vanamoinen1

Turtle: another interesting site, and each of those cases are standard subject matter for 1L conlaw. each of those cases makes interesting reading material if you actually have a genuine interest in conlaw and you will understand how our penumbral rights were developed outside the context of our states' common laws. add this one as well: Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)--audio available at oyez.org; the orals are EXTREMELY interesting. here is a simplified schema of how we got to where we are: US Constitution Annotated - Development of the Right of Privacy i can't loan you my lexis/nexis account, but any law library can refer you to any number of law journal articles discussing this issue--it is neither a minor nor uncomplicated one. Bork's failure to get through confirmation is important not in least part because his strict interpretation (the neocon's "strict construction") cannot be dismissed for lack of merit in the argument. the only effective counter to this position is adherence to stare decisis. the GOP position (now more conservative than ever) is firmly on bork's side. that is a reality--whatever the supremes have done, will do, might have done, might not have done etc.--political reality must be faced notwithstanding the court's position. "I see no reason to jump to ammending the Constitution. When & if such matters reach the Supreme Court with standing, I expect the matter to have the consideration it deserves." this "...[w]hen & if..." this does not make sense. in the absence of my proposed amendment, there is no such thing as "standing" to apply to the situation since our court does not sit in an advisory capacity. absent a plaintiff, who, lacking said amendment could not have had his constitutional rights violated by same or who, lacking said amendment could not have suffered any injury based on a violation of said non-existing amendment, and in the alternative, lacking a proper federal question, there is no access to the court. this is not a matter of standing, it's a matter of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and even given a theoretical access to court, the court could only issue a void rather than voidable ruling. again, this is the issue i raise as relates to the thread "what would happen if we legalized drugs?": how would you contructively propose changing the current mindset vis-a-vis the drug use/go to jail mindset?

interesting site; and while i do not disagree with the slant of the author's position, i still disagree that there is a generalized privacy interest in our constitution/amendments--and not by "minimiz[ing] it out of hand". and look, to be clear, if i could see such a privacy interest, i'd be glad to find it and concede it--i am not in disagreement with the idea that we should be able to do as we will with our selves and our property in the absence of infringing someone else's rights/property. what i'm saying is that the tool that we have to work with, the law, is grounded first in the constitution, and our constitution/amendments does not spell out anything resembling a generalized privacy interest which could accommodate mr. mcwilliams' position. to my own thinking, his is a reasonable position to begin from, but it is not the position on which our law/system of government is built. the supremes (presumably the cream of the judicial crop with teams of law clerks at their beck and call) themselves repeatedly have not found a specifically enumerated privacy interest other than precisely those matters (religion, arms, EP, DP, reasonable S&S) which have been enumerated. this has forced them to concoct the "penumbra" approach rather than find some broader grant/retention under the 9th & 10th ams. imagine how different the court's approach to abortion, contraception and homeschooling would have been if the individual had held a privacy interest made explicit in the constitution/ams. the court has interpreted/invented a generalized privacy interest based on the penumbras where it has been helpful in achieving a result it has desired. rights as seemingly private as marrying and raising children were addressed as penumbral in the seminal case meyer v nebraska. the sodomy issue popped up in hardwick v bowers (shot down) and recently the laurence v texas (sodomy wins) cases with the penumbras flying ever-which-way. and the whole [contraceptive/reproductive choice] family has had to find a home in the shade of the penumbras. bet everything you own: scalia, thomas and alito DO NOT LIKE penumbral privacy rights. "If this discussion achieves nothing in your view, why do you participate?" you have misconstrued my position. discussion achieves discussion. but it's action that may achieve change, especially if the action is guided by reasoned discussion. i left open to the discussion how one might go about changing a mindset and i admitted up front that i cannot see a solution which would provide this change. oh, and i did provide one broad suggestion which i'll repeat: amend the constitution with a specific generalized privacy interest of the individual.

