Sisyphus

That's not really a simulation, though, is it? Do you live in the Matrix?

One of the persistent claims of fiscal conservatives is that so-called "progressive" policies like graduated income tax, welfare, or social security are unfair and harmful to the economy by punishing economic success and rewarding failure. Like most broad, provocative generalizations in politics, this claim is (by my statistical analysis) about 80% bullshit. If it were actually true, nobody would try to become rich, because it would be more advantageous to be poor. Obviously we don't have that problem, nor would we even if we managed to cut off "corporate welfare" or close all the various loopholes those with a lot of money can take advantage of to pay far less than you might expect. The profit motive is very much alive and well and not going anywhere. Still, there is that 20%. As a general rule, it's always better to make more money, but there are exceptions, as anyone who just barely qualified for a higher tax bracket can testify. Another example: in New York State, there is a program offering relatively cheap (~$250/mo) health insurance to any full-time (at least 40hrs/week) employee earning less than $25 thousand per year. If you make $25,001 per year, you get nothing. Most of us have had experience with similar scenarios (with income taxes if nothing else), because they are everywhere in government. It's these cut-offs that, in specific cases, offer strong and clear incentives to deliberately earn less money. I don't see how that sort of thing could fail to hurt the economy, albeit in a probably impossible to quantify way. So what can be done about it? The most obvious answer would be to do away with all these programs entirely, but that's a drastic solution which would almost certainly do more harm than good, and I'm not terribly interested in pursuing it. We can argue back and forth all day the "fairness" of graduated income tax, but at the end of that day the fact that we need that revenue won't have changed. What I'll throw out there is actually much simpler: smooth out the cutoffs. Instead of discontinuous income brackets, use a continuous function. The percentage you pay could still be dependent on income, but there would never be a point at which making more money would result in keeping less money. Yes, it might make figuring things out a bit more complicated, but the again, maybe not. We live in the digital age, no? Would plugging in one variable really be harder than a fixed percentage flat tax, which is among the more drastic proposed "simplification" measures?

What?

I defended Clinton in that thread. I didn't vote for her (or anyone) here, though, because I'm still undecided. If you're wondering why the supporters didn't speak up, I'd guess it's because they didn't feel like being yelled at/not listened to.

It doesn't have to have the same density as water, but it does have to have a density less than or equal to water. If it's more dense, it just sits on the bottom.

I would say that's extremely open-ended. "Is every institution inherently racist?" How could that possibly be so? Also (just so we have something to talk about), "diversity" doesn't, in most cases, mean "everybody except whites." It means diversity. The academic communities that favor affirmative action do so because, in theory, a student body with a broad spectrum of life experiences and perspectives creates a richer intellectual environment. It's not about favoring or punishing specific groups (although it does work out that way in practice), it's pushing students out of their own familiar and isolated sections of society, to everyone's benefit. That doesn't mean it's fair (it isn't), that it's the best way of achieving that goal (it isn't), or that it should continue (it shouldn't). But the fact is that it does work.

A mathematician with intro to physics homework?

No, you're missing the point. You can assign it to mean something clearly defined, but that won't be what everyone else means when they say "human," because that thing is not clearly defined. We mean "of the human species," but species is an inherently fuzzy grouping. What on Earth is your point?

That's a rule of thumb, but in reality it's quite a bit fuzzier than that. You have ring species, for example, where two populations that can both interbreed with a third cannot interbreed with one another. Or two quite different "species" which can interbreed. Or any number of other obstacles to making clearly defined categories - obstacles which are exactly what you would expect considering the origins of said species. (And which, interestingly enough, are discussed eloquently and at some length in The Origin of Species. Good read.) These problems will only get worse with time, too. Genetic manipulation, prosthetics, AI, etc., all can potentially blur what it means to be human. Of course, we still talk about species, and we don't usually get in to trouble, just out of common understanding. I'm human. You're human. It's just when we try to figure out the limits of something like "human" that we fail. It's not because we don't know the answer, it's because there is no answer. No, not any word. Most scientific terms are, indeed, defined by "an absolute set of parameters which unchangingly describe" them. "Rhombus." "Force." "Electron."

