last question for now :]Why were true-breeding pea plants important for mendel's experiments ?
Back during the time of Mendel, people didn't know how or why or the chances of different traits being passed on from generation to generation, but they knew it happened.
Mendel wanted to find out what traits were passed, why they were passed, and the chances of them being passed on.
True-breeding pea plants were important because he didn't want mixed results. He wanted clear cut alternate forms of traits (yellow vs green, round vs wrinkled, etc), he wanted controlled matings and reciprocal crosses (for control over parental influence), and he wanted pure breeding lines as well as a controlled environment.
He took into account everything that may have played a role in his experiment, and because of it, he was able to come up with the results that he did.Why were true-breeding pea plants important for mendel's experiments ?
Because all of the offspring would produce the same color type. Had they been heterozygous, it would've produced both white and purple flowers.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Is it true that ALL straight girls at least had experimented lesbianism(kissing is part of that) or fantasize?
So does this means there are no straight girls out there because even if you think about doing you're not 100% straight. I don't believe it's just a thought thing or it's ok with girls thing. Because I don't ever think about being with another guy. The thought of that makes me sick, so I'm in the category of 110% straight with no compromise whatsoever. So my question is are there any girls out there who would never ever cross that line who are completely 110% into men and find lesbian thing disgusting??? Or is it that 110% straight girl don't exist?Is it true that ALL straight girls at least had experimented lesbianism(kissing is part of that) or fantasize?
I have never kissed a girl or experimented or even wanted too. the only time i have kissed a woman is when i was little and would kiss my mom goodnight. that's a bad assumption, to think all women have done that. I like men way too much to do anything sexual with a girl. I wont even do a 3 some cause i cant stand the though of a girl touching me. eewww. lol so I'm 110% straight.Is it true that ALL straight girls at least had experimented lesbianism(kissing is part of that) or fantasize?
I'm a 110% straight guy and I'm so pleased to see that answer.Mr I'm honest u are exactly my type and i also have been going through this problem for so long and wow i got a great answer from this 110% straight woman squeaker.
Any female over the age of 21 who says they havn't atleast thought about it is lieing.
And there is no such thing as a 100% straight guy either with your theory. Penis envy can be considered a gay tendancy, so can homophobia...a nd a few other things...
Two straight girls might be easier to experiment than two straight guys but not all straight girls think about doing that.
nope....proud to say that ive never done anything like that
I think it just depends on the girl. I think, generally, girls are better kissers -- they know how a girl would want to be kissed. I've never tried being intimate with a girl, but I imagine it's not terrible. And yes, I've had lesbian dreams, but I'd never ';become'; a lesbian. I like men. Women don't have the essentially plumbing I want and need. That's all it comes down to. My husband has become a damn good kisser and he's great in bed. I'm happy! Plus, i could never get into that ';butch'; look. It grosses me out.
I am 110% straight...only into men
I CANT SPEAK FOR ANYONE BUT MYSELF...I'VE NEVER DONE IT BECAUSE THE STICK IS GOOD...I KNOW LOTS WHO HAVE, BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN ALL ARE...WE'LL SEE...
I believe that the majority of females at some point in their life (young or old) have either questioned being bisexual or being a lesbian. I would even go as far as saying they have probably fantasized about some female in their past, present or future. This is my opinion though.
My current girlfriend told me that she and one of her friends kissed so they'd be ready for guys to do it. Not really lesbian...just preparation for dudes.
Kinsey's (did a sex study in the 1950's) though that there was a minority of people who were either totally straight, or totally gay (like about 10 percent) with the remaining 90% distributed somewhere between the two extremes.
I'd say I agree with that.
It's much more acceptable for females to be sexually attracted to other females (at least in western cultures), so basically they're allowed to show it without as much repercussion.
Plus, women tend to be more affectionate than men.
It's tough to say how much of this is genetics, %26amp; how much is social conditioning, but I'd agree; every girl I've known well (or been in a relationship with) has either done something sexually with another girl, or fantasized about it.
Very common.
You also can't understate the fact that women are very sexualized in our culture; sexy ads, billboards, commercials, etc. I'm not criticizing that, but i'm sure it has an effect on this factor.
Oh, we exist. I have never wanted to have any kind of sexual relationship with a woman. I just think that women are more excepting of it than men. Men are totally grossed out by it but, women seem not to care as much. If two females want to be involved sexually with each other that is their business. But, it's not for me.
I could never see my self with another girl. i am 110% straight.
I have never kissed a girl or experimented or even wanted too. the only time i have kissed a woman is when i was little and would kiss my mom goodnight. that's a bad assumption, to think all women have done that. I like men way too much to do anything sexual with a girl. I wont even do a 3 some cause i cant stand the though of a girl touching me. eewww. lol so I'm 110% straight.Is it true that ALL straight girls at least had experimented lesbianism(kissing is part of that) or fantasize?
I'm a 110% straight guy and I'm so pleased to see that answer.Mr I'm honest u are exactly my type and i also have been going through this problem for so long and wow i got a great answer from this 110% straight woman squeaker.
Report Abuse
Any female over the age of 21 who says they havn't atleast thought about it is lieing.
And there is no such thing as a 100% straight guy either with your theory. Penis envy can be considered a gay tendancy, so can homophobia...a nd a few other things...
Two straight girls might be easier to experiment than two straight guys but not all straight girls think about doing that.
nope....proud to say that ive never done anything like that
I think it just depends on the girl. I think, generally, girls are better kissers -- they know how a girl would want to be kissed. I've never tried being intimate with a girl, but I imagine it's not terrible. And yes, I've had lesbian dreams, but I'd never ';become'; a lesbian. I like men. Women don't have the essentially plumbing I want and need. That's all it comes down to. My husband has become a damn good kisser and he's great in bed. I'm happy! Plus, i could never get into that ';butch'; look. It grosses me out.
I am 110% straight...only into men
I CANT SPEAK FOR ANYONE BUT MYSELF...I'VE NEVER DONE IT BECAUSE THE STICK IS GOOD...I KNOW LOTS WHO HAVE, BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN ALL ARE...WE'LL SEE...
I believe that the majority of females at some point in their life (young or old) have either questioned being bisexual or being a lesbian. I would even go as far as saying they have probably fantasized about some female in their past, present or future. This is my opinion though.
My current girlfriend told me that she and one of her friends kissed so they'd be ready for guys to do it. Not really lesbian...just preparation for dudes.
Kinsey's (did a sex study in the 1950's) though that there was a minority of people who were either totally straight, or totally gay (like about 10 percent) with the remaining 90% distributed somewhere between the two extremes.
I'd say I agree with that.
It's much more acceptable for females to be sexually attracted to other females (at least in western cultures), so basically they're allowed to show it without as much repercussion.
Plus, women tend to be more affectionate than men.
It's tough to say how much of this is genetics, %26amp; how much is social conditioning, but I'd agree; every girl I've known well (or been in a relationship with) has either done something sexually with another girl, or fantasized about it.
Very common.
You also can't understate the fact that women are very sexualized in our culture; sexy ads, billboards, commercials, etc. I'm not criticizing that, but i'm sure it has an effect on this factor.
Oh, we exist. I have never wanted to have any kind of sexual relationship with a woman. I just think that women are more excepting of it than men. Men are totally grossed out by it but, women seem not to care as much. If two females want to be involved sexually with each other that is their business. But, it's not for me.
I could never see my self with another girl. i am 110% straight.
Why were true-breeding pea plants important for Mendel's experiments?
Had Mendel chosen corn or flowers or most other plants, he would not have been able to identify homozygotes and heterozygotes.
Not many other plants have such clear delineations, for example, when certain types of roses are cross-bred, say a red and a white, often, their offspring share co-dominant alleles with a phenotype that is pink. Whereas, pea plants are very simple and made only green or yellow peas (homozygotes or hetrozygotes)--no blending occurs in this plant.Why were true-breeding pea plants important for Mendel's experiments?
Mendel always started with true-breeding peas. This way the parents were ';knowns'; and nothing surprising popped up. This is one of the main reasons why Mendel was able to figure out the basic rules and laws that govern genetics.
Not many other plants have such clear delineations, for example, when certain types of roses are cross-bred, say a red and a white, often, their offspring share co-dominant alleles with a phenotype that is pink. Whereas, pea plants are very simple and made only green or yellow peas (homozygotes or hetrozygotes)--no blending occurs in this plant.Why were true-breeding pea plants important for Mendel's experiments?
Mendel always started with true-breeding peas. This way the parents were ';knowns'; and nothing surprising popped up. This is one of the main reasons why Mendel was able to figure out the basic rules and laws that govern genetics.
True or False: Black slaves were used in medical research and experiments?
You didn't even have to be a slave.
The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the ***** Male was a clinical study, conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama by the U.S. Public Health Service. They recruited 399 poor, mostly illiterate, African American sharecroppers.True or False: Black slaves were used in medical research and experiments?
It sounds true to me from having read the answerers above about the syphilis vaccine. It sounds like when Hitler injected Jewish women so that they would become infertile. It is sick, inhumane and sad. I cannot comprehend why or how one human being could do that to another human being. Where was their conscience?True or False: Black slaves were used in medical research and experiments?
True
and they wasnt even slaves. Look up the Tuskeegee Experiment, its went on well into the late 1970's on free black people; they administered syphillis to us and told us it was ';vaccines';
That's why I'd never immediately write off anyone who says that the government administered AIDS. Considering the completely outrageous things that the government has done in the past I wouldnt be suprised at all if they was behind this one.
It seems a lil too convenient that AIDS only greatly affects the following populations
1) Black people %26amp; other ';bad'; minorities
2) poor people
3) Gay people
4) Russians (AIDS is skyroketing in Russia, but no other European nation)
all populations that our right-wing government has disliked.
False, they were viewed as property and were expensive. However, after they were freed they were the subjected to experiments like the ones done by the government at Tuskeegee.
Recultantly I would say yes. A slave wasn't even considered human, so the rights that these white people protest for now to stop animal testing on monkeys and rats, their ancestors were doing on my ancestors. With no chance of having protestors saving their limbs.
True.
Very true
Slaves were used to do whatever they didn't want to do themselveds. Dangerous medicine was part of this.
I've read lots of history. No mention of that.
If true, you can bet someone would be blasting it all over the world.
Nothing negative against USA would be wasted.
Ever hear of the ';Tuskeegee Incident'; where they injected black men with syphillis to see what effect it would have on them, and then left them to suffer and die?
Yeaaaa for science!!!!!!!!
NO.
they used aboriginals though.
Blacks were used as guinea pigs long after slavery.
i dunno.. true ?
I'm not quite sure! I do know, however, that that occurred during the holocaust!
EDIT: Interesting question! You get a star! Yay! lol :)
True! So were caucasion and every other race on this earth!
false , but i am not totally sure but have not heard of it before
i kno asians and jews were fa sho. cuz i learned it in history class couple a weeks ago. but blacks??? i dunno bout that one cuz idk if there was that much science stuff goin on back in that time period
False
True of course.
Of course, They had no right what they chose to do.
true
Its obviously true. back in them days they could do what ever they want.
False.
Stop crying over slavery.
Yes, it's sad that they were once slaves and they were mistreated in the past, but that was the past and bad memories should be buried.
It's not like you were a slave yourself, or any other blacks right now in the US, so I don't know why blacks live with ';anger'; and ';grudge';. Learn to move on and live a normal life. Stop rapping about all the negative things in the world, because the only negative things are your kinds, and not the world around you
False
I don't see the government keeping people in cages like lab ratsnetwork security
The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the ***** Male was a clinical study, conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama by the U.S. Public Health Service. They recruited 399 poor, mostly illiterate, African American sharecroppers.True or False: Black slaves were used in medical research and experiments?
It sounds true to me from having read the answerers above about the syphilis vaccine. It sounds like when Hitler injected Jewish women so that they would become infertile. It is sick, inhumane and sad. I cannot comprehend why or how one human being could do that to another human being. Where was their conscience?True or False: Black slaves were used in medical research and experiments?
True
and they wasnt even slaves. Look up the Tuskeegee Experiment, its went on well into the late 1970's on free black people; they administered syphillis to us and told us it was ';vaccines';
That's why I'd never immediately write off anyone who says that the government administered AIDS. Considering the completely outrageous things that the government has done in the past I wouldnt be suprised at all if they was behind this one.
It seems a lil too convenient that AIDS only greatly affects the following populations
1) Black people %26amp; other ';bad'; minorities
2) poor people
3) Gay people
4) Russians (AIDS is skyroketing in Russia, but no other European nation)
all populations that our right-wing government has disliked.
False, they were viewed as property and were expensive. However, after they were freed they were the subjected to experiments like the ones done by the government at Tuskeegee.
Recultantly I would say yes. A slave wasn't even considered human, so the rights that these white people protest for now to stop animal testing on monkeys and rats, their ancestors were doing on my ancestors. With no chance of having protestors saving their limbs.
True.
Very true
Slaves were used to do whatever they didn't want to do themselveds. Dangerous medicine was part of this.
I've read lots of history. No mention of that.
If true, you can bet someone would be blasting it all over the world.
Nothing negative against USA would be wasted.
Ever hear of the ';Tuskeegee Incident'; where they injected black men with syphillis to see what effect it would have on them, and then left them to suffer and die?
Yeaaaa for science!!!!!!!!
NO.
they used aboriginals though.
Blacks were used as guinea pigs long after slavery.
i dunno.. true ?
I'm not quite sure! I do know, however, that that occurred during the holocaust!
EDIT: Interesting question! You get a star! Yay! lol :)
True! So were caucasion and every other race on this earth!
false , but i am not totally sure but have not heard of it before
i kno asians and jews were fa sho. cuz i learned it in history class couple a weeks ago. but blacks??? i dunno bout that one cuz idk if there was that much science stuff goin on back in that time period
False
True of course.
Of course, They had no right what they chose to do.
true
Its obviously true. back in them days they could do what ever they want.
False.
Stop crying over slavery.
Yes, it's sad that they were once slaves and they were mistreated in the past, but that was the past and bad memories should be buried.
It's not like you were a slave yourself, or any other blacks right now in the US, so I don't know why blacks live with ';anger'; and ';grudge';. Learn to move on and live a normal life. Stop rapping about all the negative things in the world, because the only negative things are your kinds, and not the world around you
False
I don't see the government keeping people in cages like lab rats
So brain transplants are laughable ridiculous science fiction experiments that will never come true?
Well that's what 99.99% of the great scientific community was saying before this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JNmlqjLe4A
that keeping either of the brain or the body to be harvested alive during this process is impossible, yet it was done.
Now they say that it would be impossible and ridiculous because scarred nerve tissue does not heal and cannot be regenerated, and as usual they will find themselves proven wrong again.
The only true barrier to brain transplants that I can see is this 'scientific community' that keeps yapping about ethics and opposes anything new and revolutionary.So brain transplants are laughable ridiculous science fiction experiments that will never come true?
First, there is a difference between a brain transplant and a head transplant (either would probably be better described as a body transplant). With a head transplant you would at least be able to preserve sight, smell, taste, hearing, and ability to communicate (through blinking or face movement).
If you did a successful brain transplant by getting blood flow established from a different body you would have a very hard time knowing that it was successful as there would be no way to communicate and no easily appreciated brain output. I suppose the presence of EEG activity would be some measure of ';success';. If consciousness persisted it would be hard to assess and thoughts would almost certainly turn to madness in short order.
With either a brain or head transplant there would be no motor or sensory function below the neck, no voice, and no respiration. Maybe someday those can be at least partially overcome.
The ethics of performing the rather gruesome experiments needed to ';succeed'; are, at minimum, worthy of debate. Especially in light of the lack of any desire for current human application.So brain transplants are laughable ridiculous science fiction experiments that will never come true?
the only reason to transplant someones brain would be if you had two people one of whom irretrievably dead but with a working body and someone with an alive brain but a dead body such a patient would probably be in cardiac arrest hypothermic with extensive myocardial ischemia and peripheral tissue death however cardio-pulmonary bypass would most likley be required to prevent brain death and if a suitable donor could be found rather than take the whole body the most the patient would need is a heart transplant and amputation of the dead tissue meaning that the rest of the organs can be given to people who need them in short may be theoretically possible but will always be impractical
Dr. T-J is right.
Anybody who knows even the slightest thing about neuroanatomy and physiology knows that it's just not physically possible.
Somehow, I don't think that reality enters into your opinion on the subject, though....
Yes. More laughable and scientific community is open minded.
I don't tknow about that: I think I may have met some of the people where it didn't work.
its been done in the ussr
Yes ethics come into play, and so they should, however you don;t have a scientific background do you?
Central nervous tissue (brain and spinal cord) can not regenerate, this is why we have disability and why we are looking into stem cell research for the treatment of said disabilities and diseases.
This means that though you are able to stick someones head on your own and connect the blood vessels, there are too many nerves in the spinal cord to connect, and they will not regenerate on their own like peripheral nervous tissue does.
Maybe in the future if stem cell treatment works we may be able to trasnplant full human heads, however don't count on it happening in your lifetime, and again ethics will come into play - so they should. especially if stem cell research works, then no one will need a head transplant - as we will be able to regenerate brain/spinal cord tissue through the stem cells.
