Sisyphus

Like ecoli, I tended to add goals rather than change them. At one point, I wanted to be a comedy writer, physicist, pirate, philosopher, brewer, diplomat, naval architect, and benevolent dictator of a small, tropical island nation. Of course, currently I'm none of those things (not full time, anyway). And eventually I realized all I really wanted was to surround myself with smart, interesting people who could make me laugh and talk about anything. As for my current career, it's none of the things I aspired to, but it is interesting, very unusual, and makes good use of the schizophrenic education I acquired pursuing other things.

I think you should ponder further your definition of "free will." What does "without coersion or influence" mean? Does it simply mean, for example, that there is no reason you couldn't of made any other choice? But what does that mean? If there's no reason you make one choice over another, then the choices you make are just random. And if there is a reason, then you're bound on a predetermined path. So from an absolute, objective standpoint, then I have to say that I strongly believe that not only is there no free will, but that even the term "free will" has no meaning. But from an objective standpoint is not how I think about free will. I view it as a subjective phenomenon. From your own perspective, you are free to make your own choices. In your mind, you weigh options, and choose one course of action from among many possibilities. That this exists subjectively, in my opinion, is as indisputable as the non-existence of objective free will. You don't need to prove the existence of an experience. The experience is the proof of itself. Despite how self-evident these things seem to me, I've studied enough and talked to enough very smart people that I know there's literally nothing with no grounds for doubt, so I don't force my views. However, it's been my experience most people who insist on "free will" do not do so on philosophical grounds but rather on a refusal to understand, which seems largely based on an emotional attachment to the poorly defined notion called "free will." This, I think, is born out misunderstanding. People don't want to be "confined," first of all, and second, they want a way to hold themselves and others responsible for their actions. Neither of these is a logical objection, but rather they are emotional motives for desiring a certain outcome, regardless of logic. I have found that it's often helpful in convincing these people to attack these sources of emotion rather than the issue itself. For the former, I just talk about the subjective experience of free will. There is no confinement if you choose not to view it as such. And for the latter, I talk about personal responsibility from a utilitarian standpoint. Regardless of the status of free will, if we hold ourselves and others responsible for our actions, then we all behave better. The only times this isn't the case are the times when we truly shouldn't hold beings "personally" responsible for their actions. Calling a rock evil for falling when you let it go will never stop a single rock from falling. Similarly with demanding those who are "mentally ill" live up to the standards of civilization. But for most of us, the very notion of responsibility is enough, and it is those people who we call "in their right minds," or "freely acting." [/lecture over]

I guess it's not exactly the same. They are the same size as incandescent bulbs, though. They look like this:

Yes, there are those of us who are similarly obsessed, and those who study it. More than half my studies would fall under the categories of philosophy or history of science.

Yeah, they're definitely watered down. I'm not even a scientist of any kind, and I can see lots of inaccuracies and oversimplifications in pretty much everything on those channels. But I'm willing to cut them a lot of slack if they at least get the general ideas right and make people interested in them. The only ones that really make me cringe are the "paranormal" themed shows, from UFOs to Biblical prophecies to haunted houses. It really makes me wonder how they can sleep at night straightfacedly putting that crap on TV and calling it a "science channel." I do like Mythbusters, though. No, it's not scientifically rigorous. But they're doing a public service, they do it creatively, and they don't go home until they've blown something up. What's not to love?

I would have gone with Super Fun Land.

I don't get it. CFLs inside of incandescent-bulb shaped cases have been around for years. I've got a bunch of them myself, which IIRC I originally got at IKEA about 4 years ago, although I'm sure you can get them elsewhere. Surely they're showing off that particular one for different reasons. Like, what's the deal with the "electronics package?"

Methinks the obstacles to having flying cars are practical, not technological. Flying cars will not replace the earthbound variety, because it would be ridiculously dangerous to have millions of poorly trained pilots on unplanned flights all in the air at once. I don't want the idiots I see on the road every day moving at high speeds in the air over my house.