Pssst. Think about what "average" means.

This might be tangential, but isn't "people spend less" another way of saying "recession?" Frugality is one of those things which is good for the individual but bad for the economy as a whole. Just a thought, that may or may not be relevant.

AFAIK, the short answer is "no." That's why you can't hit a photon with a photon. However, the wave function does mean there is a finite (though not rigidly bounded) region where the wave's magnitude is non-negligible. So in a certain sense it does have a volume, but not in the way we're used to thinking about it.

So how do y'all feel about property taxes?

My degrees are in philosophy and the history of science and mathematics, with minors in classics and physics - in other words the sorts of things that people say they would do "if they had the time" already. So maybe I'd try something soul-crushingly practical, like economics.

There's always Harry Potter conventions.

Yes, obviously he's hedging his bets, but it's just that it's so extreme. I'm not surprised that he would do so (my opinion of Robertson as a ridiculous and amoral con man hasn't changed) but I am surprised he's willing to do so publicly. I guess it's related to Rudy's ascension as a whole, which I don't think could ever have happened even a few years ago. In the past few years it's been Democrats who have picked candidates specifically to appeal to conservative-leaning independents: "tough," church-going Southerners, mostly. Now the roles are reversed and the Republican party is in such trouble that many are desperately seeking out anyone they think can win, even if it means compromising much of what they stand for. Hence Rudy, who is not even really a Republican but a "New York Republican," is courted because he's viewed as a "Hillary slayer." Weird times... EDIT: Just a note, Rudy really is quite conservative in several areas. He's among the most hawkish candidates in foreign policy, for example. And as mayor of New York he was quite authoritarian in weird areas. He tried to shut down several art exhibits he deemed offensive, and was quite harsh on crime. He also had a "war on the homeless." No, not homelessness. Also, it should be noted also that he has already run against Hillary Clinton, for the Senate. He dropped out of the race, however, due to health concerns. (I guess he's not worried about his health anymore.)

Ha.

Pat Robertson, televangelist and southern baptist who proclaimed 9/11 God's punishment for tolerance of gays and abortion, has given his official endorsement to Rudy Giuliani: non-practicing Catholic, thrice-divorced, conspicuously Italian-American, New Yorker, supporter of gay marriage, abortion rights, and harsh gun-control laws. Thoughts?

So... no?

Who's the "we" that (supposedly) stopped those things? The overreaching feds? Various assassins?

Do you have a reason for thinking so? Surely each of those desires can be explained by means of efficient cause alone. That they have in common a desire for more control over one's environment is not a coincidence, most instinctive desires guided by rational thought take that form. Why would you ever suppose there to be some ultimate state of satisfaction?

But rape is a pre-established as a crime with definite consequences. That's quite a bit different from anyone being able to sue anyone else for emotional damages whenever they get offended by anything. "Being mean" is not a crime.

For example, if you shine a laser at a mirror one light year away, it will take two years to get back to us. Two of our years, that is - no time will have passed for the light itself.

It's not really surprising. Ron Paul is a shoo in for President of the Internet (replacing Howard Dean, who is not seeking reelection). In an actual election though, his wacky stubbornness would scare away most voters.

I don't really buy the distinction being promoted by some here between something not being allowed and something being allowed, but "you're responsible for the consequences," when those "consequences" include legal judgments against you. I mean, really? "You're allowed to commit murder, but you're responsible for the consequences." More to the point, I agree that of course, your rights end where mine begin, and that includes free speech. I just don't think the mourners rights were being infringed upon here. You don't have a right not to be made upset by anyone. You DO have a right to free speech. The exceptions being when the speech causes immediate danger, like shouting "fire" in a theater. Is there such a danger here? I don't think so. I think "harm" is being defined far too broadly when it includes "very offensive." Free speech is at its most important to protect WHEN it's very offensive, especially political speech that the majority finds abhorrent. That is literally the reason we HAVE free speech.