Sisyphus

Basically, any vague mystical mumbo jumbo can be interpretted as a correct prediction in retrospect. Anything. I would say that I can't wait for 2012 to pass so we can stop hearing this crap, but chances are when it does pass, all the new-agers who were so invested in it, will either find some way of arguing that they actually were right, or claim the calculations were wrong and the world is actually going to end in 2015 or something. That's pretty much what always happens in any religion that predicts the end of the world. (There have been significant numbers of Christians, for example, who have been absolutely convinced that the Rapture is coming "any day now" for the last 2000 years.)

The main argument against these types of calculations with regards to terrorism is that its scale can potentially vary enormously, which makes it quite different from something like traffic accidents, where it's more or less consistent and predictable. Is preventing an average of a few hundred deaths a year worth all that? Well, no. But preventing, say, a nuclear bomb in a major city is worth pretty much any price. And not just in terms of the millions of lives. If New York/London/Tokyo were were suddenly vaporized, it would set back the world economy by decades overnight and cause global chaos.

Lasers can't go through anything you can't see through (like a piece of black paper), because it's visible light. Various materials are opaque to various frequencies. You wouldn't make a ship out of lead because it's so weak and heavy, but I'm assuming a nuclear sub would have a fair amount of lead on board surrounding the reactor.

When I last saw a version of this joke, the student reaches the opposite conclusion: "So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in hell before I sleep with you', and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. "The corollary of this theory is that since hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct . . . leaving only heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting, 'Oh my God!'.""

I win!

If I were you, I would avoid using any chicken - raw, cooked, or even live - as a bandarge.

But even if there isn't a net profit, it's still necessarily less unprofitable than the current arrangement. Currently the "private" (scare quotes very much emphasized) loan agencies bear none of the risk and reap all of the profit, while the taxpayer bears all of the risk with no chance of profit. It's like capitalism with cheat codes, and we're the ones being cheated. Under the new arrangement, the taxpayer would at least get the reward in addition to the risk, which might even yield a net profit. The only downside, which you point out, is that we have to supply the initial capital, but "with the assumption that we'll be paid back" is a misleading way to phrase it, since we the amount we're not paid back would be paid by us anyway.

Well, now wait a minute. We're not "paying for the entire loan amount." We're lending it, and getting it back with interest. Even if a lot of students default (although the consequences of that would be the same as always), we (the taxpayers) would still be more or less breaking even, right? Isn't that a much better arrangement for us than before, when tax dollars were only lost? Wasn't the former arrangement, in essence, just outright paying loan agencies to make zero-risk investments? If they were just profiting from our guarantee, why not cut out the middle man and profit ourselves? (Disclaimer: I haven't yet read about this at all, and am basing the above solely on your summary.)

DrDNA, it seems like you have something to say.

A spinning mass with kinetic energy comparable to a speeding car is always going to have safety issues. If something jams it (like, say, a distorting impact), all of a sudden all of the angular momentum is going to transfer to the body of the car... You would also definitely have some funny gyroscopic stuff going on. But hey, maybe that could even be put to good use in terms of stability? (That would still mean another big system which must not fail.) And finally: weight. How much would a flywheel needed to store that kind of energy weigh? Either a whole lot (making the much car heavier and therefore less efficient), or less, but moving crazy fast. That said, it does look not only workable, but actually surprisingly promising. For simplicity and rapid "charge/discharge," apparently batteries just can't compete with a big spinning ball of metal. Neat. Oh, also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrobus

Wouldn't that depend on how tall you are?

What evidence? (And if you have to look it up, it doesn't count.) This has the potential to pointlessly go back and forth, so I'll just say it explicitly: You cannot hold up public opinion as your banner when it is on your side, and write it off as meaningless because the populace is misinformed and manipulated when it is not.

So in other words, yes, we are smarter now?

So popular opinion is valid justification now, but not in 2004? Have we evolved significantly higher intelligence in the last 4 years?

No, they were envisioning something else entirely. But sure, when the U.S. founding fathers talked about freedom, they meant freedom from tyranny. So in that sense, yeah, Somalia (which has no functioning government) is indeed a quite a bit freer. Of course, they never wanted that kind of anarchy, because they weren't morons. And no, I don't know what you meant, which was the point I was trying to make.

No, the opening post asked: Which is several steps ahead of "an investigation is warranted" from the get-go.

Why would I change my answer from Somalia? Where else on Earth can I pursue a life of piracy unmolested?

So is this strictly about freedom of the press? What are your criteria? Is it freer if there are no checks on reporting falsehoods? Is the self-censorship of large media companies even relevant if it’s not coerced by the state and anyone can still say whatever they want? Also, freedom “of citizens” is pretty much too vague to say anything about, especially since you’ve said you’re not talking about “pursuit of wealth.” I don’t understand why (or how) you’re excluding that, so I don’t know what you would include. So, just to be a pain in the ass: Somalia. There’s no rules at all! And certainly no media conglomerates...

The missing step there is establishing misconduct. Or even some evidence thereof, for that matter. Should it be looked into? Sure. But jumping to accusations of "war crimes" with a) no evidence it was deliberate, b) a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation, c) no motive for a deliberate act, and d) a strong motive against? Any public defender would rip you to shreds.

Ah, ok. So the alleged crime is failing to prosecute rogue nutbags?

I don't see any credible evidence of that, no. Honestly, though, what mostly makes it so hard to believe is the lack of motive. What possible benefit, real or imagined, would Israel find in randomly attacking civilians? I could buy that perhaps they were doing it without any regard to civilians (although that's doubtful too, really, since they're under such constant and intense scrutiny), but intentionally attacking civilians? Um, what?

The what?

Except, of course, that you're clearly quite mad.

You need to post more than a link. I'm certainly not going to click on it, and I doubt anyone else will, either. What is it, why are you posting it, what do you think about, what question do you have, etc.

Actually, I happened to read the Wikipedia article on primary colors today, and it occurs to me that it would interest anyone who has wondered about this topic.