Sisyphus

Well, first of all, so what? What right do you or even the majority have to prevent me from hurting myself, if I'm not hurting or endangering anyone else in the process? And second of all, it IS possible to use most drugs without inherently abusing them, despite the fact that yes, they are going to alter your state of mind. Just like with alcohol. Unless you're going to tell me that any alcohol consumption whatsoever is inherently irresponsible and abusive and should be outlawed?

Why do you think they are? Compared to the US, sure, but to be fair, it is 1/5 the size. Compared with any other country in the world, I'd say they look pretty strong. We in the US have grown so used to superpower status that it's easy to forget how remarkable and unprecedented that status is. Most nations just don't have those sorts of options. You don't, for example, see Iran debating whether to send their special forces raiding American missle silos in Nebraska.

Homework problems should be identified as such. This looks suspicious. I think I speak for most regulars when I say we like to help, but not if we think we're being lied to. If it's not homework, I apologize, and agree with Klaynos that the question can't be answered without knowing the date.

The consensus in question IS among those in the immediate discipline. Obviously.

Actually, they got away with it permanently.

I think that's an important point. Sketchy drug dealers, who will sell to anyone, couldn't compete with legitimate businesses, who won't. Legalization would therefore actually make it harder for the wrong people to get their hands on them.

Idealogically, I'm inclined to the maxim that anything which doesn't harm another should be legal in the name of freedom. Just on those grounds, drugs should pretty much all be legal, though strictly regulated - you can buy and use cocaine, but you can't drive under the influence, can't give it to your kids, can't be totally out of your mind in public. Most currently illegal drugs should be age restricted. As for regulation on business, I'd say you shouldn't be able to realistically buy it without knowing the dangers, a la the warning labels on cigarettes. And of course, consumers have to know exactly what they're getting. This would have multiple benefits. Most importantly, crime would go way down, for obvious reasons: organized crime loses their revenue, no violent turf wars between drug dealers, etc. Also, we wouldn't have to pay for an ineffectual "war on drugs" anymore: our prisons, mostly filled with drug offenders of one sort or another, would empty out, and we could stop ruining foreign farmers' livelihoods by gassing their crops. The drugs themselves would be safer (or at least more predictable), being regulated by the FDA. And I suspect there would be less stupid drug habits, since educated moderation usually has far better results than blind abstinence (much like sex education), and it's not like it's hard to get drugs now, anyway.

How so? Why do we affect the state of the particle in one way and not another? If there's a reason, then it's still deterministic, just immaterial determinism. If there isn't a reason, then it's random, which has nothing to do with "will" at all. IMO, these attempts to hide "free will" in the last place we're unable to look are silly and misguided. Why is it horrible? You have a will - that's not in dispute. Neither is the fact that we perceive them as "free." What does it matter, then, if it's ultimately deterministic?

Well, I do. And I suppose also anyone who's worried about America's long-term credibility. Or just anyone who would rather be the good guys, all things being equal... If you'll notice, however, I still say we should try to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. I was just pointing out that it IS openly hypocritical of us to do so, since, frankly, the same reasons we don't think Iran can be trusted could be applied to the current administration. Is it exactly the same? No, of course not. But it is of the same kind, and, to be fair, the sheer power at America's disposal automatically amplifies the threats we pose. A miffed lion is more dangerous than a furious ferret. The fact that I'm willing to acknowledge our hypocrisy, the fact that I'm deeply troubled by it, and the fact that I still think we should continue maintaining it ought to underscore how important I think it is to curtail Iranian ambitions. How shocking.

Bascule understands English, and he'll assure that he's basically a computer. Check out his signature.

I'm still waiting for a computer that understands English. Can you do that?

Well exactly, they'll want a product. But a product a few hundred years down the line? That requires investment on the scale of, say, a major war? That's government territory. And I wouldn't bet on it being the U.S. government, either. As Tom Friedman would say, the world is flattening. Who knows who will be the superpowers of the late 21st century and beyond? People tell me China and India seem poised. (Also, was the 1969 moon landing treated with contempt by anyone but dumbass conspiracy theorists?)

It just occured to me. The OP didn't specify that it was a wave of water. A wave of lava, for example, would require different measures. Or he could even be speaking figuratively, as in a wave of nausea. If it's that, I'd recommend ginger ale.

I know you're being sarcastic, but I very much doubt "capitalists" will play any part in terraforming a planet, except maybe as government contactors. Also, I don't see how, short of violent action, any country can "hold any other back."

We should prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, if we are able. The justification being that "we think there's a decent chance you'll use them on us, because you're openly hostile and fond of apocalyptic rhetoric," which would be the truth. Yes, it IS hypocritical. Very much so. That's why it's so painful when, for example, George Bush refuses to rule out using nuclear weapons himself, or when he publicly panders to the "rapture is coming soon" crowd, or when he reduces complex geopolitics to white hats vs. black hats rhetoric. I think it's rhetoric, anyway. But I can absolutely understand someone, particularly someone from the Middle East, who doesn't think the United States can be trusted with nuclear weapons, for pretty much the same reasons we don't think Iran can be trusted.

I think you're almost certainly right. They're trying to make it look like they're not afraid of NATO. And maybe provoke a rash response along with it, so they can rally against it. The British can undermine the whole thing just by acting calm and reasonable. What would you have the British government do that wouldn't be "stupid?"

Can we just agree that Sean Penn is an idiot and move on? EDIT: Actually, not that Sean Penn isn't an idiot, but what context are you talking about? The government is scary as hell, sure, but popular opinion in Iran? I think it's fair to say we don't understand that at all.

What libs want that? People on this forum, you mean? I'm basically a liberal, and I hate the Iranian government. You know, because it's basically the most conservative government on Earth....

I mean, the Commander in Chief is a Republican, so of course it's the Republicans making policy, and all disagreements take the form of dissent from the party not in power.

I thought there should probably be a thread about this. From what I understand, 15 British naval personnel were taken prisoner in the Persian Gulf by Iran. The British claim it was in Iraqi waters, the Iranians claim it was in their waters. They're still being held, although the Iranians say they're going to release the one female sailor. I don't understand why this isn't a bigger story. It could be taken as an act of war, couldn't it? Is that what Iran wants? Luckily the Brits seem to understand how delicate the situation is, and are being firm but not evertly threatening. And it is a delicate situation. Iran can't be allowed to get away with abducting people, and the situation has to be resolved definitively and soon. At the same time, it could be incredibly dangerous to back them into a corner. It needs to be resolved in such a way that the world sees that Iran has backed down, but Ahmadinejad can still spin it so they don't have to admit losing face. Anyway, thoughts?

Because the President in power is a Republican?

Define "positive thinking."

So to the question, "which part do you not understand," your answer is "any of it?"

The gravitational constant has much less significance than any of this. How gravitational force varies is proportional to the product of the two masses divided by the square of the distance between them. In order to write it as an equation instead of just a proportion, the two side have to be in terms of the same units. The gravitational constant is just a made up value such that if you multiply it by a mass^2/distance, you get a force. That's ALL there is to it.

Yes, that's what I meant. I'm just trying to frame the debate in a way that makes sense. Shouting "we're hypocrites!" and "we need to!" back and forth at each other doesn't make any sense unless we understand how the two issues are related. In this case, it seems to be a fairly typical balancing act between power and principle. Lots of societies throughout history have had to make that choice (although the "principles" in question have varied enormously), and they haven't all made the same choice. Each has its costs, and sometimes the costs are not what you would expect.