Mr Skeptic

And the laws of nature relate to how natural things act. Nature has always acted the same way, for example call someone on a telephone and you can transmit your voice along huge distances. This is nature, this is how it works and this is how it has always worked. The behavior of things in nature is the same, and yet we have induced different behaviors from nature by virtue of the same laws under different circumstances. How have we changed human nature so that we now have very little violent death? The behavior of nature and humans is the same, although it appears different. Put a human in the exact same circumstances and then tell me how different they act. Take a modern baby and take them back 1000 years ago to grow up in the dark ages, and tell me they won't hunt and burn witches. The laws of nature have not changed, nor has human nature. Nature and humans behave as they always have, but the circumstances are different, so that the same behaviors under different circumstances appear different. What new law of nature did we invent so that we can have the internet? How have we made nature behave differently so that we can make microwaves? How have we changed human nature to change our behavior so that we have less violent deaths? Nature and humans behave the same as they always have, but the circumstances are different.

Yeah, the context for this is really nasty. Our politicians should really handle themselves much better than this even under extreme stress. He really should have kept his mouth shut. I don't think, however, that he could be impeached based on what he said. I think what matters more than intent is a reasonable chance of having violated the rule unknowingly despite best efforts. Simply not knowing is far from good enough. The intent must include both intent to understand, and intent to comply. This means that violations are criminal if it is a clear violation, regardless of intent. But the rule is, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Given that we normal folks aren't allowed to be ignorant of the law, despite it being utterly impossible to read and remember the entirety of the law even in our whole lifetimes, I really don't have much sympathy when the folks who made this rule turn around and claim ignorance.

It is indeed true that human nature has not changed, not noticeably anyhow. It is also true that the laws of nature have not changed, not noticeably anyhow. But, we have better understanding of them now, and we have exploited them to make useful things. We have also discovered a new way to acquire knowledge, called science, with which we have in the past hundred years made tremendous advances in the study of human nature. The study of various optical illusions, for example, sheds some light on the human nature of vision. In addition, some trinkets we developed (MRI, fMRI, EEG, implanted electrodes, etc) allow us to gain enormous insights into human nature that we could never have achieved even 100 years ago. All this plus our knowledge of genetics means we can in theory modify human nature, something that would have been unthinkable ages ago. In addition, the presence of various trinkets (agriculture, transportation, communication, medicine, robotics) have enormously changed the world in which we live, with consequent modification of behavior despite the same human nature. I'd say it is definitely possible to live a better life even if not being happier for it. And I am certain we live a better life now than 100 years or more ago.

In SN1 the slow step involves 1 molecule, in SN2 the slow step involves 2 molecules. Both are SubstitutioN reactions.

I think someone said it best: It needs fixing, but at least now we have something to fix.

Well, I suppose Obama could pick a justice that would bring the court just a little closer to the general public's religious composition. Mostly I guess I was just surprised and curious about how different the Supreme Court's religious composition was from the general public.

Yes; it's called a cyclotron. The particles travel in a spiral, although the cyclotron itself is not a spiral.

Just so folks know, he didn't say he didn't care about the constitution, he said he didn't worry about it. I don't worry about the law, not most of the time anyways, but I do care quite a bit about it. I don't worry about whether there will be food for me tomorrow, or whether I will die tomorrow. Not worrying about something important is not really a problem, and in fact is frequently a good thing. Of course then the big dummy started talking about what he does care about, making it seem like in contrast he doesn't care about the constitution. Whether that is accurate, I don't know. Even if it is accurate, it's not necessarily a bad thing. What is bad is how very ineloquent he was, and also that he appeared to be ignorant and a liar. Like the reporter said, I think he should start looking for a new job.

No, we most definitely do not want to test that near earth. One is the issue of the EMP from the nuke. Another is that if you deflect it near earth, it is much more likely to hit the earth. It would change the orbit but the orbit would still have to pass through that point (ie, where it is now), and if that point is near earth the new orbit could bring it on a collision course.

It's a conversion factor, just like 1 kilometer * 1000 meters/kilometer = 1000 meters, a formula for turning one measure of distance into another measure of distance.

