zapatos

Are you limiting your definition of 'life' to life on earth? I would not be surprised to find there is a something on another planet that acts as life on earth does with the exception of Darwinian evolution.

Right, and that's my point. We can both point to situations where extra guns are better and worse to have around. The way you said it was that more guns did not make the situation better. If you meant to say that in some instances the situation is not better, then I agree. According to the news reports I read the properly trained people killed NO innocent bystanders; only the person who had just murdered someone and was pointing his gun at the police. Since your premise is wrong I don't think it can be used to support your conclusion. Understood. I wanted to call it out though because it was misleading. Again, I don't think you have the data to support this conclusion. A man with a gun just killed someone on the streets of New York indicating he was not too concerned with the safety of others. He then threatened police with that gun. Given that the result of additional guns on the scene resulted in only one more death (that of the gunman) and no bystanders (although they were wounded, mostly by bullet fragments), a reasonable argument can be made that more guns on the scene saved lives. Zero guns would have been perfect. You are counting the shooter as not having a gun too, right? I don't understand your 'added irony' point or your 'rather than miss it' point. Are you suggesting if I want to address one comment you make in a post that I must address all comments you make? Ok... I agree that is not a good idea. Did someone from the US treat you badly? I notice that you rarely pass up the opportunity to subtly (or not so subtly) put down the US, its people, history, cutoms, etc. On behalf of all Americans, I would like to apologize for whatever it is we did to annoy you.

He didn't say 'they don't necessarily make us safer'. He said 'having more guns present doesn't make the situation better. That is more than a semantic quibble. It is the difference between 'it does happen' and 'it doesn't happen'. If he misspoke then I withdraw my comment.

I don't believe you have the evidence to make that claim. I can easily point to situations where more guns present does make the situation better.

If you are quoting someone else you should put it in quotes or use the quote function, and you should also name the source of the quote. It is very confusing (and against the rules) to not do so.

What are these bold steps you allude to?

Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

This is an example of making charcoal in a large drum. Simply downsize for the container you are using. http://www.eaglequest.com/~bbq/charcoal/

On the other hand this is a proof based on words and not data. The likelihood of life could have been infinitesimally small and we were just damn lucky that tiny chance came through. Starting with a different theory we could have come to the conclusion that life was not possible.

Unfortunately 'privacy' is a very general term. It seems to me that if Obama takes an action that erodes some aspect of rights we believe are contained in the term 'privacy', and his actions are ruled to be legal, then this newly defined (and more limited) definition of 'privacy' is indeed the level of privacy we were guaranteed by the constitution. While I have no desire to give up any rights I've been exercising, whether guaranteed or not, it seems unreasonable to fault him for playing by the rules.

Ok. I understand how privacy is being eroded. I guess I was thrown by your statement that he is abusing the bill of rights. As long as what he is doing is legal I don't see how he could be viewed as eroding our rights under the constitution.

I feel he probably abused rights when he had a US citizen killed without due process. Will you please expand a bit on his other abuses of citizen rights?

Like most presidents I feel he is a mix of good and bad. I believe his biggest problem is lack of leadership. It is hard to blame it all on him during times of hyper-partisanship, but he was not able to get any of his ideas past the Republicans. Even when he had both houses he could not get the Democrats to come together as a team. In areas where he is able to act alone I feel he has done quite well. This includes foreign policy and his balanced use of the military. I'm not sure if I'll feel the same way in 10 years. I despised Bill Clinton the whole time he was in office but would vote for him in a second if he could run again. Overall I'd say he has been a good president.

But if the galaxy clusters are moving away from each other at escape velocity or greater, wouldn't they just continue to drift apart?

If you are travelling near the speed of light and turn your headlights on, you will see the light from the headlights moving away from you at c.

Because you asked 'why'. Physics does well with 'how' and 'what', but not so well with 'why'. Philosophy on the other hand generally tries to address 'why'.

Proving that Claire McCaskill, Todd Akin's Democratic opponent, is no dummy, her campaign spent roughly $2 million to help Akin win the Republican nomination. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/candidates-comments-on-rape-draw-criticism/

Is this a physics question or a philosophy question?

I would have to concur. In hindsight, choosing a science site as ground zero for your plan to impact culture may have been a poor choice. In addition, railing against teaching science and technology to people who have dedicated much of their lives to learning science and technology may also have been overestimating your powers of persuasion.

Hee hee. Reminded me of the MP boys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism

Would it be better to pretend your misunderstandings are instead statements of fact? What is to be gained if we start with false premises?

Day and night cycles are not an illusion.

I don't believe this is an example of the slingshot effect.

Is there any data to support the idea that photons entering the eye after bouncing off a piece of paper leads to more damage to the eye than photons entering the eye after bouncing off trees and bushes?