Sisyphus

Yes, when I say "eventually" we'll need it that's what I had in mind. Eventually it will be quite economical, and well worth practically any investment. It won't be 20 years from now, but it might be 100, and by then we should be good at it.

Hehe, your question is a bit ambiguous. If you're comparing it to before you drop the icecube in, then it increases, of course. If, to take it completely literally, you're asking what happens AFTER it melts, then the answer is nothing.

Actually, I've never listened to Air America. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was basically the same situation, though. I also wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.

I really think you're wrong about manned space flight. People WILL get excited about it if it actually happens, but I think the public is just really disillusioned and cynical about it right now. The 1950s and 60s were a really exciting time as big milestones were conquered right after the other, and it all culminated in walking on the moon, for God's sake. It WAS a giant leap for mankind, and probably one of the most optimistic moments in history. Not even the sky was the limit anymore! ...and then it stopped. The last 30 years have managed to make spaceflight boring. Before it was ever upward, now it's just shuttles endlessly going into orbit doing unromantic things like fixing communications satellites and agonizingly slowly building the world's most expensive bus station. Whoopee. I think we need that optimism and excitement again, and we DO need to have manned exploration eventually, so we may as well get good at it as soon as we can.

You don't get 20 million listeners that way? Says who? You see specials on TV all the time about UFOs and haunted houses and the Loch Ness Monster with conspiracy wackos on as "experts" and it's all completely deadpan. How do they get away with that? Well, it's not "journalism," it's a documentary, and it's not against the law to say ridiculous bullshit. Why do they do it? Because it brings in the ratings. Now go to something like talk radio and Rush Limbaugh. He's not a "journalist" either, and nobody is holding him accountable to tell the truth. His accountability is in continuing to bring in the listeners, not to stick to factual accuracy. If he says things all the time that are factually not true, and the ratings are still soaring despite it constantly being pointed out by third parties, why would he get fired? He wouldn't. And rest assured, they ARE wrong. I don't listen to Rush very often. Maybe once or twice a month coming to or from work. And then not for very long. (I can't really take him for more than 20 minutes or so.) But even in that time I hear the same old stuff which is JUST NOT TRUE. That stupid thing about volcanoes and CO2 that he single-handedly turned into an urban legend. That thing about the ice caps melting. Etc. No, not everything is lies, but he sure does slip them in there pretty often, and it's very often the thing which is not true that's the most convincing support for his argument. "Statistics" in particular are really amusing this way: I'm 100% certain he usually just makes them up on the spur of the moment. But then you might ask, why would his ratings stay that high if he's always staying stuff that is just plain wrong? Well, like you say, he explains what his position is very well (even if he often supports that position with utter bullshit) and in an entertaining way, and can articulate what a lot of people agree with but can't articulate. And so people like that and listen in. And those people aren't especially bothered by falsehoods for the most part because they believe them, and they believe them because the people who point them out are dismissed as propagandists for those devil -fiends, the liberals. They're just "biased websites" and the like. (Anyone who looks into the matter discovers his B.S., thereby becoming "anti-Rush" and not trustworthy!) And after all, if he said things that weren't true all the time, surely he wouldn't be on the air so long and have so many listeners.... right? Yet the same people who rationalize on those grounds have no problem believing that 80% of the things out of Hillary Clinton's mouth are lies, and that's how she gets all her support.... [/rant]

OTHER The best short answer I can give for where I am right now is that I'm a theological noncognitivist. That sort of makes me an atheist, but I don't describe myself that way, because the statement "I don't believe in God" would not be strictly true, because I don't think "God" is a meaningful term when used generally or in an abstract theological sense. Other definitions might give different answers: God of the Bible and/or Quran as He is literally depicted: strong atheist. God as an omnipotent creator being: noncognitivist. "God-like" sentient "ruler" beings, somewhere: weak agnostic. "God" as an abstract, non-personal, non-conscious order and coherence to the universe: theist, but lacking complete faith.

Ha. That would be an interesting campaign finance law. Can't spend more than $400,000?

We're physically more sensitive to green (i.e., we can see it the easiest), but psychologically more sensitive to red (i.e., it gets our attention more). Something red (blood, fruit, etc.) is more likely to be worthy of our immediate attention. The reason for green sensitivity, I'm guessing, is just because it's right in the middle of the visible spectrum, while red and purple are at the extremes?

I don't know if declaring war on Al Qaeda really makes sense. The idea behind declarations of war is to establish formal legal status in both parties, with the goal of certain treaties and conventions being in effect, most obviously the legal means to end the war through mutually recognized treaty. A declaration of war against a non-legislative entity would be an empty gesture, I think. Even if the organizational structure of Al Qaeda allowed such a thing (and I have no idea if it does), I very much doubt either "party" would welcome those kinds of constraints.

