Sisyphus

Or it could just be a fundamental problem with militaries in general. The average American soldier is of necessity going to be more bloodthirsty than the average American (they did sign up for violence as a job), and the primary motivation of some will always be to "kill some towelheads" or whatever. It's not something that gets talked about, because first, it's "unpatriotic" (i.e., ammo for right-wing pandering), second, it is insulting to those who join up out of a real sense of duty, and most importantly, there's nothing we can do about it. We need an effective military, and volunteer militaries are much more effective than conscipted ones. Also, another reason our military is so effective is that our soldiers are trained to dehumanize everyone but their own troops, so they won't hesitate in battle. I don't know if that contributes to this sort of thing, but I don't see how it couldn't. To be fair, though, they are also trained in as realistic settings as possible so they won't shoot the wrong guy, so who knows.

Ok, so what are the facts? We don't have hard numbers about how widespread anything was, or which party played more dirty tricks. However, there are three things to keep in mind. First, very alarming anecdotal evidence is apparently very easy to find. Second, it is demonstrably very easy for even one person to tamper with the vote on a significant scale. Third, the entire election can very well hinge on one swing state, for which the margin of victory can be WELL within the margin of error, considering the first two points. You don't have to change the entire popular vote (which would be a lot of "tampering," yes) to change the outcome. So what does this mean? Does it mean the election was "stolen?" No. It COULD be, but we can't possibly tell, and that is precisely the point. The vote can be manipulated and there's no way of even proving anything. Obviously there are major flaws in the system that have real, major consequences for our democracy, and the need for reforms is urgent and should not be belittled. So what do we do about it? I have no idea. More uniformity in methods and centralization of authority and less responsiblity for local polling places, I suppose. Also, for what it's worth, I like Mokele's idea for the whole week to vote and the month to confirm results. Aside from the obvious benefit of being more accurate, it would also help alleviate the problem of the great disparity of polling places per capita in wealthier vs. poorer areas...

No, it's just very important that the money be diverted to swing states...

Can you imagine congressmen getting elected who actually want transparency, real campaign finance reform, and an end to ridiculous pork-barrel spending? ...me neither. But it is interesting and hopeful that the public is actually starting to pay attention to those things an be annoyed about them.

That is odd. What happens when you vary the speed of rotation and the distance between the two magnets? Answering that might help, but that's just a guess. Some other guesses: Irregardless of spinning, the south pole is still attracted to the stationary magnet, and the north pole repulsed. Thus, a uniform force acting to rotate the magnet will still result in a greater net force of rotation as it is moving towards its preferred allignment, and less when it is moving away. Thus it spends slightly more time with south to north than with north to north, and the net result is attraction. Also, if it is spinning fast enough, and is far enough away, then the two poles would effectively cancel out, making it equivalent to an umagnetized bar of iron, which would be attracted in any case. So the attraction is greater than the repulsion, anyway. [/uninformed speculation]

For the record, it's only Google that claims it isn't evil...

Ah, but they might interpret it as a grave insult. Anyone familiar with the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy should know about such dangers.

Well sure, but it's still revealing. Iraq, for one thing, is afraid (with good reason) of its neighbors. If the U.S. left tomorrow, then there would almost certainly be a full ethnic civil war, and neighboring powers might well get involved. Iran supporting Shiite, Saudi Arabia supporting Sunni, and maybe even Turkey suppressing Kurds. Even unified (which they aren't), they are far weaker than any of their neghbors. So there will be a real need for appeasement for a long time. Second, it just highlights the fact that there is no reason to expect that a democratically elected government will do what we want for any other reason than that we have our military in their country. They are smack in the middle of the Islamic world, after all, and I think its safe to assume that popular sympathies will be alligned against "bullying" nations like ourselves...

The foreign ministers of the two nations met and publically agreed that all nations have a right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but stopped short of saying the same for WMDs. This is of course very much at odds with the position of the United States. Interesting.

That was kind of my point. We're a disaster!

We "give off" heat because we're warm-blooded, and the body uses energy to maintain a certain temperature. And where does the energy come from? From breaking down fats and sugars, which have to come from somewhere. We don't magically produce anything. And even if it were really true that bioheat was the most efficient energy source (???), then why would you use humans, of all organisms? God those were dumb movies...

Yeah, and there are still plenty of thriving ethnic neighborhoods here in New York, more than a century after they first appeared. I see no problem with that, either. I don't think assimilation always means abandoning the old culture, just adapting to survival within the new one. Maybe it's just because I live so far from the Mexican border, but I don't see how being a contiguous country really changes much, or how the current wave of immigration is really that different from all the previous ones.

Did immigrants always have to learn the English language if they wanted citizenship? I mean coming through Ellis Island and stuff. I don't think so, and yet assimilation has never been a problem. A minority of my direct ancestors spoke a word of English when they arrived in this country, yet all of their children became fluent. How is this different?

