A Tripolation

Slippery slope fallacy. Troll harder. You know what? I've always wanted a squirrel. A pet squirrel. I would train him to sit on my shoulder. And on my porch, I would have a cactus in a cowboy hat, using a screwdriver to create a flux capacitor. But the dollar store doesn't accept bits of string, so, here I am. Squirrelless, cactusless, all alone. I really don't want to take my math final. It would be better if I had a squirrel. I would attack my professor with my squirrel. And only call him off when he agreed to give me an A++. Which is an A, incremented by one. So it's more awesome. Love, Trip

Wow. You're such a better troll than I am. I'm jealous. Kudos to you, sir.

I support legalization. I have never even seen pot. I just know it would bring in a lot of revenue via taxes, and hurt a lot of the minor drug dealers. And physiologically speaking, it's much less harmful than alcohol. And plus, they would support the local restaurants.

You're fairly accurate in your assessment if why religion forbids it. I've also heard that since sexual contact of any kind should only be within the confines of a marriage, that committing incest disrespects you and whosoever you happen to be fornicating with, thus, casting like three sins at once. Which is presumably bad.

I actually think its decent nerd poetry. Better than most of the emo garbage that's homogeneous in it's mediocrity. What ajb is trying to say about the creative thing is that it's all very nice you've thought of this. But it will never be taken seriously. There are no equations whatsoever. As a dual English/Physics major, I can see that this would be welcomed in maybe a literary deconstructive thought class. But it would be laughed at in a relativistic mechanics class. There's no math here. Math is the language of the universe. How do you expect to explain the universe without a single equation? Most scientists anticipate that the universe, at it's most fundamental level, is governed by one elegant theory. The theories we have now are shards of that one elusive, perfect equation. What I'm saying is that even at the most basic level, the universe will still most likely be one equation that can accurately predict anything that may happen within its confines, provided an initial state is known. Hope this helps. Trip

I think it's a lot of false comparisons. Sure, there is porn on the internet, but there are also a lot of christian-themed websites. Comparing porn on the internet to a nativity scene in the park is fallacious.

Ah. I see. I thought you were simply misunderstanding the answers given by the SFN community. But you have an agenda. In spite of what you wish were true, we're near as certain as certain gets that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum. Like others have said, it changes within mediums, but otherwise, it's constant. You truly have no hope of contending that without a groundbreaking hypothesis, supported by a lot of math, that explains everything that the current theories do, and more.

But it WOULD occupy your entire winter break.

Maybe you can refine the algorithms used by CASs to where they spit out reasonable solutions. Mathematica sucks. I want it solve ALL my problems.

Most work producing devices, such as heat engines like steam turbines, have efficiencies under 40 percent. I don't think steam power plants can have 100% efficiency. The maximum efficiency a steam power plant operating between [math] T_H = 1000K [/math] and [math] T_L = 300K [/math] as by [math] \eta_{th, rev} = 1 - \frac{T_L}{T_H} [/math], is approximately 70%. A purely reversible process that would deliver the most work isn't feasible at all. I could be mistaken though...

So I've recently thought of something unusual that happens to me when I try to bring up a mental picture of someone. I can usually get a pretty good idea of what they look like if I know them very well, but if I think about an actual picture of them on facebook or something, I can get a much more vivid picture. I can see details a lot more clearly. Is there any explanation for this discrepancy in clarity? Has anyone else experienced this? Also, I put this in The Lounge because I didn't know where to put it. If a mod has a better idea of what category this falls into, I would be thankful for them moving it for me.

I meant more like, when you're not getting free refills. Why get ice in those instances. I also no not understand bottled water. Aquafina, IIRC, is actually bottled tap water. Why pay for stuff that is practically free?

So when you're at the theater, and you get a drink, and they fill it to the brim with ice, and you get half a cup of soda, that's ok in your book? Everyone looks at me like I'm a crazy person when I demand no ice.

Indeed, sir. Indeed.

So I was in my local McDonald's the other night. Almost everyone ahead of me who was(were?) dining-in ordered a medium or large drink. So I glance over at the fountain machine that says, "Free Refills for Dine-In customers." I then glance back at the 1.90 price tag on the drink. I just don't understand it. Why order a more expensive, larger size when the refills are free? This question consumes me. I personally don't give a damn about my exergy-centric final in a few days. Please remedy this. Also, why get ice? The drink is already cold. You're only maximizing their profit, and minimizing your drinking enjoyment.

That's what I'm getting from it. This is incredibly fascinating. I didn't know negative temperatures existed.

I had a ten-minute long discussion with two guys today in which I was ridiculed for not knowing who Mastodon is. Apparently they're the most amazing band in the world. I like bands such as, We Came as Romans, Isles & Glaciers, Coldplay, MewithoutYou, ect ect.

Exactly. I mean, really, does anyone disagree with this? While none of the articles are truly endangering national security (thus far), it would be almost treason, IMO, to publish classified articles that reveal national security secrets. Maybe I play too many games and watch too many movies, but I'm ok with not knowing what unsavory situations have happened in the interest of national security.

Is it a plausible possibility though? Would that "fact" correctly account for the imbalance that we see? Or would it work in concert with other things?

Even though I disagree with every aspect of your thoughts, and think inaction in some situations is the same as killing the people you didn't protect, I greatly respect your dedication to your ideology. Not many people have that.

1. It's not violence if it's defense. And rape is classified as an attack. That's...you know...a law. It's actually considered a violent crime, even if perpetrated without weapons. Show me a legal precedent where that isn't the case. 2. Psychology is mostly shots-in-the-dark attempts at analyzing the brain. Progress is unlikely. 3. I know all of those things. However, 9/11 was an open attack on US soil, against US civilians. Any society would take that as a declaration of war. And it's nice to know that if I ever wanted to rob you, I can anticipate no use of violence against me. How easy twill be!

1. No. He was defending his family. 2. I think statistics show most criminals reoffend after being "rehabilitated". 3. I hardly see attacking a sect that has openly declared war on your civilians as being "offensive".

If it were TRUE life sentence, I would consider that an acceptable punishment. And the system is set up to prevent innocent people from being executed. That's why it takes decades to get through the process. And I'm only for the death penalty on sure-fire cases. Like the guy admits to doing it, or there's irrefutable evidence, ect ect.

Rehabilitation is rarely successful. And for someone in the armed forces, that surprised me. I assume that it's ok because they're..you know...shooting at you and trying to kill you. And 20 years is the average-ish time served. More often than not "life" doesn't mean life. They get parole or a lessened sentence.

And what do you propose we do with them? Expect someone who is capable of that level of violence to be repaired by being in jail for 20 years?