Sisyphus

Interesting you think so. I'd also like to see a real (read: non-stupid-internet-quiz) evaluation of different humor types from a scientific perspective. Attempting to quantify it in a serious way might seem laughably misguided in itself, but then, there is pretty solid behaviorism about what we find funny in different situations, so it's not that far out there.

Is that seriously in question?

Sarcastic. I guess I'm just meaner than you guys.

Perhaps, but all life on Earth is descended from a tiny percentage of life soon after it first appeared. Almost everything goes extinct.

If we're already positing reincarnation, what's the advantage of a long lifespan? Don't you think being a whale would get tedious after 200 years?

Wouldn't that mean you get nothing?

Why does it have to be in the form of a "trick?" It's just asking for a country that starts with D, an animal that starts with K, and a fruit that starts with O. And surprise surprise, those are the most popular answers (though I certainly doubt it's anywhere near 98% - I'm sure lots of people pick koala and apple, for example. Realizing I was obviously supposed to pick Denmark, I picked Djibouti, then ibis, then saguaro. So there.

Why only 12 eggs?

The stealth comes in large part from the geometry of the fuselage, doesn't it? That, at least, wouldn't be changed no matter what frequency you're using.

More importantly, what about orcs? Or a balrog?

You know, I wonder if that's bad. Humans are evolving right now within the context of a civilization which protects the weak, and where higher intelligence correlates with having fewer and later children. Maybe the influx of some superbaby genes wouldn't hurt. (Idiocracy was a great movie...)

You know, I agree with you in principle. You're certainly within your rights to do anything you need to do to defend yourself or your family from an intruder, and that's an important right. And sometimes, sure, you do what you have to do. In practice, though, it's easier to see other points of view. Last year some friends of mine had their apartment broken into two days in a row, with minor things stolen. For the next few days, we took turns staying up and keeping watch, in case the thief returned. Three days later he did, and we surprised him and stunned him with a maglite to the head and pinned him down until the police arrived. We could have beat him to death and been within our rights (as is, he was bleeding everywhere and probably had a concussion), but I would have always thought of myself as a murderer from then on if we had. I (contrary to what I would have expected beforehand) felt nothing but pity at the time or any time afterwards. What kind of a person, in a real life situation, wouldn't endure a little extra danger to avoid taking a life? Especially if you don't even know what that person's intentions are? Now I know you don't always have that opportunity. He was alone and clearly not too bright and all he had was a knife, and we were three 21-year-olds who were ready for him. I get it. I just don't see why it has to be such an alien concept.

I dunno, aren't there Republicans in Congress who are angry about it, as well? Obviously a lot of the motivation is just typical partisan nonsense, but that doesn't mean there's no merit in the accusations. I agree that we send to be spending too much time on this, though. (Incidentally, the two motivations you contrast are not mutually exclusive. Actually, in a lot of cases they go hand in hand - plenty of liberals follow the general rule that what's bad for Bush IS good for America...)

No, you're not. That would mean those who believe in a benevolent creator god who became flesh in Jesus, died for humanity's sins, rose from the dead, and will grant eternal life to any who accept him. That is, in fact, what it says in the Bible, as well, so even a fundamentalist is still a "Christian" by that definition. What you've done is add a clause that they must accept scientific consensus, making the statement "Christians embraced evolution" merely tautological.

I still don't understand what you're proposing. A city-state whose primary industry is scientific research? How do you go from THAT to "harsh, barren, and cold, devoid of all human touch?"

Does anyone know of a free program or some other way to automatically forward all emails sent to one address to another?

The (very) short answer is that the faster you go, the more energy you need for the same acceleration. Or put in another way, adding more energy gives you less acceleration the faster you're going. This reaches a limit at light speed, so you can't ever reach it. Kind of like a Zeno's Paradox kind of thing. This is a consequence of relativity, wherein the speed of light is always constant from your own reference frame. You see me going at 99% the speed of light past you and therefore think I just need that extra 1% to reach it. From my perspective, however, light still goes just as fast relative to me, and I'm not any closer to reaching it, because we experience time and length differently. So, in a certain sense, it's not possible to make ANY progress in getting closer to the speed of light, since it always has the same relative speed.

So like a sovereign university...?

Alright then, why not?

What can I do? Nobody wanted to have an actual serious discussion. ";)"

What if I want to marry a non-coworker...?

So you're opposed to the Prime Directive?

What that chart shows is a record of the changes in all known natural factors, such as solar intensity and volcano activity, which cause overall climate change, and the temperature change the models predict those factors would cause. The models ALSO predict the change caused by man-caused variation in the concentrations of greenhouse gases (the blue line). Assuming they're all correct, an overall model was generated predicting how all the observed causes, working together, would affect climate. That's the brown line, with margin of error in grey. The BLACK line is the temperature change actually observed. As you can see, they're very closely correlated, strongly implying that the original models (which, among other things, predicted a man-caused temperature change), were highly accurate. This is the best information we have to go on. That's all there is to it.

"Not having an end" and "being infinite" are not quite the same thing. If I start counting integers, there will never be a point at which I reach the end. However, at any point, the number that I've counted is still finite. Infinites are things which can only be taken "all at once," not "over time." There are an infinite number of integers. However, counting them, it is impossible to reach an infinite number. That paradox is a good example. Space is not infinitely divided there, it is just indefinitely divisible. The same for the time it takes you to travel. You can't ever reach a non-finite distance or time, but you won't ever reach a point where it can't be divided smaller, either. It's not a paradox because the divisions are only potential. Most "infinites" in mathematics are actually "indefinites." Calculus deals in indefinites. "Smaller than any division you arbitrarily could make." "The value towards which this series will get closer and closer forever but never actually reach." Actual "infinites" are much rarer, and are "all at once" kind of things. Take 0.9 repeating. It is not "approaching" one, because the nines are already there. It is EQUAL to one. Similarly, the universe, if infinite, is simply THERE, not something which "goes on," as if you were travelling through it. Oftentimes seemingly unimportant semantic differences like that make the difference between absurd and perfectly natural. There are several assumptions behind those supposed paradoxes. You're assuming that space has to repeat itself in order to be infinite. You're also assuming that it has to exhaust all possibilities in order to have an infinite number of variations. Both of these are false assumptions. Look at a numerical analogy. How many even numbers are there? An infinite amount. So look at "the set of even numbers" as an analogy for "the infinite universe." Now, no two even numbers are alike. There aren't "an infinite number of fours," analogous to "an infinite number of Earths." Also, not "everything which could happen does happen." Three could happen. But it doesn't.

That's an awfully bold statement from somebody who refuses to acknolwedge statistics. (particularly directly below a chart that clearly illustrates why that exact statement is false)