Sisyphus

I believe that she's frugal with her own money, but that doesn't really apply here. (She certainly wasn't frugal with Alaska's money, despite her claims, and less so with my federal taxes.) Honestly, I don't understand it. They obviously went to considerable lengths to disguise these expenditures (bought by a pollster, expenses listed falsely, etc.), but we're talking about clothes on a Presidential candidate photographed hundreds of times a day. Did they really think nobody would notice? I guess it just didn't occur to anyone that it would be "a story."

Yeah, that is interesting, isn't it? It's more than just being communist, though, since the other communist countries are strong Obama. I guess the best way to approach this is to look at which countries lean McCain, and ask why. So: Iraq, Cuba, Macedonia, Congo, and Namibia, with toss-ups in Algeria and Sudan. Iraq I can see - they can't (or think they can't) hold their own country together, and only McCain wants to indefinitely lend them the full power of our military to police their country for them. Talk about buying votes! The other countries, I have no idea.

"Obama [...] yelling 'Yo, where all da white women at? Let's smoke some crack.' [...] [it] change[d] my perspective." - a longtime Democratic supporter

I haven't really been following the discussion or particularly understand the methods at work, so this might be a dumb question, but is it possible we can definitively conclude that there's no way to tell? Kind of a "cosmic uncertainty principle" or some such? It's something I was thinking about reading a thread a little while ago about the observable universe vs. "real" universe, and trying to draw (maybe flimsy) analogies with quantum uncertainty. If nothing beyond the "information horizon," for all practical purposes, even "exists," maybe a third possible answer to the question is, "it doesn't matter?" Infinite means not finite. So it's specifically not your first definition. As for the second, I don't think that demonstrates that infinity is self-contradictory, just that its fundamentally different from finite quantities, and not merely "the biggest." If the universe were infinite, it would have no finite volume, no limit, no "folding back on itself," etc.

In base 3, 10/3 is 10.1. Mind blown!!!!!

4000 years is a "very short span of time?" Incidentally, common technology is one thing that it's relatively easy to keep track, archeologically speaking. Those things you mention developed logically and gradually, not all of a sudden.

Always. Our irrational confidence is both our greatest strength and our greatest weakness as a nation. As for what it will be, I don't know. I kind of suspect we're in for another internet bubble at some point, frankly. Facebook is "worth" what, $8 billion or something? Kind of a lot for a company with no physical product, minimal infrastructure, and entirely ad-based revenue, no? You might also be right about an energy bubble. Certainly we're going to see a lot of different approaches emerging (we already are, in fact). Only a few will ultimately be successful. You just have to figure out which ones are Amazon.com, and which ones are pets.com.

And where are you getting that gas from? How are you dumping it into the sun?

There's no way there's a single "gay gene." If there was, it would be simple to predict just by Mendellian principles. However, it's just as obvious that there's a strong genetic (or at least biological) component. Aside from common sense, the probability of homosexuality is proven to be affected by purely biological factors, as in the study you mention. On the other hand, when you look at the great differences between its prevalence and role between cultures, it seems impossible to deny a social aspect, as well. In some cultures it's almost the opposite of our own - bisexuality is nearly universally practiced, and men who are only attracted to women are considered effeminate. Of course, the whole thing is difficult to study or get straight answers about. There is no test for it, it's highly politicized (which is bizarre, if you think about it), and there are powerful social stigmas that prevent an unknown population from admitting homosexuality. When you say, only 20% of gay men's twins are gay, what you're really saying is only 20% openly identify as gay. How many "really" are, or even whether "gay" is a well-defined category, is open to speculation. Of course, if the issue is homophobia, then in my opinion, it doesn't matter what causes it. Why the hell would I care what consenting adults do with one another, whatever the reason? It's pointless bigotry no matter what.

Well, this thread is a landmine. Religion discussion is actually against the rules on this forum (there used to be a philosophy and religion subforum, but it was shut down for being too hot). I'll just give the standard, politically correct response: Science and religion do not mix, nor is there any reason they should interfere with one another. They are "different questions."

Really? Like multiple times? Is it a simple "who are you and who are you voting for" thing, or are there hypothetical questions and stuff?

Hey, had to share this, and this thread seems appropriate. I was browsing Conservapedia, as I sometimes do out of morbid curiosity, and I came across the Barack Obama article: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=537393 It's gotten pretty awesome lately, and it's not just a few rogue editors - Andrew Schlafly himself is watching the article closely, and reverting all attempts to moderate it.

What do you think are the odds Joe the Plumber runs for Congress in 2010?

I don't think that's feasible. It's too hard to calculate, too easy to cheat. What counts as "work?" Who's keeping track? Many (most?) jobs don't easily convert to hourly wages. Also, the progressive tax rates, in my mind, are less about "fairness" and mroe about pragmatism: who can most easily afford to pay? In that light, what you've got at the end of the year is all that really matters.

