Sisyphus

The definition in your book is correct. I'm here now, and an hour ago I was 50 miles away. By necessity, my average velocity during that hour was 50mph. I'm not quite sure what the source of you confusion is. What "particular moment" are you talking about?

How is a hive of bees smarter than a human? Yes, traditionally it's mice, then dolphins, then humans. But mice aren't native to Earth, and if we're going to include extraterrestrials, the question becomes almost impossible. Also, since the Earth itself is actually Deep Thought II, the most advanced computer ever created, isn't that rather the obvious answer? Or does that not count as an "animal?"

And plenty in support: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/pdf/litreviewfirearmdeaths.pdf

This kind of hypothetical is always hard to judge, and its made an order of magnitude harder by the idealogical agendas coming into play from various directions. The way it seems to me is that the most vocal parties in the "gun debate" tend to be the least reasonable, and the least prepared to deal with the actual consequences of whatever they're suggesting. For what it's worth, it seems to me that something like the VT massacre would have been less likely to happen, and less severe when it did happen, if civilians carrying guns was common. Inferior numbers (one psycho vs. dozens) can't succeed without superior firepower (guns vs. hands). On the other hand, it seems equally apparent that, if carrying guns was common, there would be a much higher rate of shootings in general. (Just look at the U.S. vs. other nations.) Yet the "blind spots of partisanship" so often cloud one obvious conclusion or the other. So I'm glad we're not seeing a big resurgence in this debate, because it's an annoying one. Maybe the stupidly passionate version of this debate was an anomaly of only a few decades, and is on the road to more realistic pragmatism. Who knows.

So you're asserting that Reid doesn't believe the war is lost?

This website gives a pretty good account: http://www.snopes.com/medical/myths/visine.asp It seems it is toxic and almost tasteless. So I guess technically it's true. It's clearly not very potent as a poison, though, and you'd have to consume a whole lot of it to actually kill a healthy person, and even then it will take a long time. Nothing like, for example, cyanide.

I suppose that would depend on what they were dying for...

Heh. Equating saying that things are not going well with treason is a little too Cultural Revolution for my taste. Poor Rush - what would he do if he found out he was a Communist?

I think we can all agree on that, yes.

You're on, sir! I love a silly argument. "Intuition?" Like, street smarts? Surely a doctor's instincts are derived from knowledge and experience of what is essentially a specialized (only humans), practical (keep 'em runnin') biology. That it becomes automatic doesn't make it less so. Perhaps you're right. Not every branch of biology is intimately connected with chemisty. But fundamental biology, I think, could fairly be described as a highly specialized branch of chemisty. What else is chemistry but atomic physics? It seems like if you want to get very far in chemistry or have any idea what you're actually doing, you're going to have to talk about how molecules interact. It's not just "some" calculations. All the "big" stuff in physics, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Heisenberg, required using advanced mathematics in ways that hadn't previously been applied to material existence, in ways that go beyond and even contradict physical intuitions. The critics of String Theory say this even goes too far, that it's all mathematics, no experiment or "reasonable" intuition. Bone dry does not mean philosophically unimportant. Believe me. I did probably state it too strongly, though. Some revolutionaries seem unaware of the philosophical significance of their work. Many do seem aware. Agreed!

They prevent you from rusting. Also useful as flame-retardants.

But the dilation/contraction is reciprocal. Doesn't that preclude that explanation?

That's not quite what it was, though. Al Qaeda wasn't justing hiding in Afghanistan, it was being actively supported by the Taliban, which I think changes things. An analogy to WW2 is actually somewhat apt: the United States declared war on Germany upon being attacked by Japan. It's true the analogy isn't perfect since Al Qaeda isn't a country, but it is more justifiable than the circumstances you are presenting. It wasn't about horrible leadership. (It was horrible, as horrible as any state at the time, but you're absolutely right in asking where to draw the line.) It was about that country actively (if indirectly) supporting violence against civilians in our and our allies' countries.

Were you, by any chance, on drugs when writing this post?

It should also be noted that several existing laws were broken, so legislation would be somewhat irrelevant. This is different from something like Columbine, where legal loopholes were exploited.

I wonder if they could get more support for Iraq if they called it "peacekeeping," which actually might be closer to the truth than "war." Of course, it's probably far too late for that, since they've been pushing it as a war that can be won or lost for too long, and they would look stupid completely changing everything now. EDIT: Actually, the more I think about it, the more I realize that wouldn't work. If it's a "war," then leaving is "surrendering" and we've "lost," which would be unbearable for the testosterone crowd. There's no such urgency with "peacekeeping." Also, with peacekeeping, you kind of have to admit there's at least something like a civil war, which they've been furiously denying. But even if you did, you'd have to admit basically taking sides...

Every good doctor is also a biologist. Every good biologist is also a chemist. Every good chemist is also a physicist. Every good physicist is also a mathematician. Every revolutionary scientist is also a revolutionary philosopher. (These are fairly tongue-in-cheek, so don't jump down my throat. Thanks.)

If you come up with more energy output than input, it means you've made a math mistake or just not taken something into account. Also, you should be far more skeptical of "science" presented by UFO enthusiasts. Your initial idea for using tides to generate electricity would work, but it's quite similar to existing methods, and there are more efficient ways. However, tidal power does show tremendous promise as a clean, renewable energy source, so it's good to have as many ideas floating around (pun intended) as we can. Keep up your tinkering!

Ditto, actually. It's not so much the "theory." I mean, it's obviously wrong when you think about it, but it does make a certain intuitive sense, and it could be instructive to explain its flaws. It's the "anyone with a brain, some logic, and a open mind knows this must be the case" part that just makes me want to go back to bed. That it was then followed by aggressive conspiracy theories makes me glad I was initially rude.

Magically generating huge amounts of mass from nowhere is generally frowned upon. If that's not a good enough reason to disregard it, I can give you a dozen others.

Your point, as I gather, was that not everything can be based on automatic archetypes, that there's no such thing as a position exclusive to "liberals" or "conservatives," that it's possible to advocate the same thing for vastly different reasons. Also, that partisanship obscures all that, putting everybody into de facto camps and destroying rational debate. ...I agree!

Ok, maybe you didn't read the last paragraph?

Exactly, there is unlikely to be any real evidence. Which is why I think it's kind of silly to preface your uninformed speculation with "you cannot tell me - common sense tells you," etc. And you're right, those movies paint a much more realistic (I assume, never been in combat myself...) picture. But even that can be looked at from the opposite perspective, desensitizing through realism. You're right about "honoring the sacrifices made" being the intended focus, in that as well as the ubiquitous "supporting the troops" stuff. But then, it's quite common not to particularly understand the distinction between that and glorifying war -certainly we've all witnessed that. Or, instead of directly glorifying the violence, what's glorified is the cause that justifies violence, which amounts to the same thing if you think you're being righteous, with this guy most definitely did, what with comparing himself to Christ and all. Anyway, what I'm saying is not that I believe all that, necessarily. I really don't know. My point is that it's possible to make lots of plausible arguments saying opposite things, and nobody can say who is right and who is wrong, so we should cut the self-assured, self-righteous crap and listen to one another.

I have read a good deal of Karl Marx, actually. I thought it was quite beautiful, and that he said a lot of true and insightful things about human beings, and really captured the bad sides of capitalism quite well. I also noticed that "Communism" in Marx's conception A) doesn't resemble any form of "Communism" which has actually existed since then, and B) was a prediction, not a suggestion.

Plus, they'll have to change their license plates, which would be a terrible shame. Do you have a link or something?