I think your just a hippie that needs to take some lessons in science, preferably degree level medical science before you start to question the community.
If this was actually true it would be headlines around the world. it is more likely that a tissue transplant would occur. If someone placed my brain in someone else's body it would have my memories - that person would cease to be who they were and would become me. Don't believe everything you see on You Tube - a lot of it is pure BS.
Transplanting a monkey's head is one thing - transplanting a human head with spinal cord linkages? Its news that they can transplant a face - transplanting a head is not technologically possible at this time. As to your statement that the scientific community ';keeps yapping about ethics'; I refer you to the medical advances of Josef Mengele - you need ethics in science or it becomes horrific. The scientific community does not oppose anything new and revolutionary, but the scientific community does demand proof and not just speculation. Welcome to science.
that keeping either of the brain or the body to be harvested alive during this process is impossible, yet it was done.
Now they say that it would be impossible and ridiculous because scarred nerve tissue does not heal and cannot be regenerated, and as usual they will find themselves proven wrong again.
The only true barrier to brain transplants that I can see is this 'scientific community' that keeps yapping about ethics and opposes anything new and revolutionary.So brain transplants are laughable ridiculous science fiction experiments that will never come true?
First, there is a difference between a brain transplant and a head transplant (either would probably be better described as a body transplant). With a head transplant you would at least be able to preserve sight, smell, taste, hearing, and ability to communicate (through blinking or face movement).
If you did a successful brain transplant by getting blood flow established from a different body you would have a very hard time knowing that it was successful as there would be no way to communicate and no easily appreciated brain output. I suppose the presence of EEG activity would be some measure of ';success';. If consciousness persisted it would be hard to assess and thoughts would almost certainly turn to madness in short order.
With either a brain or head transplant there would be no motor or sensory function below the neck, no voice, and no respiration. Maybe someday those can be at least partially overcome.
The ethics of performing the rather gruesome experiments needed to ';succeed'; are, at minimum, worthy of debate. Especially in light of the lack of any desire for current human application.So brain transplants are laughable ridiculous science fiction experiments that will never come true?
the only reason to transplant someones brain would be if you had two people one of whom irretrievably dead but with a working body and someone with an alive brain but a dead body such a patient would probably be in cardiac arrest hypothermic with extensive myocardial ischemia and peripheral tissue death however cardio-pulmonary bypass would most likley be required to prevent brain death and if a suitable donor could be found rather than take the whole body the most the patient would need is a heart transplant and amputation of the dead tissue meaning that the rest of the organs can be given to people who need them in short may be theoretically possible but will always be impractical
Dr. T-J is right.
Anybody who knows even the slightest thing about neuroanatomy and physiology knows that it's just not physically possible.
Somehow, I don't think that reality enters into your opinion on the subject, though....
Yes. More laughable and scientific community is open minded.
I don't tknow about that: I think I may have met some of the people where it didn't work.
its been done in the ussr
Yes ethics come into play, and so they should, however you don;t have a scientific background do you?
Central nervous tissue (brain and spinal cord) can not regenerate, this is why we have disability and why we are looking into stem cell research for the treatment of said disabilities and diseases.
This means that though you are able to stick someones head on your own and connect the blood vessels, there are too many nerves in the spinal cord to connect, and they will not regenerate on their own like peripheral nervous tissue does.
Maybe in the future if stem cell treatment works we may be able to trasnplant full human heads, however don't count on it happening in your lifetime, and again ethics will come into play - so they should. especially if stem cell research works, then no one will need a head transplant - as we will be able to regenerate brain/spinal cord tissue through the stem cells.
I think your just a hippie that needs to take some lessons in science, preferably degree level medical science before you start to question the community.
If this was actually true it would be headlines around the world. it is more likely that a tissue transplant would occur. If someone placed my brain in someone else's body it would have my memories - that person would cease to be who they were and would become me. Don't believe everything you see on You Tube - a lot of it is pure BS.
Transplanting a monkey's head is one thing - transplanting a human head with spinal cord linkages? Its news that they can transplant a face - transplanting a head is not technologically possible at this time. As to your statement that the scientific community ';keeps yapping about ethics'; I refer you to the medical advances of Josef Mengele - you need ethics in science or it becomes horrific. The scientific community does not oppose anything new and revolutionary, but the scientific community does demand proof and not just speculation. Welcome to science.
Is it true that most men have at some time in their life had a gay fling or at least ';experimented'; when young?
i was surprised to read this, but i must admit that i also am no exceptionIs it true that most men have at some time in their life had a gay fling or at least ';experimented'; when young?
Ho !yes ive had 5 in the last 10 years.Is it true that most men have at some time in their life had a gay fling or at least ';experimented'; when young?
I'm not a guy, but many people, both male and female have had conflicting thoughts towards the same sex. This usually happens while they are teenagers, and puberty is setting in. A person goes through lots of hormonal changes during their teenage years, so it's only natural if a person isn't sure about their sexuality during that time.
It doesn't happen to everyone of course, but it's not out of the ordinary.
I wouldn't think so.
Men like to hold this masculine image, and to have a gay fling would be to surrender that image.
Women are much more prone to experimenting.
But who knows,
I've known some pretty horny guys who I wouldn't be surprised if they did a little experimenting themselves.
I don't know about a fling but as kids we experimented cause we did not get to play with the other sex till a little later. Many women And Men I have known have admitted to having some type of contact wanted or unwanted with the same sex and the opposite. Anyone have an uncle or aunt they can remember that they could not stand?
im going through something very similar right now...and idk what to do...come out of like just let it be because its only a phase you know...what if its just a phase and it means nothing in the future? so im not telling...but im a girl and its MOSTLY common in girls...im not to sure about boys. i boy has to be completely POSITVE to come out to something like that.
just because most have, doesn't make it right. i know that i only want to be with girls, but those thoughts occasionally creep in and i try hard not to entertain them.
not really for me. But a spose some people do it although there straight. if you do it and you no your straight then thats ok riiiiiiight.
been in a suituation where i was ';offered';...but i hightailed it outta there. If it doesnt turn you on...it doesnt turn you on.
I'm not a guy but I think so! Because girls do! You have a lot of men and women that are bi-curious who want admit it
I imagine, especially in this 'day and age', that a lot of men do. However, if it's 'most' I really can't say...
I'm no exception either
Mostly all guys do... mostly all girls do too
NO that is so ridiculous.
Not bloody likely.
not most but maybe some
hell no for me
No..let me see where you read that from.
Where i come from nobody would dream of doing this for fear of getting smashed
No, I would like to see a link to this study please.
this is the dumbest question on yahoo answers ever. Hell.......................no.
and one of the funniest.
Not me. Women all the way.
im 15, and no guys i know have, but maybe they will.... haha
what kinda question is that, hell no!
no
No, not me. i think it is much more common for women though.
No. n I dont think any man should either
Ho !yes ive had 5 in the last 10 years.Is it true that most men have at some time in their life had a gay fling or at least ';experimented'; when young?
I'm not a guy, but many people, both male and female have had conflicting thoughts towards the same sex. This usually happens while they are teenagers, and puberty is setting in. A person goes through lots of hormonal changes during their teenage years, so it's only natural if a person isn't sure about their sexuality during that time.
It doesn't happen to everyone of course, but it's not out of the ordinary.
I wouldn't think so.
Men like to hold this masculine image, and to have a gay fling would be to surrender that image.
Women are much more prone to experimenting.
But who knows,
I've known some pretty horny guys who I wouldn't be surprised if they did a little experimenting themselves.
I don't know about a fling but as kids we experimented cause we did not get to play with the other sex till a little later. Many women And Men I have known have admitted to having some type of contact wanted or unwanted with the same sex and the opposite. Anyone have an uncle or aunt they can remember that they could not stand?
im going through something very similar right now...and idk what to do...come out of like just let it be because its only a phase you know...what if its just a phase and it means nothing in the future? so im not telling...but im a girl and its MOSTLY common in girls...im not to sure about boys. i boy has to be completely POSITVE to come out to something like that.
just because most have, doesn't make it right. i know that i only want to be with girls, but those thoughts occasionally creep in and i try hard not to entertain them.
not really for me. But a spose some people do it although there straight. if you do it and you no your straight then thats ok riiiiiiight.
been in a suituation where i was ';offered';...but i hightailed it outta there. If it doesnt turn you on...it doesnt turn you on.
I'm not a guy but I think so! Because girls do! You have a lot of men and women that are bi-curious who want admit it
I imagine, especially in this 'day and age', that a lot of men do. However, if it's 'most' I really can't say...
I'm no exception either
Mostly all guys do... mostly all girls do too
NO that is so ridiculous.
Not bloody likely.
not most but maybe some
hell no for me
No..let me see where you read that from.
Where i come from nobody would dream of doing this for fear of getting smashed
No, I would like to see a link to this study please.
this is the dumbest question on yahoo answers ever. Hell.......................no.
and one of the funniest.
Not me. Women all the way.
im 15, and no guys i know have, but maybe they will.... haha
what kinda question is that, hell no!
no
No, not me. i think it is much more common for women though.
No. n I dont think any man should either
Is it true that ALL straight girls at least had experimented lesbianism(kissing is part of that) or fantasize?
So does this means there are no straight girls out there because even if you think about doing you're not 100% straight. I don't believe it's just a thought thing, it's ok with girls thing, or just an experiment thing. Because I don't ever think about being with another guy. The thought of that makes me sick, so I'm in the category of 110% straight with no compromise whatsoever. So my question is are there any girls out there who would never ever cross that line who are completely 110% into men and find lesbian thing disgusting??? Or is it that 110% straight girl don't exist?Is it true that ALL straight girls at least had experimented lesbianism(kissing is part of that) or fantasize?
lol, I have NEVER kissed, fantasized, dreamed, or looked too hard at a female, that's disgusting. When I was in High School, if I even thought a girl was looking at me the wrong way, I would kick her ***. The thought of lesbians, or even bisexuality creeps me out.Is it true that ALL straight girls at least had experimented lesbianism(kissing is part of that) or fantasize?
Wow Finally there's a real means(100%) straight woman which is extremely seldom to me.
I'm a straight guy and i also have the same curiosity like the asker.Finally i must say that there are very few 100% straight women remaining.
That's just toooo wide of a range... All? never... Plenty... Yes...
Well I have experimented recently. I have kissed my best friend Cindi and we have started to touch each other, not all the way but pretty close. having said that I think that Tom in our class is a hunk. Where does that leave me?
OMG...
You're such a spaz... wait...
You're such a male.
Pick one... that's you!!
I'm 110% straight, never tought about it, never tried it - hate it
nobody in this world is 100% str8. Everyone has experimented at one point in their lifetime - or had extremely powerful urges to experiment.
No most girls that say that are lying.
My mom and my sister. I don't think they ever have, or ever will ';experiment'; not all women do that. Its their preference. If they want to do it fine by me. There are many 110% straight woment out there.
i can confirm i have never kissed or fantasized about kissing a female!!! lol
hmmm its true
Creeper why would u even ask such a question?? There are tons of girls who cringe at the thought of kissing another girl but even if they do it doesnt mean they are lesbian at all. Many people do it for attention or because they think its funny? But in my opinion its gross.
Maybe most straight white girls. Also, just thinking about something doesn't make you anything. If I thought about what it was like to be a rocket scientist for a moment, doesn't make me 10% rocket scientist.
Turn it around. If there are any gay/lesbian folk out there who've never had any thoughts or fantasies of being with the opposite gender, does it mean they are straight?
Since your question's apparent conclusion and the one I poised cannot both be true, it shows a problem in the question itself.
All people fall somewhere in a continuum as to sexual attraction. If you are predominately and primarily attracted to members of your gender, then you are gay/lesbian. If you are predominately and primarily attracted to members of the opposite gender, your straight. If your feelings aren't quite so polar, then you have bi tendencies.
When you talk about your own ';110% straight';, what I hear is a strong cultural component. You are afraid of anyone considering you even slightly homosexual. This means if you ever had even the slightest attractions, you'd have suppressed it so tightly you wouldn't know. That doesn't mean you're not straight, only that you are so afraid of being perceived as homosexual, you're not a good judge of it.
Well, see, when girls get a little tipsy some of them tend to need attention. They start kissing other girls hoping that there is 100 guys fantasizing about it. It's just an attention getter, doesn't mean the girl is lesbian.
This question is getting played out.
you don't realize how percentages work very well, do you. you can only be 100% of something. you can only be all (100%) of yourself.
I've never, ever, ever kissed a woman, had fantasies or anything remotely lesbian. I'm not against it, it's just I love men.
One of my husband's friends poised that same question not too long ago to me, and he didn't believe that there could be women out there who have not have not had a lesbian experience. I guess some guys just like to think that.
i dont know if its all
But I know plenty of straight girls that have experimented
some of them found out they were straight
But some....quite a few
found out otherwise
Okay, I have answered something like this before and, obviously, you have never seen Ron White's stand up joke on this.
It goes, and I totally agree with it, that sexual orientation falls on a continuum with lesbian at one end, straight in the middle, and gay on the other end and we all fall somewhere on the continuum.
Ron White said that he had a male friend make a comment about how disgusting gay men are and Ron ended saying that we are all homosexual to some extent and the friend said that he was 110% straight and Ron countered with this:
Do you watch porn? Friend: yes
Ron: When you watch porn do you watch only girl on girl? Friend: No, I like to watch a man and woman making love.
Ron: When the man and woman are making love, do you care if the man's penis is flacid or hard and throbbing?
Friend: Of course, his penis should be hard and throbbing.
Ron: So you like hard throbbing c*cks!
Friend: I never knew that about myself.
(okay, not exactly word for word but you get my point)
NO its not true.
good question..i guess....i consider myself striaght...but i do fantasize about women...they are hot and sexy...what can i say? i think i'm pretty hot and sexy too. I made out with a girl once....it was at a party...and the guys dared us too...it was fun and different..i liked it. But, i can't see myself dating a women...i just think it might be hot to sleep with one...so maybe it makes me bi curious...open minded...not really sure...guess according to you though, i am not 110% striaght.:)
lol, I have NEVER kissed, fantasized, dreamed, or looked too hard at a female, that's disgusting. When I was in High School, if I even thought a girl was looking at me the wrong way, I would kick her ***. The thought of lesbians, or even bisexuality creeps me out.Is it true that ALL straight girls at least had experimented lesbianism(kissing is part of that) or fantasize?
Wow Finally there's a real means(100%) straight woman which is extremely seldom to me.
I'm a straight guy and i also have the same curiosity like the asker.Finally i must say that there are very few 100% straight women remaining.
Report Abuse
That's just toooo wide of a range... All? never... Plenty... Yes...
Well I have experimented recently. I have kissed my best friend Cindi and we have started to touch each other, not all the way but pretty close. having said that I think that Tom in our class is a hunk. Where does that leave me?
OMG...
You're such a spaz... wait...
You're such a male.
Pick one... that's you!!
I'm 110% straight, never tought about it, never tried it - hate it
nobody in this world is 100% str8. Everyone has experimented at one point in their lifetime - or had extremely powerful urges to experiment.
No most girls that say that are lying.
My mom and my sister. I don't think they ever have, or ever will ';experiment'; not all women do that. Its their preference. If they want to do it fine by me. There are many 110% straight woment out there.
i can confirm i have never kissed or fantasized about kissing a female!!! lol
hmmm its true
Creeper why would u even ask such a question?? There are tons of girls who cringe at the thought of kissing another girl but even if they do it doesnt mean they are lesbian at all. Many people do it for attention or because they think its funny? But in my opinion its gross.
Maybe most straight white girls. Also, just thinking about something doesn't make you anything. If I thought about what it was like to be a rocket scientist for a moment, doesn't make me 10% rocket scientist.
Turn it around. If there are any gay/lesbian folk out there who've never had any thoughts or fantasies of being with the opposite gender, does it mean they are straight?
Since your question's apparent conclusion and the one I poised cannot both be true, it shows a problem in the question itself.
All people fall somewhere in a continuum as to sexual attraction. If you are predominately and primarily attracted to members of your gender, then you are gay/lesbian. If you are predominately and primarily attracted to members of the opposite gender, your straight. If your feelings aren't quite so polar, then you have bi tendencies.
When you talk about your own ';110% straight';, what I hear is a strong cultural component. You are afraid of anyone considering you even slightly homosexual. This means if you ever had even the slightest attractions, you'd have suppressed it so tightly you wouldn't know. That doesn't mean you're not straight, only that you are so afraid of being perceived as homosexual, you're not a good judge of it.
Well, see, when girls get a little tipsy some of them tend to need attention. They start kissing other girls hoping that there is 100 guys fantasizing about it. It's just an attention getter, doesn't mean the girl is lesbian.
This question is getting played out.
you don't realize how percentages work very well, do you. you can only be 100% of something. you can only be all (100%) of yourself.
I've never, ever, ever kissed a woman, had fantasies or anything remotely lesbian. I'm not against it, it's just I love men.
