padren

If we define a reason as something that can be, if examined closely enough, tied in a causal set of links, then as long as the universe is deterministic then there is a reason behind everything. Secondarily, if the term reason is less tied to direct causality and we go with "reasoned thought, subconcious desire, or best method available to us" then it still largely if not totally true: we either do something because we thought it out or because some subconcious drive pushes us to, or because (such as blinking for no reason) it gets us back on track without our even knowing it when nothing else would more effeciently. Other than the above, I wouldn't know how to define a reason any other way, so I wouldn't know how to state something that breaks the theorom. I do things that are erratic all the time, for no reason known to me...but I also am quite comfortable running with the most whimsical impulse so I can't say I don't have a reasonable expectation that it is worth following. I can't think of a definition of reason that would allow doing things "for no reason" at all.

I would agree with you but I am under the impression (and correct me if I am wrong) that the profit margins for pharm companies are pretty high - they make profit over cost off the socialized contracts and even more profit over cost off the US customers. That would be profit over cost while factoring in research and covering the costs of failed research projects as well. I could be wrong of course, but they seem pretty flush to me.

Would adding the electical charge help boost the power of the explosive propellant? My largest concern would be heat - you don't want the chamber to get hot enough to ignite the fuel as its been injected...on a weapon platform system you could use cooling coils I am sure, but I am not sure how hot a weapon would get from rapid fire. Internal combustions engines seem to do okay with just forced air and a radiator. The other benefit is there is no shell ejection - the propellant is burned up and the slug is fired leaving the chamber empty and ready to reload faster. If it is H/O based I imagine water could be an issue but it would have to cool to condense.

Please move this to physics if it is better posted there: I am not sure the best place for it (its also kinda a chem question too) Basically, I've been playing with an idea for scifi reasons but I am interested in conventional applications as well: liquid fuel propelled munitions. Basically, instead of having a shell and the explosive load tied together in a single unit, I've been wondering about using hydrogen/oxygen (or other fuel) in a combustion system not unlike the cylinder of a car to propel a round. The advantage would be smaller munition magazines that held more, and the ability to dial up or down the power of any given shot when over-penetration is a concern. Another thought would be introducing other elements into the mix if needed, and delivering a very high voltage arc to the mix to create a more higher powered explosion by charging the mix as it ignites, which I think would be basically creating a plasma. I like the idea of adding electicity partly because electrical energy storage and disapation is on a seperate technology teir from the chemical elements, and on something like a naval vessel (many nuclear now) comes in very compact production methods. With the advent of more modern systems that counter missile attacks by near-target automatic anti-missile fire, the ability to deliver a payload at higher speeds than missiles can achieve could become a real nessecity and bring turret based weapons into more promenance. So my I am curious about: * Are there currently liquid propellant projectile weapons in use? * Are they as effective as powder based rounds? * Can the addition of a high voltage charge increase the explosive capacity of the propellant? * Would any specific mixture be better than another, and would the addition of other elements increase the power yield when high voltage is applied? I originally thought this up as a way to make a cool space age "sci fi" pistol type weapon, but I like to figure out how realistically applicable something is as well. Any thoughts?

If the tender is giving you free drinks, try going to a bar with a name that does not contain a sly euphemism for male anatomy. REAL men always buy their own drinks, with money from real work that makes our hands cracked and rough and would cause us to complain about our bad backs (if we were inclined to complain of course).

I do think some men tend to play to what they think women want, which IMO doesn't work out any better than when women go against their own sense of self to try and be what they think men want which, while often sexalicious, tends not to engender any more respect than women have for girly men. There is a fine line between self motivated self improvement and reactive "is this what you want" pandering, and pandering is always undesirable regardless of the gender. Even if it is somewhat in line with what the other party is looking for, if it is a purely reactive tact to please someone it offers nothing. If it is true to the person's nature then they are creatively that way and add to the other person's life instead of just reacting everytime they let a "want" slip out. Then when it comes to the genuine "girl man" its worth while to note its a bad idea to mistake kindess for weakness. Play keep-away with a guy's hand cream 'round these parts and you're liable to get a real shiner. As for speeding, I never go more than 110 in a 65...at least at night. (Mapquest says 8hrs 40 minutes huh? Try 6 1/2)

