Cap'n Refsmmat

Here you go: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waves/node50.html That was the course I took last semester.

Care to cite an experiment showing that different sources have different light speeds?

I see your sexy and raise you extra sexy: Gnome Shell 3, coming soon to a Linux near you. Ubuntu 10.10 also includes the Software Center, which now allows for paid packages as well as Open Source, although I hardly think you can argue that paying is an advantage. And, of course, by using a package management system you get one central place for all your software updates, and you're not nagged incessantly by Adobe, Apple, Windows, Firefox, Java, your antivirus, and programs you don't remember installing for important updates.

"sudo" is "Run as Administrator". Now, it's not in the right-click context menu, but that's why PolicyKit exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolicyKit Applications can just ask for the administrator password when necessary to perform certain actions. It's become very common in newer Linux setups.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/104-user-titles/

We have no problems with alternative theories, so long as you make an effort to back them up with evidence. (Also, who are these thousands of credible researchers you speak of?)

I don't think current inorganic LEDs are small enough to make a screen, apart from a very large one (Jumbotron-style).

Just when I thought the releases were petering out, here comes some more: US diplomats told by Israel that the blockade was intended to keep the Gaza economy just above "humanitarian crisis", in a sort of collective punishment, despite also saying that the blockade was merely to keep weapons out US diplomats suggested retaliation against European nations for being slow to accept genetically modified crops The first one could certainly cause some stir -- we'll see if major news sources pick up on it.

It has been measured by experiment. Reality does not conform to what you think makes sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Deflection_of_light_by_the_Sun If you want to dispute relativity, you have to dispute the experiments that have confirmed its findings.

It uses organic compounds to form an LED. That's the only difference; regular LEDs use inorganic semiconductors.

I don't know about "most," but they are moving toward it to achieve better contrast and power efficiency. It's not actually theoretical: what you've described is an OLED display. The linked article also discusses some of the disadvantages of the technology.

Feel free to check out speculations rule #1.

This isn't necessarily true with LED-backlit LCD TVs. If there's a large region of black, they can dim or disable the LEDs behind that region and save power.

needimprovement has been suspended for a week for repeatedly plagiarizing posts from other forums, and for plagiarizing SFN members' posts while posting on other sites, despite being warned previously.

If this is an SQL database as you imply, the primary key column should be indexed by the database engine for fast searching, and should be very fast. Of course, you can also add an index to the Owner_Name column and get similar speed. Actually, I'd do this with three tables: customer customer_id name etc. vehicle vehicle_id make model etc. vehicle_owners vehicle_id customer_id Then you just SELECT * FROM vehicle, customer, vehicle_owners WHERE customer.customer_id = vehicle_owners.customer_id AND vehicle.vehicle_id = vehicle_owners.vehicle_id AND customer.customer_id = theoneI'mlookingfor. Indexes on all the *_id columns and this should be blazing fast. On a database with FOREIGN KEY constraints available, it'll even provide checks to make sure a vehicle doesn't have a nonexistent owner and such.

Hm. By default, the "My Content" search is limited to threads from the last year; it looks like it counts from thread start date, rather than last post date. I'll file a bug -- surely it should search the threads active in the last year, regardless of when they were posted. Bug report: http://community.invisionpower.com/tracker/issue-26835-my-content-limits-by-thread-start-date-not-last-post-date/

Your links don't work. Looks like you copied-and-pasted the shortened forms rather then the full link. (...along with the rest of your post)

Most of it comes to staff at scienceforums dot net, which is our contact address and which is used to send all email that comes from the forum. My personal address gets far less spam, although they both go to the same junk folder.

Many historical events have testable consequences, such as photographs or written accounts, archaeological evidence, and the impacts they have on other events that follow. What other ways might these be? Why do eyewitness accounts not qualify? They are unreliable, certainly, but a testable consequence of your visiting the store is that others will recall that you went. A test does not imply that I must perform an experiment with beakers and test tubes. It merely implies that I have a hypothesis -- "cypress went to the store" -- some predictions based on that hypothesis -- "people will remember cypress was at the store" -- and some ways of testing those predictions -- "so, do you remember cypress going to the store?" I could similarly make other predictions, such as "cypress would appear on the store's surveillance footage," which would be easily tested by obtaining it.

An untestable singular event can never be determined to actually have occurred. What use is it to me to entertain the possibility when there is no logical way to ever know? Science limits itself to testability out of pragmatism. What good is a description, a hypothesis, an explanation, if one can never know if it's true or false? It can't be used practically, because untestability implies no predictive power. It can't be used for its explanatory powers, because it has none. An untestable truth claim cannot claim to be the truth, because it cannot ever be demonstrated to be the truth.

No. It is not a matter of our rules. It is a matter of a definition in logic textbooks. It can be either, depending on how it is done. A conversation that devolves into a debate about whether a particular point was fallacious is off-topic. A debater that questions his opponent's competence and motives through admonishment -- "come on, you can do better than that" -- is insulting. It is if you want us to enforce the rules. It's also better for debate if fallacies are pointed out by a third party. Should one of the debaters point it out, it'll become yet another point of dispute; should a moderator take action, the two parties can continue debating each other as they were before, though perhaps less fallaciously.

Part of our moderation policy requires staff to not act as moderators in discussions they are actively participating in, unless urgent action needs to be taken (someone just posted a bunch of porn) or no other staff are available. I enforce this rule actively. If you do see it violated, I would rather you not ignore it, but bring it to the attention of the administrators. (If not me, than one of the other three.) If we are not made aware of it, we cannot stop it.

One must also be aware of the fallacy fallacy.

And hence if evil were made impossible, it'd be silly and illogical to suggest that free will should be extended to the power to commit evil. No, I do not want all competing goods to be maximized. Omnibenevolence requires the maximization of only one: benevolence, which is defined in the OP's argument as moral perfection. Hence the God in the OP is merely required to maximize moral perfection, and nothing else.

What about an infant incapable of understanding that his terminal illness is the work of God?