Mr Skeptic

First of all, Occam's Razor is so often simplified as being in favor of the "simplest" theory, but in actual fact it refers to the number of superfluous entities proposed by the theory -- the maths of the theory could be very complex indeed, yet still deemed "simple" by Occam's Razor if it has fewer assumptions. This can be seen much more clearly in the case where the assumptions of two theories are the same but another theory has additional assumptions, in which case the extra assumption can at best decrease the likelihood of the theory holding (since [A and B] is necessarily at most as likely as A). In this case, any theory that relies on A being true will be true whenever any theory that relies on [A and B] being true is true, but not the other way around, so there is a clear reason to go with the one with the least assumptions. Simplicity in the sense that simpletons can better understand the theory, isn't really part of Occam's Razor. However simplicity, symmetry, beauty, elegance, etc. all have their value for a theory too, if only for aesthetic reasons. I'd say if two theories are equal in all other respects, choose the more elegant one, even though I can't justify that it is likelier to be true I can say that it would be more useful to us.

As for quantum mechanics it seems to me that it consists of two parts: 1) the theory itself, the mathematics of quantum mechanics, and 2) the multiple different interpretations of the theory, none of which seems to have any evidence over the others. Currently my favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics is the "shut up and calculate" interpretation, where you use the math and don't worry about how to make it make sense to you. The other interpretations are fun though, but I don't really see any reason to give one preference over the others.

And more, are there any particles, that have electrical charge, w/o mass 'first' ?

That there won't be. To bring electric charge together requires energy, and so a ball of electric charge must have some rest mass.

Probably your client that you use to display your values from the server has less lag than the other client you're using to display the values from the server.

Part of the problem of junk food relates to insulin levels. The way insulin works is that a spike in sugar input has to be followed by a large increase of insulin. The insulin sets your body to storing sugar, but at some point the excess sugar all gets stored and much of the insulin remains. Then, the blood sugar dips below the normal blood sugar level and you get a sugar crash. Another problem with junk foods is that our body sees energy as a precious resource, and doesn't just dump all the excess sugars and fat but stores them for later... and later... and later...

I suspect maybe the reservoir needed cleaning anyhow (dead animal carcasses!?!), and this guy caught on tape provided a particularly good reason to clean it at that point (due to public perception), and perhaps even to pay for it.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/124040429.html

The Portland Water Bureau does have a plan to cover the reservoirs to comply with federal regulations, although it is trying to get a waiver so they don't have to spend the millions it will take to do that.

Maybe this guy should be praised for helping raise awareness

Your reasoning makes sense. Have you considered, though, that while doing something like ditch-digging might be a good exercise in discipline, strength-training, endurance, etc. and could give the digger a sense of accomplishment and joy in labor, if the person was subject to doing it all the time for a job, it might lose the allure, become a health-risk, and spoil the work of ditch digging for them outside of work. Sex is something that can be "saved" for situations in which one truly desires it and the pleasure of it being special can add a lot to the enjoyment. I would think prostitution would take much of the joy and magic of sex out of prostitute's experience of sex and turn it into something mechanistic, a set of recipes to follow that produce a given outcome. For this reason, I could see some value in choosing some other job than prostitution and saving sex for purely a voluntary leisure activity.

Like a professional gourmand, his job takes the joy out of eating because he has to do it for a living.

dawking defines the difference between knowing and thinking you know, 90% of people claiming to be atheist simply dont know that with better education they would be more fitting to an agnostic ideology. It is simply presumed by the masses that without a solid belief in a religion you are an atheist, most dont usually take it upon themselves to build from a lack of belief to a strong personal belief.

Are you sure? An agnostic is not someone who doesn't know whether on not there is a god; an agnostic is someone who thinks it is impossible to answer the question "Is there a god?", or at least that no one knows the answer to that question. Most atheists are both agnostic and atheist, but you can be an agnostic theist too (in fact, a very large proportion of theists are agnostic theists though they would never apply such label to themselves, despite freely admitting to being unable to prove the existence of their god).

OK, so I decided to buy a new fan, and got a physics related question. For the breeze of a fan, should I be looking at the volume per second, at the velocity blown, both of those, or perhaps something like the kinetic energy of the air expelled (ie, (1/2) * volume/second * velocity^2)? Assume I want a good breeze.

On a related note, I recently bought (but may return) a "high velocity" fan (Lasko 4940), though from looking it up it only has about 350 cubic feet per minute (CFM) on high. However I noticed it produces a decent breeze even at a distance. I think the kinetic energy of the blown air is catching more air along the way and draging it along, producing a stronger breeze at a distance. Anyhow, anyone know how the distance will affect the breeze on a fan with a given volume/second and velocity? Also, anyone know any good fans to buy?

Your angle is 7.2 degrees. The chart says that the reading is 98% accurate at about the distances you mentioned. Hint: that's going to be a really bad defense.