I didn't mean to propose my definitions of "good" and "bad" are especially valid, just that definitions are required to examine the question you posed because they can be ambigious. I believe truth and fact are very important (if a lie was needed to save a child's life I'd still utter it) but when a lot of the questions in religion are unanswerable here on Earth I think the "health of the least of us" isn't that bad of a measure in gauging how close we come to being in harmony with the true nature of the universe - whatever that is. I think if someone believes God exists in the same way that someone may believe that we decended from apes (ie, based on a collection of facts and logic) then its subject to criticism and not "sacred" but just part of a theory that has led someone to some conclusions for the time being. Personally I would not classifiy such a belief in God as a faith in God, and categorize that as a philosophy instead of a religious belief. I know you don't have the expectation of convincing us that your observations are sound - but that you want to put them out there because you witnessed them. For me, its impossible for me to make any use of them because from my perspective they are just anecdotes and there are millions of those out there that say any number of different things. If I gave credence to yours, it would have to be out of a momentary bias or I would have to give credence to so many other claims my head would explode. I am not going to try to convince you otherwise, but I hope you can understand my position on this matter: I actually feel that sentiment is harmful. All the evidence I have witnessed in my life has led me to the conclusion that its when people decide they need to do the work themselves and actively make the changes in their lives that they want, that it will begin all the changes in their lives that are necessary. By contrast, putting your trust into someone that is talked about but isn't even another living flesh and blood person among us I can only believe leads to distraction from taking care of things yourself, and I think that causes more suffering than is nescessary for people. I don't say it to put you down or your beliefs, but if that is a core aspect of christianity, I would still have to put it in the "bad" camp for that reason. Its easy to believe in a Divine Creator, but its equally easy to believe in any number of possible Divine Creators or the absense of one. There is a lot of rational arguments that support the "happened by chance" position but I won't rehash those, since thats a different debate and played itself out many times in the now archived areas of this site. Perhaps my largest resistance to organized religion is that I can't help but to feel that, if there is a God that would choose to grade us at death, that its more important that we measure ourselves by our own personal standard (ie, how we live with our own actions) than going on His standard, even if we had clear knowledge of what that standard was. If we are to be judged, either we are good or we are not, but as long as we are true to who we are we'll be judged rightly as one or the other.

At the same time though, if his parents chose a church that happened to be made up of people who would give them flak because their kid is not a member of the faith, its really on them for choosing to associate with such people. I do believe in diplomacy, which is really saying what you mean and being true to yourself while delivering it in the least harshest way. I personally don't think I'd have referred to the church as a cult, because of the bite that would have and I think I could be true to my beliefs without using that word, but I can respect it if you felt you had to. My recommendation is be open with your current beliefs in the most diplomatic way possible - tell people you don't believe in god if asked, or whatever you feel to be true. If you can deliver the message without touching on your more biting observations then do so where possible. As for evangalizing the faults of the bible I would stay away from that unless someone approaches you with the topic. I say this because these faults don't really matter to them, combating faith with reason is a fool's errand that only rarely hits upon a person right at the tilting point...other wise its ineffective. Also, its better IHMO to live by one's own advice and only give it when asked or you see a clear way easily accepted advice can help someone. People that try to tell everyone else what's going on usually come across as compensating for their own lack of real understanding of the issue. But do recommend books, talk with people, be open - just don't go picking theological fights, and try to be as kind worded as you can while remaining honest. I guess thats my 2 cents.

Its a little more than that - educated and knowledgeable or not, groups ranging from corrupt governments to groups with special interests are threatening, imprisoning, and killing scientists for coming up with findings they don't want to be established or doing work they don't want to be done. Its scary to think that the research you do could pan out in such a way that it results in your life being threatened.

Put a security alarm sticker on your newly secured door. Stickers are cheap, though you may want to spring for the real thing. My largest concern is that they got so little (relatively) is because it was spontanious, and if they had more time and planning they'd have cleaned you out. So, they may do just that when they feel like they have the right moment to. If you can't afford an alarm system right now, complain to some of your neighbors how you just had to install one and put some stickers up. If these guys are in your complex and they see the sticker or hear you did that, they'd likely assume you did get it installed, considering your recent losses. They'd probably move on to another target. I hope they catch the guys and you get your stuff back.

I think it boils down to what is "good" or "bad" and those are pretty subjective terms, but for myself I would say that "promoting good will and general health among all people" is good and things that run against that are bad. Some would add more than "people" and include all animal life, while others would say all animal life that has the brain capacity to (as best as we can tell) experience consciousness and/or pain etc. So going on the simple "good will" rule, any religion or philosophy that teaches its followers to selectively disregard groups of people and allow or cause them suffering (or cause themselves needless suffering) would be "bad" in my books. Regarding a religion that teaches meditation and charity like you mentioned is on the whole fairly good, but I can't help but to wonder if accepting any basic principle on faith (the essense of religion) is all that healthy for a person's mind - so would that religion be as "good" as a general philosphy of thought that included those precepts without any religious connotation? I personally think the same practices in a non-religious framework would be healthier in any matched comparison between a general philosphy and a religion.