One of my husband's friends poised that same question not too long ago to me, and he didn't believe that there could be women out there who have not have not had a lesbian experience. I guess some guys just like to think that.
i dont know if its all
But I know plenty of straight girls that have experimented
some of them found out they were straight
But some....quite a few
found out otherwise
Okay, I have answered something like this before and, obviously, you have never seen Ron White's stand up joke on this.
It goes, and I totally agree with it, that sexual orientation falls on a continuum with lesbian at one end, straight in the middle, and gay on the other end and we all fall somewhere on the continuum.
Ron White said that he had a male friend make a comment about how disgusting gay men are and Ron ended saying that we are all homosexual to some extent and the friend said that he was 110% straight and Ron countered with this:
Do you watch porn? Friend: yes
Ron: When you watch porn do you watch only girl on girl? Friend: No, I like to watch a man and woman making love.
Ron: When the man and woman are making love, do you care if the man's penis is flacid or hard and throbbing?
Friend: Of course, his penis should be hard and throbbing.
Ron: So you like hard throbbing c*cks!
Friend: I never knew that about myself.
(okay, not exactly word for word but you get my point)
NO its not true.
good question..i guess....i consider myself striaght...but i do fantasize about women...they are hot and sexy...what can i say? i think i'm pretty hot and sexy too. I made out with a girl once....it was at a party...and the guys dared us too...it was fun and different..i liked it. But, i can't see myself dating a women...i just think it might be hot to sleep with one...so maybe it makes me bi curious...open minded...not really sure...guess according to you though, i am not 110% striaght.:)
In recent experiments on physical attraction is it true blond fair people are more attracted to dark brunettes
...and vice versa? If I remember correctly a group of social psychologists set up an experiment on physical attraction to the opposite sex. Did I read this right, where blond haired, blue-eyed, fair skinned men more attracted to dark haired, brown-eyed, olive skinned females?
And if I remeber correctly the only other pattern that stood out regarding looks was that darker females fancied blonder men more than darker men. Does this sound right?In recent experiments on physical attraction is it true blond fair people are more attracted to dark brunettes
Well I am a fair blonde who is more attracted to darker hair, but eye color and skin tone don't really matter. My husband has dark hair, brown eyes and sort of fair skin with faint freckles. My best friend who is Asian is married to a guy with dark blonde hair and kinda light skin.In recent experiments on physical attraction is it true blond fair people are more attracted to dark brunettes
I think there is some truth in what you say. There is certainly an idea that opposites attract but i find that as people get older, they tend to look at people who are similar to themselves.
And if I remeber correctly the only other pattern that stood out regarding looks was that darker females fancied blonder men more than darker men. Does this sound right?In recent experiments on physical attraction is it true blond fair people are more attracted to dark brunettes
Well I am a fair blonde who is more attracted to darker hair, but eye color and skin tone don't really matter. My husband has dark hair, brown eyes and sort of fair skin with faint freckles. My best friend who is Asian is married to a guy with dark blonde hair and kinda light skin.In recent experiments on physical attraction is it true blond fair people are more attracted to dark brunettes
I think there is some truth in what you say. There is certainly an idea that opposites attract but i find that as people get older, they tend to look at people who are similar to themselves.
Report Abuse
My friend experimented on speed and cocaine and says speed has the best feeling, is this true??
thank youMy friend experimented on speed and cocaine and says speed has the best feeling, is this true??
nah, speed sucks...stick to downers.My friend experimented on speed and cocaine and says speed has the best feeling, is this true??
it is true thats how you get addicted it fools your brain and before you know it your a full blown addict, you have the worst depression when your coming down, so you decide be happy sober, in 20 years when you see how these people turned out then youll know, you should check out the show INTERVENTION very educational!
yes and then you die 10 minutes later
you decide if it's worth it
speed has a longer effect
Its all preference, don't start the habit though, trust me.
nah, speed sucks...stick to downers.My friend experimented on speed and cocaine and says speed has the best feeling, is this true??
it is true thats how you get addicted it fools your brain and before you know it your a full blown addict, you have the worst depression when your coming down, so you decide be happy sober, in 20 years when you see how these people turned out then youll know, you should check out the show INTERVENTION very educational!
yes and then you die 10 minutes later
you decide if it's worth it
speed has a longer effect
Its all preference, don't start the habit though, trust me.
Most women say that when they were younger they experimented with meats and vegetables. Is this true?
Well personally I didn't and I think that most girls who do are a little....crazy in the head if you catch what I'm saying?Most women say that when they were younger they experimented with meats and vegetables. Is this true?
Dont know experimenting in what way you mean . You mean doing different recipes ? or sexing with the veggies and stuffMost women say that when they were younger they experimented with meats and vegetables. Is this true?
Sometimes with fruits.
Wow. Sometimes when my husband is away, I could make a salad.
You won't believe what I can do with nuts.
Imagine and you won't be wrong.network security
Dont know experimenting in what way you mean . You mean doing different recipes ? or sexing with the veggies and stuffMost women say that when they were younger they experimented with meats and vegetables. Is this true?
Sometimes with fruits.
Wow. Sometimes when my husband is away, I could make a salad.
You won't believe what I can do with nuts.
Imagine and you won't be wrong.
Is it true Sony has been experimenting with Total Immersion virtual reality?
I've heard a Sony tried an experimental helemet on a Teenager in Tennese It was successful but and was supposed to go in a dream-like state but when he was unconscious he was in a test game and had a seziure. During his sezuire he was begging not be killed. When they turned off rumor has it the game was too realistic and intense and he ended up getting severe brain damage. This test happened back in 2005. And back in 2005 Sony announced a patent on stimulating the Neural Cortex with low pulses of ultrasound creating a sensory experience. And rumor has it that they understand the brain a lot better and they're ready to experiment again. Have you heard anything like this or simialar to this, or heard of the same experiment, or helped in the experiment some way? PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONIs it true Sony has been experimenting with Total Immersion virtual reality?
Yes, I've seen it in a magazine. The virtual reality tools used reminded me of .hack. I'll bet its pretty bad for your eyes.Is it true Sony has been experimenting with Total Immersion virtual reality?
No I haven't heard anything like this, and a my several googles came up with nothing except some racing game called total immersion for the ps2.
They can't create real virtual reality, technology hasn't gotten that far. The only thing similar to it would be those goggle-like things you can use on certain PC games such as Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter. Basically all it does it put the screen on your head and wraps it around your perhipherial vision so it seems you're in the game, the headset is similar to the Wii remote because it has movement sensors, so when you turn your head right in real life, your character looks that way in the game. Quite simple, and definitely dosen't involve a mental conversion and dream-like states.
Sounds like you read Pendragon: The reality bug ^_^
Interesting story. What is your source. Did you actually read it somewhere, or someone told you. I can imagine many test involving brain signals, though no one has successfully demonstrated anything yet. Remember, these are technologies with many path to failure and since they can harm human will need to go through a long list of government checks and need to be approved before they can be released to public. Those companies who follow it, usually do so to cure diseases. A company making a product such as this (with potential damage to a human brain) only for entertainment purposes will be taking too much risk. Sony, is least likely to take another big risk, as they are already under a huge pressure due to PS3.
So I would say this is just a rumor and nothing more.
Yes, I've seen it in a magazine. The virtual reality tools used reminded me of .hack. I'll bet its pretty bad for your eyes.Is it true Sony has been experimenting with Total Immersion virtual reality?
No I haven't heard anything like this, and a my several googles came up with nothing except some racing game called total immersion for the ps2.
They can't create real virtual reality, technology hasn't gotten that far. The only thing similar to it would be those goggle-like things you can use on certain PC games such as Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter. Basically all it does it put the screen on your head and wraps it around your perhipherial vision so it seems you're in the game, the headset is similar to the Wii remote because it has movement sensors, so when you turn your head right in real life, your character looks that way in the game. Quite simple, and definitely dosen't involve a mental conversion and dream-like states.
Sounds like you read Pendragon: The reality bug ^_^
Interesting story. What is your source. Did you actually read it somewhere, or someone told you. I can imagine many test involving brain signals, though no one has successfully demonstrated anything yet. Remember, these are technologies with many path to failure and since they can harm human will need to go through a long list of government checks and need to be approved before they can be released to public. Those companies who follow it, usually do so to cure diseases. A company making a product such as this (with potential damage to a human brain) only for entertainment purposes will be taking too much risk. Sony, is least likely to take another big risk, as they are already under a huge pressure due to PS3.
So I would say this is just a rumor and nothing more.
Some intriguing experiments have shown that humans have no 'conscious will.' If true, would it bother you?
In VERY simplistic terms, it turns out that the sensation of deciding to act occurs after the brain has initiated action. This phenomenon can be measured and the experiment duplicated. If you're interested, look up 'Benjamin Libet' on Wikipedia; there's a great description of his work there.Some intriguing experiments have shown that humans have no 'conscious will.' If true, would it bother you?
I guess it would be ok if the ';subconscious will'; is really more true anyway to who you are as a person. I'm assuming it is subconscious will, and not random chance, on what the brain decides to do???
3/4: To clarify (as I think I am answering the question) -- My SUBconscious will, or my UNconscious will, is still ME. (Probably more ';me'; than my conscious will is.) My subconscious (';me';) creates the urge. My conscious (';social me';) either allows or supresses the action.
I still see that as free will. It is not YOUR subconscious or my neighbor's subconscious that is creating the urge. It's mine, me. Then, social/conscious me can allow or stop the action. I think this is a very good way for FREE WILL to operate.
Therefore, it doesn't bother me. Now, if I had to work on deciding what to do with all of YOUR urges, that would be scary! :)Some intriguing experiments have shown that humans have no 'conscious will.' If true, would it bother you?
Free will vs. determinism--few questions have been as fiercely debated. The consensus seems to favor a limited free will.
I believe that those who want to believe that we are biologically determined at every level is an overly reductionist interpretation of free 'will'
I think like anything - it is a complex relationship between physiological answers and conscious choice.
I guess it would be ok if the ';subconscious will'; is really more true anyway to who you are as a person. I'm assuming it is subconscious will, and not random chance, on what the brain decides to do???
3/4: To clarify (as I think I am answering the question) -- My SUBconscious will, or my UNconscious will, is still ME. (Probably more ';me'; than my conscious will is.) My subconscious (';me';) creates the urge. My conscious (';social me';) either allows or supresses the action.
I still see that as free will. It is not YOUR subconscious or my neighbor's subconscious that is creating the urge. It's mine, me. Then, social/conscious me can allow or stop the action. I think this is a very good way for FREE WILL to operate.
Therefore, it doesn't bother me. Now, if I had to work on deciding what to do with all of YOUR urges, that would be scary! :)Some intriguing experiments have shown that humans have no 'conscious will.' If true, would it bother you?
Free will vs. determinism--few questions have been as fiercely debated. The consensus seems to favor a limited free will.
I believe that those who want to believe that we are biologically determined at every level is an overly reductionist interpretation of free 'will'
I think like anything - it is a complex relationship between physiological answers and conscious choice.
True experiments enable us to draw conclusions about causality. Relational (correlational) studies do not.?
Explain why each of these is the case and give examples to clarify your points
I need helpTrue experiments enable us to draw conclusions about causality. Relational (correlational) studies do not.?
In experiments, you manipulate the variable you believe to be the cause, and then look at the results.
With correlational studies, you just look at the data and see if they correlate.
For example, a typical correlation example is that as ice cream sales increase, so do drownings, so here you have a positive correlation.
But does ice cream really cause people to drown?
With an experiment, you would give some people ice cream and let them swim, the others they will have none and swim,. Then hopefully if your hypothesis is correct, people who had the ice cream would drown.True experiments enable us to draw conclusions about causality. Relational (correlational) studies do not.?
Correlational studies use observational data to determine whether or not there is a relationship between two variables. You can not determine causation, because there is no manipulation of variables. All you can determine is that the variables are related, but you don't know whether A causes B, B causes A, or a third factor, C, is causing both A and B. For example, let's say there is a positive correlation between number of police in a given city, and crime. You can not say based on this relationship whether the high amounts of police are causing the crime, crime causes the high police presence, or some other factor is causing both.
True experiments involve manipulation of variables that can prove some of the conditions for causation. These conditions are time order (you have to prove that the changes in the dependent variable occur AFTER the variation in the independent variable). A second condition is Nonspuriousness. That is, the independent variable, and not some other third variable, is causing the changes in the dependent variable. The third most important factor is correlation. For there to be a causal relationship, the variables must move together. (Don't get confused---causation requires correlation, but correlation does not assume causation). For example, in an experiment to determine how coffee effects reaction time, you can manipulate the circumstances by testing people's reaction time when they've had caffeine, and testing later without caffeine. You would also control for all sorts of conditions (make sure you test at the same time of day, etc. to fulfill the condition of nonspuriousness), and lastly make sure that the variables are related.
I need helpTrue experiments enable us to draw conclusions about causality. Relational (correlational) studies do not.?
In experiments, you manipulate the variable you believe to be the cause, and then look at the results.
With correlational studies, you just look at the data and see if they correlate.
For example, a typical correlation example is that as ice cream sales increase, so do drownings, so here you have a positive correlation.
But does ice cream really cause people to drown?
With an experiment, you would give some people ice cream and let them swim, the others they will have none and swim,. Then hopefully if your hypothesis is correct, people who had the ice cream would drown.True experiments enable us to draw conclusions about causality. Relational (correlational) studies do not.?
Correlational studies use observational data to determine whether or not there is a relationship between two variables. You can not determine causation, because there is no manipulation of variables. All you can determine is that the variables are related, but you don't know whether A causes B, B causes A, or a third factor, C, is causing both A and B. For example, let's say there is a positive correlation between number of police in a given city, and crime. You can not say based on this relationship whether the high amounts of police are causing the crime, crime causes the high police presence, or some other factor is causing both.
True experiments involve manipulation of variables that can prove some of the conditions for causation. These conditions are time order (you have to prove that the changes in the dependent variable occur AFTER the variation in the independent variable). A second condition is Nonspuriousness. That is, the independent variable, and not some other third variable, is causing the changes in the dependent variable. The third most important factor is correlation. For there to be a causal relationship, the variables must move together. (Don't get confused---causation requires correlation, but correlation does not assume causation). For example, in an experiment to determine how coffee effects reaction time, you can manipulate the circumstances by testing people's reaction time when they've had caffeine, and testing later without caffeine. You would also control for all sorts of conditions (make sure you test at the same time of day, etc. to fulfill the condition of nonspuriousness), and lastly make sure that the variables are related.
Is it true they bred 4 legged turkys in america for thanksgiving day, but cancelled the experiments because?
they couldnt catch them to kill them?Is it true they bred 4 legged turkys in america for thanksgiving day, but cancelled the experiments because?
Actually, the problem was they were born with six wings as well, and the rotters flew away to become magical creatures in the next round of seven novels by a certain magical UK Author.
--That Cheeky LadIs it true they bred 4 legged turkys in america for thanksgiving day, but cancelled the experiments because?
HAHAHAHAHA! Good one!
True and it was done because so many folks like the legs so they thought twice as many would be nice.
Yes! And because they bred them as large as elephants they couldn't control 'em either.
Now they are cross-breeding them with turtles in order to use them as Armoured Personnel Carriers in the military. Any that get blown up can then be used to feed the troops.
Yes, I have heard that to be true.
Actually, the problem was they were born with six wings as well, and the rotters flew away to become magical creatures in the next round of seven novels by a certain magical UK Author.
--That Cheeky LadIs it true they bred 4 legged turkys in america for thanksgiving day, but cancelled the experiments because?
HAHAHAHAHA! Good one!
True and it was done because so many folks like the legs so they thought twice as many would be nice.
Yes! And because they bred them as large as elephants they couldn't control 'em either.
Now they are cross-breeding them with turtles in order to use them as Armoured Personnel Carriers in the military. Any that get blown up can then be used to feed the troops.
Yes, I have heard that to be true.
Whats the true about weird sounds in side of the of the planet .relative to russian experiments?
So... you want to know the truth. Well, the truth is that there is a secret alien civilization living deep within our planet. They are huge fans of rap music, especially 50 Cent, and the noises that were heard are simply the aliens blasting their jams.
Is it true that Denver International Airport is performing undergroud secret experiments?
Yes, it is true. But its secret.Is it true that Denver International Airport is performing undergroud secret experiments?
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUSSSSHHH!!!!!!
I can't tell!!!!Is it true that Denver International Airport is performing undergroud secret experiments?
yes
yes i have been down in ';the pit';. Under the airport lies two prototypes of _FLYING JESUS_ this secret weapon stands 85 feet tall and looks is a replica of god's son right down to the crown of thorns.The weapon can travel at an incredible speed of 2300mph and can move in virtually any direction, the FLYING JESUS has super concentrated laser eye cannons and arm to shoulder cruise and hellfire rockets. In its mouth are twin 30mm grenade launchers with an unbelievable amount of ammo storage. Its propulsion system is highly guarded and i may never know but be careful if you go down there man.network security
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUSSSSHHH!!!!!!
