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 = -螖[N2]/螖t.
2. The reaction is not an elementary reaction.
3. The reactant is first-order in N2.
4. The activation energy is positive.
5. 螖[H2]/螖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 = -螖[N2]/螖t.
2. The reaction is not an elementary reaction.
3. The reactant is first-order in N2.
4. The activation energy is positive.
5. 螖[H2]/螖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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)