Phi for All

I think you're forgetting that for scientists, a challenge like this isn't viewed as a mountain of work, it's seen as an exciting opportunity to learn more than you knew before. They would need bibs for all the drool. Think kid in a candy store, not clerk with an "In" box piled to the ceiling.

Something different than LaTex?

I keep coming back to the concept of an empty bowl. The value isn't in what's in the bowl, or what the bowl is made of, the value is the empty space the bowl creates. Perhaps being content is keeping a balance between filling the bowl with just what you need, while keeping it empty enough to accept something new. Perhaps I can't shake the austerity angle of contentment because it seems tied with "living within your means", "knowing your place", "your lot in life", and other concepts like that. There's also a certain meekness associated with being content. Stop trying to rock the boat, be content with what you have. I don't like that part because it seems to run counter to what we call "spirit". If pioneers are content, do they roam about discovering new things? But I totally agree that you'll never be content if you think you have to buy something to be happy. Back in the mid-80s, Doubletree Hotels came up with a new property based on the French concept called compri. The basic things you need to be content are included, no extra frills. Just enough and no more. What you've been describing reminds me of compri.

Be careful with this kind of argument. You're purposely setting up a highly improbable situation, and then assuming it already exists but somehow can't be observed. Science needs to be able to falsify an hypothesis in order for it to be considered. If there's nothing to support this idea, how can we look at it scientifically? Very true. And I don't know why I assume the ship technology is more plausible than immortality, but I guess I do. I'm not a big fan of immortality, omnipotence, infinity, or any of those unlimited propositions.

Hey, the OP assumes AGW as a fact, and offers an approach based on that fact. If you want to argue against AGW, this isn't the thread in which to do it.

I think you have a fine mind, and I think you would greatly benefit from more formal education. The kind of research you've been doing doesn't help you link together all the various bits of science you're referencing here. Mainstream, textbook teaching would help with that a lot. Logic is a subset of mathematics. Logic is not "stuff that makes sense to me". The term you're looking for is reason, or rational thought. But reason is based on trusted steps and processes, and it can't be applied to a time before the Big Bang. We can't even say what happened right at the moment of the BB, because the densities and energies involved are beyond our present maths. We can start to see the development only a fraction of a second after the inflation began. Before that, we can't be sure at all, physics as we know it doesn't seem applicable (the four forces can't be distinguished one from the other, for instance).

But it also doesn't need to be a requirement. Multi-generational ships could take the place of immortals. I think the real trivial assumption is that the aliens in the OP are able to completely mask themselves from detection. If they had colonized everywhere, why can't we see some indication? Perhaps we're being manipulated to miss all those energy signatures. Any species that could pull this off would need to be a Type II Civilization at least. They'd need to be able to efficiently use the energy output of their home star. That's going to leave a mark.

John carefully set up the conditions (a lawyer bound by a system) to show you that keeping the money or throwing it away are not part of the definition of the problem. The lawyer isn't allowed to do either, so what's happening with the money in this situation (the division by 0) is undefined.

I don't think anyone was hurt. It was a brief statement, and it was clearly an opinion. To be honest, it didn't tell me whether you're anti-same-sex marriage, or if you personally wouldn't marry the same sex. There's a big difference. Tolerance is allowing views and lifestyles other than yours, even though you don't agree. To paraphrase EB Hall, I may not agree with your choice of who to love, but I'll defend to the death your right to make that choice. I guess the real test is how you would treat a same-sex married couple you met on the street. Do you think they deserve to be treated the same as your parents?

You want a calculation of the probability of being a specific human, as opposed to all the other creatures that ever lived?! How far back are you going, the first mammals? Or do we go back to the small fish that later became all the vertebrates? Or are you including bacteria? They qualify as alive in most descriptions I've heard.

It looks funny because the OP was obviously trying to make an Argument to Absurdity that ended up making his real stance seem absurd. This is like the second or third that's backfired this way. Most of the arguments deniers have left are fallacious. They work though, because the money people backing these arguments are just trying to stall efforts to regulate, for profit. They know something will HAVE to be done, eventually, they just don't want it to be now. "And if it be not now, yet, it will come. The readiness is all." --William Shakespeare

No. A line is a 1D spatial component. If you move perpendicularly from every point in that line, you have a 2D shape, a rectangle. If you move perpendicularly from every point in that rectangle, you get the third spatial dimension, height, and you make a cube.

I can get you a sponsor if you change that to "Just-Do-It-Yourself".

Maybe the idea isn't to fill it. Maybe it's a huge jug instead of a cup, but I really only need a fraction of it's capacity to be content. This seems a more honest gauge of contentment. I'm not content because my cup is full, I'm content because I have just enough to satisfy my needs in my big old jug that could hold more. This seems to say our actual needs will never change, never grow or lessen. Maybe I really only need a fraction of the jug's capacity at any one time to be content. I keep going back to this idea of austerity vs actual needs. Do I get to say I need music, if other people can live without it, or if it's not part of the basics of staying alive? If music is an actual need of mine, and I can't hum Bach well enough to call it music, do I get to own a copy of The Brandenburg Concertos, and something to play them on? If you asked me to divest myself of everything I possibly could, and identify the least amount of "stuff" I need to live, then give me food, shelter, clothing, and unlimited paper and pencils. I'll be good to go. But if you're taking away other people, and I'm left with just myself being fed, clothed, and housed, I think that's an emotional satisfaction I can't be content without. You could keep the writing implements if I could keep the ability to interact with people.

