mooeypoo

What.. wait, really? Uh.. I was always under the impression that human eye has the nerves on the back of the eye, which is the source of our "blind spot".... I.. guess I'm wrong? (I *knew* I should've taken bio instead of chemistry as my science non-physics requirement..)

You're going to be a doctor!? Scary!

Prove it. But yes, smartass'yness aside, I agree, but I would also add that when your claim is disputed (by more than one poster,a s you saw) then the burden of proof is even double so yours. Not only should you support your claim,but you should answer the counter-claims showing your claim as making no sense. ~moo

I read the bible in hebrew with arameic/hebrew/rashi comments. However, when in need to communicate with people who don't know hebrew (no one's perfect), I prefer this version: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm Side-by-side English/Hebrew bible. Of course, that doesn't include the sequel.. you'll have to find an alternative source for that. ~moo

While I am actually on the side of the conservation, I must point out that if you're acting as a journalist, your questions should not be leading. This one's a leading question. ("wonderful diversity / amazing weirdness" .. you're leading to a desired answer, or you're assuming what he'll lean towards. If you're an interviewer you should be balanced, and let *HIM* answer Just a point.

(I might be talking out of my ass here, so feel free to ignore the question if I am) I heard something about the squid's eyes being very similar to human eyes. I wonder why that is, how they're similar and does it teach us anything about our own evolutionary development?

Ignoring the fact that you don't know this is true, this is irrelevant. Humans are the only ones to use thongs, too. That doesn't mean you should abandon your briefs. (a) You don't know that. (b) You're making no sense. © WHAT?? Thongs separate humans from animals. The ability to cook food separates animals from humans. The tendency to invent invisible deities separates animals from humans. So, really, you are making no sense, and you are being inconsistent. I would expect you abandon anything and everything that might "connect" you back to the "animal kingdom" and reject all natural items/behaviors for you to be close to your religion, if you were to be consistent. And that is if I *ignore* the fact that you are making a nonsensical judgmental subjective comment about atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. In taht sense, Hindus are Christianity-atheists, Jews are Jesus-atheists, Christians are Poseidon-atheists. Look at the definition. You, too, are an atheist to whatever religion you don't follow. Actually, it requires a conviction to not separate imagination from reality. Belief means you stop asking an empirically testable question and just go with what you think/believe is right. I have lots of imagination. I write short stories that have quite a lot of descriptions of unreal situations and creatures and people. I still don't believe in a deity. For practical sense, I'm an atheist. It has nothing to do with imagination, pioneer, it has to do with detachment from reality. Some would say it requires detachment from reality. Seriously, pioneer, you're being inconsistent and quite offensive here. You don't know whether or not animals lack a complex language or not. We know a lot of species have EXTREMELY complex languages (like whales, some types of birds, etc). The are not by default anything, because you don't know it. The fact you think it doesn't make it real. That said, let me say this: Unlike religion, which is a system that groups people together (yay for it) atheism isn't a system. "Atheists" are not banded together - sometimes that is a very bad thing, because no one is there to REALLY argue our side and work against those who wish to oppress us (and there are many). That said, I believe atheism is a better moral stance. You heard me. Generally speaking, a religious person follows moral rules because a powerful deity ordered them. Not following said rules means punishment in the afterlife. The religious person, therefore (and yes, I'm generalizing both groups), follows moral laws out of fear. The atheist has nothing to fear from the afterlife, and theoretically, should have no qualms in being moral or not. However, many atheists are good people, with good morality. Their morality stems from within themselves, from eitehr consideration of social consequences or personal consequences or some self analysis or anything else -- it's a decision that is made personally, not out of fear of consequences. As Hobbes said, it is much more moral to derive morality by reason than it is to blindly accept those rules from a higher power, be it god, the church or a pastor. Try comparing that to animals. ~moo

And if you want to stay, I suggest you speak english, and make sense. Yes? Yes.

Mmm.. if only the lawmakers thought that, ey?

I'll check them out when I get back home... this is weird, I looked them up. But I'll double check. Right, still -- that means that sex is not *just* meant for reproduction. And that sex - for fun or for 'duty' has positive outcomes. Combined with the fact that sexual acts deliver hormonal *PLEASURE* to the brain, then what would support a claim that it's not meant to be practiced for pleasure? It's a bit more than that, but okay, fair enough, it was "poll". Let me do a bit more digging and give you the science articles I read. This was a 'scratching the surface' endeavor. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Why? It's obviously not wrong BIOLOGICALLY, otherwise it wouldn't have been pleasureable. Twisting your knee the other way is wrong, and your body lets you know by making it hurt. Eating too much is bad for you, and your body lets you know by feeling heavy and sick. Eating sugary foods is good for you (in moderation) and your body lets you know by producing pleasure in the brain. Having sex is good for you (in moderation) and your body lets you know by producing pleasure in the brain. How is it consistent to say that any position, timing or 'purpose' is bad?