I would agree with you except that if advanced AI gets involved, and can make it self smarter with simple software change, then use its smarter software to make it smarter yet (it will still hit stepped caps due to hardware, which it would then have to engineer and those steps would slow it down due to the rate with which a new hardware component can be prototyped and installed) the rate of growth in the AI's intelligence would be astonding and very fast. Unlike fertility, there would be no long involved testing processes and studies, and rounds of research to conduct at the pace of human lives (people trying to concieve) so it could really take off in a huge hurry. Even when an AI updates its software iterratively, and hits the first "need new hardware designs" cap it would likely have jumped enough to apply itself and rethink a huge amount of humanity's most intelligent design patterns and processes. It would be able to introduce things into society that could not be ignored due to their incredibly high effeciencies but at the same time leave us with incredibly steep changes in how we live our lives in order to take advantage of those changes.

A friend of mine in Iraq sent me this link which was REALLY helpful - thanks again everyone for responding: http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-1035_11-5034890.html I would have called MS but (probably because I have an OEM version) they would charge me $35 just to use the chat on their website, which I didn't want to do. Thanks again

I've had a [re]activation misfunction in my computer and it freaks out saying it needs to be reactivated due to hardware changes. I click the thing for more details on the activation failure, and it just sends me to a page on MS to buy another copy. I have my product key right here, but the software never even gives me a chance to enter it in. I just wasted an hour or so on the MS site - can anyone give me any advice in this situation? I *really* don't want to reinstall windows, though if some sort of repair will work I'd be happy with that. It says I have 3 days before it does some Mission Impossible bs to my computer - any advice is MUCH appreciated. PS: The sheer irony that a number of my friends use hacked copies just to avoid glitches in activation.....whereas I actually bought the stinking thing and am now dealing with this.

I can't help to think that somewhere along the evolutionary line, species that did well enough to find extremely successful feeding grounds had to either adapt to the unique dangers of that environment or died like belly-up fish with too many helpings of seconds. We don't eat to the point of death these days (unless you count slow-death by obesity related health problems) but we sure don't have an off-switch when it comes to other aspects of over consumption. But at our juncture in history we are so past instinct we'll have to adapt mentally instead of physically to survive within a bountiful yet limited environment. I think the key is in survival stress. The more stressful survival is, the more preditory we are. The more we hand off the hard work of survival to technological mechanisms and feel less instinctual threat, the freer our minds are to make decisions that aren't about getting "whatever we can" but consider the current boundries of our environment and how not to tip the boat.

* If you believe the world would be a much better place if world leaders read your posts. * If you are sure you've never lost an online debate, but the ones you didn't win were due to everyone else's defecit of intelligence or surplus of immaturity. * If you believe that the main reason your own views are not mainstream is due to the poor state of the contemporary education system and/or failings of human nature. * If you've cited Godwin's Law in a forum on a site dedicated to survivors of the Holocaust. * If you've ever cited scripture to refute scientific evidence * If you've ever cited scientific evidence to refute scripture * If you ever thought posting either of the above two would be viewed by other forum members as a compelling and intelligent rebuttal. * If you view sharing your views and ideas in a debate forum primarily as a way to educate others about The Right Way To Think. * If you contend that you are in the center but that its humanity's fault that 99% of them all reside directly to your right/left. * You regularly enjoy saying public figures who are known for being extreme left/right are actually too far right/left. * You've noticed a client/customer become uncomfortable when you start a potitical conversation but you keep talking anyway. * You assess another's integrity first by what political leanings they have. * You know your employees only parot your political views because they fear for their job but you like the conversations anyway.

Since you are rendering a rectangle image onto a plane, you would need it capable of measuring the distance to three contact points (and that still assuming the target is flat) and modifying the places the laser lines are drawn to account for distance and distortion. If you needed to manually set the distance it would be impossible to get the angle and distance accurate enough to work. If you *could* manually adjust how long the ruler was so it could work like a measuring tape - that would be very cool. If you had one dial for ruler length and another for setting a laser mark on a spot within it, you could easily compare lengths that should be similar or mark boards etc with it. The main drawback is with a ruler or tape measure you don't have to worry about the "0" mark sliding around, because its pressed up to something, but even a slightly shakey hand would cause havoc at any distance over a few inches.

