Sisyphus

A travelling photon can actually be best represented as a wave. And even at their most particley, it's usually more helpful to think of it as a kind of pulse. Like a pulse moving down a string, it doesn't have one precise location, just an area of greater "thereness" that has no definite edges, but instead just tapers off indefinitely. Actually, all particles are like that, but the wavy and indefinite nature of photons is the most obvious.

You currently have access to the internet. Do you "know everything humans know?" No, of course not. You merely have access to a great deal of information. Why would a direct brain interface change that?

The lesson from Hong Kong is not "anarcho-capitalism is the best," if only because it's the only such experiment that hasn't been disastrous. It could, however, be very instructive if we look at how Hong Kong apparently was relatively thriving with a shattered city and no government while so many other places, like Somalia or Afghanistan, are most definitely not.

Here's a transcript of the message: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123752091165792573.html?mod=googlenews_wsj The essential message is just "For our part, we'd much rather be friends than enemies, just know that it's a two way street." Kind of an obvious sentiment, but something which still should be emphasized more often, and which I'm sure is a much more effective message addressed directly to the people (something which is probably really only possible in the internet age). The subtext, then, is that if there is conflict with the West, that they should be asking hard questions of their own government.

Pinnacle? Says who?

Reminds me of plans I saw once for a "smoke ring" blowing machine that blows rings of propane gas, targeted and triggered by anything over a certain temperature on a thermal imaging camera. No smoking!

It would "curve." I use quotation marks because going around the balloon is a straight line in this universe. Much like, if our universe is finite but unbounded in a similar way, travelling in a straight line would in theory get you right back where you started (although the sheer size of the universe, the limited speed of light, and the rate of expansion would make that impossible).

Sadly, I'm sure they'll find a way to spin it that way. Or rather, several different ways, in the (probably justified) hopes that something sticks. An underhanded attempt to weaken the military? It was really all [Republican Bush appointee] Gates' idea? Something with Bill Ayers, maybe? Great news for those deployed, though! We could definitely use the good feeling.

I'm just wondering what his rationale is. I could actually see if he thought that recreational sex is inherently immoral and therefore can't be encouraged no matter what the tangible cost. (I'd think it was stupid, but I couldn't really argue with a moral judgement.) But that's not what he's saying, right? He's saying his way is pragmatically preferable, as well, and that's an objective statement. Presumably he thinks that 1) the only way to reverse the spread of AIDS is if everyone is sexually monogamous for life 2) this is a realistic goal, and 3) the availability of other methods like birth control can only delay it. Presumably he also has no empirical evidence for any of these things (since none exists), which is a shame, since it's contrary to the Catholic Church's recent (more recent than Galileo) policy of not directly challenging science on objective reality. For example, they acknowledge the fact of evolution, and consider creationism a "pagan belief."

ParanoiA: You were also claiming they are the same: that they’re both ideologues (but only Rush is honest about it while Stewart hides behind the defense of being “just an entertainer”). I was just saying the inverse, that they’re both just entertainers pandering to an audience, but Rush tries to pass himself off as an ideological crusader (because that’s what his audience wants). At least when Stewart has something serious to say, he makes a clear distinction that that’s what he is doing.

For the first question, Concepts you need: Momentum = mass*velocity Momentum is conserved (the trolley will have the same momentum in the opposite direction as the rock) So, if the rock is thrown with momentum J, the trolley will then have momentum J as well. So, J = M*v Therefore, v = J/M Where you went wrong (aside from making things more complicated than necessary) is using the same term "v" for both the rock's velocity and the trolley's velocity.

I don't understand what you mean by this. How am I doing that?

I see it as the reverse. "Who he is" is a clown who mouths off about politics. They both are. But Stewart is openly the host of a comedy show, while Limbaugh straight-facedly claims to be legitimate. That is the pretense. And yes, you're absolutely right that Stewart's schtick, if it were held up to the rational standards of legitimate political debate, would mostly just be one appeal to ridicule (a fallacy) after another. But he also sometimes says worthwhile things, in which case it would also be fallacious (ad hominem) dismiss them because of the source. (Maybe Rush does too.) But that doesn't make it not a real comedy show (and it doesn't make the Rush Limbaugh show not a real comedy show either).

And how do actual scientists and engineers feel about that?

So a hang glider that's attached to the body? Why would you do that instead of just... having a hang glider that's not attached to you? buttacup, what's an "energy field," and how are you going to make a wing out of it?

Greater, but only because it's denser at the center. If it was uniform density, then the change in force of gravity would be linear as you move closer or farther away from the center.

So an airplane made of meat?

The main point, as others have implied, is that our "requirements" are a result of the universe being the way it is, not the other way around. In a different universe, there would be something else that could only exist in a universe very similar to it, such that one might conclude the universe looks designed to accomodate it. Another way to think about it is as if there were a multitude of universes, all with different constants, of which a small number can support some sort of intelligent life. The beings in those universes might marvel about how lucky they are to live in such a place, but there's no luck involved at all, since its only the comfy places that even have any inhabitants to contemplate their fortune.

Nope.

Right, but simply pointing to any particular dose without evidence for what dose is significant is meaningless (fallacious if it comes with an implication). You'll see almost exactly the same appeal to incredulity in the global warming debate (though not among scientists). "The amount of CO2 released by humans is very small compared to the total amount, therefore it can't have a significant effect." EPIC LOGIC FAIL.

Using blatantly unscientific reasoning to argue for the virtues of scientists in government is indeed ironic (hence the joke), but I thought it was unintentional. Sorry.

Again, same fallacy. I'm not saying it would have any noticeable effect whatsoever, but I'm certainly not willing to say it won't just because "a small percentage of something couldn't possibly make any difference." That is a clear logical fallacy, made more annoying by the fact that it was part of an insult. (BTW, the rest of your post was fine, IMO, and I actually agree with you.)

If you think about it, that wouldn’t work. To “stop” an asteroid falling towards Earth would mean absorbing all of its kinetic energy. The kinetic energy that is great enough to pose a threat to humanity itself. Stopping something that massive and fast moving just isn’t an option. (And even if you could stop it relative to the Earth, there would be no point, since nothing stays put in space.) Luckily there would never be a need for that. You would only need to push or pull it to the side enough to change its course by a tiny amount in order to make sure it misses the Earth (and the farther away you can get to it, the less its course needs to change).

Good, probably. If they’re going to be government employees, they should get government compensation. We want to motivate them to give the money back. They need to learn that we’re not simply socializing risk and privatizing reward.

What logic is that he is missing? All I see is an appeal to incredulity. That's actually a fallacy. You cite actual evidence (or a lot closer to it) later on, but "it's only a little bit" is not evidence.