Indeed, like gay couples. Oh... wait....

I saw that too, but isn't it a futile exercise? Argue something that actually *might* be vague, but this?

really? "Law" means what? The ten commandments? because.. well.. Christians ain't following two of 'em.

Let's put things in perspective here -- it's not really fasting, it's "not eating bread" and "not eating anything with flour or anything that rises". That said, I consider myself jewish by culture and I don't follow this particular custom. I do celebrate passover night with family, but I don't follow the 'partial-fasting' issue. However, as ecoli probably knows, it's a bit different for Jews that grew up in Israel (where the Jewish identity is clearer, and you feel less "obligated" to do some of the customs), and it's different for jews who grew up outside of Israel, in the diaspora, in places where the Jewish identity is defined by more customs. Bottom line, ecoli, it's up to you. I think the Jewish identity is defined by what you feel more than by what you do, that's what I feel. I do feel the need to follow some customs, but I do that more for cultural reasons (I'm not religious in the least), so my judgment as to what I follow comes from a balance of culture-vs-comfort. I honor the holiday by eating Matzoh, by doing the Sedder, by reading the Hagaddah, by discussing the meaining of the holiday with my friends and family, I don't feel like avoiding bread does anything for me in that aspect. But some people do.. it's up to you. I definitely wouldn't do it if I didn't think I gain something out of it. If it's important to you (if you think you gain something out of it -- a jewish identity, honoring the culture, or whatever else) then do it. If you don't, then find something else that will fill in that niche. ~moo

We agree the coma patient rape is wrong not because of the sex-for-pleasure act, but because of the abuse we see in it. First, there's a conception about coma patients that they might actually feel and think and are conscious through their coma (whether this is true or not is irrelevant, this conception affects our sense of whether or not it's good or bad). So we see this act as not just a rape, but a rape of someone who can't fight back. Honestly, I see it as disturbing as well, *BUT* if I examine my own arguments, then *if* the coma patient is -- for sure, without any question whatsoever -- non conscious at all, then I am not sure I would see this act as immoral. Weird, yea, but not immoral. I feel like I can't really say it's immoral and remain consistent. Same goes to having sex with corpses. Do I condone it? egh, no, I see it as totally disgusting, but if forced to say why, I would go to emotional reasons like feeling as if it disrespect the dead, but seeing as I don't believe anything is left inside the body after we die, I can't really claim that this is rape. Or that it's "against the will" (there's no longer will..) so it may well be disgusting and disturbing, and can expose other potential psychological problems with the person who does that, but it isn't immoral per-say. And yet, he kept all the "good guys", got rid of all the "bad guys", assuming we, the decedents, are descendants from the good folk. In terms of our free will we might be able to corrupt ourselves (against god's intentions) but our physical makeup -- which isn't our choosing -- should be what god intended. No? Of course, that also raises a question about the infallibility of God, and the all-powerful nature, etc etc, *and* let us not forget that God *regrets* his decision to destroy the entire Earth and promises Noah never to do that again. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I don't understand the connection. You don't have to have sex with your parents to enjoy sex.. you can have sex with yourself. And with a random individual (safely). Or with your boyfriend/girlfriend for pleasure (hence, while using contraceptives). What does it have to do with parents? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedJust in the point of masturbation, there are scientific evidence that it helps more than just "pleasure". It may help in the prevention of prostate cancer: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118853726/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 Apparently, it could bring hay fever relief for men: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16872-masturbation-could-bring-hay-fever-relief-for-men.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news It increases self esteem by exploring one's sexual expression: http://www.healthline.com/galecontent/masturbation-1 It improves relationships (this particular article is an opinion, not a study, unlike the others, but I thought it's worth a read too): http://badgerherald.com/oped/2007/04/19/masturbation_key_to_.php Significantly lowers mortality (by 50%, it seems!): http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7123/1641 And there are more, but these are just a few snapshots. Apparently, sex for pleasure isn't just "nice" and "fun", it seems there are scientific correlation to improved health. ~moo

I'll be happy to hear it and examine it. As it turns out, *most* of the known flat-earth "hypothesis" claims that the Earth is a flat disk. With an end to it. Why does the horizon look like it's around 30 miles away? .... uhhhhhhhhh...... becauseeee...we........ uhhh... need glasses...?

But if it would be infinite, you wouldn't be seeing an edge. We do see an edge (and quite close to us, relatively, in the form of the horizon) and so either the Earth has a limited size or it's curved...