If you don't think people should be penalized for those things, then the problem isn't that you're more likely to be caught, the problem is the law itself. Basically, I agree 100% with ParanoiA on this one. There's nothing fundamentally different about being seen in public by a camera or by human eyes. The age of ultra-transparency is looking more and more inevitable, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

Well now wait a minute. Why would I pick a universe that I have to buy from those guys? Why wouldn't I just travel to one I already own? Eh, forget it. I guess I'll just keep doing my best to "customize" this universe.

Yeah, it's funny. I would have expected a lot more conspiracy theories implicating Obama flying around. (Or maybe there are, and I've just been lucky enough to remain ignorant.) But it doesn't seem like it's going to be much of a distraction for him at all. I'm glad the Rampant Corruption of Illinois Politics story came out after the election...

Not just a scientist, but a Nobel-prize winning, discipline-crossing (he's apparently involved in molecular biology as well as physics), alternative energy guru. Neat!

Put another way, you actually can't move anything without moving something else in the opposite direction. If you look at each object individually, they each have an unbalanced force acting on them. For example, if you throw a rock in the air, it exerts the same downward force on you that you exert on it. But you are standing on the Earth, and so it's actually the whole Earth that moves "down" very very very slightly when the rock moves up. (Since the Earth is so much bigger than the rock, the same force that moved the rock only immeasurably moves the Earth.) Then, gravity pulls each back towards the other, again with equal forces on each, the rock falls to the ground, and the Earth is pulled very very very slightly "up" again. Other examples: a rocket moves forward by throwing stuff (fuel) with tremendous force (generated by chemical explosion) backwards. A propellor or jet aircraft moves forward by sucking up air and throwing that backwards. A car or a walking human moves by pushing laterally against the Earth, therefore rotating it very slightly in order to move along the surface.

No. Any being either makes a choice for a reason or not. If for a reason, then it is compelled. However, if there is no reason, then the choice is simply random, and that is not a "free choice," either. These two options are applicable whether in our particular environment or not, or even outside of physical reality. Even a god must act either deterministically or randomly.

Unfortunately, in the intervening years, no cure has been found for drivel.

What the hell was it before? What the hell was it before?

I don't know what the cost effectiveness is, but I would definitely look into it. I'm guessing that in the right place it would pay for itself. I'd also guess that large-scale turbines probably have a considerably lower cost per watt than the rooftop variety.

Gonna have to disagree with you there. For one thing, I only heard him say anything like that a couple times, which is actually pretty amazing considering the effectively two-year campaign and a press corps ready to pounce on, take out of context, and endlessly repeat absolutely anything he would say on the subject of race. (Compare with how many times you heard the word "maverick.") And second, that's not even playing the race card. He's not saying, "it's time to elect a black man!" Quite the contrary, he's saying, "don't let my race or unusual background be a factor." Now I'm sure you'll claim the "race card" was implied or something, but even if that's true, I don't know how you can possibly compare that with, say, the relentless pandering of Al Sharpton, let alone call it "as 'Race Card' as any statement I have ever heard." Please.

Excretion is necessary, but asses, per se, are merely very convenient.

The ignorance on display in this thread is appalling.

But it is the proposal!

Nobody on the internet seems to have an IQ below 140...

Spectrum analysis?

I don't think it really makes much sense to talk about the density of a single atom, since it's size is pretty indefinite. (You can talk about mass, though.) Density in general is also always conditional. Osmium has the highest density in normal solid state under normal pressure, because it's both heavy and packs relatively tightly together. In gaseous form (which for stuff like osmium and gold I imagine means the kind of heat you usually only find in stars), density is almost directly proportional to molecular mass. In liquid form, it's probably something else.

Well now, come on. A deadly, stampeding mob of rabid Walmart shoppers is pretty low on the list of groups I would have expected to be defending, but you don't anything about these people. You don't know they can't afford the stuff they're shopping for, you just know they're so oblivious and they want it so badly right now that they can literally trample a person to death to get it. ...um, actually, I don't have the heart for this. Say whatever you want about them. Ugh.