Also, for small but important documents, email them to yourself. Then they will be available wherever you are.

Personally, I think that the more life and the more advanced life on a planet, the more likely it is to be colonized. Why? Because it means there are the sort of conditions that make life possible. That, and no one really cares about microbes. We'll send a scientist to put them in a jar, maybe. Would we colonize a continent that has other humans on it? How about a continent without humans on it?

We've signed international treaties against nukes in space. And for good reason: we don't want the US and Russia to freak out every time they see something falling over their country from space. Also, nukes are probably one of the worst ways to deal with asteroids, although they may be the only alternative in certain conditions. I'll have a serving of telescopes in space, please, with a side of actually being able to see what might crash into us.

No, if you use raw milk you rely on luck. When you add bacteria they are not the same as the ones that the pasteurization (mostly) takes away. You add the correct bacteria for producing what you want. You pasteurize to remove the bacteria you don't want, some of which are deadly.

No, you add the correct bacteria. This is how it is done always on the commercial scale, whether it is milk, grain, or juice that is being fermented.

That politicians have little respect for the law? I find it hard to believe that all of them believe everything they do is supported by the constitution. Warrentless wiretaps, going to war without declaring war, that sort of thing. But was this a slip of the truth, or a slip of the tongue? Maybe he meant, "I don't worry about what you think the constitution says about this". He does seem to believe that healthcare should fall under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He stuck his foot in his mouth, big time, when he said "I don't worry about the constitution on this, to be honest." He then proceeded to stick his other foot in his mouth when he talked about what he "cares" about, so now it seems that he doesn't care about the Constitution (rather than not worry about it presumably because you're in compliance). He then proceeded to stick even more feet in his mouth by professing ignorance on important matters and apparently lying as well.

I took it again, this time I got 9/21, and did better than 10% of test takers (aka worse or equal to 90%).

I'm atheist. I consider women different from men, but equal overall.

Yes. Ants protect trees from predators large and small. Ants choose certain trees over others and kill off their competition, creating orchards. Ants farm fungi for food. Ants help fertilize the soil so plants grow better. Yes. Ants scavenge dead things, producing fertilizer for plants and reducing disease in animals (including tigers). Yes. Ants keep aphids as pets, and also keep other ants as pets. Ants have lived for longer than man has known about science. Ants invented agriculture well before we did. Most ants work diligently for the benefit of their hive, forgoing sex so they can more efficiently provide for the hive. Among humans only a very few are willing to forgo sex for any cause, but those few that do are generally considered very virtuous. But among ants this is the norm. Also, greed is unheard of among the ants. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged For now at least. Though I do hope we'll come to our senses, preserve our biodiversity and eventually even protect it by taking it to other planets.

The way I see it, government can be checked with votes, and corporations by laws passed by people we vote for. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I think that what ISPs want is the protections from common carrier laws while maintaining the ability to degrade (but not block) any content they choose. Because if they transmit at 1 bit per minute, it's still being transmitted, right? Still common carrier so they can't be sued for content they chose not to block.

Haven't a clue. Well, it would be nice if the Supreme Court's religious composition more or less matched the country's religious composition. I guess that would take a while...

There's supposed to be some right here on earth. If you gathered some together somehow and put it on a table, it would fall right through the table, since the electromagnetic interactions that keep normal matter from falling through tables don't apply to it. They are building some detectors, similar to the neutrino detectors, which they hope will be able to detect an occasional collision. They're also hoping to create some in a particle accelerator.

Has the Pope ever invoked the infallibility privilege with respect to an as-yet undecided case before the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court has recently been making the news, or rather that one of the judges is retiring and Obama gets to pick a replacement. Regardless of who he chooses, the judges are mostly Catholic and Jewish. In fact, the Catholics hold a majority. Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable that over half of our Supreme Court subscribes to a religion which states that their leader (a foreigner) is infallible?

Supernatural entities are "above" the natural laws that we normal people have to abide by, but that doesn't mean that they are above all laws. The greek gods for example, were still subject to fate.