we still learn BS in schools...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pFwOljL6ys&feature=related
si vede che sono rimasto molto ingiustamente bandito per la creazione di un account comico che in realtà non rompere le regole. Il divieto era solo dovuto essere per un mese così come mi è stato bene male bene aspettare fuori
men så gætte hvad der skete efter den måned var gået? Jeg prøvede at logge ind og fandt, at jeg var blevet ramt med et permanent forbud!
Sein verärgert habe ich versucht im Gespräch mit Menschen, aber sie wollte einfach nicht auf mich hören. Also, was konnte ich tun? Ich hatte auf andere Konten, die immer verboten, weil ich zu Unrecht das erste Mal verboten wurde gehalten zu machen.
ita nunc i scisco aliquam iustum placere RESTITUO access to my originial coolguy721 ratio. I modo ponatur banned mensem! Sinite, quaeso ut reverterentur in pace et bello non ERUCTO sic panton mos opus. Vestibulum vel velit iustum vereor i have hic cyclus repeat
Hamza, you've proven that you cannot behave yourself when given a second chance. You have burned all of your bridges, used up all of your chances, and you are no longer welcome here.
Guru, you are the best mod ever.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but nice modding... friend.
Are you saying this should be taught in high school or at college?
I would think that neither of those theories is actually provable, but entirely theoretical. How exactly is one to use the scientific method and experiment regarding such things? Futhermore, whether it's actually true or not, what bearing would it have on human life or culture anyway?
Oh, wait. You did say you heard American science classes don't teach as much philosophy as other countries. If this is true, I still don't see how it's practical to do so anyway.
Within that, all things within the presence of other things, ya know little pictures inside of the bigger picture, I think I'm entitled to my own opinions.
Most theories of everything entitle you to your science, lol it's just that certain people will some times label more common practices , beliefs of science, maths as a illusion. And that might bother you, that's fair if it does. Because some beliefs of everything seem to use math, science as far as it can take them.
What bearing? Well if different theories of everything turn out to actually be true, I can not comprehend that question. What exactly would be true? Even gravity is still a theory. I'm sure people would still question any version of the truth, inside of this version of reality, truth, we already question everything.
But if that became the primary belief of truth, of reality, then lol, I think reality might continue to change, and escape us.
Do you really think logic is so essential, your brain does logic, but not as your mind does it. And there have been scientific break through that in the kindest words have humbled scientists, made them question everything, and can be quoted as saying, "What the hell do we know?"
Even Einstein thought physical was a mirage, as he can be quoted as saying such...and lots of famous and most prestige scientists go on to say that we don't know anything. And, need i point out again the double slit experiment which undeniably makes us requestion several of our principals...
The more you think you know about quantum science , the out most experts, the more questions you should have. That's a pattern I see...
We're just playing in a very small sand box in schools and that is what I honestly believe. There are several brilliant experts now saying that locality doesn't even exist.
Some are even questioning the "true" existence of matter...Whatever the hell you think "true" means...
I'm not much for philosophy anyway, really. Also, it seems to me that many a philosophy professor is highly interested in bashing Christianity and/or the existence of God in general. I've had friends at college who took philosophy and felt rather persecuted by the professor for believing the Bible.
Not that I intend to steer this thread into a religious debate. I just feel that my personal understanding of truth negates the need for me to question such as the existence of matter. So, for myself I would say it wouldn't make a difference what philosophers thought about the true existence of matter, as it has no bearing on reality anyway.
Many famous scientists are, were philosophers and artists. And mnay beliefs that they went on to be proven were nonsense at the time, but never actual nonsense. Or were they?
I guess it's hard for some one to consider they don't truly exist when there are so many indictators and beliefs to that person about existing. It's a hard thing to grasp, especially when you "exist" and the argument sounds nonsenical as it exists only to be impossible to dispute that you exist.
What it gets down to is the rejection or acceptance of beliefs, and I think facts are only tied to other things that can be considered facts, and some where along the line of your facts and logic, scientist have more than once found that they had reached a point where things weren't coherent, and as linear as they would have expected.
You, or any true scientist should bite his tongue or be very careful when trying to make facts for everyone, especially those who study these facts, and find other possible explanations , interpretations surrounding these facts.
Facts, yeah...they do determine certain patterns, predictable outcomes, as your brain seeks out certain patterns it can follow. But over all , facts don't always work out in a "logical" way, and that is actually reality.
LOL philosophy isn't just a certain manner, or certain way about it, and is often associated with the search for truth. And religion may come up, it's likely to happen, but not all philosophy needs to attack religion. I've been participating in philosophy for a little while since later years of my life. Some will discount God. Well, God was never actually defined, and I think a good philosopher should mind his/ her own tongue.
Oh, and some of the vital components of philosophy and philosopher , science won't discount entirely, such as reality being observation and choice.
Most of the well versed philosophers, the ones above me, are scientific geniuses as well as philosophical brilliants.
Science and math still exists because it allows a predictable outcome within a intellectual discipline that is all, it's a tool . And it's accepted to give us partial control over the elements. Then there are other studies that are a little less logical, things that are a little more out there and that's where the truth within philosophy is OFTEN suggested.
