Sisyphus

You know, you're probably right. Stupid Prime Directive.

Well, these hypothetical aliens must both be capable of interstellar travel and see some point in visiting an alien biosphere (though not necessarily a civilization - ours is recent enough and space travel long-term enough that anyone here probably wasn't expecting to find humans in particular in such a dominant position), so it seems like there's a decent chance they'd be kind of like us (at least as intelligent as us in ways similar to us, at least as curious as a monkey or a dolphin, capable of working together on a large scale, capable of efficiently passing on empirical knowledge). And if that's the case, then who knows what they'd do? We are pretty unpredictable, ourselves.

Wow, neat. I'm actually kind of surprised. I was thinking gamma rays would be inherently destructive, just by virtue of having enough energy to knock apart whatever molecules they hit.

Yes, that would be right. The trip would be almost the same from the reference frames of Earth and the destination (which I guess is actually the same reference frame), but quite different in the two ships' reference frames. The crew of the constantly accelerating ship would experience much less time. Exactly how much would depend on the acceleration. BTW, in case it's not clear, I'm basically a layman, too, so don't take anything I say as authoritative...

I realize people don't "live in blocks," I just mean there's no reason they shouldn't be compact shapes. It's not as if there's any physical boundaries or even administrative jurisdictions being moved around - drawing it completely differently is as easy as making minor changes. It just means sometimes there's a less clear "incumbent" at the next election. So what's the rationale for ensuring mixed rural/urban districts. (BTW, per LA district blocks, I should also point out that there would be no political advantage in gerrymandering an area that is more or less politically homogeneous, like LA presumably is.)

Well obviously your brain is messed up. Go to a doctor.

Why would it ever not be easy to make them into blocks, if that's what you wanted to do?

I think a non-flippant answer to that question would take up several large books at least.

I'm guessing it's not so much a matter of whether they're powerful enough to chop up birds as it is how much tolerance such precisely engineered machines have for getting dinged up. But yeah, pretty amazing landing nonetheless. Usually when you hear that many sirens it's big trouble, but that landing looked like it would have actually been fun if you knew you were going to survive it (and if it wasn't so effing cold out). The sight of a jetliner bobbing peacefully down the river was pretty surreal.

A good point, actually. Also, it does sound like there's shenanigans afoot, although there's such scrutiny being applied to every last questionable vote that it's hard to believe actual fraud could get through. It sounds more like they just don't know what they're doing, which I guess is basically what this guy is saying. Why is it so hard? We can put a man on the moon, etc., etc.

I don't think there's anything preventing black plants under any condition. It just means they're absorbing all available visible light, and not even necessarily using it all for photosynthesis (maybe just keeping warm?). I don't know enough about biology to answer it myself, but is there anything about the process of photosynthesis that limits it to certain frequency ranges? Could hypothetical plants make use of gamma rays? Radio waves?

No. From the perspective of both ships, there would be a large velocity between them. From the perspective of Earth, the velocity difference between the two ships would be small. Yes, you would get to your destination sooner. You just wouldn't get any closer to C. The speed of light is always always always the same in all directions, no matter what reference frame you are in. You can never say "I'm moving almost as fast as that light beam," because from your perspective, the beam is still moving away from you at C. Only otherobjects can appear to be moving at some fraction of C. And from the perspective of that other object, you are moving at some fraction of C.

What occurs to me is that there isn't much to apologize for. Or, at least not as much as you would expect. I don't know about the others, but I regularly read Brooks' and Will's columns throughout the campaign, and a lot of them were downright complimentary. Especially interesting considering the large demographic who were (and I guess still are) convinced that Obama is "the most liberal Senator," a communist, a black revolutionary, a secret Muslim, a pal of terrorists, the literal Antichrist, etc. The dinner itself is probably of little significance, but it's an interesting symbol. I know I've pontificated on it before, but there's a real split among "conservatives" that seems like something we haven't really seen before, combined with (apparently) the least partisan PEOTUS in recent history. Reallignment, anyone?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/obama-dines-with-conservative-columnists/ So what do you think they talked about?

Even though, from either ship, they would be separating at 0.99C, from Earth the separation speed of the farther ship would still be less than C, and two ships would have a separation speed of less than 0.01C. The mothership would still be at 0.99c, and the secondary ship would be 0.9999C (or something). This is possible because the relative velocities of objects is dependent on the reference frame from which they are observed. Put another way, from your own perspective, you can keep accelerating indefinitely at the same rate, and you never get any closer to C (again, from your own perspective). From the perspective of someone in your starting reference frame, however, your rate of acceleration appears to slow down, approaching ever closer to C but never reaching it.

