Mr Skeptic

Easter is celebrated on every continent, including, I believe, Antarctica.

First of all, sorry I put the two of my sentences backwards. And you can say that all you like, but it will be just as false. A single example is all it takes to prove some theories (which is equivalent to disproving the negation of that theory). For example, given the theory "There are no usernames that begin with 't'" and the negation, There is at least one usernames that begin with 't'" Only one example is needed to disprove the theory. In science, to be useful theories have to say a lot. This makes them hard to prove, so that many many examples are needed. Philosophy is not similarly constrained.

I don't think so. These people know what probable cause is and what reasonable suspicion is, they're not as dumb as people like to pretend they are. Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. But, what exactly gives "reasonable suspicion" that someone is in the act of being an illegal immigrant?

Once upon a time, a fairly long time ago, people thought that hares lay eggs in nests, due to the similarity of their nests to a certain bird. Long story short, they celebrated the fertility goddess Ēostre by placing colorful eggs in a nest the kids made in their bonnets (only for good kids of course), and lots of rabbit symbolism. Now the nest is a basket, the eggs made of chocolate, and bunnies of chocolate or marshmellow. The old idea just won't die, and now bunnies will forever be associated with eggs (in addition to the original hares).

No. You seem to keep having this same problem. I suggest reading up a little on logical fallacies. The argument you can make, however is this: if the moon is made of green cheese, then I'm superman. I am not superman. Therefore, the moon is not made of green cheese. The other way, the argument is invalid and unsound. For example, try this: If something is a horse, then it has four legs. My table is not a horse Therefore, my table does not have four legs. Is that valid? It is the same as the argument you keep getting confused by, with a specific example where the answer turns out not to be true.

There are real differences between men and woman, both mentally and physically. Most of these differences are fairly small, and quite frequently much smaller than the biased opinions of what said differences were. In addition, sometimes people have trouble understanding statistical differences between groups compared to differences between individuals. As such, I would recommend against preferring one gender over another on the basis that that the average person of that gender is better suited to that task. In addition, doing so would create social pressures that would reduce the number of that gender seeking that type of job due to the discrimination, making it a bit like a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I'll add to that: on the internet we are all anonymous. Social tricks like ostracizing and threatening to kill don't work very well.

There's two forms of implication. One is (if p then q) <==> (q or not p). For example "if the moon is made of green cheese, then I'm superman" which would be true. Here, p and q may be anything. Another is the sort used frequently in common speech, where to the above one would ask, "So how does the moon being made of green cheese make you superman?" rather than "Of course that will always be true, since in fact the moon is not made of green cheese". This one is harder to define. I think that what it comes down to is that you can logically deduce that if p then q. This would, however, be true only of very specific p and q. Example: "If a number is even, then it is a multiple of 2".

Incidentally in relation to another thread, without the press we would not have this sort of thing happen very much.

I think that this forum is fairly open and transparent. Even though there's not too many journalists interviewing our members.

Pangloss, if you can distribute 9 apples and 9 ears of corn so that they sum to more than 9 apples and 9 ears of corn, then you can come back and tell me how it's not zero sum. Zero sum does not mean someone loses out, it means that any increase in benefits received by one must be exactly equal to the decrease in benefits received by another. Distribution is an example of such. Perhaps I should have said a "constant sum game"? They're functionally equivalent to a zero sum game, you know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration The Middle West, some parts of Europe, small areas of South West Asia, and a few spots in the East Indies have the highest percentages of immigrant population recorded by the UN Census 2005. The reliability of immigrant censuses is, however, lamentably low due to the concealed character of undocumented labor migration. The International Organization for Migration has estimated the number of foreign migrants to be over 200 million worldwide today.[4] Recent surveys by Gallup found roughly 700 million adults would like to migrate to another country permanently if they had the chance. The United States is the top desired destination country. So, we are not the country with the highest percentage of immigrants by far, despite being the country that is the most desired destination for immigrants. So no, I'm not buying the "we're already loose" argument. All this is especially ironic because we are a country almost entirely made of immigrants. The natives are a very small minority. And yet, now that we have lived here long enough to consider it our home, we limit the amount of immigration.

Ah. Maybe if you look up the fan on the internet, you might find this information. Model number, or whatever. The trouble with trying to calculate it is that you'd need to know the shape of the blades, and that sort of nonsense. It would be a lot of trouble to get an exact answer. You might be able to estimate it from the amount of airflow that it produces.

I think you'd be better off measuring the pressure than trying to calculate it.

Haha, you sound just like me. We just have a different learning style than most people, which serves very nicely in sciences like physics. Although you do seem to be worse at detail than I am. Maybe you should make yourself a "cheat sheet" containing the important information that you don't remember, for easy reference. Something that can quickly remind you of stuff you already studied.

Heh. There's probably a lot of truth to that. However, they also lose the ability to ask the president tough questions which might make him look bad not answering (or just for being asked). They lose the occasional slip of the tongue. So there is a little more information that might be gleaned by pestering the man directly.