There are many philosophies that actually take the obvious nature of existing as we know it, all the laws and still try to turn things upside down. Do we learn anything , maybe. It's really a habit, obsession, people just trying to search for truth at different angles. I don't think any one discounts this reality, rather they try to see it from a different side, say like the inside of a house, 4 walls seeing on the inside, what it may look like on the outside.
Science is structured mostly on the inside, but there are advanced degrees,subjects in science that theorize on the outside, and those are often a blend of philosophy and advanced science, if not simple science turned inside out.
I find that short answers usually summarize, cover the basic principals and concepts of most scientific things, I don't really need to see the numbers, data to understand how one concept , design concept relates to another.
I agree.
A theory for a scientist has been proved multiple times under rigorous conditions and has not been able to be disproved. However there is still not enough proof for it to become a fact. Colloquially, a theory seems to apply to any random idea that sounds mildly logical, which causes a lot of confusion when applied to scientific facts.
I mean, the Theory of Relativity is still a theory, but most people agree generally that it's correct since no experiments have contradicted it's existence although many have been conducted. Same with the Theory of Evolution. However, neither can be proved because we lack the technological knowhow to carry out the appropriate tests.
Sorry about the mini rant, but it really grinds my gears when the word "theory" is tossed about to describe every crackpot idea that is remotely scientific. Even calling their idea a hypothesis wouldn't really be correct in this case, since there is absolutely no way for them to test whether or not their idea is correct, since their whole set-up depends on the fact that matter changes when it is being observed, meaning that observation would be utterly pointless as a means of experimentation.
Alright, rant's really over this time. Apologies and all that, but the distinction must be clear.
It's starting! People my age that I personally know are starting to become parents. It's a bit weird, because since I know I don't want to be one, it might create a gap between us. It's not the kind of thing I would usually worry about, but my childfree friends all told me, when their friends started having kids, they stopped having any time, they started making knew friends who had kids the same age and ultimately they lost touch because they (the CF friends) always had to make all the effort to see each other and it was taxing to be taken for granted like that.
So the fact that it's starting is a bit of a worry. Well, it's okay with this one, we barely talk as it is, so it won't make a difference. I only heard about the pregnancy when she knew the sex of the baby, so... yeah, she's over three months pregnant already :P
Still, it's a bit weird for me. I was sure I'd turn 30 before it happened (since it's the average age for a first pregnancy here).
Well, I never said I thought their video was gospel. My beliefs aren't even the same, well, I do share many similar beliefs. I think some of these thing seem abstract until translated into a different "language" or looked at differently.
LOL testing, how cute...like the human race is really that smart, capable of understanding the universe. Inter dimensional beings might disagree. But, not every one is entitled to ask ...
Well, in a way so are we the interdimensional sort, but it's all about a point of reference which most of us seem to share or don't share.
It's really pointless , but no matter the human ego, and sense of reality is pretty strong, inspired. Yet again I point out how Einstein actually thought the physical was a mirage. But, yes, there's things humans aren't going to understand, comprehend.
Thanks for sharing. LOL the mighty scientist...XD! HAAHAHAHH! *cough cough cough*
We're all searching for answers in our own way, and yes "reality" is pretty principal and rather influential to observe as is in our and it's current state.
Don't get science and math wrong there, pal! Math is a system created by humans, and everything "true" in math only remains true within that system. You want an alternative math with equally true assessments, go ahead, it's possible.
With natural science, scientists always know that their discoveries are possibly not "true" forever. Scientists of tomorrow could always find that matters are more complicated than formerly thought. You make up theories and you redefine them until they best fit and reliably predict all observed phenomena. That's an active search for the truth, but always only an approximation nonetheless. Plato's Cave allegory might come into play here.
You might want to add that this is not a personal feud on your side, and I can well testify to that. We've been discussing our course of action with all the moderators, back and forth, and the conclusion was unanimous. Over and out.
I called a random doctor I had just looked up to set up an appointment. Monday, he tells me "well I have room this afternoon, unless you prefer Wednesday" I said Wednesday, he asked "morning or afternoon?" and I had an appointment for today at 8am (it's 9 something now).
Note that the guy doesn't take appointment on Tuesdays and Thursdays because it's the days he's the one who moves (for people who can't go to the doctor and need a doctor to go to their place, and for small towns that don't have a town doctor, etc).
Then today I go to the doctor. I see in the waiting room his prices (by law they're required to put them up). I panic because he's a class II doctor, meaning he provides extra services that allow him to charge more than the minimum paid for by social security. And I don't have insurance to pay for the difference (45€ instead of the covered 23€).
He walks in, I say hi, say I can't afford his prices and ask if it's possible to cancel. He says of course, but if I'm on welfare he doesn't charge the extra so we can go ahead.
Cue to a first doctor appointment that, as it's a check-up from two years without seeing a doctor, is close to an hour long (bottom line, I'm pretty much as healthy as can be)
I leave with an appointment for bloodwork to check on my chronic everything, prescription for my allergy and ventolin for my asthma (which he says he's gone as far as he can tell but an emergency inhaler is good in case I happen to have an attack) and he made sure to check that they were all free ones.
So I didn't have to even reach for my wallet.
My apologies to people from the US or other places with a sucky health care. But it feels good to think I'm getting taken care of again without it putting me into debt.