Nuclear, despite its shortcomings (not least of which is its dependency on mining stuff out of the ground somewhere), is currently by far our best option for backup electricity production. It will remain so even if wind and solar were made comparably cheap, because of the latter's inherent inconsistency. However, it seems to me that would change if there was an effective way to efficiently "store" electricity for long periods on an enormous scale. Perhaps that, together with upgrading infrastructure to handle much greater load, should be the focus of the "energy Manhattan project" that everyone is talking about.

UPDATE: To mitigate the outrage directed at the National Review, Buckley offered his resignation, and it was accepted. Here's his follow-up post at the Daily Beast: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-14/sorry-dad-i-was-fired Some choice bits:

Which parts of your description were part of project blue book? You said they concluded it was Venus. I'm guessing they didn't also say it was a "gigantic structured craft." So where did that part of it come from? Have you read the report itself?

The trouble with these sorts of sightings is that there's no way to tell what people actually saw, what they thought they saw, what their minds pieced together, etc. All the time you hear these accounts, with demands to explain them. Well, I can't explain them, because I didn't see them, and I'm certainly not going to trust the account of someone who's already decided they're ETs or something, since they're going to make the observation fit the hypothesis. As far as I'm concerned, the stories put together by "ufologists" might as well be completely made up.

Sounds like a nautical flare.

It's traditional for the candidates themselves to (publicly) take the high road, no? Obviously he's not above allowing his campaign to make ugly insinuations, but I have to believe he never intended for quite this level of ugliness that we've recently seen more and more of. At the end of the day I still think John McCain considers himself an honorable man (even if I think he's managed to rationalize quite a few actions to the contrary), and he doesn't want this kind of stuff associated with his legacy or on his conscience. Plus, obviously, its bad for the campaign - if he wants any voters besides the lynch mobs that have been showing up at rallies, he can't be seen as one of them. Unfortunately his running mate doesn't seem to have any such qualms, but actually revels in this stuff.

Alright, sure. I think Klaynos was just being facetious, which is why I dismissed it flippantly, but the "they help with heating" thing is one of the more absurd arguments that for some reason keeps getting brought up. All electrical devices give off some heat, in proportion to their inefficiency. (Electric heaters being the exception, since that's all they're designed to do.) If you're expending energy 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to heat your home (or alternatively, you only use electricity of any kind while also heating your home), you obviously live in an extremely cold climate and a very poorly insulated house, or possibly you're just a tropical lizard of some kind. If that is the case, then energy inefficiency in appliances is merely irrelevant (not "helpful"), and even then only if your other heating methods aren't less expensive than heaters, and your appliances are all positioned where the heat they generate can do the most good. In other words, yes, you are just wasting money and fuel, and inefficiency is still not a good thing, even if sometimes its effects are mitigated by reducing the need for heat sources.

So it's not worth studying? While it's true that Einstein's brain is no more "unique" than anyone else's, he was able to do amazing things with it, that probably fewer than one per million ever could. To suggest an entirely "nurture" explanation is what seems ridiculous to me. And even if that were the case, who's to say that "nurture" didn't physically alter his brain in a detectable way? In any case, he obviously had a very unusual mind in a number of different ways, so it seems like a no-brainer (ahem) to at least look at his physical brain and see if and in what way that is noticeably unusual, as opportunities for studying brains of comparable intellect will obviously be rare.

Which works fine if you already have the heat on all day, every day. Per the actual banning, though, I can't really say I'm entirely comfortable with it, but I can't fundamentally disagree with it. It does seem rather drastic, and I'm kind of dreading the inevitable libertarian backlash, but it will be beneficial overall, it is outlawing a specific thing (rather than mandating a specific thing), and it's not even that unusual. It seems of the same kind as emissions standards for cars. I know, I know: "Who am I to say what's beneficial, bla bla bla." Well, ultimately every law is doing that, no? "It's not hurting anyone but the user, therefore it's invasive." Maybe, but energy usage is closely tied to environmental and national security issues, which makes it quite a bit fuzzier.

Had to bring this up. Christopher Buckley, son of William F. Buckley and columnist at the National Review, is endorsing Obama, essentially because Obama is smarter, more cool-headed, and has run a cleaner campaign than John McCain. He doesn't agree with Obama's overall philosophy, obviously, but he's basically saying that he trusts him not to screw things up too badly, and he doesn't trust McCain. Here's the link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama/ Not the same as if WFB himself were saying it, but still pretty incredible. I guess it's part of an anti-anti-intellectual backlash from the right, with smart conservatives tired of pretending being smart is anti-American. After 8 years of GWB and the very real prospect of President Sarah Palin, I guess it's just too much. As David Brooks said recently, "William F. Buckley famously said he’d rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. But he didn’t believe those were the only two options."

If they're still having a hard time after three years, I'm sure they're very grateful to you for ending their torment.