Sisyphus

No. World War 2 was about subduing an enemy military in basically symmetrical warfare. In Iraq, that part was accomplished in a few days. Instead, the difficulties are far more complex than simply defeating an openly declared enemy. For example, it is motivated by religion as much as anything, which means a) there will be no surrender, since the enemy fears impiety much more than death, b) there's no central authority to do the surrendering, anyway, c) there will be no end to their reinforcements, since it is impossible to irradicate a religion by force, and d) cross-sectarian hatred outweighs anti-American hatred for most, meaning, for the worst violence, American strength is largely irrelevant, since it's not directed towards Americans, anyway.

The case could be made that conservatism in the sense of the OP is not actually for free markets, per se, but for the unity of money and power. This has many similar effects, with some important differences, of which this sort of thing is one.

If she is really a dog lover, then she must know that different breeds behave differently, and that some have greater tendencies towards aggression. So I don't get the "solely the responsibility of the owner" bit. Largely, maybe, but solely? Also, it's not all about temperment. There's a reason those breeds are used as attack dogs: they're good at it. They were, in fact, bred for it. In effect, they're living weapons, designed to fight. The meanest jack russel terrier in the world is not going to be as dangerous as an amicable pit bull.

To expand the question (and maybe help answer it), what is different about law enforcement and fire departments that everyone feels entitled to equal services in these areas?

And he was so impressive in his 20s...

I really don't think it's that big of a change. People worshipped/reviled Reagan when he was alive, and they still do, now. I guess they don't care as much, because it's in the past, and what people think of him can't do any harm. Not different, mind you, just more apathetic. But just as much as that is the gradual shift in public opinion that all historical figues undergo as cultural values change and different events come into the spotlight.

Oh, I don't know. When Bush's approval rating was in the high 80s, I thought it was pretty obvious that in retrospect most people would find his decisions really foolish....

Yes, yes, yes, but who's running in 2012? Or 1016, for that matter? You can never start campaigning too early.

Right, but miles? I could see that if you were trying to create a permanent, self-sufficient space habitat. But for mere exploration, the problems are big, but not that big. Maybe the "extended exploration" he meant a great deal more extended than I assumed. Like, abandon Earth permanently, and bring enough people along for a healthy gene pool...

I don't even understand why he would announce so soon. I mean, we just had an election. Last month. And now we're already having another one? Doesn't anybody govern anymore?

That's the heaviest pure element that's a gas, yeah, but I was wondering about compounds.

Good lord! Why so big?! Like I described above, any size craft can have comfortable 1g artificial gravity, just using a tether, say 100 meters long.

Ah. Just as I suspected.

What's the biggest molecule you can think of that forms a gas at standard temperature and pressure? Or, what's the densest possible gas at STP?

Simple question: Shouldn't it be possible to use similar geometries that are used to make "stealth" aircraft nearly invisible to radar to make "stealth submarines" nearly invisible to sonar? The same principles should apply, right? Is this done? If not, why? My only guess is that the decrease in hydrodynamical performance would just be too great to justify it.

Yes....

I remember reading somewhere that, statistically speaking, the two compatability factors that are most important to a successful marriage are religious beliefs and drinking habits.

Yes, the gradient would make that solution impossible. If it's 1g at, say 10 ft away, then at 2 inches away its about 64g. How are you going to hold that in place? Or move it? A much, much better and simpler solution would be, as mentioned, spinning the ship. This is not that difficult at all. Ideally you would have a large ship, so you could spin it relatively slowly, and have a gentle gradient from edge to center. (The space station in 2001: A Space Odyssey is an extremely accurate portrayal of this.) However, this same effect could be achieved just by having a small craft with an equal counterweight attached by a long tether, spinning about each other. With that arrangement, you could quite easily have any "gravity" you wanted.

So... wait. Your wife doesn't have anything in the way of "outward adornments," like haircuts, clothes besides coveralls, shaved legs, etc.?

No, just the subgroup for whom having a "religious advisor" will matter.

If it's not deterministic, then it's random. That's probably not what you want as far as "free will" is concerned. However, I know perfectly well the universe is deterministic/random, and yet I have will, and reason, and desire, and happiness, and morality. I just don't have the "free" part. But when I think about it more, I realize the "free" doesn't actually mean anything...

As per the original question: Tests in school and standardized tests often test completely different things. I school, usually they're testing competence in specific techniques. You memorize how to do something, and that's that. Standardized tests are supposed to test your adaptability and creativity in thinking. (Incidentally, I had the opposite problem. I never paid close attention or did much homework in high school, and my grades reflected that. However, I always got perfect scores on standardized tests. It made my teachers really mad...)

It's more than that, even. The Freemasons were dominant because Freemasonry embodied all the ideals of the Enlightenment: reason, the fraternity of man, humanism, enlightened skepticism, and, yes, secularism (though also a vague Deism). All of the educated, liberal elites of the day would have been members. The United States itself was and is a grand experiment in applied Enlightenment philosophy, so of course all the people who got the ball rolling, and would be in a position to be in charge, would be Masons. So, yes, that tradition represents quite a bit more than just "Christianity," and really doesn't even represent that.

Pastafarians swear on the Jolly Roger.

First off, I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana. It's relatively harmless, and even easier to use responsibly than alcohol. That said, I don't think it's quite so simple as "victimless crime" in all cases, generalizing to all drug laws. For example, I fully support drunk-driving laws, even if the drunk driver follows all the rules of the road and doesn't hit anything, and even though technicially this is still a victimless crime. Why? Because he's endangering others unacceptably merely through his temporary lack of judgment, reaction time, etc. Similarly, being really drunk while supposedly being responsible for small children (even if you don't beat them in your intoxicated state or anything). Again, similarly for any drug that would make one inherently dangerous to others in any situation, even if no harm is actually done.