"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught in high school physics, the Earth's gravity is not constant."

I began my education in 1961. That's pretty far back, I guess. I learned a little about gravity before I left elementary school. Then, a bit more in junior high school. Junior high didn't teach me that gravity is constant on the earth's surface. I was exposed to the idea that gravity varies from one place to another, and we were taught that our weight might vary by a couple of pounds depending where we stood on the earth. Cool idea, we were moderately impressed. In high school, the idea was given to us again.

Now, I suppose that SOME schools might teach that gravity is a constant, independent of elevation, or anything else. I believe that most parents would want to keep their children far away from any such schools.

I believe that you have nailed it.

You get some points there. But, I'll remain hung on this bit: " I have explained the expansion of the universe to many lay people without trouble."

If you explain something to 100 laymen, and more than 20% actually understand what you are talking about, then all is good. If another 30 or 60% understand parts of what you are talking about, that's good too. And, if I am among the remaining group that didn't understand a damned thing you said - then so be it. I can look around at my fellow laymen, and realize that they probably have more education and expertise in this area than I have.

If, however, less than 1% of those laymen can understand what you've explained, then we have problems. You might propose that your area of study is simply way over our heads. But, then, I might propose that your own understanding is insufficient to explain the relevancy of your studies.

Which aspect of the space shuttle are you interested in?

https://encrypted.google.com/s...

https://encrypted.google.com/s...

https://encrypted.google.com/s...

A similar search for climate change? Note that the first hit researches public opinion, the second hit claims it to be a fraud, the third appears to be a treatise on people's understanding modes - and so on.

https://encrypted.google.com/s...

I've never seen an MRI - but I have seen CAT scans. During my EMT training, I did my ER work at Bangor Regional Medical. I stood beside the doctor as he showed us exactly what he was looking for, and how he maneuvered through the "slides" - how the damaged areas differed from the undamaged areas of the brain.

While it is a far leap from my own level of inexpertise to the doctor's level of expertise, the doctor was both willing and able to show us laymen the value of the CAT scans.

The global warming people haven't shown us the value of anything, so far as I can see.

That reminds me how everyone says wikipedia is no authority. Yet, I find it useful to visit the wiki, and to look at the citations. It's amazing what you can learn just by looking at them. If you actually click the links, and READ the source material cited, even the most educated people can learn something.

Yes, I often begin a search on Wikipedia, then look at the sources, then go in search of my own sources to either verify or refute what I found on the Wiki.

And, there you have an important piece of the global warming puzzle that many seem to miss.

Kids in chemistry class may have problems understanding basic chemistry. But, the experiments are laid out, the theories, the laws, the hypothesis are all there - everything is made available so that a juvenile layman who is willing to make the effort might become a novice chemist. And, the learning continues through the second year of chemistry, right on through their college and/or university years.

Now - where can we find the layman's textbooks on manmade global warming?

Oh - we have to take the word of the "consensus". Interesting. As has already been pointed out, the moment one stops doing science, and begins to preach to the masses, one is no longer a scientist, but a politician. Or, a priest of the new religion of Global Warming.

Sighing right back at you. I STATED in my post that Louisiana and Alaska were purchased. Yes, I do know my history.

I note that you make no mention of all the other states we have "acquired" from other nations. You only saw fit to make mention of Alaska.

Regarding the US permanent ownership of Gitmo - I invite you to read the actual lease/purchase.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20t...
        "ARTICLE VII. To enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the Cuban Government will sell or lease to the United States the lands necessary for coaling or naval stations, at certain specified points, to be agreed upon with the President of the United States."

Yes, there are plenty of rumors about regular Russian forces fighting in Ukraine.

Got anything better than rumors?

Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Utah - need I go on?

Granted, Louisiana was bought and paid for, but it WAS part of another country. Ditto with Alaska.

We haven't even considered all the land taken from the Indian nations here - only land acquired from Spain, Mexico, France and Russia, countries that we officially recognize. Nor have I mentioned that we fought a war with England to get those first 13 colonies.

