padren

Top 10 Worst Places to Take a Date: 10) The pawn shop (on the way to Red Lobster) 9) The emergency room (on account of your cooking) 8) Factory tour at Odor Eaters (where everyone remembers your name) 7) Any plastic surgery clinic "just to look at the brochures" 6) A shoe store (painful for you, but she may love it) 5) Anything with "time share seminar" in the name 4) The room you live in over your parent's garage (assuming you're over 25) 3) Any place where they hurt kittens 2) The drunk tank of the county jail, by any course of the evening. 1) A roleplaying internet forum Next List: Top 10 Really Bad Ways To Be Attacked By Animals

I think networks like AT&T should be in favor of being required of given their subscribers the whole internet. If they are put in the position of being able to block content, they'll get every darn group with a bone to pick running campaigns to make them change what content they provide. Whether its boycotts and bad publicity for allowing gay rights and other "non family" material be accessed or even claims of liablility when they choose not to block a questionable site that later starts posting kiddie porn, or a kid learning to make bombs. Maybe we can sue libararies when a kid dies on LSD after signing out a book by Timothy Leary for not blocking that content. It would be smarter for them to want the law require them not to police the net in the name of free speech, than take on such a thankless task. Then you have the capacity to abuse it in a commercial sense: If someone sells widgets online, and AOL decides to make someone else their flagship widget people, would they have the right to block the sites of other widget sellers from their subscribers? Seems like a really bad road to go down to me.

I think its worth emphasizing the "serious problem with it" part because, in that case, you'd be present a case involving those rational and serious issues with it, and because of that, you would not be labeled a bigot (at least not by anyone with any sense). I think if someone is against pedophilia and beastiality simply because they think "who cares, screw em pervs" then that would be a bigoted argument...however, there are "serious problems with it" which can be articulated rationally succinctly, such as issues of the trauma of child abuse, the inability to consent, and the fact that animal rights exist and that animals (which are less able to consent than any child which clearly can't) are protected by animal rights laws. The problem is the proponents of a constitutional gay marriage ban in the senate, have failed to articulate a rational argument, and as such have understandably been called bigots.

I think a family should have the option to have a private funeral, in which case there would also be no option for the media to be present. If they do not opt for a private service, and use it as a soap box to make political statements to the media, then in general protesting should be permitted. I don't like the idea of people using funerals to make soap box statements free from the risk of protesters, but if they are just there to mourn the loss of a loved one, they should be able to do so in peace.

I think the people who think those deaths are justified now, would believe they were justified even if Zarqawi was not killed. Those who feel it has not been justified while Zarqawi has been alive, for the most part, still won't feel those deaths are justified now that he is dead. While I think everyone will agree it is good he's not out there anymore, that people's stance on what is justified will remain unaffected.

I think the real problem is a lot of people who are against gay rights feel that the gay lifestyle can be encouraged and discouraged, and that openly accepting it can encourage it and mean potentially loosing their sons and daughters to it. I think those are the emotions a lot of them bring to the table, and it only clouds the issue. Pangloss, I am curious how you define bigot, and how you would size up the differences between this civil rights struggle and others that clearly contained bigotry among the opposition. I can tell you strongly feel that it is not an issue of bigotry, to the point of thinking most of us must see it that way too deep down. I can't help but to feel bigotry is a factor, but I do respect the positions you take and would be interested in knowing how you see the seperating of the lines.

The marriage tax break, I believe, is done because couples share their finances generally. You can make a case to dissolve the marriage tax break, but it doesn't make any sense in terms of disallowing marriages that some people find less "proper" in their eyes. So, how does the tax break issue apply to gay marriage specifically? Is it any different than interracial marriages, or marriages between sterile couples?

I am sure the people who fought against the civil rights movement and women's sufferage also decried their opponents for calling it an issue involving bigotry. They undoubtedly had their own charts, graphs, statistics and sacred traditions. In the end though, the only measure can be secular and free of social engineering. (ie, not arguments of scripture, and not arguments of how to pressure citizens into breeding groups or other "social goals" of select engineers) The only valid limiting factor on peoples' freedoms can be whether they hurt others and, if you are very non-libertarian...if they hurt themselves. I quite enjoy hurting myself, and really wouldn't want to deny anyone else that pleasure either. I am yet to see a single example of how allowing gay people to marry hurts me or any other individual in this country. Offend their religious views...yes...offend their hardwired instincts on sexual attraction...yes, but harm....yet to see any evidence for it. I honestly believe of a lot of resistance is bigotted in nature, with those people grasping at weak rationalizations because they can't believe that is the source of their feelings. Genuine debate can be had, but they should not be based on arguments from ignorance and demonstrate how people are actually hurt by the activities they wish to ban. Then, we can have a conversation without the word "bigot" coming up.