I can't tell!!!!Is it true that Denver International Airport is performing undergroud secret experiments?
yes
yes i have been down in ';the pit';. Under the airport lies two prototypes of _FLYING JESUS_ this secret weapon stands 85 feet tall and looks is a replica of god's son right down to the crown of thorns.The weapon can travel at an incredible speed of 2300mph and can move in virtually any direction, the FLYING JESUS has super concentrated laser eye cannons and arm to shoulder cruise and hellfire rockets. In its mouth are twin 30mm grenade launchers with an unbelievable amount of ammo storage. Its propulsion system is highly guarded and i may never know but be careful if you go down there man.
Isn't it true that in some experiments, people have actually sped up & slowed the speed of light?
The speed of light varies depending on the medium it is passing through. The optical density of the material it is passing through is used to find the speed of light through the material.
Where c is a constant is in a vacuum. If that is what you are referring to, I have no idea.Isn't it true that in some experiments, people have actually sped up %26amp; slowed the speed of light?
When I was a physics major in college, I heard of some experiments in quantum mechanics where light seems to travel at a speed faster than c. We're talking microscopic distances, though. Unfortunately I don't remember what the experiment was. That's the closest thing I can think of to what you're asking. There are no other ways to change the speed of light in a vacuum, to my knowledge.Isn't it true that in some experiments, people have actually sped up %26amp; slowed the speed of light?
CoveEnt is correct that the speed of light depends on the medium it is passing through. Scientists call the ratio of the speed of light in a vaccum (3x10^8 m/s) divided by the speed of light in a given material the *index of refraction* (usually abbreviated as ';n';) of that material. As far as has been discovered to my knowledge, the maximum speed of light is that in a *vaccum*, or 3x10^8 m/s, about 186,000 miles/second. This is the constant ';c';. However, scientists have recently produced a Boise-Einstein condensate (the fifth state of matter, besides gas, solid, liquid, and plasma), and light projected through it is slowed down to 36 miles/hour or some such ';super-slow'; speed.
close to the speed of light relativity starts to kick in and it changes depending on the observer but the speed of light has never exceeded its constant..
it all depends on the density of the medium or if there is one
it's easier to slow it down, light goes at c just in vacuum space, any other media should slow it down, the amount of that is given by the indice of refraction of the material.
speeding it up has not been possible yet ( I think is more a theoretical barrier more than a practical one..something to do with relativity) I heard also about that experiment of QM at microscopical level with cesium atoms..the guy had a chinesse last name ( don't remember :/)..but it was some other effect , he corrected himself and apologize for giving hope to people :) ( going faster than c would imply crazy changings in physics and humankind)
Slowing down the speed of light is no big deal since, as mentioned, EM radiation travels at different speeds in different media (the velocity factor). However, there have been recent experiments where ';the group velocity'; has been increased above the speed of light. There is a Wikipedia article below that describes this pretty throughly.
However, as far as I know, all of these ';faster than light'; phenonemnon will not allow the transmission of information faster than the speed of light.
Where c is a constant is in a vacuum. If that is what you are referring to, I have no idea.Isn't it true that in some experiments, people have actually sped up %26amp; slowed the speed of light?
When I was a physics major in college, I heard of some experiments in quantum mechanics where light seems to travel at a speed faster than c. We're talking microscopic distances, though. Unfortunately I don't remember what the experiment was. That's the closest thing I can think of to what you're asking. There are no other ways to change the speed of light in a vacuum, to my knowledge.Isn't it true that in some experiments, people have actually sped up %26amp; slowed the speed of light?
CoveEnt is correct that the speed of light depends on the medium it is passing through. Scientists call the ratio of the speed of light in a vaccum (3x10^8 m/s) divided by the speed of light in a given material the *index of refraction* (usually abbreviated as ';n';) of that material. As far as has been discovered to my knowledge, the maximum speed of light is that in a *vaccum*, or 3x10^8 m/s, about 186,000 miles/second. This is the constant ';c';. However, scientists have recently produced a Boise-Einstein condensate (the fifth state of matter, besides gas, solid, liquid, and plasma), and light projected through it is slowed down to 36 miles/hour or some such ';super-slow'; speed.
close to the speed of light relativity starts to kick in and it changes depending on the observer but the speed of light has never exceeded its constant..
it all depends on the density of the medium or if there is one
it's easier to slow it down, light goes at c just in vacuum space, any other media should slow it down, the amount of that is given by the indice of refraction of the material.
speeding it up has not been possible yet ( I think is more a theoretical barrier more than a practical one..something to do with relativity) I heard also about that experiment of QM at microscopical level with cesium atoms..the guy had a chinesse last name ( don't remember :/)..but it was some other effect , he corrected himself and apologize for giving hope to people :) ( going faster than c would imply crazy changings in physics and humankind)
Slowing down the speed of light is no big deal since, as mentioned, EM radiation travels at different speeds in different media (the velocity factor). However, there have been recent experiments where ';the group velocity'; has been increased above the speed of light. There is a Wikipedia article below that describes this pretty throughly.
However, as far as I know, all of these ';faster than light'; phenonemnon will not allow the transmission of information faster than the speed of light.
Often scientist test hypotheses by conducting controlled experiments? Is this true?
yepOften scientist test hypotheses by conducting controlled experiments? Is this true?
The classic ';scientific method'; is: first a question, then a hypothetical answer is proposed, then an experiment is conducted to determine if the hypothesis is correct. And, historically, the results of the experiment bring more questions and the process repeats. Remember Ben Franklin flying his kite in the thunderstorm? Perfect example.
The classic ';scientific method'; is: first a question, then a hypothetical answer is proposed, then an experiment is conducted to determine if the hypothesis is correct. And, historically, the results of the experiment bring more questions and the process repeats. Remember Ben Franklin flying his kite in the thunderstorm? Perfect example.
Without doing any experiments, which of the following can you say must be true.?
The Haber reaction for the manufacture of ammonia is:
N2 + 3H2 2NH3
Without doing any experiments, which of the following can you say must be true.
The rate of disappearance of H2 is three times the rate of disappearance of N2.
1. Reaction rate = -èž–[N2]/èž–t.
2. The reaction is not an elementary reaction.
3. The reactant is first-order in N2.
4. The activation energy is positive.
5. èž–[H2]/èž–t has a positive value.Without doing any experiments, which of the following can you say must be true.?
1) Impossible to say
2) Impossible to determine without experiment
3) Impossible to detemine
4) --%26gt; TRUE %26lt;--
5) Impossible to sayWithout doing any experiments, which of the following can you say must be true.?
1. looks good. That's the definition of rate.
2. For an elementary reaction to involve four reactant molecules would be highly unusual (impossible). So that's fine.
3. You don't know the order of the reaction without doing the concentration-dependent rate experiments.
4. Activation energies are always positive.
5. Hydrogen concentration is decreasing so this is false.
The first statement without a number is true because of the stoichiometric ratios in the reaction.
1. This is true because it is the definition of the rate.
2. This is very, very likely to be true but cannot be verified without experiment.
3. This is impossible to know without experiment.
4. This must be true because both N-N and H-H bonds must be broken in order to accomplish the reaction.
5. If the reaction is going in the forward direction, this is false because H2 would be disappearing.
N2 + 3H2 2NH3
Without doing any experiments, which of the following can you say must be true.
The rate of disappearance of H2 is three times the rate of disappearance of N2.
1. Reaction rate = -èž–[N2]/èž–t.
2. The reaction is not an elementary reaction.
3. The reactant is first-order in N2.
4. The activation energy is positive.
5. èž–[H2]/èž–t has a positive value.Without doing any experiments, which of the following can you say must be true.?
1) Impossible to say
2) Impossible to determine without experiment
3) Impossible to detemine
4) --%26gt; TRUE %26lt;--
5) Impossible to sayWithout doing any experiments, which of the following can you say must be true.?
1. looks good. That's the definition of rate.
2. For an elementary reaction to involve four reactant molecules would be highly unusual (impossible). So that's fine.
3. You don't know the order of the reaction without doing the concentration-dependent rate experiments.
4. Activation energies are always positive.
5. Hydrogen concentration is decreasing so this is false.
The first statement without a number is true because of the stoichiometric ratios in the reaction.
1. This is true because it is the definition of the rate.
2. This is very, very likely to be true but cannot be verified without experiment.
3. This is impossible to know without experiment.
4. This must be true because both N-N and H-H bonds must be broken in order to accomplish the reaction.
5. If the reaction is going in the forward direction, this is false because H2 would be disappearing.
Is It true that Lebron James experimented with Crack Cocaine around 7 years ago?
Yeah... Maybe.... Who Knows.
But this Q needs your answer....
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?…
------------------------------------Is It true that Lebron James experimented with Crack Cocaine around 7 years ago?
no it was just crack....kobe sold his a$$ to lebron so he wouldnt rape another white gurlIs It true that Lebron James experimented with Crack Cocaine around 7 years ago?
I think you experimented with crack you douchebag.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story…
article from espn
No
ROFL,nice one
Don't forget Pot!
Crack Cocaine isn't Pot. Are you like 5 years old?
Crack is so old...
Steroids are the new thing.
ROFL.
I know he did pot in hs
Did u smoke what was in it when he handed it to u?
wow so many top contributors
bravo!
yeah i think he said that a while back too
I don't think so. And I do not report your questions!!
What else do you think that dust he throws up before every game is?
But this Q needs your answer....
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?…
------------------------------------Is It true that Lebron James experimented with Crack Cocaine around 7 years ago?
no it was just crack....kobe sold his a$$ to lebron so he wouldnt rape another white gurlIs It true that Lebron James experimented with Crack Cocaine around 7 years ago?
I think you experimented with crack you douchebag.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story…
article from espn
No
ROFL,nice one
Don't forget Pot!
Crack Cocaine isn't Pot. Are you like 5 years old?
Crack is so old...
Steroids are the new thing.
ROFL.
I know he did pot in hs
Did u smoke what was in it when he handed it to u?
wow so many top contributors
bravo!
yeah i think he said that a while back too
I don't think so. And I do not report your questions!!
What else do you think that dust he throws up before every game is?
Is it true America hired some of the Nazi psychiatrists post WWII who did tortous experiments?
Why would America do that? I don't think so...where did you hear? Awful! But it's true that America used soldiers as guinea pigs when my grandpa was in the national guard sooo...maybe it's true but I wouldn't know.Is it true America hired some of the Nazi psychiatrists post WWII who did tortous experiments?
Maybe, our past as a country is pretty checkeredIs it true America hired some of the Nazi psychiatrists post WWII who did tortous experiments?
Project Paperclip. MKULTRA
It wouldnt surprise me . Nazis and Jap war criminals were hired by your governmant to do all sorts of work from Rockets ( Von Braun) to the atomic weapon( oppenheimer) and all the research of Mengel and the japs in manchuria was also coveted and USED.
Scientific and human ethics aside, the research and findings of these people helped to foister American interests in science, research, genetics, space travel , nuclear research and many other fields of human ';endevour';.
Americans can give me all the thumbs down they want , that is the ones who are owned by their government and stopped thinking for themselves.
Simply put.....America had no conscience in weeding out the worst of humanity to further its own interests.
Why else would they have chosen dubya
Yep! And Werner Von Braun from the V-Rocket program, and Richard Gehlen who had been director of one of the Nazi intelligence services and many others.
yes and no there was germans inventions that were brought to the us and used and the germans came with. but what you need to relise that the majouruty of the naizs were eathere brain washed from birth or forced in to work eathere that orr they joind for the binifits befor the started to go to war germans and gave hope to germaney picture the U.S is forsed to give up its militay power and some one stood up and said forget you and starts to build an army then star to build up the country becoust thats what happped to germany the germans wern't bad .......at first the power got to there head and hittler came to power I DO NOT SUPORT what they did i just under stand why they did it so you can make your own gess from there i thank there was no such tang past the rocket and jet program
Maybe, our past as a country is pretty checkeredIs it true America hired some of the Nazi psychiatrists post WWII who did tortous experiments?
Project Paperclip. MKULTRA
It wouldnt surprise me . Nazis and Jap war criminals were hired by your governmant to do all sorts of work from Rockets ( Von Braun) to the atomic weapon( oppenheimer) and all the research of Mengel and the japs in manchuria was also coveted and USED.
Scientific and human ethics aside, the research and findings of these people helped to foister American interests in science, research, genetics, space travel , nuclear research and many other fields of human ';endevour';.
Americans can give me all the thumbs down they want , that is the ones who are owned by their government and stopped thinking for themselves.
Simply put.....America had no conscience in weeding out the worst of humanity to further its own interests.
Why else would they have chosen dubya
Yep! And Werner Von Braun from the V-Rocket program, and Richard Gehlen who had been director of one of the Nazi intelligence services and many others.
yes and no there was germans inventions that were brought to the us and used and the germans came with. but what you need to relise that the majouruty of the naizs were eathere brain washed from birth or forced in to work eathere that orr they joind for the binifits befor the started to go to war germans and gave hope to germaney picture the U.S is forsed to give up its militay power and some one stood up and said forget you and starts to build an army then star to build up the country becoust thats what happped to germany the germans wern't bad .......at first the power got to there head and hittler came to power I DO NOT SUPORT what they did i just under stand why they did it so you can make your own gess from there i thank there was no such tang past the rocket and jet program
Explain how Mendel's experiments would have been different if he had not worked with true breeding plants.?
If Mendel's experiments were not true breeding, then he would not be ablt to tell the recessive alleles showed up in the F2 progeny. Since the F1 generation would have showed the dominant trait regardless, the only way to show the recessive alleles carry to the F2 is to have true breeding parents.
Best,
BExplain how Mendel's experiments would have been different if he had not worked with true breeding plants.?
Wait, Mendels peas couldn't breed? How then did they have offspring?network security
Best,
BExplain how Mendel's experiments would have been different if he had not worked with true breeding plants.?
Wait, Mendels peas couldn't breed? How then did they have offspring?
Which of the following statements is probably true about the experiments that supposedly proved that spontaneo
A. Too much heat was applied.
B. Air was lacking.
C. The food source could not support life.
D. All of the above
E. Microorganisms were already present when the flask was sealed.Which of the following statements is probably true about the experiments that supposedly proved that spontaneo
Half of the question is missing, but from little parts of it, i believe the answer is E.Which of the following statements is probably true about the experiments that supposedly proved that spontaneo
I think the proper ans
What is this...? A question? Makes no sense. Spontaneo...when the flask was sealed? What flask? My rum flask?
I assume you mean the experiments that supported the idea of spontaneous generation (of an organism). One of the initial experiments that supported the idea of spontaneous generation was one where meat was left out and after a few days, maggots appeared without any apparent intervention (it was not understood that these were fly larvae). When the meat was covered with a cloth, maggots didn't appear (because the flies couldn't get to it to lay eggs), but it still putrefied due to bacteria. Spontaneous generation was discounted by an experiment where meat extract media was placed in a flask, boiled and sealed and no bacteria grew. The last weak argument for spontaneous generation then was that atmosphere was needed and nothing could grow without atmosphere. So, another flask was created with a crooked neck so that nothing could fall into the media, but the neck was still open to the atmosphere. No bacteria grew in this flask either. Thus, the idea of spontaneous generation was completely discounted.
Picking an answer is difficult without the complete question, but I would hazard a guess the answer is E.
E
assuming this is the famous meat experiment.
B. Air was lacking.
C. The food source could not support life.
D. All of the above
E. Microorganisms were already present when the flask was sealed.Which of the following statements is probably true about the experiments that supposedly proved that spontaneo
Half of the question is missing, but from little parts of it, i believe the answer is E.Which of the following statements is probably true about the experiments that supposedly proved that spontaneo
I think the proper ans
What is this...? A question? Makes no sense. Spontaneo...when the flask was sealed? What flask? My rum flask?
I assume you mean the experiments that supported the idea of spontaneous generation (of an organism). One of the initial experiments that supported the idea of spontaneous generation was one where meat was left out and after a few days, maggots appeared without any apparent intervention (it was not understood that these were fly larvae). When the meat was covered with a cloth, maggots didn't appear (because the flies couldn't get to it to lay eggs), but it still putrefied due to bacteria. Spontaneous generation was discounted by an experiment where meat extract media was placed in a flask, boiled and sealed and no bacteria grew. The last weak argument for spontaneous generation then was that atmosphere was needed and nothing could grow without atmosphere. So, another flask was created with a crooked neck so that nothing could fall into the media, but the neck was still open to the atmosphere. No bacteria grew in this flask either. Thus, the idea of spontaneous generation was completely discounted.
Picking an answer is difficult without the complete question, but I would hazard a guess the answer is E.
E
assuming this is the famous meat experiment.
Is it true that scientists proved that DNA controls traits through experiments with bacteria?
DNA was proven to be the heritable material through the use of bacteria and a specific type of bacterial virus called bacteriophage. The control of traits would then be something easily deduced from this through the years of work with plants and model organisms like drosophila.Is it true that scientists proved that DNA controls traits through experiments with bacteria?
I don't know how they originally proved it, but they can prove it now with gene slicing and with the glow-in-the dark moneky they made.
I don't know how they originally proved it, but they can prove it now with gene slicing and with the glow-in-the dark moneky they made.
Is it true that Charles Darwing fabricated or lied about some aspects of his scientific experiments?
Spiritually speaking: How do you feel about lies?Is it true that Charles Darwing fabricated or lied about some aspects of his scientific experiments?