Obviously, the short answer is "depends." Different offices and different points in history require different sorts of leaders. I acknowledge that. But I'm speaking generally, and am talking not so much about personalities as resumes. For example, the most obvious path would be from lawyer to politician: the formal study of law is the most obvious training for a lawmaker. A competent lawyer understands how the law works and why it works that way, and must be adept at quickly learning about diverse and unexpected subjects, must know how to see issues from multiple angles (well enough to argue either side of an issue), and, of course, must know how to convince people. These are all both a)good qualities for a leader, and b)useful skills in running for office, which is reflected in the large proportion of officeholders with law degrees. Of course, in practice these skills can be used for evil as well as good. Also, most people don't particularly like lawyers. (One amusing statistic: Five U.S. Presidents have had law degrees. Six U.S. Presidents were law school dropouts.) The next-most often cited qualification is military service. Presumably it demonstrates patriotism, courage, and willingness to sacrifice. The patriotism in particular makes one's stated intentions, that one is running for office for the good of one's country, more credible and less likely to be simple ambition. Actually serving is also perceived to instill honor, discipline, and maturity. Holding high rank demonstrates ability to lead large organizations, as well as the intelligence and dedication needed to achieve that rank. And, if the office involves possibly controlling military matters, experience in that area is an obvious advantage. Even serving in low ranks, though it might not be useful experience for, say, a Commander in Chief, still has the benefit of making commands more credible: I would be more willing to follow orders of someone who had been in my position and endured the same dangers and hardships. Of course, none of this is necessarily the case. John Kerry is widely suspected of serving in the military as part of his political plans (you know, to be like JFK). George Bush seems to have served in his position (in the National Guard, flying a plane with no plans to be used in Vietnam) specifically to avoid combat service. Running an army is not necessarily much like running a country or serving in a legislature. Nonetheless, a whopping 28 U.S. Presidents have served in one capacity or another, and it has always been valued highly by the electorate. That's all I have for now, but I have some other things vaguely in mind. Business enterprises? Academia? Medicine?

Yet you ask on a forum in which anyone can answer.

Bucky waves, you mean.

The uncertainty is the result of both theoretical (the mathematics of the wave function itself) and practical (lack of an adequate "device," like you say) considerations, though either would be sufficient. The practical consideration, of course, is that anything you use to measure is going to have the same uncertainty as the thing you're measuring, as would anything you use to measure that, etc., to an infinite regression.

You sure do know a lot about science!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia Check out the number of footnotes! And that's just a short, mostly amateur-written article. I don't see how you can possibly believe these things aren't objects of study. Just because some idiot Congressmen make uninformed blanket statements doesn't mean said idiots speak for everyone, and it certainly doesn't mean the science stops. As for your "refutation" of lucaspa's flat Earth example, his point was not that "everything is known" about a particular subject but that some things are known. For example, it is known that the Earth is not flat. ...Agreed?

I speak French quite well. I also have adequate (but shaky) knowledge of Latin and Greek.

He means "able to win political office."

I would say that states are even defined on a scale of even 100 atoms. If they're bonded in such a way as to be in fixed positions relative to one another, that's solid. If they're bonded such that they're all one mass, but freely circulate, that's liquid. If they're not bonded all and move independently except for random collisions, that's a gas.

So it would be a "war" in the same sense as the war on drugs, or how we're at war with AIDS or something. Fine. But is there not perhaps an important distinction to be made between that and, you know, an actual war?

Um, so what would convince you then...?

Yes, that does happen. I don't smoke, but several of my friends do, and they definitely need to smoke more and more just to feel normal. It's not a smooth curve (nobody will ever need 20 packs a day to feel normal, no matter how long they've smoked), but it absolutely happens.

Who are we fighting? What are the parties between which the conflict of arms is taking place?

Well, if you spend the same amount, and cut your administrative costs in half, doesn't that mean you spend more on actual medicine, and people get better care? Also, it means that people can actually afford to get treatment either at all or before it becomes desperate, and every study ever shows that prevention is infinitely better and cheaper than cure, meaning people are healthier and we all save money. Hell, I have health insurance, but it's crappy (like most people's), and I'm screwed if I don't get hurt or sick within the acceptable parameters, bla bla bla. Of COURSE it's about people. It's MOSTLY about people. But it also happens to make great sense economically, which is how we talk to Republicans about it.

It's hard to imagine Hillary as a VP candidate. On the other hand, there's Chris Rock's "we'll never have a black vice president" sketch, so I don't know...

Nobody's saying there's no such thing as terrorism. They (specifically Edwards) are saying it's not a "war," and calling it such is cynical rhetoric. As in, so leaders can demands certain things in "wartime" as an appeal to patriotism, except this particular "war" has no victory condition, no particular enemy, etc.