Sayonara

Oh dear lord...

She thinks I sell storage heaters, whereas in reality automatic t-shirt sales fund my hedonistic lifestyle of orgies with utilities workers.

Can I have some Gypsy Cake?

I don't recall... certainly mathematical considerations of entropy will become more exotic, but in the case of time travel into the past, entropic principles are conserved.

Simply click on my name next to this post and choose "Visit Sayonara³'s homepage" for all the dullness you could possibly eat.

Insane Alien has a blog called "What Sayo Blogged", which reports on the things I blog on my blog, "Sayonara's Dull Blog". He doesn't think I know about it, but I do. I don't have a dog, but my housemate does. It's very gay.

Yes, sorry. I should have hit return a couple of times between the sentences I'll have a crack at finding the thread but to (very) briefly summarise the counterargument, there is no plausible requirement for the matter/energy contained in the universe to exist in particular quantities at any given time. This is because, if we are already considering time to be a navigable property of the universe, then we have to take "the universe" to mean a container which has time as a dimension - in other words "the universe" as a whole means all places at all times. The total matter/energy therefore does not exceed itself just because it is moving around the universe.

The designs were inspired by the unofficial uniform adopted by staff in my builders, plumbers and electricians agency.

When I said "god we have been through this soooo many times on SFN" I did actually mean that this entire thread is a duplication (and not "the second time it has come up", but more like the sixth or seventh time). However, I can see your point about single responses. Ideally the OP would have added his comments to one of the open existing threads instead of starting his own duplicate, and this situation would never have arisen. I don't have the URL for the last thread in which we discussed the energy/matter displacement fallacy to hand. It was done with some time ago.

It's not. It's supposed to be an open invitation for people to use the internal search engine to look for the previous exhaustive threads on the topic, which is what all members ought to do anyway before they create a duplicate thread.

Hi Men of Steel. The reason this thread has attracted no replies is because you have not supplied any information about what you have worked out so far, and which parts of the derivation are giving you problems.

This thread is an elegant illustration of the idea that supporters != support.

False requirement. God we have been through this soooo many times on SFN.

lol You raise a good point though, indirectly. People trying to solve for this might want to declare some values (like, assume average radius of Earth's orbit, select arbitrary voltage, etc).

I am going to add SUMS to this to make it more FUN for the bored ones. If you say "no - not instantaneous", then calculate time difference between connection of circuit and illumination of bulb. With and without resistance (assume copper wire of 1.4mm diameter).

It was a much more concise job than the last time I tried it. You could have mentioned the specific causality requirements though

Partly a thought experiment, partly inspired by the "Line to the Moon" thread... Imagine if you will that YT is building a lamp in his work room. He has a battery terminal connected to a bulb with a short piece of wire. He connects his last piece of wire to the other terminal but is shocked to find that this piece is millions of miles long. YT decides to be fancy and launches the end of the wire into space with one of his home made rockets, then recovers it a year later (pretend this is at all possible). The larger piece of wire should now be assumed to occupy the same solar orbital in which Earth travels. The question is, when YT connects this end of the wire to the light bulb, will the circuit be completed (and hence the bulb illuminated) instantaneously? Give reasoning and neglect the heat effects of solar radiation.

They are supposed to have researchers working for them when they are reporting outside their field (i.e. all the time). I am sure there must be plenty of journalists with just the right foolish/ignorant/arrogant balance to think they can do without.

Not necessarily. A "brewing station" can be used to vent massive plumes of single-celled photosynthetic organisms into the atmosphere, where they spread out into an umbrella with a massive surface area for light absorption and slowly descend, eventually contributing towards an organically rich "soil" of sorts. The problem of supplying nitrogen remains, but the essential process are kicked off. According to current international treaty, it really depends on what the land is going to be used for. That doesn't actually support the point, though, does it? Funnily enough... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6506539.stm I don't think it is - there have been scientifically viable ideas around for terraforming for the better part of half a century. However the kind of resource investment it would take, and the risks involved, are definitely more than corporations or even nations are willing to post. Assuming that the initial terraforming stages were manned (which I personally would not expect, but hey) you'd have to use these strategies anyway. There are arguments both ways - remember the Dyson Swarm thread?

I don't see why ordering 568ml of beer should be any less sane than ordering 500ml of beer.

Nobody in their right mind denies it exists. What they deny is that our civilisation is the major contributing factor.

One day Blike let the monkeys out of the cage to enjoy the sunshine. We never got them all back in. The thing about monkeys is that they really like fiddling with things.

(I am going to bed right after this post, you just wait and see) In case anyone did not catch this: In this thread, I am now Mars, and Cal is now GLAAD. Let's see what happens.