Actually no, he didn't lie. He came up with theories. The theory of Evolution is just that, a theory. Some claim that it is no longer a theory but fact while others, scientists included, see it as a ideal that could be correct, but needing further research. I, myself believe that evolution does exist but not to the degree of a ape evolving into a man. There is no evidence of such thing happening. There is a complete lack of any transitional fossils that exist, demonstrating a continual change from one specie to another. In otherwords there is nothing out there that proves that one specie may turn into another specie. A specie may evolve, or change, or adapt to it's enviroment but it still retains it s own unique specie.Is it true that Charles Darwing fabricated or lied about some aspects of his scientific experiments?
Very good answer
There is no point in lying if you are a scientist: the process of peer review will find you out.
And there is no point in lying if you are a scientist: you are trying to find the truth, how is lying going to help with that?
In order to lie you have to be a believer. You have to already know what you think, and then be willing to distort the facts in order to fit that prejudice.
I'm not sure.
I do know that ';evolutionary science'; is a contradiction.
Since the theory of evolution is not testable, it is not by definition a science. Evolutionists have presuppositions that they bring into every fossil they find (like this new joke of a find Ardi).
It is a fairy tale for grownups.
I detest lies. That includes those wrapped innuendo like yours as well as those perpetuated by ignorant parrots like this: ';the theory of evolution is not testable';
Umm, sure it is. It has been tested a myriad times, your ignorance notwithstanding. Better, yet, it is imminently falsifiable. All you have to do is provide a single counterexample and you disprove the whole thing.
We'll wait while you provide us with that magic bullet.....
....
....
....
Still waiting....
No he didn't. Most of his experiments were theories...
It was other people who fabricated his theories. Saying that man came from monkey. Which isnt true
Actually no, he didn't lie. He came up with theories. The theory of Evolution is just that, a theory. Some claim that it is no longer a theory but fact while others, scientists included, see it as a ideal that could be correct, but needing further research. I, myself believe that evolution does exist but not to the degree of a ape evolving into a man. There is no evidence of such thing happening. There is a complete lack of any transitional fossils that exist, demonstrating a continual change from one specie to another. In otherwords there is nothing out there that proves that one specie may turn into another specie. A specie may evolve, or change, or adapt to it's enviroment but it still retains it s own unique specie.Is it true that Charles Darwing fabricated or lied about some aspects of his scientific experiments?
Very good answer
Report Abuse
There is no point in lying if you are a scientist: the process of peer review will find you out.
And there is no point in lying if you are a scientist: you are trying to find the truth, how is lying going to help with that?
In order to lie you have to be a believer. You have to already know what you think, and then be willing to distort the facts in order to fit that prejudice.
I'm not sure.
I do know that ';evolutionary science'; is a contradiction.
Since the theory of evolution is not testable, it is not by definition a science. Evolutionists have presuppositions that they bring into every fossil they find (like this new joke of a find Ardi).
It is a fairy tale for grownups.
I detest lies. That includes those wrapped innuendo like yours as well as those perpetuated by ignorant parrots like this: ';the theory of evolution is not testable';
Umm, sure it is. It has been tested a myriad times, your ignorance notwithstanding. Better, yet, it is imminently falsifiable. All you have to do is provide a single counterexample and you disprove the whole thing.
We'll wait while you provide us with that magic bullet.....
....
....
....
Still waiting....
No he didn't. Most of his experiments were theories...
It was other people who fabricated his theories. Saying that man came from monkey. Which isnt true
True or False: The Ancient Greeks did many experiments to show the nature of matter?
true or false?True or False: The Ancient Greeks did many experiments to show the nature of matter?
True
Much of their science was based on observation, hypothesis and experiment.
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/Plai鈥?/a>True or False: The Ancient Greeks did many experiments to show the nature of matter?
False. They had neither the interest nor necessary technology to conduct experiments.
True
Much of their science was based on observation, hypothesis and experiment.
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/Plai鈥?/a>True or False: The Ancient Greeks did many experiments to show the nature of matter?
False. They had neither the interest nor necessary technology to conduct experiments.
Is it true you remain bi-curious until you actually experiment?
I'm very confused, but here's the story:
I first had a crush on a girl when I was 14, but I was still liking alot of guys. Last year I've just had a huge crush on one guy, but now he graduated and I don't know where he is. Recently though I've become attracted to girls on a more emotional level, not just sexual, and I don't know but I'm just attracted to the body. After the guy I was in love with and have been with for almost 2 years dumped me harshly 2 months ago, I couldn't feel so attracted to guys the same way anymore. I still love the guy, but I feel I can't love him again the way we did. I was afraid at one point (it just came to my mind) that I as completely lesbian, but I hope not. Is it possible that because I'm not around people much I don't feel attracted to guys? I don't know what to feel anymore. I'm saying I'm bi, not to be cool or anything, but I don't want to be gay. I'm 16 now, and is it possible that I'm straight but right now I have these mixed feelings? If I was gay I would be long turned off by guys, right? Like one of my friends is gay and she said she didn't have crushes on guys since she was like 12 and she's 16 now too.
So...
Cuz all these things are making me worried and sick, and my mom is ok with me liking girls, though it doesn't happen often, but my dad would kill me even if he just suspected it! What do I do??Is it true you remain bi-curious until you actually experiment?
well you might be straight, but your just turning to girls because you think you cant trust guys anymore. but if you feel emotionally and sexually attracted to girls and guys, then your bi. i wouldnt think your completely lesbian, because you were with a guy for 2 years. but things could be changing, you being only 16.Is it true you remain bi-curious until you actually experiment?
Well everyone in this world has alittle curiosity in them so i'll have to say Yes. Only after you have ';experimented'; will you know what you like and what you would like to ';label yourself';. Of course, it comes with time too so don't rush yourself. Play it slowly until you know for sure where you stand. Good luck!
I'm gay, I don't think I ever like girls lol. I knew I was for sure gay in sixth grade and I haven't liked girls since. So yes, it's very possible that you're confused, it's common at your age.
yes cuz wen u actually try it nd like it its alot better on so many levels
do not be in the hurry to draw to a conclusion because most of time our feelings can't be understand in a few seconds ( in a short amount of time). of course in a surfaced level, by experimenting with the same sex can give you a better understanding of who you are but is not definite. please try not to label yourself before you know for sure. Being gay defines someone who is emotionally, physically, spiritually, fond of the same sex in a romantic manner. sometime even straight girl enjoys sexual activity with the same sex for variety of reasons. People should never label them self until they have falling in love with someone for sure.network security
I first had a crush on a girl when I was 14, but I was still liking alot of guys. Last year I've just had a huge crush on one guy, but now he graduated and I don't know where he is. Recently though I've become attracted to girls on a more emotional level, not just sexual, and I don't know but I'm just attracted to the body. After the guy I was in love with and have been with for almost 2 years dumped me harshly 2 months ago, I couldn't feel so attracted to guys the same way anymore. I still love the guy, but I feel I can't love him again the way we did. I was afraid at one point (it just came to my mind) that I as completely lesbian, but I hope not. Is it possible that because I'm not around people much I don't feel attracted to guys? I don't know what to feel anymore. I'm saying I'm bi, not to be cool or anything, but I don't want to be gay. I'm 16 now, and is it possible that I'm straight but right now I have these mixed feelings? If I was gay I would be long turned off by guys, right? Like one of my friends is gay and she said she didn't have crushes on guys since she was like 12 and she's 16 now too.
So...
Cuz all these things are making me worried and sick, and my mom is ok with me liking girls, though it doesn't happen often, but my dad would kill me even if he just suspected it! What do I do??Is it true you remain bi-curious until you actually experiment?
well you might be straight, but your just turning to girls because you think you cant trust guys anymore. but if you feel emotionally and sexually attracted to girls and guys, then your bi. i wouldnt think your completely lesbian, because you were with a guy for 2 years. but things could be changing, you being only 16.Is it true you remain bi-curious until you actually experiment?
Well everyone in this world has alittle curiosity in them so i'll have to say Yes. Only after you have ';experimented'; will you know what you like and what you would like to ';label yourself';. Of course, it comes with time too so don't rush yourself. Play it slowly until you know for sure where you stand. Good luck!
I'm gay, I don't think I ever like girls lol. I knew I was for sure gay in sixth grade and I haven't liked girls since. So yes, it's very possible that you're confused, it's common at your age.
yes cuz wen u actually try it nd like it its alot better on so many levels
do not be in the hurry to draw to a conclusion because most of time our feelings can't be understand in a few seconds ( in a short amount of time). of course in a surfaced level, by experimenting with the same sex can give you a better understanding of who you are but is not definite. please try not to label yourself before you know for sure. Being gay defines someone who is emotionally, physically, spiritually, fond of the same sex in a romantic manner. sometime even straight girl enjoys sexual activity with the same sex for variety of reasons. People should never label them self until they have falling in love with someone for sure.
Regarding pasteur's experiments with the s-neck flask, which of the following statements are true?
There was air involved. There was a food source involved. any possibility of contamination was removed. All microorganisms were killed before beginning.Regarding pasteur's experiments with the s-neck flask, which of the following statements are true?
All are true.
All are true.
What are the true verifiable ramifications of the double slit experiment?
I have often found conflicting and confusing information in textbooks and on the internet regarding the famed double slit experiment. I've seen it with light in class, I've never seen it with electrons or atoms. In the literature I've seen, the test apparatus is never described very well, and the idea of placing a detector at the slit is often glossed over.
The conclusions people reach are sometimes wacky, implying that human observation effects physics, which seems ridiculous to me.
Can anyone point me to some really good sources of information on the web regarding this fundamental element of quantum physics?What are the true verifiable ramifications of the double slit experiment?
The double slit experiment is one of those tricky little processes. It is often one of the first things introduced in any quantum course. In your first year of quantum, it seems counter intuitive. By your second year it seems obvious (given that you trust the math), but by your upper years it seems complicated again.
What we think we know: All matter exists as waves, and has a non-zero possibility of being at any point (given there isn't an infinite potential). Think of this as being a continuous and infinite superposition (since wavefunction occur in continuous L2(R)). However, by the postulates of quantum mechanics, when we ';measure'; such an object, it collapses to one of its eigenstates. The photodetector is considered such a measurement. If we measure the particle to see which slit it entered, we've destroyed the superposition before it can self-interfere.
The types of measurements used to detect the particle at the slit are called ';non-destructive measurements'; and usually involve detecting some variation of an electric/magnetic field as the particle passes through. Even if the particle isn't charge, it's spin creates a magnetic dipole moment that can be detected. Try google/wiki for more results.
The point is that as all things are in superposition, but this is a very delicate state (coherence). The act of measurement results in the system decohering, and collapsing into an eigenstate. It need not be human observation, just a measurement in general.
What is a measurement? This is a very deep question, one that is still an active area of research in quantum foundations. Is it just an apparatus and ancilla? Or perhaps must we consider the human and apparti as quantum elements as well and consider the combined space? It's actually a very deep question.
For a good source of info, there is of course the standard textbooks. Sakurai may be too complicated for newcomers, and Griffiths is too simple for a deeper understanding. You may wish to try the website www.am473.ca, which is essentially an entire upper-year undergraduate course on advanced quantum theory.What are the true verifiable ramifications of the double slit experiment?
There are some quantum text books such as Modern Physics by serway et al. that describe the double slit experiment in detail. Like you said I also don't think some of the stuff on the web is very credible
The most important part of the apparatus is the detector. All detectors are basically a collection of particles which traveling electron will hit and this in turn would reveal which slit the electron came through. The problem is however these detector also alter the momentum of the electron when it collides with the detector particles. Now after all this the conditions required to form an interference pattern violates the uncertainty principle.
What happens when you put light through a very small slit (nanometers) is that the light creates fringes. These are due to a property of all waves known as defraction where you get areas of relatively high intensity and low intensity. They found that when you do this with only one wave of light you still get multiple fringes which gives proof to the Hisenburg uncertainty principle which says that something can be in two places at once.
Let's start with the last comment first...that observation affects the physics. This is of course the crux of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The problem is that, we cannot ';see'; something unless something is coming from or rebounding off it and into our detectors.
Case in point, you cannot see this text unless photons come from it and enter your eyes. Mere existance of an object is a necessary but not sufficient condition for observation. Something has to be coming from that object for us to observer it. And that something affects the object's location and/or momentum.
So as soon as we probe an object with oh I don't know...light, X-rays, gamma rays, BBs...anything...that object takes on the momenta of that probe. And, voila, you no longer really know the real momentum of that object you probed. [BTW: I mention BBs because they are used often in HS/college physics labs to demonstrate how we discern the shape of subatomic particles by scattering effects.]
The uncertainties found at the subatomic level fade away as we move up into the macro world...the one you and I see daily. That results because the probes we use to see these macro objects are way way smaller than the objects themselves. So the affects on the large object locations and/or momenta are very very tiny. This is a good thing, because if the uncertainties remained large, this text would be bouncing all over the place from the photons used to probe it.
Now to the 2 slit experiment. Makes no difference (except in dimensions like focal length and slit separation) what particles we send through the slits...photons or electrons...the results will be similar. That is, we will see constructive and destructive interference rings on the projection screen. This result deomonstrates the wave nature of the particles.
Let's see if I can drow the 2 slit from above:
......................|...............鈥?br>
......................x...............鈥?br>
X--------------------|................鈥?br>
......................x...............鈥?br>
......................|...............鈥?br>
Best I can do given Answers editing limits. Anyway the source (electrons or photons) is at X. At each x, the slits, the wave fronts act as though they were two separate sources. But they are in sync with their respective phases. That is, over time, the wave front above and the wave front below are oscillating up and down together.
They are still going up and down in sync when they hit the screen. But...this is important...because some waves travel a short distance directly to the screen (right in front of the slits) and others travel a longer distance to either side from the slits, when the waves from the two sources (each x) overlap (inteference), some of them are out of phase with each other.
That is, as we move away from directly in front of the slits, there will be alternating bands of dark (where the waves from the two sources are 180 degrees out of sync (crest to trough)) with bands of light (where the two source waves are in sync (crest to crest). The dark bands occur where destructive interference takes place and the light bands are where there is constructive interference.
Whether the bands are destructive or constructive depends on the geometery. So if one wave travels just a bit farther than the one it is interfering with, it might be 180 degrees out of phase with that other one and the interference would be destructive. If it travels even farther, so more time is taken, it would find itself back in phase with the other wave...constructive. And there you are.
';The Elegant Universe'; by Brian Greene, PhD, has an excellent section on the 2 slit, including why we still get interference bands even when we push one electron or photon through at a time....rather than a group of them at a time.
The conclusions people reach are sometimes wacky, implying that human observation effects physics, which seems ridiculous to me.
Can anyone point me to some really good sources of information on the web regarding this fundamental element of quantum physics?What are the true verifiable ramifications of the double slit experiment?
The double slit experiment is one of those tricky little processes. It is often one of the first things introduced in any quantum course. In your first year of quantum, it seems counter intuitive. By your second year it seems obvious (given that you trust the math), but by your upper years it seems complicated again.
What we think we know: All matter exists as waves, and has a non-zero possibility of being at any point (given there isn't an infinite potential). Think of this as being a continuous and infinite superposition (since wavefunction occur in continuous L2(R)). However, by the postulates of quantum mechanics, when we ';measure'; such an object, it collapses to one of its eigenstates. The photodetector is considered such a measurement. If we measure the particle to see which slit it entered, we've destroyed the superposition before it can self-interfere.
The types of measurements used to detect the particle at the slit are called ';non-destructive measurements'; and usually involve detecting some variation of an electric/magnetic field as the particle passes through. Even if the particle isn't charge, it's spin creates a magnetic dipole moment that can be detected. Try google/wiki for more results.
The point is that as all things are in superposition, but this is a very delicate state (coherence). The act of measurement results in the system decohering, and collapsing into an eigenstate. It need not be human observation, just a measurement in general.
What is a measurement? This is a very deep question, one that is still an active area of research in quantum foundations. Is it just an apparatus and ancilla? Or perhaps must we consider the human and apparti as quantum elements as well and consider the combined space? It's actually a very deep question.
For a good source of info, there is of course the standard textbooks. Sakurai may be too complicated for newcomers, and Griffiths is too simple for a deeper understanding. You may wish to try the website www.am473.ca, which is essentially an entire upper-year undergraduate course on advanced quantum theory.What are the true verifiable ramifications of the double slit experiment?
There are some quantum text books such as Modern Physics by serway et al. that describe the double slit experiment in detail. Like you said I also don't think some of the stuff on the web is very credible
The most important part of the apparatus is the detector. All detectors are basically a collection of particles which traveling electron will hit and this in turn would reveal which slit the electron came through. The problem is however these detector also alter the momentum of the electron when it collides with the detector particles. Now after all this the conditions required to form an interference pattern violates the uncertainty principle.
What happens when you put light through a very small slit (nanometers) is that the light creates fringes. These are due to a property of all waves known as defraction where you get areas of relatively high intensity and low intensity. They found that when you do this with only one wave of light you still get multiple fringes which gives proof to the Hisenburg uncertainty principle which says that something can be in two places at once.
