Cap'n Refsmmat

Your browser is caching the old one. Hit Ctrl-F5 or Cmd-R (for Mac) to refresh the page thoroughly and the new avatar should appear.

God does not give "gifts"; he entered into a covenant (contract) with the Israelites, and when they did not uphold their side of the contract, He was not obligated to uphold his. Whenever Israel suffered a major tragedy (the Babylonian exile, the destruction of the Temple, etc.), it was interpreted theologically as a sign that the Israelites had done something terribly wrong. The Old Testament is full of stories of the Israelites worshiping idols (violating the Commandments) and being punished, for example. I don't see how this could be interpreted as a free unconditional gift being stolen back.

It seems the philosopher A. C. Grayling has come out with "The Good Book," an edited collection of works which attempts to be a sort of Bible for atheists: http://www.amazon.com/Good-Book-Humanist-Bible/dp/0802717373/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/03/grayling-good-book-atheism-philosophy I'm not sure what to make of it. So far the only reviews on Amazon aren't very illuminating; the only negative review comes from someone very annoyed at Grayling's attempt to replace the Bible, and the positive reviews have very little substance. It's a fascinating idea, though. Anyone get a copy? It's at the top of my list, although I'll be waiting for a few more in-depth reviews. (And, if you're an atheist, do you feel the need to have your own Bible?)

I still don't quite understand how "modern state practice" in domestic policing includes shelling cities. Your point on international law is interesting, but misses a key distinction: customary international law is only a portion of international law. Also, non-binding laws such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are often considered a strong part of customary international law, and simply by reading through the articles of that document one can count out numerous violations by Libya. One can also argue that the invasion of countries repressing their citizens is justified by customary international law because it has been a common modern state practice for decades: Panama, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, and so on. Each has been justified in some part by the need to protect civilians.

As per speculations rule 1, this thread is now closed. Please do not re-open it unless you come up with mathematical evidence.

Essentially, yes. Quite a few people leave the chatroom open but do not check into it very often. It's also a timezone issue; things get livelier at different times in the day.

Seems to me that the TI-83's approach is fairly logical: [math]48 \div 2(9+3) = 48 \div 2 \times (9+3) = 48 \div 2 \times 12 = 24 \times 12 = 288[/math] [imath]2(2+3)[/imath] is just implied multiplication. Multiplication and division are of the same precedence, so the division on the left comes first.

You type it into the same place you'd type your messages for the chatroom. The most popular other chatroom is #otw, "off the wall", in which people talk about just about anything. They also have few qualms about hurling insults (playfully) or talking about not-safe-for-work subjects, so enter at your own risk.

The point, regardless of Latin designation, is that arguments based on the past decisions of nations are irrelevant. The choices of a nation forty years ago may be different from the choices it makes now, but that does not make the current choices wrong or poorly founded, merely different. Claiming that hypocrisy renders the current excuses groundless is a fallacious argument.

Yes, because the same administration which ordered military action against the Pullman strikers authorized action against the Libyans, and the same cultural objections to innocent deaths existed in 1894. This is again an ad hominem tu quoque argument and irrelevant. If the US government has indeed changed its mind and decided that innocent deaths are not to be tolerated, it is perfectly legitimate for them to take action on that belief. It is not "hypocritical" that they have changed their opinion since their predecessors 100 years ago.

http://www.ccri.edu/...keefe/light.htm A 100-watt incandescent bulb radiates 1,600 lumens, so a hypothetical 100%-efficient bulb would need to be only 2-3 watts to match it. Note that lumens are weighted towards light in the visible range -- that is, you can have a device 100% efficient in turning electricity into light, but if it's infrared light, it'll produce 0 lumens. Most incandescent bulbs put out a lot of infrared light, and presumably other devices have similar problems. So yes, greater efficiency is hypothetically possible, but a device with 100% efficiency in turning electricity into visible light is unlikely. This article has a table of luminous efficiencies including theoretical limits for different devices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy

How do you suppose I Define energy Define momentum Determine energy before collision Determine momentum before collision Determine energy after collision Determine momentum after collision Compare before and after to see if energy and momentum were conserved ...without any math? This doesn't explain why electron energy levels change in discrete amounts in collisions along with in photon emission and absorption. (Incidentally, I experimentally and mathematically tested this just a couple months ago.) You should watch how a mathematical physicist like ajb works. Oftentimes physical predictions will be made on the basis of new mathematics alone -- and turn out to be correct, before anyone can figure out an intuitive explanation. It's fascinating.