UN charter? I don't give a flip about the UN.

Granted, Russia has it's propaganda and lies. I can see that, and accept it.

Now, what do you say about United State's propaganda and lies?

Fact is, we pushed through a coup, and installed a friendly puppet to replace an unfriendly puppet. Porko doesn't belong in charge of Kiev any more than I do, or you do. The Ukrainians should have dragged his ass out behind the barn and put a bullet in his ear. They would have too, if not for all those paid thugs camped out in the capital.

Exactly on target.

No, Putin isn't ruler of the Ukraine, any more than the US President is the ruler of Iraq, or Lebanon, or Israel, or Afghanistan. Yet, when "US interests" are threatened anywhere in the world, our troops are ready to go. Note that it doesn't require that any US troops or citizens be threatened, merely "US interests".

Should Russia be any less timid in world affairs, than the US is? Russia had a sort of "agreement" regarding the naval bases in Crimea. Not so different from our own "agreement" regarding a certain naval base in Guantanamo. If a palace coup threatened our possession of Gitmo - what would be our reaction, do you think? Would it have been any different than Moscow's reaction to the threat of the loss of Crimea?

Russia had MORE justification in Crimea than we would have in Gitmo, because the population of the surrounding area is more than half ethnic Russian. In Gitmo, all of the population is ethnic Cuban - few if any of whom are US citizens or former citizens.

The issues in Donetsk and Luhansk are a bit more complicated than they were in Crimea. The population is less ethnic Russian than it is in Crimea. But, still - there IS an ethnic population - one which Porko-chenko is prepared to run roughshod over. We put a puppet in charge of Kiev, and he is behaving badly. Porko, the misbehaving puppet, sparked this revolution, after all. You can expect that sort of thing when you stage a coup. There are a lot of divided loyalties in the Ukraine, after all. Stage a coup, install a neo-fascist as your puppet, and some of those loyalties to Mother Russia are going to be reawakened.

You're right, Putin isn't the ruler of Ukraine. But, Putin does have obligations that our own government is pretending not to understand. Our government has simply dismissed any Russian claims, and Russian loyalties of the people. In our pursuit of "US interests" we act as if nothing else matters.

I am embarrassed at the arrogant, pompous jackasses running our government, here in the US.

Yes, of course we have backed Putin into a corner, in more ways than one. And, personally, it would please me if Soros and the Koch brothers were to lose their entire fortunes in their little adventurism scheme. All of Wall Street should take a hit on this one.

How are those petty little sanctions working, anyway? Has Wall Street come to understand yet, that Russia can and will feed her people, despite our impotent leadership's saber rattling?

This increase in the size of the F ring is almost certainly caused by man made global warming. If we don't stop doing everything that we do, the whole solar system is likely to come tumbling down on our heads!

Any news that is bad for Rupert Murdoch is good news for the world.

Well, I'll complain that heuristics just don't seem to work. Or, at the least, I've not been exposed to a heuristics program that really works.

The rest of your post makes sense to me. Most AV's do indeed hog resources, sometimes to the point that a rational person wonders why he even bothers.

Common sense protections such as you mention are the first line of defense. The wife has gone back to Windows 7, after several years of Linux. She recently complained of some stupid thing or another, and during our conversation, I asked where she downloaded her software from. She DID NOT go to the developer's site to download directly in several instances. She mentioned CNET among other download sources. Geez, Louise! Where else did you download from? "I can't remember, I just did a Google search and downloaded stuff!"

I'm still on Linux. I almost never install anything that doesn't come directly from a Debian or a Sabayon repository. Can't trust anyone these days! Best practices are well worth observing - even though I'm the only user on this machine, I haven't given myself any administrative rights. When I want to do anything, I have to sudo the privileges - then I revoke those privileges immediately after I finish.

Compare that to Windows users who log on as "Owner" or "Administrator" routinely, LMAO. They are just begging to be owned!