Nyaaah I am off to bed in a sec, so don't expect further replies tonight! Or tomorrow - Japanese class, yay \o/ Having re-read the thread while I was waiting I think I should clarify that not only do GLAAD find the "gays can't be manly" bit offensive, but it is an affront that a company like mars should pass this message along to people who are not sufficiently perceptive as yourself to reach your interpretation (i.e. that the advert mocks homophobia, as you put it). Considering the number of freaking retards out there with nothing better to do than watch football and throw peanuts at each other all day, you have to admit, even if you don't sympathize with their position, they have a bit of a point there. I will say to you what I say to everyone else making this "I don't accept it" argument: one day it will be your turn. Because that's never happened before, oh no. But it's not just the perceived message that offends - it's the sure knowledge of what that message can do. Perhaps you do not see it so easily because it is unlikely to adversely affect you, I don't really know. But I am quite sure that you are putting a lot more effort into rejecting this complaint than is strictly necessary for someone who has not really been affected. (And that's not a circuitous way of calling you gay; I am just a bit confused as to why you care so much in the first place.) "imo" doesn't really qualify anything when you have already flatly rejected the major basis of the complaint. Put simply, I disagree, as you can see from all the preceding posts. We appear to have different "posts per page" settings. Which post number was it? I think it is quite clear from the content of the advert that its producers did not think about it anywhere near that much. And if they had, and it's just devilishly clever, they would surely have defended it, rather than pulling it on the orders of "whingey bastards who complain for no reason", don't you think? The intention of their complaint could, theoretically, have been anything from registering their mild disgruntlement, to issuing a declaration of war. I don't think it is helpful to pick an arbitrary level of dissatisfaction that best supports the idea that force was used or threatened. Keep in mind that pressure groups don't actually have magical enforcement beams that shoot out of their eyes. As before, this is all pre-subjected to your rejection, so you aren't really refuting it. I think you might find that people don't actually like being hospitalised before anything gets done. Even assuming, of course, a 100% capture and conviction rate for gay bashers, which frankly is laughably unlikely, in any country. I find it hard to believe you can be this optimistic, given your other views. What exactly do you think happens to people who are convicted for assaults motivated by sexuality? It's not about "sanitation" in the sense that you say it. If you are going to use the slippery slope fallacy, then explain why the regulation of television is wrong, and explain why businesses should just stop caring about quality assurance, and working with communities, and not alienating their customers. Strawman. The issue is not that "queers" are being mocked. It is that (a) they are misrepresented (whether this was during the process of mocking them, or mocking your "dumb straight men" - the result is the same), and (b) this could have further consequences for them. Abdication of responsibility for being a trigger - reallllly hard to pull off in court. No, you simply infer that because you are not familiar with the other possible meanings. Ironically, your "tangential involvement" argument actually works for me here. Could you see any moving, squishing bits? Nowhere have I made that proposal. If anyone (and especially ParanoiA) thinks that GLAAD are moaning because someone made fun of them, then you do not understand the issue that they have with this advert. I'm sorry; it's that simple. And you don't see the irony of using your right to complain to dictate to people how they should carry out their own complaints, despite the fact that their complaints haven't affected you in any quantifiable way? Well I can see where you wanted to go with it, of course. It was a brave strategy, but I would have to be completely inconsistent in my values for it to have worked (maybe not so bad as hypocritical, but you know - one rule for them, another for me, or something). I am sure their optimum outcome was for the advert to stop running, yes, but we can't just make up how far we think they would have gone if Mars said "no" in the first instance. And if we do take a massive liberty, and simply make that up, drawing value judgments against GLAAD on that basis would be unforgivable. Believe me, I am not naive enough to believe that GLAAD have no interest in how this will affect future advertising decisions. But consider the consistency of my case! As far as I am concerned, they have as much right as anyone else to take an active interest in what is shown on television, to object as they see fit, and to make their voices heard. The US is a democracy, after all. For these reasons such considerations do not trouble me. That happens all the time; it is simply not news-worthy enough for us to hear about it. You know I am perfectly aware of the subjectivity of our sense of humour, right? I am not trying to make out you are a mentalist or anything. I am just surprised that you found it that funny. And yet it Still. Offended. People. Obviously the most logical explanation is that a whole bunch of people, who all just happen to fall into the same social group, decided to make up some phantom objection and cause a bit of a stir at their own expense, rather than the nonsensical madman idea that Mars may have fumbled the ball a bit. I was just trying to have a joke with you, strangely enough. If all you really care about are your own self-contained interests then I don't see what right you have to crap on other people's distress. The fact that the morons in the advert come out looking bad does not magically remove any other effects the advert might have on people. The insult had nothing to do with it. I didn't find it funny because - low and behold - it was not the kind of material I find amusing. Base prejudice and irrational self-mutilation don't hit my funny bone. Certainly I can see how other people might be amused, but I am not them. In fact, if anything, one might make the argument that I need to "lighten up", not "grow up". In actual fact it was not until I came back from the video, read the thread, and had thought about it for a bit during dinner, that I came to understand where the source of the problem lay. See, I actually think about things before I post. Well, mostly. Okay "sometimes". That is the best joke in the universe and you KNOW IT, Mr Goalpost-Shifter.

Hurry up Dak, I wants me bed There are 10 kinds of people...