Ganoderma: totally with you--and a bit of perspective: i live in fredericksburg, virginia which is a city encompassing a city heart and outlying areas falling in spotsylvania and stafford counties. there is a police training centre here and we have police with varying designated jurisdictions including both these localities as well as state troopers and sheriffs (oh, and park police--lots of battlefields here) with state-wide jurisdiction. routinely, we see 4 or 5 police vehicles congregating on simple traffic stops. now, i'm sure there are instances where 4 or 5 cops are necessary, and i'm sure that at some of those stops training is going on. but i'm equally sure that at many (if not most) of these stops, the cops are congregating because THERE ARE TOO MANY OF THEM AND THEY DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TO DO TO KEEP THEM OCCUPIED. but this top-heavy law-enforcement mindset is touted as a great thing--look how low our crime rates are! welcome to the people's republic of virginia. to be fair, there is something to be said about deterrence, but one could also infer that the politicos in this state do not trust our populace to maintain some semblance of an orderly society. too many people rely on the law-enforcement/judicial/incarceration complex to earn their income. and because this vested interest provides these voters with a predictable, steady income, our politicians do not seek alternative methods with which to address drug use and drug abuse issues. lock em up and forget about them! Turtle: re: your citation, this always amazes me: "Seemingly guaranteed to us by that remarkable document known as United States Constitution and its even more remarkable Bill of Rights." Read those bill of rights again--we have very little actually enumerated in the Bill which would appear to respect a notion of a privacy interest from which you can derive this position. the shibboleth of conservative politics, the "activist judges" have created this privacy interest for us by inferring them or extending them from the enumerated rights. and, strangely, although most americans would tell you that our liberty is granted to us by our constitution/amendments and our declaration of independence, the declaration does not authorize our law and the constitution deals primarily with the power we ("the people") cede to our governing bodies. why is there no amendment which specifically cuts out a privacy interest for individuals and where is the political will to get one added to the other amendments? but the question relates to drugs. i'd argue that at least part of the current political posturing is akin to the "illegal alien" mindset: why grant any rights to people who are breaking the law? the argument is self-feeding--these people are illegally here because we defined the mechanism by which they got here to be illegal. and once painted with the "illegal" brush, the thing is not illegal because of an application of our definitions, but rather because of a mental tying of "illegal" to "immoral" or "evil". we do not consider that the laws AS DRAFTED are ineffective and possibly detrimental to us. illegal drugs are illegal not through any inherency, but rather because we have defined them to be so. and similarly, once painted "illegal" in the reflexive thinking of the politicians, drugs (schedule 2 drugs, at least) must BE immoral and evil. granted, some drugs have deleterious effects on one's thinking, reacting and planning processes. but the care-taker/"government-as-an-in-loco-parentis faculty" mentality switches on and does not switch off (that switch is broken). all of us here on this forum can discuss this issue 'til the cows come home, or they move to argentina. but our discussing achieves-------wait for it--------discussion. i do note that justice department is reviewing the inequity (possibly iniquity as well) caused by the federal mandatory minimums w/re: crack vs. powdered cocaine. this is a positive step. nevertheless, the sentiment required to disengage from "use drugs, go to jail" or virginia's: "use drugs, we'll see if we can take your house AND you can go to jail" is not incorporated into the majority position within our congress. reefer-madness-as-reality is still a valid and argued position on the hill. as to how to change that sentiment, i'm at a loss.

