bascule

In order to be affected by the Coriolis force your toilet would have to be the size of a tropical depression. And just as a fun counterpoint, my toilet spins clockwise. (and I'm in the Northern Hemisphere. I suppose I should be adding that caveat in all my talk of clockwise vs. counterclockwise circulations) If you mean warm air is displaced by cool, dry air, then yes. Actually it's the heating effect from the latent heat of condensation that's creating the low, not the absence of water vapor lost through condensation. Normally this heat is carried away by wind shear, but in low pressure systems it accumulates. Circulation occurs because the movement of air towards the center of the low is deflected by the Coriolis force. Where is there outward movement of air to be deflected clockwise?

The Nixon analogy is apt because Nixon was charged with authorizing illegal wiretaps as well. Bush signed off on it every 45 days, and has admitted to such, but claims it's within his authority. Or to quote him directly: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/ Is that better, Pangloss?

Conceeded. In the future I will provide relevant excerpts from articles I link. How does an accusation of false imprisonment equate to "Gitmo is a gulag"? http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2005/d20050831sheet.pdf So, there are 38 people who our own military tribunals have ruled are innocent but are still being held prisoner.

I support the angry black conservative men who get on Fox News and rail about how they're victims of a composition fallacy. They really are. However I believe the liberal/conservative imbalance among blacks is owed to conservatives being, in general, weaker/more apathetic on civil rights/racial equality than liberals, and the overwhelming majority of white supremacists being conservatives. However, once again I'd like to applaud Bush on appointing blacks to the highest positions of power they've ever held in the US government.

CLOSET?! Come now, every single thread I've posted on the underlying structure of the universe is about it being essentially a discrete-time cellular automaton! I'd very much like to thank Martin for pointing me in the direction of Seth Lloyd and his computational universe model.

You're missing the point. The algorithm which comprises the entire universe, of which all other seemingly non-terminating algorithms are a subset, halts itself. What you propose is something akin to LaPlace's Demon flicking off the universe's power switch. I'm saying the destruction comes from within, and thus is predictable from within the system. You can predict the exact moment of your own death if it's when you choose to commit suicide. I began reading Kurzweil's The Singularity is Near last night. And lo and behold, he had proposed a very similar six-stage evolution of the universe, although he sticks another step in between my steps 2 and 3, and omits my step 6. Predicting eschaton is something of a wild, fanciful extrapolation, is it not?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/27/science/27eins.html?pagewanted=1&incamp=article_popular

I think I'm way closer next time, so here we go. Wild speculation ahead! The universe is drawn towards self-completion (eschaton) It self-completes by solving the halting problem. It solves the halting problem by terminating. There are no non-terminating algorithms because all seemingly non-termingating algorithms exist within a single terminating algorithm, the universe. In the end, there is only one algorithm, the universe, and its inevitable outcome is to choose to self-terminate and thus self-complete. I say "it". What is "it"? It is the collective action of all the consciousness within the universe. Consciousness is what will actually solve the halting problem. So here's how we go from the beginning of the universe to eschaton, in six easy steps! STEP 1: Formation of a universe-pocket-thingy where life can arise I don't want to conjecture about the start of the universe, but through some sort of cosmological evolutionary process we begin to get little pockets of universe which increasingly complexify. Think LQC here. When a singularity (no, not the kind I'm obsessed with, a black hole!) is formed it creates a universe with similar but slightly variadic natural laws. So universe-pocket-thingies (my terminology is really hurting here... can one of you physics types tell me a word for one of these things which distinguishes it from the universe as the system of all that is and ever has been?) which have laws which allow other singularities to form have descendant universe, and those whose laws do not permit singularities do not. STEP 2: The dawn of life Eventually through this process of variatic reproduction we end up with universes with such complex natural laws that replicators arise spontaneously. Some of these replicators are variadic. Variadic replicators give rise to a natural selection model. Then either one of two things happens: consciousness eventually evolves from such a system, or all the variadic replicators in a particular location are destroyed in a cataclysmic event. STEP 3: From conscious replicators to Singularity The conscious replicators create a society. They eventually master the natural laws of their particular universe-pocket-thingy. They eventually figure out how their own particular version of consciousness works, or invent their own. At this point one of three things can happen: 1. The conscious replicators accidently/maliciously create a cataclysmic event and wipe out all the replicators in their planet/locale. Thus all their evolution was a waste. 2. The conscious replicators accidently/maliciously create a cataclysmic event and wipe out all the conscious replicators (and perhaps some of the non-conscious replicators). At least some of the non-conscious replicators survive. These non-conscious replicators eventually evolve into conscious replicators. So go back to the start of step 3. 3. Singularity is reached. The conscious replicators replace themselves with an "orphidnet", umpteen gazillion little robots which: - Provide a distributed, highly redundant storage network for all information they have acquired - Communicate with each other to provide a distributed, highly redundant superconsciousness, passing newly acquired information to each other - Are Von Neumann Universal Constructors, and can turn any matter/energy they encounter into more orphids (or anything else they so desire) STEP 4: Consciousness takes control The orphids consume all matter/energy in their particular universe pocket thingy and turn it into consciousness. STEP 5: Creation of the transcendental consciousness of the universe Once in control of their universe pocket, they magically find some way to communicate with all the other universe pockets where conscious life arose. Together they decipher everything about the structure of the universe and transcend the natural laws which previously jailed them, merging to form a single consciousness in control of the entire universe. STEP 6: Eschaton Collectively all the consciousness in all the universe pockets begins working together to destroy the universe. (I mean, at this point there's nothing left to do but destroy the universe, right?) Eschaton is reached, the universe is destroyed, the halting problem is solved (Answer: All algorithms terminate when the universe terminates, and the universe terminates when the transcendental consciousness wants it to), Godel is wrong, and the universe is once again "proven" to be complete. Rinse, repeat ad infinitum!