Like John Cuthber says, you can show the cop a liar if you can get him to say you had a front license plate and then explain to the court that you don't have a front license plate. Make sure you're allowed not to have a front license plate in that jurisdiction. Also, if you don't have a special flat place for putting a license plate, that would help, as he may have been referring to that. In any case, this is a your word vs the cop's word, so showing the cop a liar is a good bet.

Clothing probably also relates to our species' tendency towards hiding our reproductive cycle and sexual relations.

If the skin's interior was appropriately insulated from electrical discharge, could it be filled with a small number of highly like-charged particles to equalize the pressure through the repulsive effect, while only trivially increasing mass?

This seems like it might have a better chance of working, especially if leaking some of the electric charge would be acceptable, though to keep with the spirit of the post it could be used on the surface of the balloon instead of as a gas. But then the weight of the insulator would become an issue.

Because there is on the balance, more evidence for their existence than evidence that they don't exist. This evidence consists largely of the combination of the existence of life, plus the absence of any reason why life should only exist on Earth.

I'll turn the question around: Do you think most theists are willing to accept the same level of evidence for another god that they accept for the existence of their god?

Don't worry, if you missed yesterday's end of the world, there's always the Mayan flavored on on December 21, 2012.

Shouldn't free speech only protect non-commercial trading of media-products then? I.e. you should be able to make pornography and give it away, but once you start selling it, wouldn't it become prostitution?

You think free speech shouldn't also protect commercial speech (like newspapers)?

I've heard these arguments for legalizing prostitution or drugs many times. My question becomes why it is better for the state to become the pimp or dealer, instead of anyone else? Isn't the basic exploitation involved with selling and profiting off of addictive-pleasure the same, however it is regulated or taxed?

First of all, there is no need for the government to become involved when something is legalized (quite the opposite; they need to be actively involved to make it illegal). As for pimps, why do you think pimps exist? Their main function and power would vanish were prostitution to be legalized, since then the prostitute is protected by the rule of law like everyone else.

Have fun memorizing the 4,000 X 4,000 multiplication table so you can do multiplication in your head. Or the 4,000 digits themselves. Or designing the new number pad. Or convincing everyone to switch. And all just to write the numbers more compactly.

On the other hand, there might be good cause to switch to base 8, or 16, because it will make it easier to work with computers and some math that works better in binary.

There are a few funny things that work only in one base or another. For example, in base 10, if you add the digits together the result will be divisible by 3 only if the original number was divisible by 3.

But then why were material sacrifices sufficient in the past?

In the old days, sacrificing your best bull, sacrificing a good amount of sheep, or the most bountiful of your crops means that you had faith that God would take care of you, even if you let go of material possession. That's why it was acceptable, and practiced, then.

If so, then doesn't that make Jesus a more or less worthless sacrifice? If it is about material loss, Jesus has no material value to anyone. If it is about faith in God, I don't see how sacrificing Jesus increases nor shows our faith.

Perhaps we can ask a different question.

 

Is there any conceivable thing you can give God to repay Him for your disobedience? Is there some object or material you can give God that will make up for your sins?

Nope, but by the same token one might say that there is nothing you could do to actually sin against God either (ie, you can't harm Him). And moreover, why should God be upset that we use our free will that He gave us, to freely choose things as opposed to doing everything exactly as He would have wanted like good little robots?

In response to the thread title, it is actually a really interesting idea that people could be so indebted that death itself wouldn't be sufficient repayment. I.e. you can't "die for your own sins" because that wouldn't be sufficient payment for the debt you owe. Then what?

If the penalty for sin is just death, then Jesus paid that (yet we still die anyways). If the punishment for sin is eternity in Hell, Jesus spending three days dead doesn't cover that. What's the cumulative penalty for the entire sins of everyone in the world?

Seriously, how could someone not be happy about this?

I would much have rather they had captured him instead, and had a nice chat with him. And since when do we rejoice in death? Doesn't large mobs of people rejoicing in someone's death bring anything to mind?

from what i've seen he was severely out numbered, chuck a can of tear gas in and wait for him to run out.

Yup. If the mission is "take him alive", as it sometimes is, you accept a slightly higher risk to your own people, but if he had some info it might have saved enough lives to compensate for that risk. Then there's the difference in reaction to capturing him alive vs killing him.

I don't think that was ever a real threat. Osama was not a Muslim leader; he was a leader of Muslim extremists. His following was extremely small. His death might galvanize his small following, but that's fighting against the division of a power struggle. Comparing his following to the Catholic Church is simply absurd.

I think its also important that bin Laden's approval ratings had been dropping before his death.

I'm actually extremely agnostic in a sense; I acknowledge as known only tautologies. Everything else is based on assumptions, including science. So technically I can't claim to know the Earth is round, since that is based off of conclusions from unprovable assumptions. However, I'm still going to act as though those assumptions were true, as if the Earth really was round, even if I can't prove it.

