Sisyphus

Wikipedia isn't a crappy source if it has the answer to the question being asked.

That depends on whether you consider staying dead no better than staying dead, and having the cryonics people be your only heirs. You won't care then, obviously, but you might care now.

I think you're probably right. I'm just saying I doubt this sort of thing is typically subject to disciplinary action.

More specifically, it tells us something about how OKcupid users describe themselves.

I'm guessing it doesn't look different in context, but there is still "nothing to see" anyway. Is there anything here that's especially out of the ordinary, beyond a perhaps careless but defensible error, and a level of callousness which is only unusual in that civilians are seeing it? Did anyone think it wasn't normal to shoot first and ask questions later if a threat is perceived?

It doesn't really make sense to talk about the reference frame of a photon. It wouldn't be at rest relative to anything, even other photons, or for that matter even itself. When people say it's not a valid frame, they don't just mean it's physically impossible, but that it's nonsensical.

Both of these are true for me also, although you have some of those colors wrong. Fridays are the red you see with your eyes closed facing the sun. Thursdays are muddy maroon. J is obviously lime green, and all of the 80s are dark forest green. I distinctly remember as a kid of about 3 asking my father why the days are different colors. For me, with numbers it's more complicated than just being a single color. It's more like the numbers have "layers" dependent on both their decimal representation and often factors. For example, 57 is in the pale yellow fifties, but is also burnt-orange seven, as well as the bright red "multiple of three." How do your arrangements in space go? I have a vertical number line arching away from me, that can fold around during arithmetic. Ordinary "eye level" is about 8 or 9. The year is huge washer shape, inclined about 30 degrees from horizontal with the summer at the top.

Well sure, that's just saying that slippery slopes run both ways. Having certain substances that are illegal does make it closer to having it only be legal for people to eat Soylent Green. Not that that is likely to happen in any case. I'm pretty sure somebody else made that same point further up the thread.

How distinct is "particle physics" from "quantum physics?" (Not a rhetorical question.)

What about it doesn't seem to add up?

Yes.

It's probably best just to say that photons do not have mass, period.

How about just changing classical physics to classical mechanics, and adding electromagnetism? BTW, physicsforums has: General Physics Classical Physics (Mechanics, Electrodynamics, & Thermodynamics) Quantum Physics (Quantum Mechanics & Field Theory) Special & General Relativity (Exp. & theo. topics in theories of relativity) Atomic, Solid State, Comp. Physics (Exp. & theo. methods for atoms, molecules, condensed matter) High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics (Exp. & theo. physics of nuclei & elementary particles) Beyond the Standard Model (Professionally researched theories... strings, branes, & LQG) With a separate category with general astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology

Slippery slope arguments are not valid as logical necessities, but it's also simple reality that measures are easier to accomplish the less they upset the status quo, so any compromise does make it easier to later pursue stronger measures. So yes, I think that if, say, cannabis were legalized, there would be people pushing for less restrictions and more legalizations, and they'd have a somewhat easier time. Similarly, the people who would like to see alcohol, tobacco, fatty foods, etc. made illegal would have a somewhat harder time.

But you as a whole don't mutate, since that happens on the cellular level. So an original, frozen cell wouldn't be any more genetically different than the various parts of you are different from one another. I also wouldn't say "things get worse as you age." A mutation is not necessarily bad - it's just a change.

"Speed" is distance per time, by definition. Hence "speed of time" taken literally is meaningless. As a figurative expression, it's more defensible. It's not really as simple as a unit conversion, either. Distance and duration are inextricably linked, but they're not synonyms.

Really? I think it is just you. Maybe you just don't notice because the effects of moderate use (i.e., feeling alert and upbeat) aren't generally outside ordinary experience? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Effects_when_taken_in_moderation And while it's very common to "medicate" with it, I wouldn't say it's not recreational, too. I enjoy it various forms, and decaf is definitely not the same.

That's really an education issue, rather than a legality issue. I happen to think the education tends to be counterproductive, also. If you wildly exaggerate the danger of something in a way that kids can see for themselves isn't accurate, they're not going to take you seriously when you talk about the real dangers. This is very similar to the problem with abstinence-only sex ed, incidentally.

Well first of all, military research is very much secret. It's just sometimes that demonstrations are public. Showing off that you have some crazy hardware is not the same as showing off how it works. As Skeptic says, there would be at least two reasons. One, to avoid other nations misinterpretting it as aggression. Two, to show off strength. That's not just "bragging rights." Deterrents only work if everybody knows about them. If you're planning to fight, you want to hide your strength as much as possible. If you want to avoid fighting, you want to appear as strong as possible. Or more generally, show that you're not worth fighting. This can mean showing off the high cost of fighting you (by appearing strong) or the low gain of fighting you (which can sometimes mean hiding the fact that you're a threat). It doesn't make any sense for a superpower to say "leave me alone, I'm harmless," because they're obviously not. It does make sense to say "leave me alone, because you wouldn't stand a chance fighting me."

No, he doesn't. That's really, really ridiculous. See the first review on Amazon of this book (listed as fiction!): http://www.amazon.com/Mysterious-Receding-Seas-Richard-Guy/dp/1413439918

If caffeine were illegal, it would be the most common gateway drug.

jryan, with all due respect, I think your particular experience has led to a huge sampling bias. Nobody would deny that alcohol is harmful, or that it can ruin lives. However, the great majority of adults have consumed alcohol, and only a very small percentage are alcoholics. However, if your only experience with alcohol was in the role of a social worker, I can certainly imagine how you could get an entirely different impression. Now, cannabis is not harmless, and in some cases it can be quite harmful indeed, just like alcohol. However, by most measures, it is actually less likely to be so. And, in any case, whether it is harmful is not the issue. What is at issue is whether more harm is done by it when it is legal, or when it is illegal. I'll again bring in the analogy of alcohol, and let none other than John D. Rockefeller, onetime proponent of Prohibition, make my point for me: When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.

But if they legalize it, then I have to! That's what "legalize" means, right?

So does anyone have a real argument for keeping it illegal? Or to put it another way, why is smoking an unaccountable mystery product, risking prison, and funding organized crime better than smoking regulated legal marijuana? Surely the former ruins more lives, no? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged And even that is not the dillema. It's not harm of the law vs. harm of the drug, because the law is ridiculously ineffective at stopping the drug. It's harm of the law plus harm of the drug vs. harm of a less dangerous drug. No brainer.

What won't ever stop? Legalization? And who is the everyone? People who use those drugs anyway?