Cap'n Refsmmat

I think part of our problem is we simply do not have enough members with enough experience in any given field to have a long detailed discussion about it. I might like to talk about the ontological argument for the existence of God, but there are only a couple of members here who have studied it in any depth before. Similarly with any in-depth topics in physics. I'd love for this to improve, though.

If you eat meat, it gets its energy from other meat, or from plants. If you eat plants, they get their energy from photosynthesis, which gets its energy from the Sun. The Sun gets its energy from nuclear fusion. I'm not sure how a soul enters into it.

Food. You get energy by eating things.

Let's not get into a discussion of the proof of God's existence in this thread. That's off-topic. Create another thread if you'd like, or resurrect any of the many others.

I tried some of these posts with the latest version of IPB and they seemed to work. Looks like a bug that's been fixed. I'll have to work on figuring out the upgrade.

Yes, that's right.

One punishes criminals as a means to prevent future crimes and deter other criminals. Put someone in prison for ten years and they should (although they often don't) learn not to commit a serious crime again, because of the unpleasant consequences. But you're not proposing punishment for any other purpose but punishment -- because AFFRGD will prevent any future crimes from being committed, punishment to prevent recidivism is unnecessary. So this is simply revenge. I am not convinced that the word "horrors" applies here. Do you have evidence of direct harms caused by the alleged sexism? Excellent. Society improves and everybody is happier. Apart from you, since you wanted to inflict suffering on some people. But everyone else is happy.

I'd rather fix the underlying "evil sadism" rather than causing incessant rage. I'm sure this method will lead to healthy child-rearing behavior. Why do you insist on causing psychological torment? Normally we resolve civil rights issues by convincing people to change their behavior.

But you think that they will not put up a fight when robbed of their free will? If you want to build a happily egalitarian society, you have to build a society which wants to be egalitarian, not one which is forced to be despite its strongest wishes. But you don't want to build an egalitarian society, I see. You want your AFFRGD to prevent compassion towards girls. Let's fix inequality with new inequality!

Why do you want to punish the system, instead of fixing it? Black civil rights leaders did not advocate forcibly infecting whites with a disease causing racial colorblindness, or with a disease causing them to treat whites as poorly as they treated blacks; they sought to build a society that accepted all races as equals. You could build a society where an Equality Officer stands behind everyone with a gun and forces them to treat girls and boys equally, but it wouldn't be a happy society. You want to manipulate society until it's happy to be egalitarian.

My thermodynamics homework asked me to approximate the entropy of a moose.

We closed this thread because giving advice on euthanasia violates our rule 3.b. I hope Green Xenon, and anyone else who is feeling the same way, will consider seeking help with their problems before thinking of suicide. There are resources available to help; try starting here: http://www.metanoia.org/suicide/ Green Xenon, I hope you can find help to resolve these problems. I can see you've posted similar questions on other websites, to no avail. I've contacted the Cal Poly Pomona counseling folks, whose phone number I PMed to you, in the hopes that they can help you.

So you believe you should make the bias worse -- by harming society's women, forcing the men to care for them and coddle them even more, and making the survivors seem valuabl -- as punishment, rather than taking action to correct the bias? You also take strange pride in pedantry. Has the alleged pro-girl bias had a direct negative impact on you?

Even if the images are wide and narrow, they're still a giant colorful dividing line between posts. I'd rather have none at all. What image do you want to put in your signature, anyway?

Users cannot, however, put any images in their signatures, because that generally leads to people piling in all sorts of random crap. I intentionally made signature text small and unobtrusive because the point is to read posts, not gaze upon acres of blinking signature banners.

Schroedinger's hat, perhaps we can work up a demonstration of this. I won't have time today, though.

Is there any possible rational justification for tolerating (and even welcoming) the abuse and murder of anyone, male or female? Certainly one can make a plausible argument in the case of, say, execution of convicted criminals, but you're proposing leniency for murder of anyone of a particular gender, simply because you believe the rest of society treats them too well. If you have any rational cause to punish anyone, it's to punish those imposing the alleged pro-girl sexism. You cannot use your own emotional revulsion to justify tolerance of murders of girls, just like nobody should use their hatred of witches to justify burning women alive in the town square.

What does your model say about boundary layers?

There's documentation here, which may be helpful: http://en.support.wordpress.com/links/

Your original post talked about "positive crests of probability and negative ones", but the probability density function is [imath]|\Psi|^2[/imath], and cannot have negative crests, as pointed out before. I don't know what you mean about amplitude vs. "actual oscillation." Your terms don't really make sense.

In previous incarnations of the reputation system, we found that negative reputation tended to cause animosity and anger. People hated getting negative points, and would whine and moan when they thought it was unfair. So we've limited the amount of negativity possible.

Pardon? I do not understand what you are achieve or how you are trying to achieve it. Perhaps you could try using the conventions of sentences and punctuation.

I'm not sure I understand what you're doing with the limit. Why are you trying to take the derivative of [imath](n^2 - 1)/(n+1)[/imath]?

There's quite a lot of people currently arguing that the video is faked. I have no idea -- it seems like quite a lot of effort to go to, given the many videos he's produced, and for little possible marketing gain -- but let's not get our hopes up quite so fast.

Could you tell us how you've started, what you've tried, and what problems you've encountered?