Great speach. Did anyone else think he was talking about Kerry until he got to the end? I wonder if that was intentional, and what it would mean if it was. And yes, the hecklers are just disgusting. I hope Jon Stewart ridicules them mercilessly. That would make them more ashamed than any of the tired propaganda their fellow student conservatives have undoubtably trotted out. Of course, I'm not really surprised by this, and I don't really share Phi for All's question. I know for a fact that there is no school in existence that doesn't have a large percentage of idiots, and modern politics has made at least two comfortable niches for braying jackasses.

The Earth isn't old enough to have completely recycled its crust - and certainly not since the appearance of life.

No! Let him pass the law and then deport him. Seriously, though, I don't think it's that big of a deal. I mean, I love the English language, and I would be sad to see it fade in importance. It's probably the most nuanced and flexible language ever. And, more importantly, it's obviously the traditional language of the nation. But that happened naturally. What does it mean if so many people are speaking Spanish that you have to pass a law to prevent it?

Never. It can't be produced in sufficient quantities, and it's not even that much cleaner than fossil fuels.

I think it's safe to assume the poem is atrocious in any language. Sadly, I imagine Bush would do even worse, if it ever occured to him to do anything like write poetry...

You guys are idols of idiot-worshippers. Clods of wayward marl, even.

That is pretty ridiculous, but I doubt they would actually institute such a thing. Like you say, how would it even work? If some kind of resolution actually is passed, it will have to be so vague as to quickly demonstrate its stupidity in practice. It makes me cringe when I think of how all the Anne Coulter types must be salivating about this. That is, if she even bothers to use real anecdotes anymore... This is an example of an interesting mentality, however. Liberals basically won the civil rights aspect of the culture war. No mainstream politician would dare suggest racial or gender inequality, and liberals are happy about that. However, they still suspect conservatives of racism and sexism, just in a more subtle form. (This isn't entirely unreasonable - people don't change their opinions when the political winds change, they just change their stated opinions. Plus, the anti-gay thing seems like an example of still politically acceptable bigotry that is going strong.) Thus they are annoyed that conservatives were never really "punished" for being so wrong, and strive for the "gotcha" moment when they can catch their opponents' "real" feelings. This results in a lot of irrational accusations that end up looking silly (Hurricane Katrina = Bush hates blacks?), and a lot of measures that go way beyond reason just to look for a fight, which is what this appears to be. I can definitely sympathize, but they definitely need to get a hold of themselves and get some perspective. I mean, what is more quintessentially un-liberal than a thought crime?

Nothing like that will cause any unusual effect when mixed, since they pretty much all contain almost the same ingredients anyway. It would just be like more of the same. I know absinthe contains small amounts of wormwood, which is mildly hallucinogenic. I don't know about its legality in different places or its health effects, however. The simplest way to hallucinate is just to deprive yourself of all sleep for a few days. Kind of a "dreaming while you're awake" kind of thing, as I understand it. Very unpleasant. I guess, indirectly, you can get this effect with lots of caffeinated drinks....

It's kind of missing the point to talk about physical explanations. You have to violate all sorts of physical laws just to make it happen, so why not violate a few more and have us not smeared into oblivion by the acceleration? I would think "miracle," by definition, means something outside of natural law. I should note that while the "God can do anything" excuse makes the argument pointless, it's even sillier to try to justify such a thing on scientific grounds. That demonstrates not just an ignorance of science, but a pretty pathetic insecurity about one's own beliefs. Or, in this case, probably just an argument for argument's sake, without any actual belief behind it.

Nothing! Says so in the title!

Hacking into DoD or NASA or whatever else he did should be a very serious crime, yes, and he should get a hefty sentence precisely to make an example of him. If they can't show that it was malicious, this should mitigate it somewhat, obviously, but it is still quite serious, as far as I'm concerned. As for his motives for lying, he might just be a little crazy, but I think it's more likely he just has the theatrical, anti-establishment sensibility of most hackers. He probably just wants to cause a little mayhem and mess with people. Why do hackers do what they do? Because they're egotistical anarchists. They hack into the DoD just to show that they can, that they have "outwitted" what should be the most heavily guarded networks in the world, and because they like to see the powerful humiliated and confused. Making a spectacle of himself with these wild stories and using people's paranoia to simultaneously outwit them and cause headaches for the government plays into this sensibility perfectly. And, of course, the DoD really needs to get its act together...

Of course I know my own density. It's just a tiny bit over 1 gm/ml with my lungs empty, and a bit more under with my lungs full. It's a good density for swimming. Oh, wait, destiny? No, of course not. You can't isolate a system smaller than the whole universe, so that alone means you can never entirely predict what's going to happen in the future. Of course, the shorter the time frame, the more isolated part you're looking at, and the simpler the objects of examination, the better you're able to predict with high probability. Like, in a sealed room in a vacuum with a ball falling through it, I can predict very well what's going to happen 1 second in the future. However, for something as fiendishly complex as a human being, existing among other human beings on a crazy planet like ours? No, I think you're out of luck.