Sisyphus

http://www.weather.com/weather/local/USNY0996?lswe=New%20York,%20NY&lwsa=WeatherLocalUndeclared&from=searchbox_typeahead

I have the answer. However, I cannot share it without $10 thousand upfront, in order to get my proof safely out of Nigeria. If these terms are acceptable, PM me.

Andy is also the son of the anti-feminist, pro-creationism advocate Phyllis Schlaffly. Trivia!

The end of the geocentric model is a good example. Biological evolution might be, too. It's interesting, though, that extraordinary claims that actually turned out to be true are so hard to find. The great majority of progress is incremental, not revolutionary.

That expression dates from the age of cloth bound books, where every cover was pretty much identical. Just saying.

Yes. That, and it's hilarious.

Yes, he was obviously a young kid. But, judging by the "you put in other details," obviously a born manager.

I don't know why anyone would bother going on that show. He doesn't do interviews, he just invites people on to be yelled at for a couple minutes.

The problems I (nerdily, obviously) have with Star Trek are not the "magic" technology but the nonsensical and inconsistent use of it. If you're going to change the rules of how the world works, you need to think about what would actually happen if it worked that way. Star Trek has strong AI, artificial gravity, teleportation, time travel, machines that can materialize anything you want pretty much instantaneously, and dozens of other crazy technologies ex machina that show up for one episode and are never heard from again, even if they would obviously be useful in other situations. And yet they still solve most problems in pretty much the same way the crew of an 18th century sailing ship would, except nobody has pockets for some reason.

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/09/to-top-scientist.html Today, he probably would have posted here. (Just a reminder not to be too much of a killjoy.)

What do you think that "clocks" means, asprung? And how could you possibly experience your own time as anything other than normal? If I slowed you down, you would just experience everything else as speeding up, no?

Alright, let's tone down the drama, people. If we can't keep to the topic of the thread, moderator action will be required. That goes for everyone. To address the angry rant above, I'll just say that it is not taboo and it is not dogma. There are competing views on evolution, and consensus changes over time, the same as any other branch of science. If it seems like people are ganging up on you, it's probably because nobody but you seems to find your reasoning sound. You're not being silenced, and other people are discussing differences of opinion. I think Mr Skeptics questions are interesting, and I'm glad he's asking them, even though I'm unconvinced by the hypothesis.

No, it isn't hard. You're just not accepting the simple answer. So, again: A) Most of the time, you don't live better as individuals by stabbing each other in the back. Living in and benefitting from a society means maintaining a level of trust and living by its rules. It's a tradeoff. B) Humans do stab one another in the back. Especially when there aren't strong social institutions (like effective law enforcement) to deter it. Where did you get the idea that everybody lives morally all the time? There are competing tendencies of altruism and selfishness, which really are just two different (and not mutually exclusive) strategies for individual reproductive success. Either one can backfire. But then, evolution is not rational. It doesn't work on immortal beings, no. The primary mechanism of evolution is natural selection. This means that individuals with certain traits are more likely to die (or otherwise fail to reproduce) than others. No death/reproduction -> no natural selection -> no evolution. In order for something to evolve, there has to be a way to get there via natural selection. No, it doesn't. We're much more successful in a society (helping and being helped) than we would be as individuals in the wilderness. The "being helped" is the benefit on the individual level, and you only get help if you agree to live by the rules and help others. Obviously, the trade off is worth it. I read post #42. What part are you referring to?

That is the difference between hard SF and "soft SF," which some would argue is more like fantasy. Hard SF also uses technologies and situations that don't exist (by definition, pretty much), but which do not violate known science or even, sometimes, posit tech for which the basic principles are not already understood. One example would be the various Arthur C. Clarke stories wherein orbital mechanics played key roles in the plots. There hadn't been any space program then, let alone communication satellites, moon bases, space elevators, etc. But the physics was all well understood Newtonian mechanics. "Hard" vs. "soft" is a continuum, too. Oftentimes writers will "change the rules" in one or just a few very specific ways, and keep everything else within the realm of accepted science. Star Wars and Star Trek are, as you correctly observe, about as soft as you can possibly get. Star Wars is no more "sci fi" than Lord of the Rings, really, just in a different, equally fantastic setting that superficially more closely resembles science fiction.

I think you have to ask yourself what the difference is.

That's not quite true. Chimps have been demonstrated to make specific tools for specific purposes, and pass on the knowledge of how to do so by intentionally teaching and imitating one another. That's technology (and culture). I know that's tangential to your point, I just think it's interesting. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged It's not a circular argument. Individuals that play well with others have a clear survival advantage over those that don't. In every case? No. But then, humans are not moral in every case, are they? And of course, humans don't always work to their individual advantage. Self-sacrifice for the group is not unheard of, even when it destroys reproductive chances. But this is just further evidence that evolution is not intelligent - it can and does have counterproductive side effects. Like male tropical birds that become wildly colorful due to sexual selection, at the expense of their ability to hide well. If evolution had a goal of keeping things alive, this wouldn't happen.

Well, good! The question: Rather ironic. I still don't understand how it was (briefly) gagged in the first place. But, hey, Streisand effect on Carter-Ruck. Hehe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament For the first time possibly ever, the media are being forcibly prevented from reporting proceedings of the UK Parliament. The gag order is directed at a specific question in the Commons, and prevents the Guardian from saying what the question was, who asked it, who it was directed to, or the reason for the gag order. I don't know much about British law, but a lot of people are saying it's a violation of the 1688 bill of rights, and a dangerous precedent. I hope they have a really good reason. So, all you British people, what do we think of this? Is this acceptable?

The Moon will be Obama's Vietnam.

No problem.

Multiplying those units together would just give you kg. km^3 cancels out km^-3. Always remember the "does this answer make sense" test: density X volume = mass. So if all your units are correct, you will end up with an answer in units of mass. How did you end up with kg km?

I can't find anyone who thinks this was a good idea. I think that's very important to keep in mind.

You could say either, and both would be true. One a purely physical explanation, one a metaphysical one dependent on the condition of consciousness. It seems like applying that to evolution would require circular reasoning. "It has a goal because it is intelligent. It is intelligent because it has a goal." etc.

mod: I removed the link to your personal site. Just posting links and not saying anything is not permitted, and if done as a first post it is usually treated as spam. This is a discussion forum.

No, there could not. The Big Bang is not an explosion in space. It is the beginning of an expansion of space. It does/did not have a location, from which you could be a distance away.