ydoaPs

You stole my UserCP link and I miss it so. I promise I'll even be good for at least a week if you give it back.

No, I'm not. They have strict energy states, but they do not orbit. Click here to learn more.

How? It's poor etiquette to throw down the Strawman card without explaining why you think the argument is fallacious. How is it critically different? "Illegalization" and licensing are both methods of restricting use. One method merely restricts it more(should that be more fascist?). It seems like the licensing is merely part of a gradual move toward the "illegalization" of smoking.

There are a few points I would like to address about this statement. The first is about the phrase "atheistic beliefs." What does that mean? I think it may stem from either the ever common assumption that the only form atheism takes is Strong Atheism or a complete ignorance as to what atheism even is. We have two belief sets here. The first set, theism, has one term-the belief in the existence of at least one deity. The second, atheism, is a null set-it says nothing about the existence of any deities. When it comes down to the core, atheism is just as the etymology suggests; it is a lack of theism. From here, just as with theism, we can branch out into different classifications of atheism. There are two general types of atheism. The first type is the baseline of atheism; it is basically being unconvinced. If a theist were to approach this type of atheist and say "At least one deity exists", the response of the atheist would be "I don't believe you." This type of atheism is typically referred to as "Weak Atheism." The other general type of atheism is an extreme(and relatively uncommon) form of atheism; it is basically being convinced the opposite of theism is true. If a theist were to approach this type of atheist and say "At least one deity exists", the response of the atheist would be "You are wrong; no deities exist." This type of atheism is called "Strong Atheism." A weak atheist is open to the idea whereas the strong atheist is firm in his or her convictions about the nonexistence of deities. It is similar to the difference between a skeptic and a denialist. The second point I would like to address is about the word "we." Who is this "we"? Are you part of some sort of movement? The third point I would like to address is that this statement seems to imply that it is morally wrong to use science to prove one's view. Would it be morally wrong to "hijack" science and use it to support theistic beliefs? Is it morally wrong to "hijack science and use it to support anti-smoking beliefs? The last(for now) point I would like to address is about the phrase "hijack science." What do you mean by that? Atheism doesn't state that there are no gods. Strong Atheism, however, does state there are no gods. Indeed, and that is what it does. As Carl Sagan once put it, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Since evidence for this particular extraordinary claim has yet to publicly surface, science is forced to assume nothing about the existence of deities and is therefore atheistic by definition. Even if, as you incorrectly claim, this idea is so common, what is wrong about using science to prove something? Is it wrong to use science to attempt to prove anything or just things not consistent with your belief set? Indeed, it doesn't. Atheism doesn't say anything-it is silence. Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more deities, whereas atheism is simply the lack of this belief. Does it assume the existence of one or more deities? Not only by our experience, but by definition.

NO! Electrons do not orbit! If the electrons orbited the nucleus(like the Bohr model), then they would give off radiation since they are charged. This would lower their energy and they would fall into the nucleus.

Part 7 was posted on Alonzo's blag.

CERN has been around for a while. Indeed, it is.

Are the laws against doing illegal drugs "nanny-state" rules? It seems to be about making sure we know that they are not only bad for us, but that they have no redeeming worth whatsoever. It's pure demonization.

Like I said. The hydrazine will be undergoing evaporation due the the heat of re-entry AND it will be reacting with the air. I'd have to see some calculations before I just blindly accept that enough hydrazine will survive re-entry to pose any sort of problem.

It seems that it is just one more step in trying to slowly phase out smoking. In many cities here, smoking in public places is illegal. With the new rules, fewer people will start smoking and more people will stop which will increase the overall heath of the people(not only the smokers get cancer from smoke). I'm not sure if that's a slippery slope or a strawman-maybe a little bit of both. Beer drinking by itself doesn't affect the health of other people; smoking does.

I'm confused. What's the big deal about hydrazine? Last time I checked, N2H4+O2->N2+2H2O. Wouldn't all the hydrazine be nitrogen and water by the time re-entry is done?

IIRC, Area 51 is quite inactive these days.

Perhaps my best SFN moment:

Here is my most recent:

I was playing video games for once and started wondering: are [acr=Heads Up Display]HUDs[/acr] feasible? I was thinking of maybe a clear flexible [acr=Organic Light Emitting Diode]OLED[/acr] on the inside of the mask to display a "radar" and other things such as battery life and air pressure for the gun. For the "radar", I was thinking a [acr=Global Positioning System]GPS[/acr] combined with an [acr=Ifrared]IR[/acr] detector to sort of detect hotspots and calculate their position. This information (and similar information gathered from teammates via wireless communication) could be used to place dots where there is known to be an object with a temperature around that of the average body temperature. I guess it depends upon the speed of the information gathering and calculations, really. Has anyone seen anything like this available? edit:Are there IR cameras small enough small enough?

I remember when I was one of the top ten posters.

"Good news for lesbians who want to have biological children related to both parents: a new stem-cell technique could allow scientists to convert female cells into sperm. Use that sperm to fertilize an egg, and voila: children with two female biological parents. In unpublished work reported by New Scientist and the Telegraph, British scientists at the University of Newcastle coaxed female embryonic stem cells to develop into primitive sperm cells. Next, the researchers, led by stem-cell biologist Karim Nayernia, plan to create sperm cells from female bone marrow, making the procedure more practical. They haven't yet made the primitive sperm undergo the final cell division that generates the correct amount of genetic material for fertilization, a process known as meiosis." You can read the whole article here.

The two on the floor is part of the 27. If you're attempting to get the original value, you need to add the dollar each of the boys got back, not the two dollars the bellboy placed on the floor. If you are trying to get the actual price, you have to subtract the two dollars the bellboy placed on the floor.

You're messing it up in your math. Here we go: Three boys go to the hotel and get a thirty dollar room. They each pay ten dollars. 10x3=30. It is later found that the room is only 25 dollars. 25 isn't divisible by three and the hotel is mysteriously out of change, so each of the boys is given a dollar back(so, they each effectively paid nine dollars 3x9=27) and then the bellboy places two dollars on the floor(27-2=25). Now, the bellboy has the $25 dollars for the room, each boy has $1 and $2 are laying on the floor. Now, let's add it up: $25(in the hands of the bellboy)+$3(each of the three boys was given back one dollar)+$2(laying on the floor)=$30(the original amount paid). What it seems you are doing is having the bellboy give each of the boys a dollar and then taking two back from the group as a whole. It's no wonder it isn't adding up for you.

What about the flash?

Three big ones are adam, ExtraSense, and Zarkov.

Alonzo added two more installments to the story. They aren't on the pdf yet, though, so you'll have to read them on his blog for now.

As a rule of thumb, the acceptable minimum age of a person for you to date is given by Amin=0.5xAyou+7 where Amin is your potential date's age and Ayou is your current age with the notable exception of when the formula provides a number larger than your current age(and if the formula provides a number larger than your age, you're probably not mature enough to be dating). Let's see if you are in his dating range. The minimum age of employment is typically between 14 and 16 depending on the state and the job. To tip things in your favour, we'll use the lower end of the scale(14). Amin=0.5x14+7=7+7=14. That's still three years older than you.

Sorry, I thought it was popular enough(like "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star") to not need citing. After all, it was even on . I thought it was as well known as Istanbul or