Let's start with the last comment first...that observation affects the physics. This is of course the crux of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The problem is that, we cannot ';see'; something unless something is coming from or rebounding off it and into our detectors.
Case in point, you cannot see this text unless photons come from it and enter your eyes. Mere existance of an object is a necessary but not sufficient condition for observation. Something has to be coming from that object for us to observer it. And that something affects the object's location and/or momentum.
So as soon as we probe an object with oh I don't know...light, X-rays, gamma rays, BBs...anything...that object takes on the momenta of that probe. And, voila, you no longer really know the real momentum of that object you probed. [BTW: I mention BBs because they are used often in HS/college physics labs to demonstrate how we discern the shape of subatomic particles by scattering effects.]
The uncertainties found at the subatomic level fade away as we move up into the macro world...the one you and I see daily. That results because the probes we use to see these macro objects are way way smaller than the objects themselves. So the affects on the large object locations and/or momenta are very very tiny. This is a good thing, because if the uncertainties remained large, this text would be bouncing all over the place from the photons used to probe it.
Now to the 2 slit experiment. Makes no difference (except in dimensions like focal length and slit separation) what particles we send through the slits...photons or electrons...the results will be similar. That is, we will see constructive and destructive interference rings on the projection screen. This result deomonstrates the wave nature of the particles.
Let's see if I can drow the 2 slit from above:
......................|...............鈥?br>
......................x...............鈥?br>
X--------------------|................鈥?br>
......................x...............鈥?br>
......................|...............鈥?br>
Best I can do given Answers editing limits. Anyway the source (electrons or photons) is at X. At each x, the slits, the wave fronts act as though they were two separate sources. But they are in sync with their respective phases. That is, over time, the wave front above and the wave front below are oscillating up and down together.
They are still going up and down in sync when they hit the screen. But...this is important...because some waves travel a short distance directly to the screen (right in front of the slits) and others travel a longer distance to either side from the slits, when the waves from the two sources (each x) overlap (inteference), some of them are out of phase with each other.
That is, as we move away from directly in front of the slits, there will be alternating bands of dark (where the waves from the two sources are 180 degrees out of sync (crest to trough)) with bands of light (where the two source waves are in sync (crest to crest). The dark bands occur where destructive interference takes place and the light bands are where there is constructive interference.
Whether the bands are destructive or constructive depends on the geometery. So if one wave travels just a bit farther than the one it is interfering with, it might be 180 degrees out of phase with that other one and the interference would be destructive. If it travels even farther, so more time is taken, it would find itself back in phase with the other wave...constructive. And there you are.
';The Elegant Universe'; by Brian Greene, PhD, has an excellent section on the 2 slit, including why we still get interference bands even when we push one electron or photon through at a time....rather than a group of them at a time.
Which of the following is NOT true about the blank for the experiment, 'Analysis of a Complex Iron Salt'?
A. The blank for this experiment must have 100 % transmittance if placed in a spectrometer (Spec 20).
B. A blank is composed of the solvent used to dissolve the analyte. For this experiment, the solvent is a combination of sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, and water.
C. A blank is titrated to correct for any reactive impurities in the solvent. For this experiment, the impurities would be reducing agents that would react with KMnO4 (mimicking the behavior of C2O42鈥?).
D. The volume required to titrate the blank is subtracted from the volume used to titrate the analyte solution to give the ';corrected volume';.
E. All of these are true.
It's not D,E, and I don't think it's A, what is it?Which of the following is NOT true about the blank for the experiment, 'Analysis of a Complex Iron Salt'?
I would say A. The purpose of a blank is to get rid of any error, such as the impurity of the solvent, systematic errors, etc. However, a blank does not have to have 100% transmittance when placed in a Spec 20. However, the Spec 20 is adjusted to zero once the blank is in the instrument to zero out the errors which would be present in all of the samples.
B. A blank is composed of the solvent used to dissolve the analyte. For this experiment, the solvent is a combination of sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, and water.
C. A blank is titrated to correct for any reactive impurities in the solvent. For this experiment, the impurities would be reducing agents that would react with KMnO4 (mimicking the behavior of C2O42鈥?).
D. The volume required to titrate the blank is subtracted from the volume used to titrate the analyte solution to give the ';corrected volume';.
E. All of these are true.
It's not D,E, and I don't think it's A, what is it?Which of the following is NOT true about the blank for the experiment, 'Analysis of a Complex Iron Salt'?
I would say A. The purpose of a blank is to get rid of any error, such as the impurity of the solvent, systematic errors, etc. However, a blank does not have to have 100% transmittance when placed in a Spec 20. However, the Spec 20 is adjusted to zero once the blank is in the instrument to zero out the errors which would be present in all of the samples.
Wich of the following is NOT true about the blank for the experiment, 'Analysis of a Complex Iron Salt'?
Which of the following is NOT true about the blank for the experiment, 'Analysis of a Complex Iron Salt'?
A. A blank is titrated to correct for any reactive impurities in the solvent. For this experiment, the impurities would be reducing agents that would react with KMnO4 (mimicking the behavior of C2O42鈥?).
B. The volume required to titrate the blank is subtracted from the volume used to titrate the analyte solution to give the ';corrected volume';.
C. A blank is composed of the solvent used to dissolve the analyte. For this experiment, the solvent is a combination of sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, and water.
D. The blank for this experiment must have 100 % transmittance if placed in a spectrometer (Spec 20).
E. All of these are true.Wich of the following is NOT true about the blank for the experiment, 'Analysis of a Complex Iron Salt'?
E is not the answer!Wich of the following is NOT true about the blank for the experiment, 'Analysis of a Complex Iron Salt'?
How is this question ';resolved';? Idiots.
Answer is D.
its not B!!
its not B!!
E. all of the above are true
A. A blank is titrated to correct for any reactive impurities in the solvent. For this experiment, the impurities would be reducing agents that would react with KMnO4 (mimicking the behavior of C2O42鈥?).
B. The volume required to titrate the blank is subtracted from the volume used to titrate the analyte solution to give the ';corrected volume';.
C. A blank is composed of the solvent used to dissolve the analyte. For this experiment, the solvent is a combination of sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, and water.
D. The blank for this experiment must have 100 % transmittance if placed in a spectrometer (Spec 20).
E. All of these are true.Wich of the following is NOT true about the blank for the experiment, 'Analysis of a Complex Iron Salt'?
E is not the answer!Wich of the following is NOT true about the blank for the experiment, 'Analysis of a Complex Iron Salt'?
How is this question ';resolved';? Idiots.
Answer is D.
Report Abuse
its not B!!
Report Abuse
its not B!!
Report Abuse
E. all of the above are true
Why were true-breeding pea plants important for mendel's experiments?
Because it was known what their phenotypes would be because they were homozygous. Breeding two plants, one homozygous dominant and the other homozygous recessive leads to heterozygous. If he didn't start with the known it would have been much more difficult to find the patterns he did.Why were true-breeding pea plants important for mendel's experiments?
they acted as a constant
they acted as a constant
Is it true that the US Health Dep experimented on 400 Blacks with Syphilis in the Tuskegee Experiment?
Yes they did, and they also performed some pretty rotten tests on servicemen with LSD, sprayed germs in subway stations.....etc (not all by the the public health department and not all on African Americans).
Just keep in mind the phrase no one wants to hear
We are from the Government and we are here to help!!!!
%26lt;Grin%26gt;Is it true that the US Health Dep experimented on 400 Blacks with Syphilis in the Tuskegee Experiment?
Yes they did.Is it true that the US Health Dep experimented on 400 Blacks with Syphilis in the Tuskegee Experiment?
The 'experiment' consisted of witholding treatment from prisoners, to get data on the progress of the disease. Though that was a heck of a long time ago, and is relevent today only in the sense of 'learning from history.' Today, prisoners (like graduate students) are only used as medical guineapigs if they sign up for it.
This is a well known fact that the Tuskegee Airmen, a black squadron of airmen, were experimented on and infected with syphilis. Its one of the things that Rev Wright was yelling about....now hopefully some people will understand why he and so many African Americans don't trust this government and why it would be wonderful to have Barack Obama as president to heal the racial divide.
Yes its true (i don't know how many ppl exactly). Yes, when governments engage in such douchebaggery ppl will not trust them and will look for other abuses of power. I don't think they did it to the Tuskeegee people for genocidal reasons. I think that the people who did it valued black people less than other people and also picked poor share croppers (mostly) because they would have little chance to seek other sources of medical help. This doesn't make it any less reprehensible. I guess in a way it makes it more evil because they actually thought it out so well - how to get away with this evil 5hit for decades.
I think the government has screwed over other groups as well as black people like some of the other answerers have suggested. I think they did experiments on veterans with nuclear stuff. That doesn't mean that the Tuskeegee thing wasn't racist. Its not a contest to see who got screwed the worst.
Yes it is
For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,” their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all.
The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”
A few years ago, there were clinical trials for a heart medication for blacks, since heart disease runs rampant in the community. Needless to say, it didn't take off, partly due to wariness that this would turn into another Tuskegee experiement.
That's just the most WELL-known case. There were plenty of others.
http://www.amazon.com/Medical-Apartheid-…
What they did was take 400 Black men with Syphilis. They were never told what had either.
The purpose was to study the long term untreated effect of the disease on the human body. Determined by autopsy of course.
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/feat…
They did get free meals, medical exams? and burial insurance. Nice country huh?
And people talk about Obama. The crap about him is made up. The Tuskegee experiment was real.
Yes it was true. The Government also sterlized those it though mentally deficient in The 1930's at about the time The Nazis were doing that in Germany. The Goverment of Britain and Canada did the same thing or at least the attitude that this should be done was prevalent. There was even according to a National Film Board Video a case of the sterilization of a Native American when she was fourteen years old. This was done with out her knowledge and she was notwhat would have been thought deficient in any way. This was said to have been the policy of The Alberta Government in the 1970's . This may not be true but it is possible it did happen as said in the video.
What are you attempting to do here? Justify the racist behavior of Jeremiah and his followers? Tuskegee was a disgusting act on the part of our government. However, it occurred in the past. The racism of that clan of bigots in Chicago is unacceptable and happening today. That lying sack of crap from Illinois who you so proudly tout on your profile page is unfit to be the President of this great country. He's a despicable sleeze who makes Hillary look positively appealing when compared to his racist and nasty self.
Yes they did, and what a way for a jealous white man to go after black men, directly at their manhood, cowards.
Yes they did
Yes. And it is a horrible, horrible thing to have been done by government. It was criminal - people should have gone to prison for it. It was no different than the experiments done by Nazi Dr. Mengele. Completely inexcusable.
Yes,it is indeed true.A shameful thing in which we should be truly ashamed.
But i do believe not many knew about it and it was a Government secret.I wonder what other secret health projects were tried.
But people of all colors received Lobotomies when it was not necessary.Hitler learned that from us. Even JFK's father has his sister,who was only mildly retarded given a lobotomy
while her Mother was out of the country.
Very good Question Chi!!
Libsticker is correct. I don't believe it was simply a racial thing.
My father served in 'Nam and told me many stories about Agent Orange.
I also have friends who served in Desert Storm who came home with problems as a result of being exposed.
Unexcusable.
As for the HIV thing, I believe that this is a virus which
began in monkeys (chimpanzees?), and was spread
worldwide by homosexuality (nearly a decade, unchecked),
then spread to heterosexuality and intravenous drug usage, at which time it became an epidemic. The link from chimps to human? Well, I think you can figure that one out.
The experimented on us in Desert Shield and Desert Storm with Nerve agents too. They also experimented on Vietnam vets with Agent Orange. I think the only reference you can draw from this is our service men and women are guinea pigs for the government. At least those out at Los Alamos during the first Atomic Blast claim that.
Yes and yes. That was also the point Obama was making. He was not excusing anything merely recognizing why some people would say things like that like he recognized the pain of many white working class people wich the regressive right conviniently totally ignored
Those who didn't get that and continue with the racist innuendo against Obama are either foreign to the English language or the same people who called him a Muslim for months. Good question, good point
I have raised this point several times over the past two years. Those that refuse to accept that a Government and Peoples that are capable of doing this to their own citizens would hesitate to enact the 9/11 atrocities and release HIV on the Africa and those less desirable to this society, either live in the land of fairies, are extremely gullible to the point of denial or just plain foolish.
Self education is a must...... Then nothing, absolutely nothing is beyond the realms of possibility.
Good question well put.
For the doubters, please don't forget President Clinton apologized for this travesty. How long before we get the apologies for 9/11?network security
Just keep in mind the phrase no one wants to hear
We are from the Government and we are here to help!!!!
%26lt;Grin%26gt;Is it true that the US Health Dep experimented on 400 Blacks with Syphilis in the Tuskegee Experiment?
Yes they did.Is it true that the US Health Dep experimented on 400 Blacks with Syphilis in the Tuskegee Experiment?
The 'experiment' consisted of witholding treatment from prisoners, to get data on the progress of the disease. Though that was a heck of a long time ago, and is relevent today only in the sense of 'learning from history.' Today, prisoners (like graduate students) are only used as medical guineapigs if they sign up for it.
This is a well known fact that the Tuskegee Airmen, a black squadron of airmen, were experimented on and infected with syphilis. Its one of the things that Rev Wright was yelling about....now hopefully some people will understand why he and so many African Americans don't trust this government and why it would be wonderful to have Barack Obama as president to heal the racial divide.
Yes its true (i don't know how many ppl exactly). Yes, when governments engage in such douchebaggery ppl will not trust them and will look for other abuses of power. I don't think they did it to the Tuskeegee people for genocidal reasons. I think that the people who did it valued black people less than other people and also picked poor share croppers (mostly) because they would have little chance to seek other sources of medical help. This doesn't make it any less reprehensible. I guess in a way it makes it more evil because they actually thought it out so well - how to get away with this evil 5hit for decades.
I think the government has screwed over other groups as well as black people like some of the other answerers have suggested. I think they did experiments on veterans with nuclear stuff. That doesn't mean that the Tuskeegee thing wasn't racist. Its not a contest to see who got screwed the worst.
Yes it is
For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,” their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all.
The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”
A few years ago, there were clinical trials for a heart medication for blacks, since heart disease runs rampant in the community. Needless to say, it didn't take off, partly due to wariness that this would turn into another Tuskegee experiement.
That's just the most WELL-known case. There were plenty of others.
http://www.amazon.com/Medical-Apartheid-…
What they did was take 400 Black men with Syphilis. They were never told what had either.
The purpose was to study the long term untreated effect of the disease on the human body. Determined by autopsy of course.
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/feat…
They did get free meals, medical exams? and burial insurance. Nice country huh?
And people talk about Obama. The crap about him is made up. The Tuskegee experiment was real.
Yes it was true. The Government also sterlized those it though mentally deficient in The 1930's at about the time The Nazis were doing that in Germany. The Goverment of Britain and Canada did the same thing or at least the attitude that this should be done was prevalent. There was even according to a National Film Board Video a case of the sterilization of a Native American when she was fourteen years old. This was done with out her knowledge and she was notwhat would have been thought deficient in any way. This was said to have been the policy of The Alberta Government in the 1970's . This may not be true but it is possible it did happen as said in the video.
What are you attempting to do here? Justify the racist behavior of Jeremiah and his followers? Tuskegee was a disgusting act on the part of our government. However, it occurred in the past. The racism of that clan of bigots in Chicago is unacceptable and happening today. That lying sack of crap from Illinois who you so proudly tout on your profile page is unfit to be the President of this great country. He's a despicable sleeze who makes Hillary look positively appealing when compared to his racist and nasty self.
Yes they did, and what a way for a jealous white man to go after black men, directly at their manhood, cowards.
Yes they did
Yes. And it is a horrible, horrible thing to have been done by government. It was criminal - people should have gone to prison for it. It was no different than the experiments done by Nazi Dr. Mengele. Completely inexcusable.
Yes,it is indeed true.A shameful thing in which we should be truly ashamed.
But i do believe not many knew about it and it was a Government secret.I wonder what other secret health projects were tried.
But people of all colors received Lobotomies when it was not necessary.Hitler learned that from us. Even JFK's father has his sister,who was only mildly retarded given a lobotomy
while her Mother was out of the country.
Very good Question Chi!!
Libsticker is correct. I don't believe it was simply a racial thing.
My father served in 'Nam and told me many stories about Agent Orange.
I also have friends who served in Desert Storm who came home with problems as a result of being exposed.
Unexcusable.
As for the HIV thing, I believe that this is a virus which
began in monkeys (chimpanzees?), and was spread
worldwide by homosexuality (nearly a decade, unchecked),
then spread to heterosexuality and intravenous drug usage, at which time it became an epidemic. The link from chimps to human? Well, I think you can figure that one out.
The experimented on us in Desert Shield and Desert Storm with Nerve agents too. They also experimented on Vietnam vets with Agent Orange. I think the only reference you can draw from this is our service men and women are guinea pigs for the government. At least those out at Los Alamos during the first Atomic Blast claim that.
