Sisyphus

It kind of hurts your case when you say something doesn't exist and then describe it in the very next sentence. Some might say that's blindingly obvious.

Isn't that the point, though? If there are such different plausible hypotheses for how life began on Earth, then it is not a big leap to say that life could probably begin under a variety of conditions. Yes, it is definitely speculation, but speculation is all we have to go on at the moment. Informed speculation itself is not unscientific - it is just part of formulating hypotheses, so we have an idea where to look.

"Infinitely divisible" is not the same as "an infinite quantity." You could divide the distance again and again indefinitely, but distance itself is not inherently a divided thing. It's a continuous and finite quantity.

Binary is not an actual language, is it? It's just a way of transmitting a language. Myself, I'm a fan of English, French, German, Greek, and Latin, each with its own unique advantages and charms. And yes, I'm a huge nerd.

Indeed. Wolves are highly social animals. We've just bred them to be less aggressive and see us as social beings, too, instead of predator/prey.

Textbook crank in every way.

Ahhhhh! You're making my hard-SF-loving soul cry. If it's not scientifically plausible, it's not real science fiction. It's fantasy. Fantasy that's set in the future or in space is usually called "science fiction," but it isn't. You are half right with that comment, though. It is always about people, but in different circumstances. What science fiction and fantasy have in common (IMO) is that they are about worlds that operate under different rules than the one we live in, and the consequences therefrom. If those different rules are the result of plausible future events and technologies, it's SF. If those different rules are made up by the author without attempting to conform to (possible) reality, it's fantasy. Each has it's advantages, and each can be "hard" or "soft." ("Hard fantasy" would be a setting where something is different, like the existence of magic, but the world still operates by clearly defined and consistent rules.) The OP, then, is looking for hard SF. Larry Niven has been mentioned, and I recommend him also. He is best known for Ringworld and the Known Space series (that has faster than light travel, but at least it's clearly defined and consistent), but he also has a large body of other work, most of which does NOT have faster than light. The Integral Trees and The Smoke Ring are pure hard SF that plausibly construct just about the most "fantastical" setting imaginable. Just goes to show you that people who think hard SF is too limiting and boring just lack a good imagination...

I think that there is usually quite a big gap between what is called politically (in)correct and what is actually politically (in)correct. When people use the phrase, it is usually either a strawman that nobody actually adheres to (like not being able to sing ba ba black sheep), or just a general pejorative for "liberal" ideas as a whole. There certainly was a real movement that originally bore the label, "political correctness," but it is actually pretty much universally accepted now, even by the critics of the fake excesses of "political correctness." We don't use racial slurs, we say "flight attendant" instead of "stewardess," etc. It was basically a movement to make speech more accurate and generalized in a society with liberal, egalitarian ideals, and it worked, and it's over. As for what actually is literally "politically incorrect," I use the simple definition of things that no politician could say and still get elected. For example it would be politically incorrect to be explicitly racist, or to criticize democracy as a form of government, or to speak ill of any remotely mainstream religion.

I don't know about given protection (it would be wildly unconstitutional to make a law protecting judges from criticism), but I do think that kind of sensationalist hounding is more harmful when directed at judges than at politicians, etc., for the simple reason that the function of the judicial system requires that it be isolated from mob whim and mock outrage so it can safely make decisions that do NOT take into account what the public wants.

Not that I know much about this, but doesn't it seem like the more data is compressed in a physically smaller area, the easier it would become corrupted and destroyed? Or is that not actually a problem?

It depends on who you ask. I think in general, liberals would say the U.S. is more likely to infringe, and conservatives would say European governments are. American Libertarians, of course, would simply deny the existence of Europe entirely.

So you, ostensibly a conservative, find it impossible to make money in a good way? Would you find it less hypocritical if he was making millions of dollars out of investing in technologies that are bad for the environment? Or perhaps your implication is that climate scientists are all in on a huge conspiracy designed to make Al Gore money? Addressing the broader question of this thread, which apparently has to do with the alleged "partisanship" of the Nobel committee: Henry Kissinger. Are we done yet? No? Ok, is it really impossible that a politician or former politician could legitimately deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? Wouldn't that be a rather silly condition, given the nature of the prize? Or perhaps it's simply the fact that it's a Democrat, and simply no positive acknowledgment of Democrats can be computed as anything other than a ploy of some kind? Don't get me wrong, I don't think the committee always makes the best choice. That Arafat got one is a bit ridiculous, for example, or that Ghandi or John Paul II never did. But come on. Must everything be about American politics?