My own opinion has been expressed and subsequently strawmanned. Why aren't you harping on that? I'm merely trying to substantiate my opinion with something along the lines of a credible source. Now honestly Pangloss, take a step back for a second, reread what you just said, and look at what you're doing. You're looking at the argument I'm attempting to make, twisting and reinterpreting it, then presenting it again in your own words. Whenever you're about to frame something in the context of "It's basically just another way of saying" you might as well stop yourself right there. You're a moderator, certainly you're above strawmen? Especially as I'm attempting to defend myself from another one... That's an ad hominem argument. Just because the story was presented within the context of an opinion piece does not make it any less true, and I at least see no factual errors in the presentation. But if you'd like a better source, how about this: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ABU BAKKER QASSIM, et al., Petitioners, v. GEORGE W. BUSH, et al.,Respondents. http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/opinions/2005/Robertson/2005-CV-497~15:4:20~8-19-2005-a.pdf Specifically: How exactly am I supposed to substantiate my arguments around here without sources? I'll admit that perhaps it's somewhat spammy to provide an entire story rather than the relevant excerpts, but if you really have a problem with the presentation of evidence to substantiate opinion, perhaps you ought to reconsider why you're on science forums, because it really seems like you have a problem with evidence-based argumentation.

"Gitmo is a gulag"? Uhhh... Please reread and tell me who's strawmanning... If you're going to accuse someone of strawmanning, you best not use a strawman in order to make the point yourself. If you think my point is unsubstantiated, perhaps you should read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/13/AR2005111301061.html

A quick googling reveals everything you ever wanted to know about Fainting Goats... http://www.faintinggoat.com/learnab.htm

There is a lot of hype surrounding Firefox and as a web developer it drives me absolutely insane. For example there's no sane errors about malformed XSLT (when using XSLTProcessor), instead you get something to the effect of NS_COMPONENT_FAILURE 0x342030209403290. Also at some point XSLT we had working in Firefox 1.0.x stopped working even though it continues to work in 1.5. I also like how trying to use .innerHTML in an application/xhtml+xml document returns a similar NS_COMPONENT_FAILURE. In my case it was buried under layers of abstraction. Ruby on Rails' link_to_remote function embeds a JavaScript function that uses .innerHTML. I searched for nearly a half hour trying to decode the cryptic error message before finally discovering that application/xhtml+xml, link_to_remote, and Firefox are simply incompatible. Sadly this behavior is NOT to specifications (the assignment should return false if the fragment fails to parse, behavior that works beautifully in Opera) I'm still yet to confirm if Firefox 1.5 has the same problem... Anyway that's about 1% of my frustration with Firefox as a web developer. Seriously, even with its non-standard box model I have less trouble with IE, especially regarding features like XSLT.

A classification algorithm (likely Bayesian) would be needed to decode the semantic meaning of phenomenological objects within the cortex after their structure is understood. Blue Brain is hard at work deciphering the operation of the neocortical column. Once this has been accomplished it's likely we'll have some knowledge of the structure of phenomenological objetcs within the cortex. The classification algorithm would need to run on an individual for some time, reconstructing what it can of your own internal ontological structure in some other format where it can be mapped to OWL association data. OWL associations can then be reencoded into the phenomenological object format, matched with "hooks" onto your own existing ontological structure. Many of our problems with resource consumption are that we simply don't know what to do with waste that could be useful to others. Mathematician and storywriter Rudy Rucker envisions in his blog a world where ubiquitous information eliminates waste as virtually everything can be given to others. Information which does not jive with your existing ontological structure will be discarded. Either way it's injected directly into your cortex's association centers, either by your inferotemporal cortex or DNI. Phenomenological objects must evolve within your cortex to have impact on your personal ontology. Thus you won't be any more likely to believe "The sky is green" or "2 + 2 = 5" if injected into your cortex by DNI than if I were to tell it to you. On the contrary, I think the percentage of our personal ontologies constructed from pathological memes (i.e. bullshit) is on the decline. Furthermore, despite the presence of bullshit, our sociotechnological (i.e. memetic) evolution is undoubtably quite progressive. Bullshit memes will continue to evolve, but their evolution isn't progressive, it accomplishes nothing and in the end will lose out to progressive memetic evolution. Memes can't evolve unless communicated. Increasing the rate at which we can communicate merely increases the rate at which we evolve. Well, pretty soon we'll have to come to terms with the fact that humans are an inefficient platform for consciousness and we should move to a more distributed approach. See the same Rudy Rucker blog where he posits tons of nanorobots called "orphids" which provide a distributed network for quantum computation and storage on which artificial intelligence programs can run. Singularity is the solution to mankind's upcoming resource woes.