Interesting. Where I am over 95% of them are secured. I guess the density makes the point more obvious, since any unsecured network immediately gets swarmed with leachers like me...

The reason it's a gray area is because it's not just about people being stupid about medicine and religion, since we're talking about children. An adult obviously should be allowed to refuse any treatment they want for any stupid reason whatsoever. But do they have the right to do the same to their dependents? Children are not considered capable of making these decisions themselves, and rightly so. Their legal guardian makes the decision, and that usually makes sense too. But they're also not considered the property of their guardian, which is basically what you would have to claim to make the "we can do whatever we want" argument. They have rights of their own, as established by the fact that child abuse and neglect are considered crimes. Should what constitutes child abuse change depending on whether it's religiously motivated? No, right? That's not persecuting religion, it's just not considering it a factor, which is what government ought to be doing, right?

Well, I live with my girlfriend, and she's surprisingly old-fashioned about either one of us whoring ourselves out for internet access. As for how much money I'm willing to spend, more than you might think. Through a freak of various companies' coverage areas (not applying to the buildings on either side of us), Time Warner pretty much has a monopoly ISP, and they don't offer anything cheaper than ~$100/mo, plus some stupid initial fee that I haven't even bothered to research. I could afford that, but I refuse to pay on principle. Something else I should mention is that we have friends who live down the street, and our respective street-facing windows are maybe 200 feet away. They also piggyback internet and have similar problems. If they (who can get cheaper access) get it and we split the cost, what would be the easiest/cheapest way to acceptably boost the signal from that end?

Basically there's not enough information. In theory, nothing you mention in the initial question requires any work at all. Merely having a velocity or travelling a distance does not inherently require work. (In contrast, acceleration or an increase in height would, but not if you slow back down or return to your original height.) In real life, however, though there are lots of other things going on: friction, air resistance, internal muscle action, etc. Overcoming these things does require energy to be expended, but you can't tell exactly how much without a much more complicated analysis.

I don't know why Obama really picked Clinton, but it doesn't seem that surprising. Politically speaking there's the obvious rationale of making sure the strongest force in your party (not to mention the millions of people who like Clinton but not Obama) besides yourself is firmly on your side, which it is a cabinet member's job to be. There's a reason the job has been the rival's "consolation prize" so many times. And all political considerations aside, I honestly think she could probably do the job as well as anyone. She's smart, she's tough, she's got a hell of a rolodex, she's been positioning herself as a foreign policy maven for years (in preparation for being President, but still). As for why she accepted it, that's no mystery, either. It's more prestige and power than an ordinary Senator, in fact if not in technicality. Maybe not in the Bush Administration (Powell and Rice seem to have been mostly just spokesmen), but frequently in the past (think Henry Kissinger), and probably in the Obama Administration.

No, the charge is the property, not the force. Force, by definition, is something exerted on something else, hence forces only occur between charged particles. Any amount of force can be exerted on these, or none, but if there is, then there has to be an equal and opposite force exerted on something else. No, you could not. With three bodies there are six forces (assuming they're all interacting with one another). Each body exerts an equal and opposite force on each other body, resulting in this case in three force pairs. With four bodies there would be 12, with five there would be 20, etc. No, it does not. It possesses a charge. It seems that the main issue (currently) is one of defintions, specifically that you're using the term "force" incorrectly?

By "come in pairs," all that is meant is that no force can be exerted on anything without an equal and opposite force exerted on something else, i.e. what everybody (including Isaac Newton) has been saying. This is a fact. Outright denial of this fact is not faulty logic, per se, it's just a false statement. That's why it's difficult to argue with you.

I haven't paid for the internet since I moved to my current apartment, since at any given time there are several dozen visible wifi networks, of which two or three are generally unprotected. However, recently, the most reliable of these (good old linksys) has disappeared. Maybe its owner moved away, I don't know. Anyway, my home internet is very spotty now, and I often can't get a signal at all. I need ideas, either home remedies or buyable gadgets, to boost my reception. Personal experience is preferable, ridiculous suggestions are acceptable.

That's not what you said, though. You asked if they were new or if you were incredibly unobservant. I just thought I should point out that the two aren't mutually exclusive.

False dichotomy.