Sisyphus

That's exactly my position, as well. I don't really have anything to add, it's just that I don't get to say that very often.

The same way all those big ancient structures were built, I'd imagine. Rolled very slowly over the biggest logs you can find, acting as conveyor belt. Roman architects were extremely ingenious and had unlimited budgets for this sort of thing.

Everyone knows that Jesse Jackson is the Emperor of Black People. You know, I haven't heard the context of either of these things. Is it possible Imus was just making a "jocks are coddled" comment gone awry and not a... who knows what about black people comment?

One advantage of an internal combustion engine that occurs to me is the easy transfer of the fuel. I don't know how long it takes to charge the batteries, but I'm guessing it's quite a bit longer than filling a tank of gas. So it wouldn't be all that practical for long road trips, for example. Also, how long would that battery last before it needed to be replaced? (I'm really reaching for cons, here. The pros are obviously huge.)

What competing resource? And, incidentally, with regard to those errors, you must remember that it is perpetually a work in progress. There will be errors. And there is nothing to stop anyone from making it worse, intentionally or not. But there is a steady trend towards progress, because the positive forces far outnumber the negative. Experts contribute, consensus is built, stable versions emerge. Errors are usually reverted quickly, and corrections almost never revert. When they do, it can be worked out in discussion. It's basically impossible to build and maintain a consensus about something which is false.

No mind is infallible. Hence, there is always danger, even in arithmetic, of wrong conclusions. (You said "I hope" as a joke, but that is indeed what is required.) Does that mean that "knowledge" of any sort is impossible? Perhaps. But that does not mean that all uncertainty is equal, and there is no need to define "knowledge" so strictly. A threshold of uncertainty must be permissible if there is to be any progress (or indeed any rational thought) whatsoever. With that in mind, science is by far the best tool we have for lowering that level of uncertainty, and of exposing just where that uncertainty lies and how deep it goes. Many of its conclusions have more than enough certainty to qualify for any reasonable threshold for "knowledge," and, for those that do not, that is acknowledged as part of the scientific process itself.

Should they go where? Seriously, though, you're talking about two people I've always considered annoying jackasses. Apparently they both said thoughtless things recently that, for some reason, people have chosen to get especially upset about. I can't imagine where people find the energy. That goes for any stupid faux pas of famous but powerless people. Who cares? It would matter if the President was racist, but some talk radio guy? Or like Anne Coulter. At regular intervals she says something intentionally outrageous so people will demand apologies and she can cast herself as martyr to "the PC police" or whatever. What most of her critics don't realize is that her entire career is built on being outrageous and ridiculous to get attention and to provoke people into overreacting. Ignore her and she'll go away.

I still haven't heard what you think should be done, ecoli. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Do you think the UK should have declared war on Iran? What would not be "appeasement?" Actually, that goes for all of you complaining about looking "weak." What's the plan, guys?

Does that mean shorter than they would otherwise, or shorter than incandescents? (Yes, I've bought CFs for years, and have yet to change one).

Everything depends on the methods they use. There's nothing wrong with sending emails (even if it is kind of dishonest). Any method they use that would actually be effective, however, is probably illegal. It's not a "free speech" issue, though. The government has nothing to do with it.

Just weigh the pros and cons: PROS: *minor reduction in weight for aircraft CONS: *hideously expensive upgrades to all airports, everywhere *aircraft that can't land anywhere without said upgrade *one more major thing which can (and must not) go wrong in takeoffs and landings I don't think it's worth it.

I was looking at the Tesla Roadster. It seems too good to be true. Is it?

Everything, everything we willingly do, we do only for some sort of personal pleasure. That's what pleasure is. Only once we recognize this can we start talking seriously and realistically about morality. How "selfish" someone is has nothing to do with how much they're doing things for their own benefit - everybody works entirely for their own benefit 100% of the time. What it DOES have to do with is how that person perceives that benefit - happiness derived from compassion or obligation to society or satisfaction from "doing the right thing" is less "selfish" than that from other sources, like sensual pleasures, material wealth, personal recognition, or assurance of divine reward.

People don't drink alcohol because it tastes nice, either. Well, they do, but that's hardly the only reason. If it were, non-alcoholic beer would dominate the industry.

...Hollywood?

Mars will belong to the Martians. And the Martians will be the permanent colonists and their descendants. Those colonists undoubtably will all have to pull their weight in the whole process. I don't foresee any chimps being remotely capable of that...

Here's a thought: "Are jobs a right?" and "Is it a good idea for our society/governments to provide a job for anyone willing to work?" are two different questions. IMO, the answer to the first is obviously no. The answer to the second seems to be "depends on the circumstances." Refusing to separate the two questions is the act of a demagogue, no matter which point he's trying to make: "It's a right because we need work!" "Those pinkos think they're entitled to my hard-earned money!" That's a good question, though hardly a new one. The trend towards automation is as old as civilization, and there have always been people whose jobs became obsolete because of it. For the past 150 years or so, there have been those who predicted an "age of joblessness" or (for optimists) an "age of leisure" within a few generations. Science fiction from the mid-20th century is particularly full of this. Even Star Trek is an example: automation makes basic necessities so inexpensive that it's a merely trivial burden to support as many "unemployed" members of society as necessary, and no one HAS to work. I honestly believe that's entirely plausible, though whether it's desirable is a much more complicated question....

It's a funny idea, but I find it hard to believe it would be effective. Obviously, I defer to practical studies. I know this seems Big Brotherish, but I don't really find it that scary. It's just like having more policemen. It's not the number of eyes that takes away liberty, it's what they're watching for. In other words, don't worry about law enforcement, worry about the laws they're enforcing. Like "verbal morality statutes."

A "right," in anglican legal systems, is something which the government can't make a law against. I don't really see what that has to do with jobs.

Yeah, it's not a right. Certainly not an inalienable one. (If it were, those laws wouldn't exist.) What we're debating is whether it should be a right.

The nation of Iran has a 30 year history of violence and oppression and little else. The culture of Iran is one of the most ancient and important of any civilization in the world. What's so hard about that?

It's not an explosion, and it's not "rushing outwards" from anywhere. The universe doesn't have a center. It's space itself that is expanding.

No, the Earth is not moving at 250,000m/s, because there is no such thing as absolute motion or absolute rest. There is only relative velocity, because there are no privileged reference frames. Because of this, the speed of light is constant in every reference frame. The same beam will appear to be "carrying the momentum" of whoever is observing it. Obviously, then, two observers in two different reference frames of the same event will disagree considerably about what is happening...

I don't understand why it being genetically the same is any different or better than a genetically different one. But I guess people can be weird and crazy about stuff like that.

Well yeah, hopefully those nations that could possibly go it alone will seek assistance from as many other nations as possible, anyway. But that really depends on who is in charge when that happens.