Ganoderma: totally with you--and a bit of perspective: i live in fredericksburg, virginia which is a city encompassing a city heart and outlying areas falling in spotsylvania and stafford counties. there is a police training centre here and we have police with varying designated jurisdictions including both these localities as well as state troopers and sheriffs (oh, and park police--lots of battlefields here) with state-wide jurisdiction. routinely, we see 4 or 5 police vehicles congregating on simple traffic stops. now, i'm sure there are instances where 4 or 5 cops are necessary, and i'm sure that at some of those stops training is going on. but i'm equally sure that at many (if not most) of these stops, the cops are congregating because THERE ARE TOO MANY OF THEM AND THEY DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TO DO TO KEEP THEM OCCUPIED. but this top-heavy law-enforcement mindset is touted as a great thing--look how low our crime rates are! welcome to the people's republic of virginia. to be fair, there is something to be said about deterrence, but one could also infer that the politicos in this state do not trust our populace to maintain some semblance of an orderly society. too many people rely on the law-enforcement/judicial/incarceration complex to earn their income. and because this vested interest provides these voters with a predictable, steady income, our politicians do not seek alternative methods with which to address drug use and drug abuse issues. lock em up and forget about them! Turtle: re: your citation, this always amazes me: "Seemingly guaranteed to us by that remarkable document known as United States Constitution and its even more remarkable Bill of Rights." Read those bill of rights again--we have very little actually enumerated in the Bill which would appear to respect a notion of a privacy interest from which you can derive this position. the shibboleth of conservative politics, the "activist judges" have created this privacy interest for us by inferring them or extending them from the enumerated rights. and, strangely, although most americans would tell you that our liberty is granted to us by our constitution/amendments and our declaration of independence, the declaration does not authorize our law and the constitution deals primarily with the power we ("the people") cede to our governing bodies. why is there no amendment which specifically cuts out a privacy interest for individuals and where is the political will to get one added to the other amendments? but the question relates to drugs. i'd argue that at least part of the current political posturing is akin to the "illegal alien" mindset: why grant any rights to people who are breaking the law? the argument is self-feeding--these people are illegally here because we defined the mechanism by which they got here to be illegal. and once painted with the "illegal" brush, the thing is not illegal because of an application of our definitions, but rather because of a mental tying of "illegal" to "immoral" or "evil". we do not consider that the laws AS DRAFTED are ineffective and possibly detrimental to us. illegal drugs are illegal not through any inherency, but rather because we have defined them to be so. and similarly, once painted "illegal" in the reflexive thinking of the politicians, drugs (schedule 2 drugs, at least) must BE immoral and evil. granted, some drugs have deleterious effects on one's thinking, reacting and planning processes. but the care-taker/"government-as-an-in-loco-parentis faculty" mentality switches on and does not switch off (that switch is broken). all of us here on this forum can discuss this issue 'til the cows come home, or they move to argentina. but our discussing achieves-------wait for it--------discussion. i do note that justice department is reviewing the inequity (possibly iniquity as well) caused by the federal mandatory minimums w/re: crack vs. powdered cocaine. this is a positive step. nevertheless, the sentiment required to disengage from "use drugs, go to jail" or virginia's: "use drugs, we'll see if we can take your house AND you can go to jail" is not incorporated into the majority position within our congress. reefer-madness-as-reality is still a valid and argued position on the hill. as to how to change that sentiment, i'm at a loss.

We have to keep in mind that whether or not we "should" legalize what are currently classified as "illegal drugs", we (through our government) have made the decision that we should spend a certain percentage of our tax revenues on law enforcement and prisons. With only 300M of the worlds ~6-7 billion people, we have over 1/2 of the world's incarcerated population. The infrastructure and personnel needed to process all of these people (start with police, judges, DAs, private attorneys, cooks, laundry services, energy resources and so on and so on) adds up to a huge amount of money--money which someone out there is perfectly happy to earn. Were we to stop our prosecution of the "war on drugs" think of all the people who would be out of jobs. A few murders here and there and often in foreign countries do not weigh on the mind of the body politic in the same way that unemployment does especially in our current economic climate. I'd propose that a more focused question would be of the form: "Were we to legalize drugs, in what manner would we redistribute the infrastructure and personnel currently utilized to enforce our drug laws?" It's fine to say that the drugs would become a taxable item, but how do you filter the generated tax income to the police officer/judge/prison cook who has now become redundant and thus, unemployed? Not saying it's "right" that they are employed, just acknowledging that our penal system does exist, does employ people and does consume resources--all of which contributes back into the system from which it was originally taken in the form of taxes.