I think that the first step to solving illegal immigration is to allow legal immigration. As it is, we have numerical quotas (not just quality control). Why not tighten the quality controls and loosen the numerical quotas? As a bonus, that way anyone here illegally is also has other issues, so that they'd have very little support from citizens. Of course, much of the opposition to illegal immigration also opposes legal immigration, even when they frequently say they don't. Finding the truth is as simple as suggesting an expansion of legal immigration.

I would consider asking the President (or other politicians) questions to be one of the least reliable sources of information. Especially if said politician has made clear where he stands on the various issues and what he plans to do --whatever else they say isn't information, and needs to be verified independently. Of course there is still the ability of reporters to try to shift policy by focusing on the popular or unpopular aspects of a policy, or focusing on a gaff. But this is not journalism, it is politics.

Well if you were to replace the NH with NBr, then hit one of the carbonyls with OH-, you'd end up at one of the steps shown in my link. I didn't study the Hofmann rearrangement, so don't take my word for it.

Yes. I only meant to show the difference between creating wealth, creating value, and how voluntary transactions could still be unfair (even while still being favorable for all). Right, there are some services that blur the line between wealth, value, and waste. The dentist provides you with the ability to keep your teeth, which might be considered wealth. A massage therapist gives you something you value, but destroys wealth do do so (he needs to eat). Then there's these other services. A tax specialist gives you something you value -- tax advice -- and as with all services, has to destroy some wealth to provide this service. However, now this is a more artificial situation. The tax specialist only exists because our tax laws are so very convoluted. His service is to negotiate a better distribution of wealth between you and the government, and the value of his service comes entirely at the expense of another party (the government). Of course the government just raises the tax rates, so really this service is at the expense of all your fellow people. Overall, the world would be a better place if the service he performed did not exist. Let me make up another example. A thug points a gun at your head. The thug's buddy offers to purchase the bullets from his gun and give them to you in exchange for the contents of your wallet. He offers the thug half the contents of your wallet in exchange for the bullets. Now, you might voluntarily decide that it is in your best interests to do this transaction. You normally don't value bullets very much, but under these circumstances, those bullets have significant value to you. The thug's buddy plays the role of a merchant in this case, and all transactions are voluntary (they're not beating you to a pulp and taking your wallet by force), and everyone is better off for doing them. However, the situation was artificially created at your expense. You could say you are being coerced, and claim you have been forced to participate, even though the transaction was in fact entirely voluntary. Of course, coercion can take many forms, legal or otherwise, known or unknown, direct or indirect, active or passive. If all the apple farmers got together and formed the apple guild, agreeing among themselves to charge much higher prices for apples for no other reason than to benefit themselves, technically everyone is free to trade with them but we have all agreed that this sort of thing is bad. When you threaten to leave a company if they don't give you a raise, it is a form of coercion and is most effective where the costs to the company for replacing you would be the highest. Likewise, and individual faces large costs in time and effort (and living expenses and medical insurance) of finding a new job and that can be exploited. It is, of course, not possible to prevent all coercion. But generally one party is under less pressure to accept a trade than another, and that party can claim a larger portion of the benefits of that trade for that reason and that reason only.

Sure. I dunno. But I assume it would cost them more than it would for a specialized person. That is, they'd be better off improving their bargaining skills than replacing the middleman. To the merchant I attributed the creation of value. Though he destroyed wealth (an apple and an ear of corn, his transportation losses), he still created value. That is, everyone values the end result more than the initial result, despite the destruction of wealth necessary to do so. Considering it is a preferable result, I would say that is a good thing. In a more complex example, the merchant can create wealth (indirectly) by allowing for specialization and the efficiency that comes from that. In fact, all economies that are even vaguely modern depend on this.

Duh. That's what I said. Zero sum game. I've not assigned that task to anyone, nor did I myself make a moral judgement as to who "deserves" more. I gave two different examples with two different wealth distributions but no other difference, and claimed that at least one of them must be unfair. How can both distributions be fair? If one is fair the other must be unfair. Just because it's all voluntary doesn't make it fair.

It comes out very nicely if you know calculus (actually a lot of things in physics do). It's the same reason for the (1/2) in the equation that relates distance and acceleration. I think it's also the same reason for the (1/2) in the area of a triangle.

I gave two examples. If one was fair (the loot distributed proportional to the labor), then the other example cannot be. The difference between the two is not labor, wealth creation, nor value increase. One benefits at the expense of the other. All still benefit, but now one benefits more than before and one benefits less. So yes, at the expense of the others. Creation of wealth, and trading wealth to increase value, are both good and not a zero sum game. How the created wealth and value are distributed, is a zero sum game. If one gets a larger share, it can only be at the expense of others. Who do you think sets the value for something? Do you think anyone can tell you how much you value an ear of corn or an apple? What you value items is your own business, and completely subjective.

Since when is ignorance the same thing as bias? And since when is calling a lie a lie wrong or inappropriate for a reporter?