I don't want to go completely off-topic here, but it would help if people didn't identify themselves with such a brooooaaaad particular group. It's hard not to get paint on you when the brush is that wide. You should expect some splatter. I wish people would stop using Conservative/Liberal as personal labels. How we feel about issues should be much more nuanced than such general categories will allow. Btw, why isn't it the Conservative stance to treat people equally under the law, as the Constitution states? Why isn't it the Conservative stance to stay out of people's personal lives, and respect their right to privacy?

Since it's hard to argue that anyone has a right to dictate what happens between consenting adults behind closed bedroom doors (a traditional conservative stance), the argument against SSM usually boils down to that it taints the sanctity of marriage. But that makes marriage sound more like a club, where it's not as valuable if just anyone can get in/do it. Is your marriage about OTHER people getting married, but just the right people? Can you feel the importance of your marriage decreasing every time it happens for same-sex partners? If there's anything "sacred" about marriage, it should be the solemn vows you swear to your partner. And judging from the instances of adultery and divorce, I think it's the part half the people forget. Unless you're married to someone of the same sex, and then your instances of divorce are lower. Thanks, conservatives! Work a little harder on keeping those vows, and please let us know about any new bans you have in mind.

http://www.livescience.com/45344-facts-about-quarks.html ! Moderator Note jamieoverton727, please don't copy/paste the work of others as your own. Always give a citation or include a link so you're not in violation of our rules against plagiarism.

When I think about it like that, though, there are some things I'm not sure I could ever get enough of. Could I make a list of twenty places to go I've never been to before, and be content with just those? Could I live with just twenty more grateful smiles from people I helped just because I could? Could I be content with the love and laughter I've already been lucky enough to have had, and no more? Needs that further contentment obviously have to be continually met. "Enough to be content" must have a lot of pieces one needs to keep in play, especially if contentment is an emergent property.

What if you have a need for being prosperous? Contentment and the economy are tied to money and things, but when I think of contentment, I usually think of situations and people to be with in those situations. Not just meeting my need for food, but eating a meal with good people and laughter. Not just having a good set of tools, but being capable of adapting my environment to help myself and others in various situations. Not just being able to afford a plane ticket, but traveling to interesting places and enjoying the people I meet along the way. I've been very interested lately in emergence. Perhaps contentment is an emergent property, made up of lots of little things/events that bear little resemblance to the whole. Take away any of those pieces and contentment vanishes.

Yes.

I used to be enamored of space-based solar because of projected increases in efficiency. But as Mike mentions, it's strictly an enormous scale engineering project, so it will most likely involve only governments and mega-corporations. And it's mostly still on the drawing boards. And the political fallout would be huge, considering no country wants a massive satellite capable of sending an energy beam to the surface flying over their citizens. With terrestrial solar panels, we involve a lot more people and economic processes already in place, to match the technology already in place. We only need the equivalent of a square array a couple of hundred miles on a side, spread out on rooftops all over the world, to satisfy all our current needs. Is this space-based solar you're talking about Mike? I didn't see a link to any particular technology.

I've heard a lot of Americans are obsessed with the flag, but I don't think that's the problem. They don't play GWTW at the state capitol buildings in the South. Flags are symbols of allegiance and patriotism. I think you're generalizing "all things Confederate". If I see someone reading a copy of Mein Kampf, I don't assume he's a Nazi, but if he's flying the Nazi flag....

1x0, you've got about a hundred different bits that only make sense to you because you don't listen when people ask you to be clear and precise.

So we end up working harder, for less money, but we're expected to be able to afford the products our company makes. Definitely not my idea of content. There's a lot of crazy involved in our economy in the US. We're very big on preserving the right to sell you something dangerous for you. Our independence day celebration is coming up, and around here that means buying fireworks that are legal to sell, but illegal to set off, for some reason. The police prowl the neighborhoods waiting to bust kids, but leave the vendors alone. Power tools and lawnmowers to save time so you can go to the gym, which you wouldn't need if you used a push-mower or a handsaw. Convenient food that your doctor recommends you don't eat. Buy this because it's tasty, and buy that because it was so tasty you need to go on a diet now. And of course, contentment for all is probably not possible. There are a lot of folks in the US who were very contented with the SCOTUS ruling on same-sex marriage, but there were an awful lot of churches out there this morning preaching some very powerful discontent.

What's wrong with the fossils that clearly show feather follicles and quill knobs? Or actual feathers? Mummification is pretty rare in the fossil world. Most fossils have... fossilized. We have specimens which have tested positive for beta-keratin, the primary protein found in bird feathers. Is that molecular enough? It seems like you're looking for "proof" rather than evidence. Are you trying to refute the claim or support it?