Seems to me that proof of G-d's existence is antithetical to that "virtue" called faith. I won't disagree with any individual's right to his own faith or lack thereof; however, I wonder about the motivation to "prove" G-d's existence--what does this "proof" yield. Whether I accept that there is a G-d or not fails utterly to illuminate what I should do with this information, but I'll bet my wad that many (if not all) attempts to prove this existence will shortly be followed by a list of "dos" and "don'ts" which fall out of the proof according to the prejudices of person doing the proving. Myself, I'd LOVE to see the proof of G-d and have that G-d be none other than Guan-Yin--afterall, her followers never killed to spread their lists of dos and don'ts--instead, they became Buddhists--who is worthy of a following but noteworthily never claimed to be a god. Ultimately, no proof is necessary to the true believer. And to the non-believer, all proofs will be suspect until he jumps the shark and becomes a believer without that proof. I've found these to be USEFUL: [((a= . (b=c)) U (a=c)]; a=a; 42

Back to Moontanman's orig q, this does smack of perpetual machine quackery--hollywood did us no favours with "Chain Reaction". We did the water cleaving experiment way back in middle school (the 70s) and as I recall, we were using an electrical source. Can't see as to how you'd get more energy back from combusting the resulting gases than you spent in cleaving it in the first place--after all, the O-H bond energy doesn't pick a number out of a hat each time it's formed or broken....and as I recall, the combustion reaction gives off plenty of heat waste. um. sounds like a dog that won't hunt.

Moontanman: don't give up hope. Myself, I can do without another Santana, but Zeppelin, no--I won't give up hope for a new incarnation--and Floyd will never die. In the meantime, Dave Matthews Band RULES! Sigur Ros--out of iceland--actually is an interesting ensemble--huge band with each member doing one specific thing throughout an individual song yielding very dense, paradoxically complex music. For sheer scale of variety, (even if somewhat drearyily) Radiohead has proven its lasting power and they put on an amazing show--witness, too, the covers of their music ranging from string quartets--in classical and bluegrass style--as well as Christopher O'Riley's piano transcriptions. Normally, I'd not listen to them, but My Chemical Romance puts on a surprisingly good set and their album "Welcome to the Black Parade" is the first concept album I've liked in ages. Vienna Teng and Dengue Fever (both picks I learned about from NPR) are refreshingly different--Teng is amazing. On the popular side, Life House maintains a positive attitude, has well-constructed songs and has received goodly amounts of airtime (well-deserved in my opinion) as has the band Live (although they suck when actually seen live). As with Live, Our Lady Peace puts out a bit of message-music and tunefully at that. And so on. There's lots of music going on. It's just a bit more complicated these days figuring out which bands are to your own taste. Thankfully, Borders went over to electronic listening so that you can preview (prelisten?) your purchases. Now, please tell me when I can venture into a mall or Starbucks and NOT have to hear the same old blaring Frank Sinatra or put-me-to-sleep Dean Martin. And that horrible "Baby it's cold outside" or whatever, needs to DIE.

Since colchicine is difficult to obtain and can be dangerous to handle, I've been trying to find suitable methods for inducing the conversion of plants from diploid to tetraploid using other agents. The one which looks most promising is trifluralin although this has its own risks. I note that it is commonly used as a pre-emergent herbicide--think Preen--but it has also been found to induce tetraploidy in Hemerocallis (daylily). Any known protocols for using this compound? Safety is important as is the actual success rate using this compound. Would be most appreciative of advice for using trifluralin or other similarly-obtainable compounds.

Does anyone here have experience with somatic cell fusion (plants) and the generation of adult plants therefrom? Specifically, what guidelines/texts/papers can you recommend for determining suitability of the technique given particular plants, experimental parameters including equipment, protocol and task-planning, and end-products--i.e. how can I learn of successful uses of this technique? I'd also be interested in hearing from members who have experience in anther culture and the development of haploids therefrom. For that matter, I'm always interested in learning of your micropropagation experiences. Finally, I'd also be interested to learn of any artificial stigmatic fluid preparations which might be used in situations where a desirable plant cultivar (which otherwise would be useful in planning plant crosses) is incapable of producing its own fluid. I do know that boron is essential in both the anther culture issue and this one, as it is necessary for the growth of pollen tubules, but otherwise, I have no references to guide me to develop an artificial stigmatic fluid for Hemerocallis (daylily). I know it's a tall order, so thanks in advance!