Great, now I have a twisted old-style mentos commercial stuck in my head featuring osama bin laden, a landmark, coke, and of course the freshmaker.

Thats funny, after I read the article in question, I ended up taking a much different stance than I expected. What I see in his list, is that he's blasting the administration for avoiding real issues that actually affect people to push one contraversial issue that - whether it is passed or not - will have absolutely no impact on most Americans, other than a small minority will get kicked in the face yet again. Why shouldn't the guy be pissed off about Haditha? Why shouldn't he join others in demanding accountablility? When an administration arranges organized torture by shuffling people off to prisons where we can pay non-americans to do unamerican things to prisoners, when we completely devalue the lives of people that should be innocent until proven guilty - and then that mentality appears to seep into the battleground in iraqi prisons, in gitmo and in the skulls of dead women and children strewn in their homes - who is responsible? Why shouldn't we demand a change? At the very least some real dialog instead of crap we get. To be honest, its actually nice to see a democrat with a spine for once. I hope more follow suit.

I just love how if you want to push a law thats unconstitutional, from flag burning to banning rights of certian minorties, you make it a constitutional amendment. And about Haditha, I don't think anyone has desire to make "hay" out of it, they just want events like it to stop and voice their outrage at it. What else should they do - suppress their outrage over fear someone may think they are exploiting a tragic event? If we can cut off the head of a nation's leader because they don't keep their ranks clean and some within their borders commit acts of terrorism...why don't we apply the same pressure to our own generals and high ranking military leaders to keep their soldiers from committing war crimes and atrocities? Just a thought...

Gutz, what if China got angry at us, because our Google shows information that is censored on Google China and considered offensive to the Chineese government? Remember that people did not get angry because Mohammad was portrayed in ink doing bad stuff, it was because he was portrayed in ink at all. According to Jeudaism (iirc) all depictions of God are considered a religion wrong, but you don't see them rioting and calling to destroy the painting Birth of Man. I will personally fight the idea that some other guy's religion gives him any right to tell me what to do. If someone has a problem with anything I do, they can describe it in a secular manner or blow off. What if an American reporter gathered the top sites china censors, and linked to them from a site and got it to rank #1 on Google (yet not be on the Chinese version) for the search term "Chinese Censorship." Lets say they rioted in China, and some people even died. Should that reporter be arrested? Should we be sensitive to China's feelings and supress information ourselves, to make them feel better?

One of the things I like about science fiction is it captures the imagination in a creative way that applies to logical thought. The effects of advance science and technology, discoveries of hypothetical mechanics that let your imagination run with the implications of the various ways it can be adapted and used. While it often gives poor expectations of what science really is, it also is sensational enough to spark an interest and reveal its potential. As corny as the show was, a lot of people were very affected by the classic StarTrek. It was a vision not just of a technological world, but a society free of our modern day grime, so I think it also really inspired the idea that science can give us the breathing room to expand how we live as a society. It gave a sense of hope for the future. I also quite like dark science fiction, but I don't know if it has the same effects. All in all, I think more science fiction should be explored at an early age and give young kids a chance to explore the cognative leaps in how adding technolgy "A" would effect other aspects of the world. So much of school is about learning where we were, and where we are, but doesn't really look very far into where we could go.

I understand how velocity can be required to create an effect, such as the conditions for lift via an airfoil, related to factors such as the size of the foil and the viscosity of the fluid etc, and thus the need for a higher airspeed on takeoff and such, but what I don't understand is that since gravity is a force (9.8m/s^2), that if speed (say 300 m/s^1) that if the momentum of the craft cannot be impart any energy into the system without loosing speed, and to maintain speed or increase it, the force of the engine must be able to cause acceleration better than 9.8m/s^2. I guess it boils down to the need to overcome the 9.8m/s^2 downward acceleration of gravity, and the solution is to "move up" with thrust greater than that acceleration. Airfoils and circulation etc seem to cause sufficient vertical thrust by means that cannot be acheived with the engine (which is designed just to produce thrust) alone. Since forward velocity can only come from the thrust of the engine, it can catalyze but not add to the upward thrust without reducing forward thrust. All the forces (thrust, lift, gravity) are m/s^2 and velocity is m/s^1, which is why I am confused how speed can be more than a means to achieve the mechanical advantage of the aerodynamic features. All those aerodynamic features do though is manipulate how the engine's thrust is used, even though the thrust itself doesn't seem sufficient hit 9.8m/s^2. This is what I am curious about.