Yes and yes. That was also the point Obama was making. He was not excusing anything merely recognizing why some people would say things like that like he recognized the pain of many white working class people wich the regressive right conviniently totally ignored
Those who didn't get that and continue with the racist innuendo against Obama are either foreign to the English language or the same people who called him a Muslim for months. Good question, good point
I have raised this point several times over the past two years. Those that refuse to accept that a Government and Peoples that are capable of doing this to their own citizens would hesitate to enact the 9/11 atrocities and release HIV on the Africa and those less desirable to this society, either live in the land of fairies, are extremely gullible to the point of denial or just plain foolish.
Self education is a must...... Then nothing, absolutely nothing is beyond the realms of possibility.
Good question well put.
For the doubters, please don't forget President Clinton apologized for this travesty. How long before we get the apologies for 9/11?
People say everybody likes to experiment with the same sex. true?
I am a girl and I am pretty sure I am straight. I have only had relationships with guys and I like guys. But sometimes I wonder what it would be to be with a girl. I see pretty girls and I am attracted but not really in a way that I want to have sex with her but in a way of thinking ';if she was a lesbian, I would do her';I enjoy watching the TV show ';The L Word.'; I dont think I am gay or bi but I do want to experiment with girls sometimes. Is that normal?People say everybody likes to experiment with the same sex. true?
Totally normal, it's even normal to act upon those feelings, especially if you're drunk. Haha. But seriously, nothing to be worried about. If you ever get confused about whether you're bi or whateverm just ask yourself, ';Would i ever want to marry a girl? Date a girl? Be with a girl forever? Not be able to get pregnant from a girl?'; Stuff like that. But if you only want to kss a girl or something, it's nothing to worry about. i'm pretty sure every girl have been bi-curious at leats once in their life, whether they acted on it or not.People say everybody likes to experiment with the same sex. true?
i think everybody at least once in their life will feel curious about the same sex
like dawn porter, [a british journalist] did a documentary on experimenting with the same sex because she felt attracted towards women but was straight. So she went to live in a flat with some lesbians, went to lesbian clubs ect and basically found that she had a physical attraction to women, but it wasn't physical and emotional like with men
:D
Puberty is a period during which same sex attraction 'may' take place, but not as a matter of 'everyone' going through the same thing... Some people are so 'brainwashed' by their families...or religions...it may take years, if ever, to realize they're actually not straight. They suffer through untold anxieties and anger never realizing 'why'... Sometimes they eventually 'work it out'...other times they live in misery, suffering and pain and usually make everyone else pretty miserable too... Isn't it wonderful to have homophobes running free...NOT!
dont think to hard on your sexuality. do what feels right and comfortable to you.
and i wouldnt know if its ';normal'; as, im a lesbian and have never actually thought about a guy in a sexual way.
i do know that my ex, even tho she was 24 , thought she was straight but had feelings for me and we did go out for about 5 months, but it wasnt for her. i on the other hand know that im into women and not men. :) sorry im not much help x
i think so becuase in the media they make it seem like its attractive and fun to maekout with your bestfriend. but honestly. i dont know what to say cause i was gonna say its normal for stiraght people to makeout wiht same sex. but i think i may be bi cause i think its fun sooo i dont know
I'm pretty sure it's normal.
To just be curious, I mean.
People's minds wander sometimes.
There's certianly nothing wrong with it.
Yes it's normal, it's called hormones. Do what feels COMFORTABLE to you, and make up your mind on your sexuality after that.
It's not abnormal, but it's not something that everyone goes through. I've honestly never thought about being with another girl, but a couple of my straight friends have.
Considering I'm gay. I would say not.
yess its normal
im like the same as u!
[:
I have felt like this also and I'm a straight male.
It's hormones though and it should calm down after puberty
:D
I have never felt like that but idk. Boys are the only way to go for me but maybe it is normal
it sounds like you have some erotic interest in girls . whether this commen or not is beside the point .
Totally normal, it's even normal to act upon those feelings, especially if you're drunk. Haha. But seriously, nothing to be worried about. If you ever get confused about whether you're bi or whateverm just ask yourself, ';Would i ever want to marry a girl? Date a girl? Be with a girl forever? Not be able to get pregnant from a girl?'; Stuff like that. But if you only want to kss a girl or something, it's nothing to worry about. i'm pretty sure every girl have been bi-curious at leats once in their life, whether they acted on it or not.People say everybody likes to experiment with the same sex. true?
i think everybody at least once in their life will feel curious about the same sex
like dawn porter, [a british journalist] did a documentary on experimenting with the same sex because she felt attracted towards women but was straight. So she went to live in a flat with some lesbians, went to lesbian clubs ect and basically found that she had a physical attraction to women, but it wasn't physical and emotional like with men
:D
Puberty is a period during which same sex attraction 'may' take place, but not as a matter of 'everyone' going through the same thing... Some people are so 'brainwashed' by their families...or religions...it may take years, if ever, to realize they're actually not straight. They suffer through untold anxieties and anger never realizing 'why'... Sometimes they eventually 'work it out'...other times they live in misery, suffering and pain and usually make everyone else pretty miserable too... Isn't it wonderful to have homophobes running free...NOT!
dont think to hard on your sexuality. do what feels right and comfortable to you.
and i wouldnt know if its ';normal'; as, im a lesbian and have never actually thought about a guy in a sexual way.
i do know that my ex, even tho she was 24 , thought she was straight but had feelings for me and we did go out for about 5 months, but it wasnt for her. i on the other hand know that im into women and not men. :) sorry im not much help x
i think so becuase in the media they make it seem like its attractive and fun to maekout with your bestfriend. but honestly. i dont know what to say cause i was gonna say its normal for stiraght people to makeout wiht same sex. but i think i may be bi cause i think its fun sooo i dont know
I'm pretty sure it's normal.
To just be curious, I mean.
People's minds wander sometimes.
There's certianly nothing wrong with it.
Yes it's normal, it's called hormones. Do what feels COMFORTABLE to you, and make up your mind on your sexuality after that.
It's not abnormal, but it's not something that everyone goes through. I've honestly never thought about being with another girl, but a couple of my straight friends have.
Considering I'm gay. I would say not.
yess its normal
im like the same as u!
[:
I have felt like this also and I'm a straight male.
It's hormones though and it should calm down after puberty
:D
I have never felt like that but idk. Boys are the only way to go for me but maybe it is normal
it sounds like you have some erotic interest in girls . whether this commen or not is beside the point .
Is it true that Barack Hussein Obama experimented with drugs and homosexuality while attending Occidental?
According to Federal Election Commission records, Obama For America paid $688,316.42 to international law firm Perkins Coie between January and March 2009. Just to keep us from the facts!!!
The PROFESSOR OBAMA is well educated to the Affirmative action standards!!!Is it true that Barack Hussein Obama experimented with drugs and homosexuality while attending Occidental?
He's admitted to using and liking pot. I don't know about any other drugs, or homosexuality, as he has never spoken to that particular thing.
Ain't it great, we went from a recovering alcoholic (no booze in 30+ years) to a pot-head (last usage, not disclosed).Is it true that Barack Hussein Obama experimented with drugs and homosexuality while attending Occidental?
Are you talking about Occidental College in EAgle Rock California, my alma mater?
I know there were people who WANTED ME to experiment with homosexuality but I refused to inhale. Drugs on the other hand. Well, it was the 1960's early 70's and you just weren';t a college student if you didn't take the cookies offered by Timothy Leary and try some nitrous at the same time. I didn't want to appear odd after all.
But I still regret not experimenting with homosexuality. That would've been fun.
I wonder if I go back to college now to get another degree if they will accept me like ';one of the gang'; even though I'm now a member of the ';Over the Hill Gang'; ... those darn whippersnappers ...
Hee hee ...
WHO THE HECK CARES?%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt; here's a CLUE %26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;v
%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;NO ONE!%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;
Perhaps getting a life would be a good course of action at this point.
Just my own humble opinion of course ... and EVERYONE elses it seems as well.
Hmmm.
Do these answers tell anything? I think SO!
Peace ...
You all know who I am ... do I need to say .... ? Oh why not!
I AM
Dartagnon
He experimented with drugs. If he experimented with homosexuality, it is not a matter of public record.
Either way, I don't care.
No. That is the wrong B. Bush Jr. did that. Remember, Laura told him if he didn't stop she would leave. Yeah. The coke %26amp; BJs had to stop. Hope that clears up that issue for you.
What the hell are you talking about? Where did you get this from? Or did you just pull it out of your a**? If he did... is it really any of your business anyway?
In HIS book he talked of himself USING AND SELLING drugs.....the other was not in that...and 46% of the US has NOT sold them as a way of life...but libs will excuse ANYTHING their messiah does or just blame GW.....
Do we really care? He might of taken drugs once, but then again, so have 46 % of americans.
Seriously what color is the sun in your world?
Just wondering.
Otherwise I don't know or care.
And what difference would it make ?
I would not want to put money on it either way.
I don't think so, but that would be awesome (as long as they were not hard drugs).
George W. did coke in college.
The PROFESSOR OBAMA is well educated to the Affirmative action standards!!!Is it true that Barack Hussein Obama experimented with drugs and homosexuality while attending Occidental?
He's admitted to using and liking pot. I don't know about any other drugs, or homosexuality, as he has never spoken to that particular thing.
Ain't it great, we went from a recovering alcoholic (no booze in 30+ years) to a pot-head (last usage, not disclosed).Is it true that Barack Hussein Obama experimented with drugs and homosexuality while attending Occidental?
Are you talking about Occidental College in EAgle Rock California, my alma mater?
I know there were people who WANTED ME to experiment with homosexuality but I refused to inhale. Drugs on the other hand. Well, it was the 1960's early 70's and you just weren';t a college student if you didn't take the cookies offered by Timothy Leary and try some nitrous at the same time. I didn't want to appear odd after all.
But I still regret not experimenting with homosexuality. That would've been fun.
I wonder if I go back to college now to get another degree if they will accept me like ';one of the gang'; even though I'm now a member of the ';Over the Hill Gang'; ... those darn whippersnappers ...
Hee hee ...
WHO THE HECK CARES?%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt; here's a CLUE %26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;v
%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;NO ONE!%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;
Perhaps getting a life would be a good course of action at this point.
Just my own humble opinion of course ... and EVERYONE elses it seems as well.
Hmmm.
Do these answers tell anything? I think SO!
Peace ...
You all know who I am ... do I need to say .... ? Oh why not!
I AM
Dartagnon
He experimented with drugs. If he experimented with homosexuality, it is not a matter of public record.
Either way, I don't care.
No. That is the wrong B. Bush Jr. did that. Remember, Laura told him if he didn't stop she would leave. Yeah. The coke %26amp; BJs had to stop. Hope that clears up that issue for you.
What the hell are you talking about? Where did you get this from? Or did you just pull it out of your a**? If he did... is it really any of your business anyway?
In HIS book he talked of himself USING AND SELLING drugs.....the other was not in that...and 46% of the US has NOT sold them as a way of life...but libs will excuse ANYTHING their messiah does or just blame GW.....
Do we really care? He might of taken drugs once, but then again, so have 46 % of americans.
Seriously what color is the sun in your world?
Just wondering.
Otherwise I don't know or care.
And what difference would it make ?
I would not want to put money on it either way.
I don't think so, but that would be awesome (as long as they were not hard drugs).
George W. did coke in college.
True or False. We can prove a theory to be correct by performing the right experiment.?
If false why? thanks =D
True or False. We can prove a theory to be correct by performing the right experiment.?
This is a false statement.
In science, you cannot prove anything. You can only support or disprove it.
A theory refers to an outcome of a particular experiment that has been tested and tested over and over, always producing the same results. True or False. We can prove a theory to be correct by performing the right experiment.?
Our theories (at least most of them) are based on our observations. Our observations are limited by our technology and can not really prove (in the scientific definition) that a theory is correct, complete, and will always be true. Example, regardless of how many times you see the sun rise in the east, you can not prove that the sun will rise tomorrow. You can prove that there is a very very high probability it will rise tomorrow but that is not the same as ';Proof';. You can certainly increase the ';strength'; of your theory thru careful experimental design but, again, that is different than absolute ';proof';.
False. You can only Disprove a theory. We only assume a theory is true when attempts to disprove it have failed.
True or False. We can prove a theory to be correct by performing the right experiment.?
This is a false statement.
In science, you cannot prove anything. You can only support or disprove it.
A theory refers to an outcome of a particular experiment that has been tested and tested over and over, always producing the same results. True or False. We can prove a theory to be correct by performing the right experiment.?
Our theories (at least most of them) are based on our observations. Our observations are limited by our technology and can not really prove (in the scientific definition) that a theory is correct, complete, and will always be true. Example, regardless of how many times you see the sun rise in the east, you can not prove that the sun will rise tomorrow. You can prove that there is a very very high probability it will rise tomorrow but that is not the same as ';Proof';. You can certainly increase the ';strength'; of your theory thru careful experimental design but, again, that is different than absolute ';proof';.
False. You can only Disprove a theory. We only assume a theory is true when attempts to disprove it have failed.
Is it true that in metal foil experiments almost all the bombarding particles were stopped by the metal foil?
Depends on what you bombard it with. Gamma rays behave a bit different from ionised uranium for example.
However if you are talking about the gold foil and alpha particles that Rutherford experimented with then most of the particles got through with small deflections.
However if you are talking about the gold foil and alpha particles that Rutherford experimented with then most of the particles got through with small deflections.
In Mendel's basic experiment, he began with true-breeding parental (P) plants. What did he see when he cross-f
In Mendel's basic experiment, he began with true-breeding parental (P) plants. What did he see when he cross-fertilized P plants that had different traits?
A) All F1 plants had the trait of one or the other P plant.
B) The F1 plants showed a combination of the two P traits, in a 3:1 ratio.
C) The F1 plants showed a combination of the two P traits in a 1:1 ratio.
D) The F1 plants had new traits that were a blend of P traits.
E) The F1 plants had an entirely new trait, not seen in either P plant.In Mendel's basic experiment, he began with true-breeding parental (P) plants. What did he see when he cross-f
When Mendel crossed true-breeding tall plants (TT) with true-breeding short plants (tt).
100% of the of the F1 plants were tall (Tt)
The same thing happened when he crossed true-breeding plants for other traits (eg: seed color- yellow or green, seed shape - wrinkled or smooth, pod color - green or yellow, pod shape - inflated or pinched, flower color - purple or white, flower position - axial or terminal)
ALL of the offspring in the F1 generation always exhibited the dominant trait.
So the answer is A) All F1 plants had the trait of one of the other P plant.In Mendel's basic experiment, he began with true-breeding parental (P) plants. What did he see when he cross-f
B)
The dominant and recessive traits create this ratio.
bye for now.
A) All F1 plants had the trait of one or the other P plant.
B) The F1 plants showed a combination of the two P traits, in a 3:1 ratio.
C) The F1 plants showed a combination of the two P traits in a 1:1 ratio.
D) The F1 plants had new traits that were a blend of P traits.
E) The F1 plants had an entirely new trait, not seen in either P plant.In Mendel's basic experiment, he began with true-breeding parental (P) plants. What did he see when he cross-f
When Mendel crossed true-breeding tall plants (TT) with true-breeding short plants (tt).
100% of the of the F1 plants were tall (Tt)
The same thing happened when he crossed true-breeding plants for other traits (eg: seed color- yellow or green, seed shape - wrinkled or smooth, pod color - green or yellow, pod shape - inflated or pinched, flower color - purple or white, flower position - axial or terminal)
ALL of the offspring in the F1 generation always exhibited the dominant trait.
So the answer is A) All F1 plants had the trait of one of the other P plant.In Mendel's basic experiment, he began with true-breeding parental (P) plants. What did he see when he cross-f
B)
The dominant and recessive traits create this ratio.
bye for now.
True experiments enable us to draw conclusions about causality. Relational (correlational) studies do not.?
I need help!!True experiments enable us to draw conclusions about causality. Relational (correlational) studies do not.?
yes.True experiments enable us to draw conclusions about causality. Relational (correlational) studies do not.?
Correlation does not equal causation. X and Y's relationship might be influenced by Z's (a third factor) relationship. Z is controlled in a true experiment that is why it allows us to draw a conclusion. Of course, making the case for a ';true experiment'; is an undertaking in itself. That is why there is such thing as peer review.
You are correct. Correlation does not equal causation. And yet it is a common rhetorical device to make it seem so. For example, many people cite studies that indicate everyone who ends up addicted to heroin started with the ';gateway'; drug of Marijuana. This makes it seem as though there is a causal relationship between the two, that using marijuana causes the use of heroin. However, it is merely correlative, not causal. What isn't being taken into account are the millions upon millions who have used marijuana and yet have never used ';harder'; drugs. And, if you want to illustrate the absurdity of the that kind of correlative argument, we can say that breast milk and baby formula out to be outlawed because everyone who uses heroin started out by using mother's milk or a baby formula.network security
yes.True experiments enable us to draw conclusions about causality. Relational (correlational) studies do not.?
Correlation does not equal causation. X and Y's relationship might be influenced by Z's (a third factor) relationship. Z is controlled in a true experiment that is why it allows us to draw a conclusion. Of course, making the case for a ';true experiment'; is an undertaking in itself. That is why there is such thing as peer review.
