Sisyphus

Surely they couldn't actually get away with actually outlawing a word? Isn't that a pretty straightforward first amendment issue? And how the hell would you enforce something like that, anyway?

This wasn't so much a serious proposal as a "tell me why this is wrong" kind of thing, but I'm going to play devil's advocate, anyway. That's a really good point, and why I suppose it's not a good idea. The only thing I can say is that, in the long term, it still seems like it would have an overall benefit by creating a much greater demand for efficient mass transit, and encourage more localized economies overall. But I realize that kind of thing doesn't happen overnight, and in the meantime that janitor is screwed. This, again, is the point. Everyone pays more for energy. But less in other taxes. For the mean consumer, this means nothing at all - they pay the same amount. I'm not sure about that. The thing about the rich is that they tend to use a whole lot more energy, and would therefore be affected a whole lot more. And if they do keep using up resources energy, then that's still translated into a tax break for the rest of us. Not that there isn't a potential problem along those lines. I saw something like what you describe over the summer, during those really high gas prices, watching recreational boaters. When the high gas prices hit, you see an interesting pattern. The little skiffs and whatnot are barely affected. They grumble a little, but they don't use much gas, anyway, certainly not enough to spoil their fun. The big yachts aren't affected either, since the owners are rich enough to afford the extra expense, and aren't about to let these big yachts sit in the marina. What's affected are the gas guzzling cigarette boats and the smaller yachts, the former since fuel was already a large portion of the operating costs, the latter because they still use a whole lot of fuel, but don't have enough money that they don't notice the bill. It should be noted, however, that sailboats of all shapes and sizes were completely unaffected by fuel prices, and actually increased usage, because the harbors weren't so clogged with stupid powerboats. Sailboat sales also went up (har har), which goes to show you that making the harmful thing more expensive does successfully encourage alternatives, whatever other effects it may have. Weren't you the one complaining about losing government subsidies earlier?

Here in the U.S., we have very cheap gasoline (that's petrol, guys) compared to Europe, in large part because of much lower fuel taxes. My question is, why shouldn't we raise them to similar levels? Bear in mind that this wouldn't mean an overall tax increase - higher revenues from fuel taxes means other taxes can be lower. The incentive for raising them is high. The biggest problem for the United States overall is energy dependence, and higher fuel taxes would encourage conservation and more fuel-efficient vehicles (and energy-efficient homes and businesses, for that matter). So why not do it? Is it just the political difficulty of explaining to the public that yes, you're paying more at the pump, but you're also paying less to the IRS? Or is there an actually good reason?

They won't. They'll have low-profile investigations (with the ever-present threat that they will become high-profile), but there won't be an impeachment. I think they realize they, and the country as a whole, is better off trying to fix things than bickering with each other and causing even more polarization. Besides, impeaching Bush would ruin a perfectly good opportunity to make the Clinton impeachment look all the sillier in comparison. No, if that level of arrogance comes, it will only be after being in power for a few terms. ??? I disagree. I think we'll have military bases there indefinitely, but we'll be out of the streets by 2008, ready or not. Have you started a small business recently? No, Islamic terrorists were never fond of us (though they've readily accepted our help in the past). But Islamic terrorists /= the world, and just because something is bad doesn't mean it can't get worse. Are you honestly claiming that America's standing in the eyes of the world hasn't changed for the worse in the last few years? Even Bush realizes this. His rhetoric has softened a lot recently.

Does that rant have anything to do with Barak Obama?

No, perfect pitch CAN be learned. I know this for a fact, because I did it, by means of repetition. It's not quite the same as natural perfect pitch, which is relatively rare (and also exists to greatly varying degrees, not a simple either/or), but is practically the same. I already had quite good relative pitch, so all I really needed was an accurately remembered reference point, which was done by playing the same note first thing in the morning for many months. These two things combined allow me easily tell not just what a note I'm hearing is without external reference, but also whether it's sharp or flat with enough precision that most non-musicians couldn't tell the difference hearing them side by side. It is different from natural pitch, since it required training, and still consists of mental calculation, albeit almost unconscious at this point.

I wonder how "President Barak Hussein Obama" would play in the Arab world. Seriously, though, if there's a black President, will Al Sharpton finally go away?

I agree, she does have a demagogical streak, but I wouldn't call it any worse than any of the past few speakers. Frankly, I've been surprised at the degree she's proven herself NOT full of hot air, which is kind of what I was expecting from the rather vague Democratic platform of the past few years. But really, I just can't help rooting for her simply because of all the shameless and offensive efforts to demonize her. A lot of people were betting big that Americans would automatically hate a powerful, liberal woman from San Francisco, and I'm delighted it backfired.

