Sisyphus

Guantanamo?

Inspired by this:

More oil is of course a good thing, since we really can't do without it yet. I cringed when I saw this thread's title, though, since I can't help but think people will see this as, "oh, I guess there wasn't an oil shortage after all" and forget about it, when really, it is still a problem, just a delayed one. It's like the kid who is frantically trying to write a paper the night before it's due, only to get an extension of a few more days, so he just puts it out of his mind until it's the night before again... I agree with you that we'll probably be alright, BTW. I just think it would be a big mistake to lose the sense of urgency in finding alternatives.

Pangloss (or I guess anyone else), are Florida Republicans really that culturally conservative in general, or do you think this really is only a matter of name recognition? Is there any chance Florida as a whole would vote for someone who explicitly wants to institute a theocracy? It's hard to imagine, seeing as how Florida is such a swing state in national elections.

My avatars have all been utterly pretentious symbolic representations of aspects of myself or of what I aspire to. The first was an abstract drawing of Sisyphus, the mythological figure, pushing his rock up the mountain. It's a symbol borrowed from the philosopher Albert Camus, an image of defiant optimism in the face of acknowedged absurdity, and of proud hopelessness. Sisyphus became great in life by the powers of mind and humanitarian (as opposed to pious) concern. He stood up to the injustice of the Gods, knowing that it was hopeless. He defied even his punishment of death, and by his own powers lived to enjoy life. Even in punishment he is victorious, as he is neither deluded into believing he will "succeed," nor surrendering in despair, but keeping on pushing that rock. The second was a picture of me taken by girlfriend. I like it because it reminds me of good times, and because I look bored and contemptuous at first glance, but if you look closer you can see a wry playfulness. Or maybe I'm just imagining it.... The third was a raven in flight. Ravens are extremely clever and playful, in a mischieveous kind of way. They are generally loners, but will protect their own kind, and are known for their bravery. They are unabashedly down to earth, squabbling over mundane pleasures, but also transcendant in their apparent uniqueness in flying merely for the joy of flying. The one I have now of a nebula with a white dwarf in its center, aside from looking really cool, is also a close visual symbol of my perception of self. Pure, serene blackness on the outside, within which there is swirling, luminous, ethereal color, which in turn has a white hot, unwavering core deep within itself at its very center, keeping everything else in line.

Ultraviolet Catastrophe The Beatles

How can something which is neither moving nor has any mass be said to have momentum? Really, I'm curious, if anyone actually knows about this stuff.

Which is accomplished by... magic? Seriously, though, that violates Newton's third law. You'd be having the air exert more force on the sail than it has to begin with. Nothing rebounds at a greater speed than it impacts.

I think, if there's going to be a competitive aspect to it, it might be more interesting to put strict limitations on the writing. For example, what's the best story you can write in under 500 words? What's the best story you can write from the perspective of a single brick? etc. Not only would that sort of thing lend itself more easily to comparison, but it would be more likely to produce something interesting from amateur writers, which, I'm assuming, we pretty much all are. Plus, severe restriction is excellent practice in becoming a better writer, which is a good idea, since, frankly, the VAST majority of science fiction is ATROCIOUSLY written. For some reason science geeks tend to think that, despite the years and years it took them to become competent in their fields, they can still write well on a whim... I'm not talking about any of you specifically, BTW. I intentionally didn't read anyone's work before complaining about terrible sci fi writers in general...

Seriously, what was the point of that?

How about just a "nicotine content" label on cigarettes? That way they can't do anything sneaky (at least with nicotine!).

No, it isn't. You would have to be pushing more air backwards than forwards in order to move forwards. Since the only air you're pushing backwards is in fact the same air you moved forwards, that can't possibly be the case.

Maybe like targetted warheads deployed upon arrival in the atmosphere? I don't know how possible that is...

Who falls under the "Islamofascist" title? The Taliban? Definitely. Al Qaeda? I suppose (though it's fuzzy). The Saudi royal family? Perhaps. The sectarian militias killing each other in Iraq? Who knows?

Maybe some other roles could be fulfilled as well. Blowing up other ships? I think an ICBM could probably handle that...

I can't believe nobody has asked the obvious question. Rebiu, in what way do you see yourself as Emperor Palpatine?

What would they do? The government should make sure they tell the truth about what's in them (which otherwise the tobacco companies certainly wouldn't), but otherwise, it's nobody's business but the people who smoke them. Nobody ever went on a nicotine-induced murdering spree, so it's only harming the consumer, who can make an informed decision.

Yes. (But the fan would still be pushing THAT boat backwards.) No, since the "windpower" IS the backward force. The fan is pushing air forwards, which means, by Newton's third law, that it is pushing the boat backwards. When the air hits the sail, it then pushes the boat forwards again, but it can't possibly push the boat forwards more than it pushed it backwards, since it's the same air! At best you just won't move, no matter how powerful the fan is. In reality, though, you'd still move backwards, because the air would diffuse and be moving slower (and thus exert less force) between when it leaves the fan and when it hits the sail. Thus backwards > forwards.

No, it would move quite a bit slower, or even backwards. The fan is pushing air forwards, which propels you backwards. At best, some of this air is caught by the sail and thus neutralized, but it can't possibly neutralize completely since the velocity of the air will be greatest as it first leaves the fan, and thus the thrust of the fan pushing your backwards is necessarily more than the sails pushing you forwards.

I don't know about the first question, but is seems like any vector component perpendicular to the galactic plane would result in an endless sine wave-like (though I don't think actually sine wave) oscillation. The reason being that the collective mass of the galaxy would act like a giant "mass disk" that would gravitationally pull objects towards its plane. If I'm not mistaken the shape of the curve should be close to parabolic, since if the oscillation is small, the disk would act like an infinite plane, and hence pull would be constant irregardless of distance.

That other link is just speculation, as well. Plus, I don't understand the assumptions. Showing Bush I or Clinton killed by terrorists would be "interesting," but Bush II is a "cheap shot?" Why? It could be just a cheap stunt, but why couldn't it be interesting? If Bush were assassinated, would that prove liberals right about everything? Of course not. So why is showing a scenario where Bush gets assassinated necessarily "liberal propaganda?" Personally, I'll withhold judgement until I've at least heard from someone who's actually seen the movie.

Yeah, it is weird there isn't a mainstream documentary about misperceptions of evolution and "evidence" from crazy people.