Sisyphus

Why do you find it not possibly correct? (If you can say why non-tautologically, I'll give you a cookie.)

A few reasons, in order of how common they are: 1) Bigotry. 2) The belief that the United States (or whatever country you're in) should be a Christian nation, combined with the belief that homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity, and therefore such a union cannot be recognized by the state. 3) Pandering to those for whom reasons 1 and 2 apply. 4) The belief that marriage should have nothing to do with the law, hence expanding the number of legally married couples (even in the name of making it more fair) is a step backwards.

Yes, you can choose in a lot of circumstances, and a lot you can't, like most emergency situations. Of course, I don't think there are any countries with socialized medicine where you have to go to a particular hospital, doctor, etc. So in that sense, you actually have just as much competition in those countries, just based purely on quality of care and not cost.

I just don't understand why he would ever expect a positive response to the original question. Is it really nothing more than a hilariously clumsy excuse to brag about being in advanced classes? I was a media-dubbed "child prodigy." Do I win?

We don't? Surely those things are an objective reality, no? Aha! Now that's a more reasonable assertion, but not quite what you were saying earlier, I don't think. You said it wouldn't be an improvement over our current system. But that's just it. You're not going to have competition there, no matter what. If you have an emergency medical situation, you're not going to shop around, you're going to the nearest emergency room. Essentially, every hospital has its own monopoly, which is why I don't think a freer market (whatever that would entail) is a good idea. Because whatever bad you have to say about a government monopoly (which is, after all, accountable to the people), a private monopoly is so much worse. Especially a safe monopoly for a necessary service. BTW, I'll take your 30 minute razor teddy wait anecdote and counter it with what happened to my father 3 months ago: severe hand injury from a table saw, followed by a 4 hour wait in the emergency room applying pressure with a blood-soaked towel, followed by a $12000 bill in the mail, followed by a lengthy legal dispute with the health insurance company, followed by a check from said company for $8000.

Maybe if Hitler had had maps he would have realized how big and cold Russia is. ...

What on Earth is the point of this thread?

They exist. I've seen four-seater contraptions where everybody pedals on the boardwalk in Atlantic city (they were ridiculous), and pedaled rickshaws (basically, a bicycle attached to a rickshaw) are all over Manhatten, especially Central Park. You're not going to see them in the same context as cars, because you have a couple orders of magnitude less power available. Basically, you're talking about a slower, more cumbersome bicycle. How about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_roadster

Soy milk?

Among my favorites: Francis Bacon Michael Faraday Charles Darwin Albert Einstein Niels Bohr Richard Feynman Carl Sagan That's just off the top of my head, so apologies to whoever I'm forgetting.

It is, however, very unusual and somewhat counterintuitive for a substance to do this. Water is one of the only substances to expand as it freezes. This happens because its most common crystal structure has a lot of empty space in it.

Just a minor point. If we absorbed all light (i.e., were a blackbody), we would still give off some light. Even now we emit radiation, almost all of it in the infrared, but a tiny amount in the visible spectrum as well.

This thread is pretty spirited for being about a funny internet meme.

I like YT's warning better.

Hmm. What kind of zig zags? Like right angle turns without slowing down?

No, not in the same way, actually. I mean inefficient literally, in that you put in much more energy than you get out. It's a fundamental problem. The best you could do would be with directed beams (i.e., lasers), but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about.

So you don't think governments should have the ability to fight wars?

I guess also don't have it pointing at anything you don't want to maim when the power is connected.

If the O2 concentration were a lot higher, it would. But also remember it's not the oxygen that's burning, it's the fuel.

I agree for the most part, but I'm curious about this distinction. Are "persuade" and "force" two different methods, in your eyes? I mean, these are elected officials entering us into these wars, after all. You could make the argument that by electing them we've demonstrated that we are persuaded. Or did you mean something different?

It's also ridiculously inefficient.

The process of burning is chemically bonding with oxygen in a rapid, self-sustaining reaction. The flame itself is the region where much of the reaction takes place between vaporized particles of the burning substance and airborne oxygen, which gives off enough energy to release photons in the visible spectrum.

So you guys really don't think "fakeman123" is a troll?

It is easy to understand why people pretend to be female on the internet. Chivalrous nerds will stand up for you no matter how unreasonable you're being. Kind makes you resent how much easier attractive women have it in real life...