To explain a bit more, the reason for that is because the water weighs more per unit volume (has a higher density) than what is floating in it, so the gravity is pulling on the water more than the object, and the object gets pushed out of the way and up. This is called "positive buoyancy." If you have the exact same density as water, you have "neutral buoyancy," and you don't get pushed either up or down, almost as if you were "weightless," even though you aren't. In fact, human beings have a density very close to water, which is why you can barely float if you fill your lungs with air, and barely sink if you empty them. The expanded lungs increase your volume without increasing your weight much, so your overall density decreases. (A submarine does basically the same thing by filling and emptying tanks of water). Also, this can vary from person to person. Muscle is more dense than fat, so fat people can float with much less effort than thin people. Other facts: Things with positive buoyancy (a boat, for example) will end up floating on the surface, where it displaces (pushes out of the way) exactly as much water as the boat weighs. In other words, the amount of water it would take to fill the "hole in the water" that the boat makes would weigh the same as the boat. Buoyancy works in all mediums, not just water. A helium balloon, for example, still has gravity pulling it down, but it is less dense than the air around it, and so that air pushes it up out of the way, and the balloon floats. If there were no air, the balloon would fall just as fast as a rock.

I'm afraid I'm going to be a little annoying with my answers, but it might help your poll. 23/m 1. It is possible, it's just not practical yet. The question as stated is too broad. The only logical answer is "yes, if certain conditions are met." Obviously I'm going to use it if it's free energy with no downside, and obviously I'm not if costs me $500 to fill my car, makes me hallucinate, and explodes when I bump the curb. If the question just means am I open to the idea and looking forward to it, then my answer is A (yes). 2. B. 3. D. Although "more" could mean a little bit more, or it could mean A LOT more. I would pay probably up to twice as much. 4. B. (Although "problem" might be a better word than "risk," since you're not really in any danger from it, so you could still argue that C is the right answer since it's the only "risk" there.) 5. Trick question? Hydrogen is not a source of energy like the options listed, it is a way of storing energy, like a battery. So you can't compare costs, because you're not buying the same thing. (For the record, I think we need to pursue all of the above except "A," because fossil fuels are running out.) 6. See answer to 5. 7. Everything contributes to pollution, it's just a matter of what kind and how much. They would all be better than fossil fuels. 8. At first it will be very inconvenient, but eventually it will be much more convenient, since it can be produced anywhere. Of course, if you do have to transport it, it's harder to move a pressurized and leaky canister around than a gasoline can. I guess my answer is D?

What you're describing is basically a Marxist-type economic model, except for some reason you're fixated only on intelligence and social skills (sorry, IQ and "EQ") as labor multipliers.

The same old reasons, I guess. The general perception is that there isn't much difference between the available choices, and one person's vote doesn't matter. Most of us go on living our lives in almost exactly the same way no matter who (read, any Democrat or Republican able to win a nomination) is in power, so there is some truth to it. If you want more people to become more interested in politics, I think you need to: 1) Decentralize more issues to be as local as possible, so individuals have more say in their own situation. 2) Take active measures to encourage third parties, so as to counter the entrenchment of the two major power holders. 3) Radically revamp the way elections are held in general. The primary system is broken. The electoral college does more harm than good. And lack of of a system of runoff elections means people usually vote for who they think can win, not who they agree with the most.

I dunno, except for the dutch rat one, those actually sound pretty interesting.

It's certainly a messy system. Really it would make more sense for the parties (either the state or the national party, frankly) to decide when to hold their primaries, not the state governments. (I guess the logistics of such a thing might be difficult, though.) As is, you have yet another crutch for a dominant two party system, not to mention... You don't think that's a reasonable argument? It is clearly in their power and completely to their advantage to deliberately muck things up. Florida Democrats don't get a say in choosing their candidate, and are therefore less committed to him. Any advantage can make the difference in a state like Florida, as we all know all too well. And best of all, it's only the Democrats who end up looking bad!

This from the guy supporting Michael Moore for president? (My this thread is just a paradigm of maturity...)

That seems like a reasonable compromise.

So in other words, "do we tend to overestimate the intelligence and social skills of rich people?" Is there more to the question than that?

This is OT obviously, but I may as well take this opportunity to set the record straight regarding this little pop culture joke. Al Gore never claimed to "invent the internet." The source of the misunderstanding is this quote: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." It could be misunderstood if taken out of context (or if you deliberately were trying to caricature him), but in fact it's pretty much accurate. From wikipedia: In response to this controversy, Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn wrote a September 29, 2000 article (originally sent via email) which described Gore's contributions to the Internet since the 1970s, including his work on the Gore Bill: "As the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time. Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective. As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept."

Weird. I suppose it depends on the wording of the original charter for the prize. Which I'm too lazy to look up... Oh, and there's no way in hell he would run for president in 2008 because of this or for any other reason, excepting perhaps an explosion killing all the declared Democratic candidates at once.

What I think you're asking is how do you place a point such that it lies on a preexisting plane. And the answer is that you place it such that it's x, y, and z coordinates satisfy the equation for that plane. The equation for any plane can be written in the form ax + by + cz = d, where a, b, c, and d are constants. I think perhaps the source of confusion is that you're thinking that three points somehow are the plane, or "make up" the plane. This is incorrect. It is true that "three points define a plane" (at least, three points that are not all in a line), but what is meant when we say that is only that only one plane can pass through all of those points. There are an infinite number of points on any plane, however, and any three of them could just as well define that exact same plane.

I'm not sure I understand. It sounds like you're just describing physics?