I don't think the scientific community does an adequate job in addressing the problem of the word "theory" in the sense that we use and understand this word in a specific way which is counter to the way the layman understands and uses this word. Whereas we may use "theory" in a science-based argot to provide an explanation of a reality which is illustrated through observation of empirical phenomena, the layman hears "theory" to mean we are being speculative or fanciful etc. As a consequence, when new observations/constructs are incorporated into evolutionary theory, the science-based community has no problem understanding that this means a refinement of the theory, whereas to the layman this can mean "oops, we had it wrong the previous time." Two issues also seem to get hijacked in the creationism/evolution argument: time and scale. Creationists (and let's be specific: CHRISTIAN creationists--the Hindu creationists at least get the timeline of things to the right order of magnitude) ridicule evolution by imposing the biblical timeline of something like 10,000 years to the earth's how-many-billion years of life. They also show a fundamental lack of understanding of basic scientific/mathematical concepts including the mole, probability/statistics and geography. Were I to believe that the world was only 10,000 years old and that only countable living objects exist, I'd probably have to buy into their arguments too. This type of ignorance is dangerous. Not circle the wagons dangerous, but insidiously dangerous to our technological future. In a recent interview on NPR, Chinese educators noted that teaching methods in the US emphasizing analysis and experimentation over rote memory are our strength but that our teaching can be content poor, especially in maths and sciences. Make no doubt: the Chinese have no problem incorporating new pedagogical tools into their schools and the Chinese educators noted that content in most European and in all developed Asian school systems is already much richer in maths and sciences than are US schools. This is a danger to our future competitiveness. Side-issue: In the meantime, we have an interesting problem which ties back to Texas--Texas is such a large player in the schoolbook market that publishers have been known to remove material from textbooks to avoid potential lawsuits. This redacted material includes material which contradicts the religious notions of Texas' largely religiously-conservative population. As a consequence of Texas' out-sized influence, the textbooks which get sent to a geographical area outside of Texas (such as those utilized by entire state school systems) will be deficient in science/maths and will "un"educate students over a broad geographical scope. This word "theory" lies at the heart of the problem since it is definitional--imagine any contract in which a key definitional term is not agreed to--my lawyer side smells business. So the q is how do we make the definition better-understood outside of the scientific community?

. I have to disagree--the obligation does not arise out of moral character alone, but rather, it rides on the coercive/punitive aspect of society. Our law may have its fundament in the Constitution, but it is the policing power of the state which ensures cooperation with respect to "the general obligation to obey law." Sure, sure--most people do not run out and commit a killing NOT because they are afraid of the punishment for doing so, but out of a sense of something else--morals, I guess. But the fact remains that regardless of your motivation to commit an action or to avoid an action the state maintains a policing power to enforce its laws--AND WE ARE AWARE OF THIS. This is an extra-moral (as in beyond the structure of morality) remedy of the state. Consider: one may be in fundamental disagreement with the goals, actions, lapses etc of a government, and yet he will still pay his taxes. In other words, he will support with his own income a government which he may even find to be immoral. The choice to pay isn't a moral one; it's a choice made with the knowledge that a failure to pay those taxes will result in a fine or imprisonment--punishment avoidance really. What remains to be hoped for is that the laws themselves represent a morality we as individuals are comfortable with. And until man behaves as he should (under a sense of morality) we will have law which enforces behavior the majority views as moral.

