Cardium@sea

I'm looking at this from an economics of scale point of view; I'm guessing there are benefits and lost opportunities, or costs, from running a democracy (apposed to an elite few making all the decisions), so I was wondering if there is an optimal size for a nation before people would think there is no point to vote due to the overwhelming "costs of democracy, if any... if there is a point, should that nation "down size" or go for a more "hands-on" type of government, whatever that government choses to call itself??

I think it will for these reasons:

-Islam demands a certain way and level of morality that is becoming temptingly harder for privileged muslims to follow; It is hard to tell someone how to live their life when you yourself don''t! For example, watching western movies, which usually contain sexual behavior can be sean as obscene, which is a sin in muslim thought; watching a lot of western TV then could take its toll on a Muslim's self-image eventually (this is assuming muslims countries are going to improve their people's living standards with globalization and trade over time, and poverty, one major reason for radicalization, is going to drop).

-there is always going to be privileged Muslims who call for a social/moral 'revulsion', but if people become more and more reluctant to follow (there is just too much to lose), these people will pose an ever diminishing threat.

-The USA will not (in the long-run) keep its military campaigns in Muslim countries, which are a major force for recruiting impoverished people who have noting to lose and all to gain, and wish to give their lives for the sake of 'Heaven'; better economic conditions and less military intervention, less a need to radicalization.

-Any Muslim today will tell you that the Muslim sociality is at its lowest levels of morality than any time before. This shows the negative self-image I was talking about earlier and how it already has taken toll; this could be one reason why Muslims around the world were sluggish to say anything a bout the terrorist attacks; why should they condemn only that action when they feel overwhelmingly in bad shape in everything else they do already (they did eventually, when the world gave them a wakeup call, finally)?!.

-Muslims were in a trend of westernization in western countries, until they felt they were being 'attacked', which seams to have reversed the process. If the threat dies out, so will their radicalization.

-The US military seams to claim a change in their military strategy to 'win the hearts and minds', and some of what they are doing is giving 'financial incentives' to keep the poor a bay. This change in strategy seams to show the military support my opinion. Your thoughts! :)

Christianity is the world's dominant religion. But during its history, has it ever been out-numbered, other than in its early stages, by another world religion? Had Islam ever outnumbered Christianity worldwide? Had Hinduism or Buddhism ever out numbered Christianity worldwide? What were the main reasons/ methods used that contributed to Christianity's dominance today (Other than being older than Islam, yet younger than Hinduism)? Which of these reasons/methods were the most crucial or most effective historically? Thank you! :)

I truly believe that jesus is the Messiah, someone devine whom no mater how grait humanity reaches in it's knowledgeand and logic, can never totally understand his divinity. But he ate and slept, but now he is in the heavens, his first followers didn't pray to him to answer their daily prayers, did they? weren't they used to praying to the Jewish God? I feel reluctant to say oh my God Jesus because I fear I'm going too far; there is only one verse in the Holy Bible that mentions the Trinity; can I really use it alon to justify to myself that it is Ok to say, "oh my God Jesus.."? Does that verse really mean what many think it is saying; what are the odds it is explaining something else? your thoughts...

what does slightly notched at the top mean? when talking about a Grand Fir tree's needle like leaves? What does that look like?

Please I might need to draw it! ;(

when was earth's vegetation maximum and desert land minimum in area in earth's history? can we tell? Or when was earth greenest?

Than south Korea in its economy? Why aren't they five tigers?

I know China and India and Russia are all in Asia and are doing really well, but I'm surprised that Malaysia isn't considered one of the Asian Tigers?

The sand duns are moving in on China and dust storms reach Japan? Kuwait, a once grassy semi-desert Middle Eastern country, is also getting sandier and sand duns are invading from the north. If you look at Kuwait by satellite images you would see places that are fenced off for oil production that are much darker in soil color all way through making these places stand out while the rest of the state is wend blown desert. Isn't the Monsoon rains supposed to be getting stronger by now and desert lands near the equate supposed to be getting greener? I found somewhere in some site once that the forests in the far North hemisphere are seeing record growth, that makes sense as the world worms up and isn't so cold up there as much but way not yet deserts?