I recycle glass and metal. Anything else is a waste of time and resources.

Umm, the story coming from CBN.com I doubt the trustworthiness of the account But if someone who's been moping around going "Let me die" truly believes that someone has done something miraculous to them (even if they haven't), then they can make a dramatic recovery, simply through the power of positive thinking.

Uhhhh, that's the stupidest argument ever. Life creates a ton of entropy in the process of building order. Just look at how much you have to eat every day to survive. That whole process increases entropy. Ultimately we're all tied together in an enormous supply chain that ends with chloroplasts harvesting energy from the sun. And the sun, being an enormous nuclear incinerator, is increasing in entropy all the time. So yes, life builds order, but does it by increasing entropy.

Here's a study that says just the opposite: The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update (2002) Report from USDA arguing that earlier reports indicating that ethanol was not an efficient use of energy are outdated. This analysis, which accounts for increased efficiency in the production of ethanol, concludes that corn ethanol has an energy output:input ratio of 1.34. Estimating the Net Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol Studies conducted since the late 1970's have estimated the net energy value of corn ethanol. However, variations in data and assumptions used among the studies have resulted in a wide range of estimates. This study identifies the factors causing this wide variation and develops a more consistent estimate. We conclude that the net energy value of corn ethanol has become positive in recent years due to technological advances in ethanol conversion and increased efficiency in farm production. We show that corn ethanol is energy efficient as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24. Studies concerning whether ethanol's energy inputs exceed its energy outputs can go either way. Suffice it to say it's a hotly contested area.

Until the virus evolves a new method for attaching to the CD4 receptor Since HIV is an RNA virus and thus evolves rather quickly, this has been the largest problem with research thus far.

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html I think what it's really important to keep in mind is that there is a vast multitude of first order climate forcings and somehow all of these except CO2 seem to get overlooked in climate science reporting. Rush Limbaugh should NOT be used as a source on ANYTHING related to climate science. He grossly mischaracterized the opinion of the boss of my research group to paint him as a "global warming skeptic." Rush Limbaugh clearly doesn't care what the scientific community has to say, he simply hates environmentalism and wants to look for ways to subvert it, rather than looking for the truth. I am adamantly opposed to global warming alarmism but that doesn't mean that I don't feel there is a problem that is in serious need of research (otherwise I wouldn't have a job )

IANAL, but I don't see how it could be legal, much less Constitutional. Howard Dean had a nice writeup: http://dnc.org/a/2005/12/did_george_bush.php

The answer is simple: the Coriolis force acts oppositely on high and low pressure systems because their pressure gradients are inverted relative to one another. In an area of high pressure the air flow is outward from the center. This outward flow is deflected to the right by Coriolis force, creating a clockwise circulation. This results in an overall high-pressure circulation that is downward, clockwise, and outward. The characteristics of low-pressure systems are just the opposite. As air is pulled inward from all directions there is nowhere to go but up. In an area of low pressure the inward flow is deflected to the right by Coriolis force, causing a counterclockwise circulation. The overall flow pattern in a low is inward, counterclockwise, and upward.

It seems moot to respond as you appear to be Permanently Banned, but having a video on http://MoveOn.org is a hell of a lot different than having it on http://dnc.org. http://MoveOn.org is no more representative of the Democrats as a whole than http://NationalVanguard.org is of the Republicans (i.e. you're committing a composition fallacy) This video was on the front page of http://GOP.com, which is representative of the Republicans as a whole.

Awesome link, thanks

The collective unconscious refers to a sort of gene pool of a priori programming collectively shared by all humans which allows our temperments to be grouped by specific qualities. The gene pool analogy is apt because modern psychology is of the opinion that these temperments and our personality as a whole are largely genetic in nature. It has nothing to do with any sort of collective conscious thought process or anything of that nature.

The article you quote says nothing about rising sea levels, only melting Arctic sea ice. Scientists are still uncertain as to how the melting of the Greenland ice sheet contributing to sea level rise, especially considering that the average area of the Antarctic ice sheets seems to be increasing (sources: NASA 2002, National Snow and Ice Datacenter) The sea level is rising at around 2 mm a year, mostly due to the melting of mountain glaciers and the impact of rising sea temperatures on the ocean's volume through thermal expansion. These are attributable to global warming. However, if you want to contend that global warming is the cause of increasing rates of melting of Arctic sea ice, then we should also see similar reductions of Antarctic sea ice coverage. However, there is no progressive trend in Antarctic sea ice coverage... instead we see aimless fluctuation (see Figures 8 and 9a in this paper) That we are not seeing similar sea ice trends in both hemispheres leads to the conclusion that Arctic sea ice is melting due to a regional warming effect. This also makes an excellent case for focusing our attention on the regional impacts of human activity on long-term climate change, rather than attempting to lump all such effects together under the auspices of "global warming"