Listening to music in one's car or home is one thing. Hearing it jam in a club is another, and the bottom line of Eminem is that when his songs (or more likely, club remixes of his songs) crank in a club (a club most likely populated by 20 and 30 somethings, many of which are single and cruising), people dance (and I hate to be the bearer of dismal news, but Britney is danceable). In this context, the quality and content of the lyrics-writing become largely irrelevant--the Dre factor shoots up in significance. I'm sorry, but you just can't dance to Cage--or Rorem, or Ives for that matter. I don't mean to devalue their work, but rather to point out that there is at least one environment which is suitable to a type of music and that other environments are unsuitable therefor. Myself, bluegrass is a weakness, although, really this is for the most part totally "meaningless" music. Traditional tunes are relatively simple Americanised Irish tunes (and some irish-ish native tunes), mostly hanging in 8 bar units. There is limited development/improvisation to it (largely tradition-driven)--certainly no JSBach has arisen to complexify it. Songs, if any, tend to focus on issues either no longer relevant, or so over-done as to be trite. Nevertheless, hit the Blue Plum in Tennessee and you'll see a lot of people enjoying the beats. These same people will buy handicrafts, carnival food and pay for lodging, thus upping the income of Johnson City. And yet, stirrings--New Grass has tremendous potential as demonstrated by Nickel Creek, Gillian Welsh et al. Musical midrash. Finally, from a slanted patent attorney perspective--we often make the argument that commercial success (of an invention) serves as secondary evidence as to that invention's novelty/uniqueness. The implication is that the invention services some need which otherwise is not being serviced. Taking that over to music--the commercial success of Eminem (and of the rap industry as a whole) indicates that he/they fill(s) some market's need for him/them or the flipside, there is a demand for this type of music and he/they service that demand. Whether there's lasting power in this music remains to be seen. Boof-Head--anecdotally, I think Mr. Cohen was actually late to the game. The Germans had an odd "musical" period back in the early 1900s where they "orchestrated" entire choirs of what was (essentially) rap. Oy, imagine a whole concert of rhythmic German chanting. Not my idea of a good night out.

Odd question--good one, but odd. And running in the background is the hideous St. Anselm formulation "that than which no greater can be conceived". I always wondered about that "greater" term--it seems to me that one's viewpoint/prejudices/assumptions define which of two objects is the greater. To my own perverse mind, the object which is impossible (look at an Escher drawing) WERE IT TO EXIST would be greater than that which is possible and does (or does not) exist. But this is an example of my prejudice--that the object is impossible and yet exists (if only as an idea) seems TO ME to be a "greater" achievement than for the possible to merely exist. Eh. And then the assumptions/prejudices over "exist" pop up. it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. :P as to a more personal/pragmatic view, if I were to accept the proposition that G-d exists, if it is so very simple that I can understand it and extrapolate its will, then clearly, it isn't worthy of my devotion. And as to a more external/pragmatic view--w/re: to people who do believe in the existence of G-d, their belief, whether right or wrong, yields for them a greater sense of richness over the duration of their lives than they would have had in the absence of that belief. So what the hey, let them believe as they believe and QED.

Further to Pyrotex--pools of mercury were also used to serve as a pouring surface for glass.

Honey may contain the spores of Clostridium botulinum and can cause infant botulism--thus, don't feed a baby honey.

oops, my last post was actually directed to a different question. but as to this one, when i was a kid, my mother taught me a method for germinating seeds--you simply put them on a piece of paper towel, fold up the towel and pour water over it, wring out most of the water so that the towel is merely damp, put it in a bowl covered with cling film (saran wrap) and put the bowl in a warm place (like the top of the fridge). benefits of this method: (since is was a kid) you actually get to see the start of the germination--root tips extend relatively quickly for most seeds you'd grow for the garden; you can (gently) transplant the germinating seed to your seed growing medium and not waste your time/resources with seeds that never do germinate. with some seeds (for example, columbine and acanthus) a few drops of hydrogen peroxide applied to the towel may be helpful. with some seeds (e.g. lupines, primroses) with which light is beneficial to germination, you should not use this method--but knock yourself out with corn, peas, beans, tomatoes, melons, delphiniums, zinnias, lilacs, rhododendrons and so on. beyond seeds, grafting, layering, cuttings, proliferations etc. present all sorts of interesting solutions to increasing plants in the garden.

