Mr Skeptic

Well the way I see it, it means that 78% think we need to cut (or are at least indifferent), and they have 329% suggestions of where to cut, but it averages out to only 21% agreement on average on what to cut. My suggestion: cut everything, piss off everyone! I probably wouldn't make a good politician. Hm, maybe it could be done as a two-step process: cut various programs while lowering taxes, then raise taxes while increasing funding to programs (just not as much). The tax raising probably has to be done in an absurdly complicated fashion so no one knows what's going on. The tax raising could focus on either taxing the rich or reducing progressiveness of the tax, and same with the cutting taxes. The tax raising could also be accompanied with a smaller increase in spending. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOh, and I too throw my vote for cutting costs rather than raising taxes: if we raise taxes odds are they get swallowed up in various projects instead of combating the deficit.

The idea works OK for integers, but for real numbers not so much. Think of it this way: one is an arbitrary definition, our starting number. If you look up the numbers in the dictionary, it says it's the number that comes after the previous number. Ie, 2=1+1, 3=2+1, 4=3+1. This can be gotten from the successor function. So in this definition, each number is the sum of the previous number and 1, and in this case 1={}.

They are all vaguely accurate (all a slight underestimate it seems). Coincidence? Perhaps. Is Earth 108 times the diameter of the moon? Not a chance! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Surprise! 2 * radius of Earth * 108 * 108 = 0.994587607 Astronomical Units

Yes. Most of the concern is due to the influence it will have on the elections, of course, but there's got to be a few individuals making some sound arguments among a group that size too. It's hard to tell. I'd have to go interview some of them, or watch un-edited video of non-select people. Really, the amount of cutting up of what people say in that video, and an almost certain bias on behalf of the authors, make this video useless for pretty much anything other than point-and-laugh and mis-informed indignation. But then, that is so easy that even Republicans can do it, right?

That seems to be more what Ron Paul thinks of the GOP.

OK, let's say the "plingybob" is an algorithm of order O(ln N) or less for finding prime numbers. I don't know whether one exists, but I think it does matter what it is.

Right, ants are even more social than humans.

gmail for me.

I would be a little unfair, he'd get mobbed. We'd have to have a way to at least eliminate redundant questions and prioritize which questions hare asked with extra emphasis.

How about if they did it this way: an infrastructure company that receives government help (a monopoly, permission to use previous infrastructure, funding, etc) but in exchange must provide common carrier service, neither modifying bandwidth, latency, priority, nor content. Then ISPs can rent their bandwidth at a non-discriminatory price, and they can fiddle with things however they like. Then customers can choose whatever ISP they like.

I wouldn't have noticed the kids if I hadn't seen the edited video that pointed them out. Especially since I wouldn't expect kids in the passenger seat.

What we have here is more like a blind person insisting that colors don't exist because he can't see them -- nevermind that everyone else is telling him they can see them fine and he's just blind. I have no problem believing in many many things I can't see. Most of the things I believe in, I can't see. Atoms, electrons, quarks, the heavier fundamental particles, none of those can I see, yet I believe in all of them. I've not done the experiments myself; I'm just taking other people's word for it. You can't be a skeptic if you are not skeptical of yourself. You are not god. You make mistakes. A saying goes, the intelligent man learns from his mistakes, the wise man learns from the mistakes of others. I'm not sure where it fits in people who don't learn from anyone's mistakes. No, it doesn't -- you are integrating a constant. You might as well not be doing an integration if all you are going to integrate is a constant. The constant you are integrating is simply a direction, and has nothing to do with any paths. If you don't understand calculus, that's fine, but don't think you can fool us by pretending you know. Yes, I can see it gives the wrong answer, and the integral it gives is wrong. I tested it, I looked, and it gave the wrong answer. Your ghost looks more like a dog chasing it's tail. Also, matematica is not reality. Also, it's rather amusing that you are accusing us of dogmatism, when you don't even know what you are talking about. --- Now if you want to get a correct answer that the free online mathematica can interpret, I'm pretty sure you have to do the cross products yourself. Remember to do the cross products for distant points as well as just the points that are closest to each other. Tell me, when you do gravity, do you plug in as the distance the distance between the surfaces of the planets? Cause they're the closest, those are the only ones that count, yes? Because that is what your formula is doing with the wires -- and why you have no trigonometric function in there. You are pretending that the attraction between the farthest points of the wires is the same as between the closest points, because you don't understand calculus, vectors, etc. And then you think that makes you a genius because your answer is unique.

Both correct and incorrect. For every color, there is a wavelength of light. However, normal people detect colors based on the different responses of red, green, and blue cone cells. This means that combinations of different colors of light will be seen as a single color. There's a few reasons. Some people are missing one or more of the types of color cone cells, making them partially or completely colorblind. Then the brain interprets things. Having a different language can affect how you interpret colors (some languages have names for various colors while others don't).

Sodium has one excess electron (as a group 1 metal) whereas chlorine is missing one electron (as a halogen). Atoms are much more stable when they have a full (or empty) shell of electrons. Furthermore, in water, ions are surrounded by a group of water molecules. The water molecules are polar and help to stabilize the ions. Basically, in water the atoms have lower energy when they are ionized so they become ionized.

Well, have fun denying reality. I'll be over here, wishing I had those hours of my life back.

The solar wind can blow away the atmosphere, but only very slowly. Solar wind is very weak due to its low density.

Like I said, you need both definitions.

Perhaps. Some of the moons are planet-sized, and contain a solid core of frozen material (eg water ice, not normal water ice but a different form that forms under very high pressure). I suppose it could be hit by space debris and somehow get close to the sun so that the sun can evaporate the volatile elements, leaving a frozen core surrounded by dust. Not for mars though. For mars, the polar ice caps are made largely of CO2, which is considered a good target for terraform. The CO2 can be warmed up so that it could provide both atmospheric pressure, greenhouse effect to warm the planet, and a carbon source for plants (which would make oxygen for us). No need for a frozen core or such BS. Eventually (millions of years I think) it would lose the atmosphere again, due to its weak gravity.

It is the set having no elements.

What we have here is a serious case of "I'm right and everyone else in the whole world is wrong". These never end well.

What of this: Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. --Genesis3:8 He walks noisily.

Yup, still a person, and still the same person (in terms of ownership, certifications, obligations, etc.). They'd become a different person in a sense, but then so will you ten years from now.

The gods weren't limited to being in their own realm, you know. Even Yahweh walked the earth once in a while.

There's a real mountain by that name (several actually), but I think the mythological one was human-proof. Yes, but that's not the place of the gods, its the place of the dead. Going there was not optional for dead folks. Sure, he got a VIP invitation. He didn't go there on his own. I think mooey might have some more thorough info on him, he's fairly important to the Jews. Enoch also got the VIP treatment. Note however, that you can't just go to heaven, it's invitation only.

But why celebrate a bloody war, for a bad cause, that they lost? I mean, sure, honor the dead soldiers, celebrate yer ancestry. But I don't think such a war should be celebrated. I'm sure there's a more appropriate date for a celebration.