You are correct. Correlation does not equal causation. And yet it is a common rhetorical device to make it seem so. For example, many people cite studies that indicate everyone who ends up addicted to heroin started with the ';gateway'; drug of Marijuana. This makes it seem as though there is a causal relationship between the two, that using marijuana causes the use of heroin. However, it is merely correlative, not causal. What isn't being taken into account are the millions upon millions who have used marijuana and yet have never used ';harder'; drugs. And, if you want to illustrate the absurdity of the that kind of correlative argument, we can say that breast milk and baby formula out to be outlawed because everyone who uses heroin started out by using mother's milk or a baby formula.
Is it true Americans force their uninsured to undergo deadly medical experiments?
It's really sick and disturbing!Is it true Americans force their uninsured to undergo deadly medical experiments?
Are you going to ask any rational questions at all today? Every one I've seen from you reads like a paranoids diary written under the influence of LSD. Or are you just trying to get famous by coming up with your own conspiracy theory?Is it true Americans force their uninsured to undergo deadly medical experiments?
No, it is not true. The truth is many insured people force themselves to undergo deadly medical experiments via pills they get from the doctor for no good reason. Pill addiction is the new crack in the USA.
No, they just don't get medical treatment, period. Nobody is forced to undergo experiments. Someone said they are legally able to get medical care, above. That's only true in an extreme, immediate emergency in an emergency room. If you have an illness, you are out of luck. They might sew up a wound in the ER even if you don't have insurance, but they'll quickly dump you outside, and then send a gigantic bill to consume the rest of your life. You won't be able to afford the follow-up treatment.
I guess if someone was desperate enough, they might agreet to a medical trial just to get some type of medical care. I knew some kids in college who did. Scary. No telling what was done to their bodies.
No.
No! want even waste my time on this comment.
No even worse, they go untreated at all.
yeah that happens once your in your life is not yours it belongs to the goverment
Actually, that one is true.
Many HIV patients are forced to accept expirimental treatment in order to get proper medical attention.
The pharmaceutical companies are able to pay for better care for their ';subjects'; than the welfare department.
Unfortunately, there are many people that these expirimental medications do not work for and they are no longer the Government's problem...
So even though there is no law that says someone has to accept the risky treatment, many people find themselves forced into it as a last resort.
That's a new one...
Not true at all. Anyone who has ';medical experiments'; preformed on them does it on a voluntary basis and is paid for it.
This applies to testing of new medicines and new procedures/surgeries, etc...
Where do you hear this crap from? No wonder people have such a distorted view of the US.
Yes! How else are we supposed to develop new medicines for our pharmaceutical companies to push on an unwitting populace?
Wow, just wow. Is this what the media says about us in other countries? Yeah, deadly experiments, just like our animals that are uninsured. Good grief people, wake up. I've been uninsured, and it stinks, but there were no deadly experiments. I just had to live with a broken collarbone and having all the ligaments in my knee torn. I still haven't had surgery on either, even though now I am insured. Get a grip.
where are you getting this nonsense stuff from?
first eatin babies, now this?
Matt, actually they don't go untreated. It's illegal. You're as likely not to get treated for not having insurance in the US as you are if you forget your national ID card in canada or europe. in fact, 85% of US hosptials are nonprofits. You should really study up before you harbor so much hatred.
And, Bob J, what meds are you on?--or not on?
No, that doesn't happen on uninsured people who seek medical help. No one can do anything to anyone else if it's against their will in America. Sometimes doctors will test experimental drugs on people who have a disease like aids or cancer and don't have much more time to live. The person has to verbally agree and sign a waiver before the doctor just sticks the needle in them though. And it happens in many other nations around the world. I would guess that most nations that produce medicine test drugs on human beings before and of them go out on the market. Doctors are kind of forced to. Because you can't just test a drug out on any animal and expect it to work on a human. Testing on real people is why we're so close to finding the cure for aids. We're becoming closer to finding the cure to some types of cancer and many other deadly diseases as well. It's not in any way evil because the person has to agree to having the experimental drug inside of them.
Deadly, no. But I did have a friend with an incurable disease and no insurance. He was able to obtain experimental treatment, free of charge. But, your use of the word ';deadly'; is very wrong. His treatment was voluntary and he agreed.
No, the treatment was not successful and he died. Unfortunately, that is sometimes how knowledge is obtained and the intent of the treatment was to search for possible cures, not kill him.
Are you going to ask any rational questions at all today? Every one I've seen from you reads like a paranoids diary written under the influence of LSD. Or are you just trying to get famous by coming up with your own conspiracy theory?Is it true Americans force their uninsured to undergo deadly medical experiments?
No, it is not true. The truth is many insured people force themselves to undergo deadly medical experiments via pills they get from the doctor for no good reason. Pill addiction is the new crack in the USA.
No, they just don't get medical treatment, period. Nobody is forced to undergo experiments. Someone said they are legally able to get medical care, above. That's only true in an extreme, immediate emergency in an emergency room. If you have an illness, you are out of luck. They might sew up a wound in the ER even if you don't have insurance, but they'll quickly dump you outside, and then send a gigantic bill to consume the rest of your life. You won't be able to afford the follow-up treatment.
I guess if someone was desperate enough, they might agreet to a medical trial just to get some type of medical care. I knew some kids in college who did. Scary. No telling what was done to their bodies.
No.
No! want even waste my time on this comment.
No even worse, they go untreated at all.
yeah that happens once your in your life is not yours it belongs to the goverment
Actually, that one is true.
Many HIV patients are forced to accept expirimental treatment in order to get proper medical attention.
The pharmaceutical companies are able to pay for better care for their ';subjects'; than the welfare department.
Unfortunately, there are many people that these expirimental medications do not work for and they are no longer the Government's problem...
So even though there is no law that says someone has to accept the risky treatment, many people find themselves forced into it as a last resort.
That's a new one...
Not true at all. Anyone who has ';medical experiments'; preformed on them does it on a voluntary basis and is paid for it.
This applies to testing of new medicines and new procedures/surgeries, etc...
Where do you hear this crap from? No wonder people have such a distorted view of the US.
Yes! How else are we supposed to develop new medicines for our pharmaceutical companies to push on an unwitting populace?
Wow, just wow. Is this what the media says about us in other countries? Yeah, deadly experiments, just like our animals that are uninsured. Good grief people, wake up. I've been uninsured, and it stinks, but there were no deadly experiments. I just had to live with a broken collarbone and having all the ligaments in my knee torn. I still haven't had surgery on either, even though now I am insured. Get a grip.
where are you getting this nonsense stuff from?
first eatin babies, now this?
Matt, actually they don't go untreated. It's illegal. You're as likely not to get treated for not having insurance in the US as you are if you forget your national ID card in canada or europe. in fact, 85% of US hosptials are nonprofits. You should really study up before you harbor so much hatred.
And, Bob J, what meds are you on?--or not on?
No, that doesn't happen on uninsured people who seek medical help. No one can do anything to anyone else if it's against their will in America. Sometimes doctors will test experimental drugs on people who have a disease like aids or cancer and don't have much more time to live. The person has to verbally agree and sign a waiver before the doctor just sticks the needle in them though. And it happens in many other nations around the world. I would guess that most nations that produce medicine test drugs on human beings before and of them go out on the market. Doctors are kind of forced to. Because you can't just test a drug out on any animal and expect it to work on a human. Testing on real people is why we're so close to finding the cure for aids. We're becoming closer to finding the cure to some types of cancer and many other deadly diseases as well. It's not in any way evil because the person has to agree to having the experimental drug inside of them.
Deadly, no. But I did have a friend with an incurable disease and no insurance. He was able to obtain experimental treatment, free of charge. But, your use of the word ';deadly'; is very wrong. His treatment was voluntary and he agreed.
No, the treatment was not successful and he died. Unfortunately, that is sometimes how knowledge is obtained and the intent of the treatment was to search for possible cures, not kill him.
Isn't true that load of beam can effected the value of E in young modulus experiment?
You have asked several questions about the Young Modulus.
Rather than answers to them, you probably need a simple understanding of their basis.
http://www.matter.org.uk/schools/Content鈥?/a>
I recommend you review the above (it has links to its contents), and then browse google. e.g.
http://www.google.com/search?client=oper鈥?/a>
.
Rather than answers to them, you probably need a simple understanding of their basis.
http://www.matter.org.uk/schools/Content鈥?/a>
I recommend you review the above (it has links to its contents), and then browse google. e.g.
http://www.google.com/search?client=oper鈥?/a>
.
TRUE or FALSE? An experiment consists of spinning a coin 3 times in succession and recording the outcomes,?
Q1. An experiment consists of spinning a coin 3 times in succession and recording the outcomes, i.e. either heads (H)
or tails (T). (For example, one possible outcome could be (tails, heads, heads), which we denote as (T,H,H).)
A. The sample space S is the set {H,T} .
B. Consider the event E1 “obtain at least two heads”. Then n (E1) = 4.
C. If E2 is the event “obtain the same result on all three spins”, then P (E2) = 1/4.
1. Only A
2. Only B
3. Only C
4. Only A and B
5. Only B and C
Another one ....
Q2. Which of the following statements is/are true?
A. The probability that no spin results in T is greater than the probability that all three spins give the
same result.
B. The probability of not obtaining H is the same as the probability of obtaining only T.
C. If the coin is spun one more time, i.e. if it is spun four times in succession, then there will be 16
possible outcomes.
1. Only A
2. Only B
3. Only C
4. Only A and B
5. Only B and CTRUE or FALSE? An experiment consists of spinning a coin 3 times in succession and recording the outcomes,?
Q1 the sample space is all possible outcomes. In this case it is {TTT,TTH,THH,THT,HHH,HHT,HTT,HTH} A is false.
Look at the sample space for part B. Notice that 4 outcomes contain at least two heads. B is true.
Only 2 of the 8 elements of the sample space have the same result all 3 times. 2/8 = 1/4. C is true.
This would make only B and C the correct choice.
Q2.
A. the probability that no spin results in T is 1/8. The probability that all three spins give the same result is 2/8 or 1/4. This is false
B. not obtaining H would be TTT. This is the same as only obtaining T. True.
C. There would be two more outcomes (H or T) for each of the 8 possible outcomes. 2 * 8 = 16. True.
Once again, Only B and C is the correct choice.TRUE or FALSE? An experiment consists of spinning a coin 3 times in succession and recording the outcomes,?
Q1:
A is true, by the definition of a sample space. This reduces the possible answers to ';1. Only A'; or ';4. Only A and B';.
B is true; the four answers are as follows:
HTH, HHT, THH, HHH
By process of elimination, this means that the answer must be ';4. Only A and B';
Q2:
A asks about the probablity of HHH vs the probability of TTT.
Because the probability of H is equal to the probabitity of T, the probability of HHH is equal to the probability of TTT. This means that A is false.
B asks about the probability of not getting H and the probability of getting only T. Not getting H means only getting T, because they are the only possible outcomes to the experiment. Therefore, they are equal and B is true.
C is true; the outcomes are:
TTTH TTHH HHHT TTTT
TTHT THHT HHTH HHHH
THTT HTTH HTHH HTHT
HTTT THTH THHH HHTT
B and C are true; the answer is 5
or tails (T). (For example, one possible outcome could be (tails, heads, heads), which we denote as (T,H,H).)
A. The sample space S is the set {H,T} .
B. Consider the event E1 “obtain at least two heads”. Then n (E1) = 4.
C. If E2 is the event “obtain the same result on all three spins”, then P (E2) = 1/4.
1. Only A
2. Only B
3. Only C
4. Only A and B
5. Only B and C
Another one ....
Q2. Which of the following statements is/are true?
A. The probability that no spin results in T is greater than the probability that all three spins give the
same result.
B. The probability of not obtaining H is the same as the probability of obtaining only T.
C. If the coin is spun one more time, i.e. if it is spun four times in succession, then there will be 16
possible outcomes.
1. Only A
2. Only B
3. Only C
4. Only A and B
5. Only B and CTRUE or FALSE? An experiment consists of spinning a coin 3 times in succession and recording the outcomes,?
Q1 the sample space is all possible outcomes. In this case it is {TTT,TTH,THH,THT,HHH,HHT,HTT,HTH} A is false.
Look at the sample space for part B. Notice that 4 outcomes contain at least two heads. B is true.
Only 2 of the 8 elements of the sample space have the same result all 3 times. 2/8 = 1/4. C is true.
This would make only B and C the correct choice.
Q2.
A. the probability that no spin results in T is 1/8. The probability that all three spins give the same result is 2/8 or 1/4. This is false
B. not obtaining H would be TTT. This is the same as only obtaining T. True.
C. There would be two more outcomes (H or T) for each of the 8 possible outcomes. 2 * 8 = 16. True.
Once again, Only B and C is the correct choice.TRUE or FALSE? An experiment consists of spinning a coin 3 times in succession and recording the outcomes,?
Q1:
A is true, by the definition of a sample space. This reduces the possible answers to ';1. Only A'; or ';4. Only A and B';.
B is true; the four answers are as follows:
HTH, HHT, THH, HHH
By process of elimination, this means that the answer must be ';4. Only A and B';
Q2:
A asks about the probablity of HHH vs the probability of TTT.
Because the probability of H is equal to the probabitity of T, the probability of HHH is equal to the probability of TTT. This means that A is false.
B asks about the probability of not getting H and the probability of getting only T. Not getting H means only getting T, because they are the only possible outcomes to the experiment. Therefore, they are equal and B is true.
C is true; the outcomes are:
TTTH TTHH HHHT TTTT
TTHT THHT HHTH HHHH
THTT HTTH HTHH HTHT
HTTT THTH THHH HHTT
B and C are true; the answer is 5
That was true,we can go forward to time but i have make an experiment that we can go travel back to time?
You should go forward ';to time'; to see if you learned how to write.That was true,we can go forward to time but i have make an experiment that we can go travel back to time?
good luck
good luck
Time and tide wait for no man.Is this true?I think not-----because I tried an experiment?
I went to the beach and the tide was there,i waited for an hour and it was still there but when i got home i missed Coronation S t because time had not waited for meTime and tide wait for no man.Is this true?I think not-----because I tried an experiment?
King Canute got his feet wet the same way!Time and tide wait for no man.Is this true?I think not-----because I tried an experiment?
First grader ?
Life goes on if you are there or not.
Hence time %26amp; tide wait for no man.
To put it another way: Man can't stop time or the tides in the seas.
Thats really sad mising coronation street. I hope you are ok. Can you get a copy of the missed episode from a friend. Perhaps you could ask that question on this site and borrow it. I am sad for you. How annoying.
ever thought of using a video tha corrie would have waited for you
You should have set your video on TIMER and while time wouldn't actually wait for you, you'd have missed nothing!
But the tide is always there.....what it means is it doesn't stop......say...at high tide...all day...anyway...Corrie..you could have videoed it...watched it later on freeview..or if you are one of these peeps with sky plus...set it to record it for you..to watch any time.
If you'd sat at the low water mark.....you would have got quite wet within an hour.
Time %26amp; tide wait for none. It is 100% true. Tide appears in the sea %26amp;disappers into sea, the oone you watched is not same tide. We have become too much time consious. Tea breakfast lunch dinner dance school time so %26amp; so on. What is time?
and how do you know that the tide you saw was meant for you?
In todays hyperreality time and space is compressed to the point where it is almost irrelevant. Coronation Street will be stored in digital form somewhere if you needed to watch it that badly. And as for tide, although on a beach it is true there are certain places with big water gates that control the tide. lol.
try another experiment to prove it.
it never does that's why you can't watch each and every episodes of the programmes you enjoy that's why there is point to get sad!!!!
King Canute got his feet wet the same way!Time and tide wait for no man.Is this true?I think not-----because I tried an experiment?
First grader ?
Life goes on if you are there or not.
Hence time %26amp; tide wait for no man.
To put it another way: Man can't stop time or the tides in the seas.
Thats really sad mising coronation street. I hope you are ok. Can you get a copy of the missed episode from a friend. Perhaps you could ask that question on this site and borrow it. I am sad for you. How annoying.
ever thought of using a video tha corrie would have waited for you
You should have set your video on TIMER and while time wouldn't actually wait for you, you'd have missed nothing!
But the tide is always there.....what it means is it doesn't stop......say...at high tide...all day...anyway...Corrie..you could have videoed it...watched it later on freeview..or if you are one of these peeps with sky plus...set it to record it for you..to watch any time.
If you'd sat at the low water mark.....you would have got quite wet within an hour.
Time %26amp; tide wait for none. It is 100% true. Tide appears in the sea %26amp;disappers into sea, the oone you watched is not same tide. We have become too much time consious. Tea breakfast lunch dinner dance school time so %26amp; so on. What is time?
and how do you know that the tide you saw was meant for you?
In todays hyperreality time and space is compressed to the point where it is almost irrelevant. Coronation Street will be stored in digital form somewhere if you needed to watch it that badly. And as for tide, although on a beach it is true there are certain places with big water gates that control the tide. lol.
try another experiment to prove it.
it never does that's why you can't watch each and every episodes of the programmes you enjoy that's why there is point to get sad!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)