michaelangelica: there are a number of difficulties associated with salt concentrations in soil, not the least of which relate to waste runoff of soap products/detergents. Typically, a soap comprises an alkali salt (e.g. sodium, potassium) or an ammonium salt of a long chain fatty acid; the class of soaps/detergents includes a myriad of different salts and a class of compounds called "surfactants"--btw, sodium lauryl sulfate is a common ingredient in bodywashes/shampoos which can be viewed as the sodium salt of the ester formed by reacting lauryl alcohol and sulphuric acid. The "problem" of surfactant-containing waste water is that the very function of the surfactant--to change the surface activity of the substrate to which they are applied--implies that when they are applied to soil they may change its permeability--as a simplified view, soil may become water-logged as a result of its permeability being increased. In addition to the soap/detergents, other pollutants may also be washed into the soil as a result of the change in permeability. Over time, micro-organisms may break down the soaps/detergents in the soil--and indeed, long chain fatty acids are a good energy source for them. But if the system is overwhelmed, the soil will stagnate and sour--runoff into water resources also becomes an issue. Many plants will not tolerate waterlogged soil, which the increased soil permeability may produce. They simply die from root suffocation or become susceptible to fungal infections. Hope that's informative.

very interesting proposal. my only question is: what is the energy investment to generate the magnetic field through which the salt water passes compared to the amount of generated electricity? essentially--what is the efficiency of this system?

thanks pamela! glad to have joined--very friendly forum. :)

so much complexity under the soil! further to the aquaporins--this from wikipedia: "In plants water is taken up from the soil through the roots, where it passes from the cortex into the vascular tissues. There are two routes for water to flow in these tissues, known as the apoplastic and symplastic pathways. The presence of aquaporins in the cell membranes seems to serve to facilitate the transcellular symplastic pathway for water transport. When plant roots are exposed to mercuric chloride, which is known to inhibit aquaporins, the flow of water is greatly reduced while the flow of ions is not, supporting the view that there exists a mechanism for water transport independent of the transport of ions; aquaporins."

Essay--thank you! I think you're on the money. Quick googling did produce an interesting hit: M. B. Kirkham, Kansas State University, Department of Agronomy-KSU, "Plant Water Uptake: Current Knowledge and a Look Ahead", which appears to indicates: "That is, water moves passively through the roots in response to a water potential gradient set up by transpiration." He also notes continue study of "aquaporins" which are a class of water channel proteins that have been found in nearly all living organisms. He also indicates that roots are capable of reverse flow--I suppose again, in response to a water potential gradient. Thanks again!

thx man! if you want to see a real petting zoo, visit the U.S. patent and trademark office--half my colleagues would have been in sanitariums in times passed!

i have no truck with cats (just not a cat person), but look to the dog: he's been our companion for 40,000 years and to a large extent, our partnership has elaborated and evolved this animal to a greater extent than any other animal. In times past (and present in certain milieus) dogs have been working partners--guarding/herding our livestock and crops, assisting in guarding our homes, assisting us in hunting and so on. Even companion breeds serve a partnership function--they help to alleviate loneliness and provide an outlet for affection. There IS value in this partnership. So no, I don't find pet keeping in and of itself reprehensible. I'd not value my dog more than I'd value a human being, but my dog is part of my household and holds a relatively higher position there than my inanimate objects. What is reprehensible are the petowners who get a pet (any kind) and then neglect the animal's physical as well as psychological needs. They just shouldn't have bothered. Thankfully, some zoos have started to realize that an animal needs more than just food and water.

w/re: to rates of hydration--(and maybe this is a different thread), my question goes to the method of water uptake--is it brought up through the roots by passive means--e.g. capillary action or do plants have an active method by which to take up water? And if by an active method, what are the specific proteins involved in the mechanisms/apparatuses which do the work (i'd assume that some protein capable of inducing movement like a form of plant peristalsis would be involved)?