I know plenty of people whose future children I feel a profound sense of pity for. But awful parenting is not the same as child abuse. And besides, without all the neuroses our parents inflict on us, hardly anybody would have a sense of humor as an adult. EDIT: Damn, I just watched some clips from it. I don't care if it was heavily edited, unless the part that was edited out was her saying, "now let's pretend I'm a psychopath." But again, does an obviously crazy parent = child abuse? Wouldn't you have to diagnose real trauma in the kids, even beyond them acting similar to the parents when they reach adulthood? I don't know.

I'm not sure about that. With politicians, you have laws, and a well-organized opposition party gleeful at the chance to bring them down. But it's not illegal to fake an orgasm or to have herpes, and anyway, in places where prositution is illegal (that is, most places), who's going to turn one in?

But we're numerous and pushy, which means that both parties aim their rhetoric primarily at us, and have to throw us bones on a regular basis or face revolt from their respective bases and indifference from swing voters.

No, not relative to one another, although that is what the "stationary observer" (really just a third reference frame) would see. Your error is in assuming a kind of transitive property in relative velocities. Ship A moves 0.9c relative to observer, and observer moves 0.9c relative to ship B, but you can't just add them to get ship A relative to ship B, because you would be adding measurements from two different reference frames.

Seems like the rules would make that impossible. A 10cm parachute won't slow down a half pound weight much, will it? Maybe a vertical series of a few of them would have a worthwhile effect?

So women are docile now? When did that happen?

Nobody is going to dredge up scandals during the primary. They'll wait until she's nominated, and then the Republicans will pile it on via third party organizations, a la the swift boat guys.

I think I understand why aswokei can't understand anything that's being said (assuming he's not just trolling). He's got two axioms which, for some reason, he absolutely needs to believe. First, he's very smart. Second, his parents are very dumb. Obviously, then, anything said that would force a contradiction between those axioms, e.g., that intelligence is mostly genetically determined, he will find a way not to understand, through sheer force of will. Kind of Orwellian, really.

My goldfish does understand calculus. I think it's cus I played a lot of Mozart for him while he was still an egg.

Agreed. It's all situational. You can easily find lots of anecdotal evidence for either side, where something becomes public/private and vastly improves/goes to hell. A general study would be meaningless, because different situations are completely different, and there are no one-size-fits-all solutions in economics. Anyone who tells you otherwise is blinded by idealogy.

First off, I'm about 80% sure this is a joke. If not, friend, I'm afraid you're not nearly as smart as you think you are. Evidence: You equate computer skills with intelligence. You think an online IQ test gave you a lower score than is accurate. You are proud of your "IQ," and think we'll be impressed by "98th percentile." (If it will shut you up, out of curiosity I took the Mensa test, and they say I'm 99.98th percentile, but I'm not a member, because they're a bunch of losers who cling to a nearly meaningless number...) ANYWAY, intelligence is not a simple substance that you can have more or less of a quantity of, or even a combination of different substances (like analytic, creative, practical intelligence). These are just abstractions and approximations, and it's really vastly more complex than that, and quite impossible to measure with anything but minimal precision. It can be said in a vague way that one person is smarter than another, at least in specific areas, but the margin of error is quite large. Now, that said, the combination of different factors and aptitudes that we collectively and simplisitically call "intelligence" does, by most studies, appear to be largely genetically based. One in particular that I remember reading about found that intelligence in children and young adults was about 50/50 genetics and environment, but in adults it shifted more and more to genetics. Identical twins usually exhibit fairly similar intelligence as children in different environments, and that intelligence grows even closer as they age.

Ok. Now what does "Alas A Winner" mean? Why did you post that? What is going on?

No, they aren't. 0001 is 1. 1000 is 8. Write it as it actually appears, from wherever you're getting it. Your editing is making it meaningless!

Wish I'd thought of that. Much less exhausting than sweating it all out.

What you've described is a killing without a motive, which does make things a lot harder for police, since for any crime, the first question you ask is, "who profits from it?" However, there are lots of other ways. In that example you'd probably be caught pretty quickly, since the body would be found within a few hours, and the time of death could be pinpointed pretty exactly, and there would almost certainly be something showing that you were near there at around that time, if not a human witness or camera, then any number of different kinds of forensic evidence.

Nobody says "intellectually challenged" (except maybe in jest) or "domestic engineer." Nobody. So your sister is opposed to a form of political correctness that does not exist except in the minds of the people who are "against" it! But it seems she's very much in a state of mind of political correctness that actually DOES exist. That kind of thing is a major pet peeve of mine. Yes, I'd definitely call it hypocrisy: condemning others as ridiculous for doing something they don't actually do, then doing it yourself!