Another way to look at the ethics is to ask what are the chances that others will develop it too, and the more time our government has it, the better defenses we can come up with to counter it, and prevent the loss of life should it ever be used on us. Regarding your middle east comments, while I think some people will always need to be suppressed to keep them from being violent, blanket suppression by threats of force are never a good solution. They suppress acts of violence out of fear of retribution, but the pressure the supression creates leaks out in other ways. That is one of the reasons why (generally) the more violently a leader suppresses his subjects, the more violent the inevitable change of power will be. There are some geninue gripes that the middle east has with the US, and many that are based solely on extremist BS. Our tendancy to bunch the two types together in our own minds makes it easier for the extremists to latch their unreasonable causes to the reasonable ones.

Okay, I had previously thought the vacuum lift factor was the largest element in lift. One more question then: Since we are measuring force effectively, and we are using an engine to create forward force, some of which is deflected to create upward force through a mechanical system (ie, the inclined fin thing) - how is this more mechanically effecient than just taking the forward generating force system (engine) and pointing down to create direct upward force? Or at an incline angle to create both forward and upward force? Is this as simple as the jet or prop is more effecient when air is passing over it at faster speeds, allowing for forward motion to create a larger total force? I would have trouble believing that, since a prop plane going as fast as it can horizontally, can pull up sharp and start a steep climb at a high speed, but will quickly loose speed since it isn't overcoming 9.8m/s^2 anymore off pure engine power. Yet, that engine and prop is the only force creating the motion required to allow the lift force of the wings to overcome that same 9.8m/s^2 with ease. How can the mechanical advantage of the foil system achieve a vertical acceration rate higher than 9.8m/s^2 when pushed by prop thrust, yet that same thrust is unable to accelerate the plane up at 9.8m/s^2 when pointed straight up?

I am saying speed itself isn't the determining factor in lift. If you had the same low pressure area over the top of the wing via "magic" you could achieve lift off without any forward velocity. Speed is a method by which, in conjuction with an airfoil, you create a low pressure region over the top of the wing. Regarding elevators, and angle of inclination, you are redirecting some of your forward thrust to move you upwards as well. Since the airfoils can overcome gravity well, even when the top facing surface area is reduced by the mild angle of inclination, the engines can push the plane up at a decent enough speed. If I am misunderstanding any of the principles let me know. Another factor is inclined fins, which when you apply a straight forward force to the craft, they impact a certian amount of air particles, deflecting them down. The result is the craft will meet more total resistance, but also deflect upwards somewhat, effectively converting some of the forward motion into upward motion. The issue with waterskiing isn't the water, but the fact you are always moving over a fresh patch of water, at a speed faster than the viscosity of the water allows for it to get out of the way under your weight. This also is made possible I believe, due to the weight and fluidity differences between the air and the water. Waterskiis would not keep a heavy mass from sinking, other than via the effect of the "inclined fin" factor that I stated above. When you mention a symmetrical wing shape, is that based on an incline to convert some forward motion into upward motion? I am curious what principle, other than the asymmetrical airfoil lift factor, could utilize speed to increase lift, without relying on pure vertical jet/rocket thrust etc.

Speed is only a method to create the vacuum effect over the top of the wing though, it doesn't actually increase the lift surface area at any time. The faster you go, the lower the air pressure is over the airfoil, and the larger the total volume of the low pressure area, which helps increase lift but it can never quite reach "perfect vacuum" over the wing with perfect normal pressure under it quanta of lift, so at best at any speed you'll get a lesser total percent of that perfect lift per square inch, which itself isn't related to speed. Speed+airfoil is just the way to create the low pressure effect. That is my understanding at least - do correct me if I am wrong.

I am trying to figure out something that kinda puzzles me about how an airfoil works. From what I know, air moves over the top faster than under the wing, creating a lower pressure region of air over the wing, creating a vacuum style lift effect. That all makes sense, but what I don't understand is, is how you can get so much lift from that simple process. The difference in air particles above vs below cannot equal the mass of a boeing 747, so how does it generate that much lift? Am I just looking at it wrong? Should I be comparing the pounds per square inch of air pressure that push up below the wing, to the far more neglible pounds per square inch of very low atmospheric pressure on the top wing surface? If that's the case I probably answered my own question...but I'll ask another one if I had gotten the first one right: For the vacuum effect to occur, there must be a compressed region of air as well yes? Does this occur on an arc above the region of low pressure?

If there ever is transportation, I would bet it would be analog. Too much data to digitize, too much energy to reconstruct the matter, too little time to do it all in. Trying to keep the top half of a person's atoms in perfect frozen state (including not reacting to light, or giving off heat) while you continue to materialize the rest of them would be exceptionally challenging.