I think I read somewhere, in the Ice age there were times when it would get really rainy all around the world and I think the world would get hotter than it is today to shift again to a colder and dryer stage. I know for sure that Kuwait for example; one of the Middle Eastern stats, was wetter once and had small seasonal likes. that is all gone now and small hard sediment hills are left to erode. I heard from my Geography teacher that sand duns (which hardly exist there surprisingly for a extremely hot and dry desert) are starting to invade from the north and slowly creep in. Does this mean that Kuwait and all the other countries around the area are getting dryer? If the oceans do get wormer, shouldn't the monsoon wends kick up and push deeper in the deserts like the Sahara and the Middle East? Please don't tell me that global worming isn't real! Climate is always changing. I gust want to know why things don't seem to go like what I know the would if not Should?

I would be really thankful if you could provide me with the website you got your information from. Thanks! :)

I think highly of the souls of animals and all living things. Thus, I hold to my religion that gives a logical reason for killing them, just for you to know.

mix in with mater we know? Could it reach surface of planets with atmospheres? What would happen to the Physics of mater we know of then?? If not what keeps dark mater out side, or at the margin? Not to mention there is a small galaxy already binding with our galaxy, almost done though... Witch explains the high level of star formation in our Milky way with the new flow of hydrogen clouds.. (the photos of it isn't clear because we are IN the Milky way, darn!) but What a bout dark mater? What is it doing in our galaxy's case? :)

warm air is more capable of storing water viper than cooler air, right? is it practical to use solar energy to draw this water like dew water from desert air (like the Sahara) being cooling a sloping suffice with this energy (the same way we get cool air in a freezer)? :)

Look at this sit:

http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Jan12008/snt20...

What do you think? Do you think this could be used in any climate/ place in the world?

...the differences between what we see today and what it would be like in the future?? What I'm trying to get to really is, would it be much more brighter due to the more galaxies that would now in site, or would it be much more dimmer due to expansion.. could they even-even out, look just as it is today??! (the universe is exhilarating, right? I really would be astonished if it got brighter and then got dimmer! That would be cool don't you think? :)

So by looking at slandered candles in the far galaxies, astronomers managed to calculate the distances to them... finding out that the universe is expanding... what I don't get is this, if the universe has no center, and we are not the center of the universe, than why is the nearest galaxies not moving away from us as fast as the furthest?? Shouldn't the whole universe be exhilarating apart everywhere?? Or Is that simply due to the fact that the horizon at the universes age limit is stretching things and making them look like they are spreading away much faster even if the universe is already exhilarating??? one last thing is it true that with time we would actually get a brighter universe as more of the distant galaxies inter the expanding horizon, and have we seen any of those new galaxies?? thanks! :)

we feel Earths gravity force, nice? if we were to go thousands of mils into earth, we would now have mass, with gravity over us, under us and around us! Would we feel lighter in weight? well if we would.. think of this.. our galaxy is in side the universe, then most of the mass of the universe is out there all around us, right? another thing, space time gets distorted near mass.. light gets red shifted as it leaves the surface of any object depending on its muss.. the red shifting of galaxies away from us increase with distance.. way can't we say this increase is just due to the fact that the mass of the whole universe is effecting space time in a way that makes galaxies more further away from us look like there moving away from us much faster then they really are? :) that means we are lighter then we really are due to the gravity force of the universe out there on us on our planet? why not? :p

Another thing if you would, could the big bang happen in stages? so we would end up with universes over each other? each space time would be like a surface of a balloon, one inside the other? they say that the there is no center the universe we see. the center would be somewhere in the center of the balloon, where nowhere in space time would it be seen? Those were two questions and my last is, the say that time near the even horizon of a black hole would look to us slower the closer to it, but if gas from a binary star is fulling to the black hole by gravity it would spin in speeds near the speed of light and emit X ray! How does this gas go so fast around the black hole and in the same time in its respect to ours is very slow? I mean shouldn't we see it very slow?? Or is it that it moves in high speeds in our calculations and if we observed it would look like it was moving much slower??

of the "perhaps" iron out layer like sand paper? making the mass get less of the neuron star?? they say it could be only a few hundred meters thick! wouldn't that reveal the inner part if this gas is scraping it off for thousands of years contentiously????