I find the most illuminating strategy is to look specifically at negative reviews of the book on Amazon. If the book draws some controversial conclusion, you can look through the negative reviews to see what problems people have with it. If their problem is primarily "this guy's an idiot and totally wrong!", you know he's just controversial; if they have substantive complaints about poor organization, factual errors, or editing problems, you know there are actual problems with the book.

And intuitive modeling is unreliable or impossible in some parts of science, and the only functional methods are non-intuitive. How can one test an intuitive model if it does not provide mathematics to compare results with experiments?

http://www.dailytech.com/Richard+Branson+Announces+Virgin+Oceanic+Submarine+/article21307.htm The official website is here: http://www.virginoceanic.com/ It's worth noting that the Marianas Trench, the deepest part of the ocean, is only 36,000 feet deep; Branson's vessel (which has already been built) will be able to explore any part of the ocean floor. There has only ever been one manned vessel to reach the bottom of the Trench -- the Trieste. If Branson pulls this off, it will almost certainly be pretty awesome. Damn, I want to be fabulously rich so I can build myself a submarine.

It's also the case that adultery in ancient Judaism (and in the Old Testament) was a crime that could only be committed by a married woman. Here's what the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary has to say about the reasoning: Now, in the New Testament this had changed, but similar reasoning can be used to show that a men may have multiple wives but a woman may not have multiple husbands. If a woman has several husbands, who is the father of her children? Whose names do the children take? Whose property do they inherit?

How are you planning to use multiple RSA keys? Smash them together? Encrypt multiple times? I don't quite follow. Perhaps you could explain what you intend to do and what sort of encryption you're doing. Also, what sort of memory restrictions prevent you from creating a key longer than 32 bits but let you generate multiple 32-bit keys?

We were talking about intuitive understanding and how it is impossible in some parts of science. That is not to say there is only one possible method. There may be several, but intuition is not one of them.

A more apt analogy would be, "If someone told you that you couldn't understand Kant until you learned to read Kant, would you stop and dedicate your life to Kant?", because it is exactly analogous to, "If someone told you that you couldn't understand physics until you learned to read physics," and physics is written mathematically. Anything else is merely interpretation. Reading a qualitative description is like reading another author writing about Kant, instead of reading Kant. Possibly because you insist on intuitively understanding parts of physics which are nearly impossible to intuitively understand, and subsequently end up getting things very wrong. Certainly there are parts of science which may be easily understood without the use of mathematics, and it is good that you try to understand them. But understand that some things are best expressed with mathematics.

Perhaps your problem is that you don't deeply understand the mathematics. Mathematics can indeed explain and describe, but one must first understand how it works.

Please read the Philosophy and Religion Rules, particularly rule 1.a.

Yes, and the artillery shells he fires are capable of discriminating between armed rebel civilians and their 87-year-old grandmothers. Oh, and regarding questions of why there's been no intervention in the Ivory Coast while nations rushed to Libya: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/04/laurent-gbagbo-un-attack-helicopters

But he doesn't have the capability, so he didn't. I'm sure he'd love to, but you can't get out of blame for shelling a city by saying, "Well, if you just gave us some laser-guided bombs, this would have worked much better..."

I'd think there's a difference between "shelling entire cities" and "using guided munitions to blow up a specific set of buildings." Sure. Dunno why they'd intervene on behalf of a slave-based society, but on a humanitarian basis, sure.

Supposing this suppression of violence involves shelling entire cities?