The problem is the Nuclear industry . We would be better off making electricity from sunlight and wind .

Or wave power!

Little Boy and Fat Man went to Japan 65 years ago . Cancer is still killing people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the hereditary effects will kill some of their children . Again , my logic extends from what the doctor says .

I don't think getting exposed to radiation and therefore getting cancer is quite the same thing as the hereditary risk from cancer. (Especially not if the children were already born, but the induced cancer would still be in their family record).

It's a good thing that reactor problem is over. Time to close this thread.

Some people don't recognize sarcasm.

Obviously democracy is as unreal in the United States as it is in Libya, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, it's just that more work is done on creating the illusion in America than elsewhere.

You may be right, but under the same reasoning when some other country shatters our illusion that the government exists at the consent of the governed (by publicly using lethal force against protesters), we'd get just as angry as if we really were a democracy.

Skeptic, your begging the question; In your opinion, why is what the people of Lybia or for that matter any Country believe, any of our business?

For national (and personal) security. Saying "our country may not execute protesters" is not nearly as strong as "no country may execute protesters and if they try they might be invaded". So now we are protected by both our own law and international law.

Suppose a million people believed they were the next Einstein but only one of them could be technically next. It would be silly if all of them avoid trying because of the low chance that it could be them. In the end, if that million people tried their best, and one of them made the next big discovery, wouldn't that still be worth it despite all those who tried and failed? For humanity, certainly it would be worth it. I think it would be worth it to be one of those million who tried, even if I fail. So believing that I can do it is a good thing.

I'm pretty sure a million average scientists will outdo anything the "next Einstein" can do.

Marat, why do you feel that societies that hold as their fundamental principle that the government exists at the consent of the governed and for their benefit, should in any way accept when a government in another country, which also claims that same principle, nevertheless rejects the will of its people and tries to enforce its own by force? Is that not a threat to all democratic nations?

Pro-Life extremists sometimes shoot doctors who perform abortions. Not all of these belong to a certain religion, or are necessarily religiously motivated. It seems more of a moral decision for them. And while other Pro-Life supporters may tacitly cheer that another abortion doctor has been removed, they themselves wouldn't actively support such violent, extreme actions. This is how I see many muslims being "linked" to terrorism. They may secretly applaud when targets they view as oppressive and detrimental get killed, but actively they wouldn't join in on the violence and openly don't lend any support to the extremists.

That's an example that I particularly like, because most of us will be familiar with a group or even a specific person who our society accepts and allows, but who would approve of a terrorist act. It is of course a whole continuum;

1) denounce killing of abortion doctors

2) remain silent about the killing of abortion doctors

3) quietly rejoice about the killing of abortion doctors or think they had it coming or might have deserved it

4) publicly praise the killing of abortion doctors or the people who did it (possibly with careful wording)

5) materially support/donate to groups that promote among other things the killing of abortion doctors

6) materially support/donate to groups that kill abortion doctors

7) actually killing of abortion doctors oneself

At what point does this become socially unacceptable, and at what point does it become illegal? And what if you replace "killing abortion doctors" with "killing infidels"? Now at what point does this become socially unacceptable, and at what point does it become illegal? Do the answers match?

And that is the problem I have with Islam... I don't think they're doing enough to actively oppose terrorism in their own ranks. But to be honest, neither is our country doing enough to actively oppose killing abortion doctors or homophobia or a lot of other things (including Islamophobia). Nor honestly do I think it could be done, not via the legal system anyhow, and via social pressure it might be done but would require a generation to die out to complete this (as racism is today despite both social and legal opposition). And worse, we're part of the problem by treating Islam with hostility, what can we expect but hostility right back, and lets not be a kid and argue about who started it. And even more, our policies also mean less interaction between us and Muslims, and so we don't get together and see that we're actually very much alike and not scary or evil like some might have told us.

There is also an issue when one decides for a risk that someone else will encounter. There are a lot of activities (all activities actually) that have potential risks. When a worker at a building construction site falls from a scaffolding, all parties involved, including the worker, knew there were such a risk, even if all measures were taken to avoid it.

 

With a nuclear plant, things are somehow different. The one who decides to take the risk (the government?) is not the same one who will be injured. The risk calculation involves someone else who in most circumstances has no knowledge of the risk.

No, things are exactly the same. Do you think constructing a building is of no risk to anyone but the workers? If badly made the building could collapse on the people inside it, or perhaps even on people outside the building who had nothing whatsoever to do with the building. Or the alcohol industry, where statistically the sale is going to result in deaths of people uninvolved in the sale or purchase of the alcohol, due to alcohol-related crimes or accidents. Almost everything you do will affect other people -- and nuclear plants are no exception, but not special either.