I can't say 100% but I am pretty sure I saw that one when the impressionist exhibit came through denver in...I think 2000ish. I've seen it before so my brain may be fuzzing two instances together, but I am pretty sure I saw it there. I do recall liking that one especially, good aquisition.

Most endangered species are such because we continue to expand into their habitats or like to kill them and use their stuff. We go, they stop being killed faster than they breed. They still have to worry about wolves of course...there's always wolves... I am pretty sure the high methane levels are a result of domestic livestock, which would die off without humans. Its not that methane would cease to exist but become extremely negilible by comparison to current levels.

Herme3, why would you want to have anything to do with contacting someone and reaching out to them online when they want their profile to be private? If you want to meet people online that think like you and share your views, every private profile is an easy red flag to skip right over that one. If they were forced public it may actually require effort to identify it would be a waste of your time to read their profile. Some people (myself included) really don't like the idea of meeting people for the sake of meeting people in some online profilacopia. I'll use the odd system to keep in touch with a few select RL friends but every strictly online friendship I've ever had has come from participating in some mutual interest, from topical forums to games to whatever. I strongly suggest participating in some RL interests - heck, take up tennis even (or a study group or a social cause or anything that interests you) and let meeting people be an incidental side effect of enjoying your life. Nice thing about meeting people that way is there is no pressure to actually get to know them but its easy if you happen to want to. Since you are digging though online profiles looking for people you'd like you should at least admit the isolation thing isn't working 100% for you and try something new. What do you have to loose afterall?

Update: She's had more MRIs done and seen a neurologist, it looks like Chiari Malformation is the most probable cause. There are signs of it on the MRI and it fits the symptoms. She has an consultation with a neurosurgeon later this month. Hopefully things go well.

I agree with what you are saying in general, and I should have said "share responsibility" instead of "equally responsible" in my statement. I mean that if parents disregard blatant signs that they are negligent. It would be like a parent saying to their teenager "I hate it when you drive high, be safe" as he grabs his keys and takes off stoned out of his mind and he kills someone. The amount of influence and the ability of parents to predict and prevent their kids from hurting others is a very gray issue and I am not trying to nail down where culpability begins and ends, just that such a threshold exists somewhere and deserves attention.

I am just curious how the US armed forces rank right now strength wise, against where we were before afghanistan and iraq. You are only as strong as the forces you have at your disposal to commit, and from what it looks like we are overtaxed with our current deployments. Sure, if WWIII broke out, we'd pull out of Iraq in a hurry and redeploy, but when smaller conflicts arise and hostile leaders view our current strength, it will be with the question of whether we'd be willing to give up on Iraq to engage at full strength, or engage with whatever we have left over. If we needed to deploy armed forces tomorrow to a new conflict - how well could we do it?

Your waaaay out there - I never said have your child haulled away for making a comment...but don't you think it would deserve some attention when a child talks about wanting to kill people, like perhaps talking to him and assessing the situation further? There is a LOT of range between doing nothing at all and calling the SS to drag him away. If you missed the point of my post it was that where the gun comes from is secondary, and only a factor at all if there is gross negligence involved - but that the real concern is how a kid goes from living his life to forfeiting his whole future to kill his fellow classmates without anyone noticing.

I disagree because if you put these people in the position to apply force to the law, the law will bend towards their will over time. And as for as how many folks wouldn't like it - I can imagine myself dealing with a political opponent, trying to blackmail me with a smear campaign of completely irrelevant issues in my personal life or those of my loved ones if I don't roll over for some bill I am morally obligated to oppose. Dealing with people who would oppose what I support on the principle of my failing to support some other innoviative the party supported even though they would have supported idea if it stood by itself...then having to dirty myself by scratching their backs just to get what I believe in through. Yeah, who would want to pass that life? I'm much more optimistic about working my way up to "excentic billionaire" and using the old fashioned tool of lobbying to try to get the changes I want to see happen in the world. I do think the political system needs to be improved, but it will be via a number of small incremental changes fought for tooth and nail, which will change the nature of the evironment from being sociopath-friendly to intellectual-friendly. The first thing I think would help would be a one-person-one-vote per candidate-slot. IE: if three people ran for President, you could vote for two because you want either of them to win. It would give 3rd party candidates a chance and nullify the "fear vote" of voting for the person you hate the least that has the best chance of voting for the person you hate the most. It would also seriously change the strength of the two parties, which I think would be positive impacts. Now, not everyone would agree with me and even something this small would have serious impacts on the whole system. How could something even this small ever be implemented, or any other idea with a similar impact? There is too much fear of introducing untested changes to improve the system that we end up with the same old system year in and year out.