My argument, wasn't that it's "good", it was that it's NATURAL. It's a purpose of our bodies, quite clearly, to enjoy sex. Just like it's the purpose of the fingers to grab items, the purpose of our eyes to filter light and pass the signals to our brains, etc etc. I do think feeling pleasure is good, but that is a different argument. Feeling pleasure is natural, and since we are discussing it in light of religion, I am not sure I understand how anything our body is hardwired to do can be against what a deity wants, if the claim is that the deity created us. How do you know? What objective measure are you using to judge what we were placed on Earth for and what not? Again, read my argument in the above post regarding addictions. It's not a good analogy, you're comparing a proper use to the extreme use. Overusing sex might be bad (we can argue that), but that doesn't mean that having sex occasionally for pleasure is bad. Yes, that's why you were born with self control. Actually, you weren't born with self control (neither was I, neither was anyone else), you learned it. And assuming you are a healthy member of society, you should have it. As long as it doesn't do harm to your bodies or others', what objective measure is there to say it is bad? Sweet foods can be very bad for you, but you need to eat a lot of it to do harm to your body (not sure if it will harm others, unless, perhaps, your family when you die of obesity if you eat too much fatty foods). But sweet foods can also be good for your body in low doses, occasionally. In fact, there are some researches showing that sugar produces pleasure in the brain, just liike sex (not as strongly, but the same type). So, we can switch your statement like this: We're not put on this Earth to eat sweet foods (how do you know?). Even worse, sweet foods can draw you in and make you want them more... Do you see the problem? In order for this statement to be consistent, you need to avoid *everything* that might cause you pleasure, because it also might draw you into abusing it or addiction. It does not follow. ~moo

Believe it or not, that also happens with children in cases of child abuse. It will start from a relatively older age (around puberty) but that is part of the psychological aspects that are taken advantage of by the molester ("you know you like it", etc). Our bodies are wired to produce pleasure from contact -- quite specific contact -- in our reproductive organs. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I think that's a wrong example, Mr Skeptic. First, "addiction" can come with anything, and suggests an uncontrolled "use". There's also chocolate addiction, computer addiction, etc etc. It's a mechanism that comes as the extreme -- so this mechanism takes advantage of the *natural* process. Just like there are diseases 'tricking' our bodies to *think* that growing excess cells is a good thing (causes cancer and other very bad conditions), addictions 'trick' the body to think the abuse of a substance is good for it. There's also sex addiction. That doesn't mean that sex is bad. Or that chocolate is bad. Or that sex isn't meant for pleasure, or that chocolate isn't meant for pleasure. It just means that if you abuse it (no control, etc) it's not good for you. Just like anything else you may abuse. ~moo

Okay, it's very late here, but let's see if I can at least get you going on the right direction. The total charge in the disk, would be Q: [math]Q=\sigma (\pi R^2)[/math] What you need to do is divide this into very thin strips, "dr". Find the current relative to "dr". That will enable you to find the magnetic field later. Remember this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biot%E2%80%93Savart_law And take the 'r' (the vector where you measure the magnetic field) to be an arbitrary point above the rotating disk. This will probably be the most annoying calculation (I remember I always got confused with all the 'parts' of that vector, but just watch out for it. I would consider taking a coordinate system that might help more, maybe cylindrical. For the Biot Savart law, you need the current. You can find the current by what I gave you in the beginning. Try this, slowly, don't panic, take it step by step. Those questions are just confusing, but they're not horribly hard. I have a huge exam tomorrow so I don't really have time to sit and solve this question, but if you are still stuck tomorrow afternoon, I'll try to lead you more. Try tackling it, though. Good luck! ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBTW, I just noticed (and it's different a bit from what you said in the chatroom) -- NOTICE that the question asks for the magnetic field *at the symmetry*.. that is, above the axis of rotation, so *not* at an arbitrary point! That makes your caculation MUCH easier. Much. Think of the symmetry and the current density (at the 'dr' small rings) and use that for the calculation of the B magnetic field.

We know for a fact, scientifically, that the same mechanisms in our brain that make us feel pleasure is also active (very) during sex. We're not just guessing it's pleasurable, the body is built to produce a pleasurable feeling while practicing sex. It's not a psychological pleasure, it's hormonal pleasure - physical - that we can explain scientifically and have evidence for. While I could understand why, 2000 years ago, the customs and society would encourage sex with a single person after marriage, I could never get why if someone believes God designed us physically, would god be opposed to sex for pleasure. Our body is designed for it. Makes no sense to me.

Okay, you wanna play it this way, here it is: You *better* run in a particular direction or you're toast. Velocity. Could be either directional or not. Neither fit anyways. VELOCITY. Inverse velocity, and if you're a smartass captain, then perhaps inverse speed. To summarize: 2 directional statements -> Velocity 2 either-or or neither -> Velocity or Speed 1 that is strictly directional -> Velocity w00t.

Good point. Inverse velocity. Neither does speed...

Since it wasn't, and the definition mentioned Einstein's quest *and* distance/time, it's the default. Smartass.

<pedant>Velocity.</pedant>