ydoaPs

No you don't. I'm me. Everyone loves me.

Those were the days. My post count then was so high that I still have an average of over three a day even with me having more than a year of no posting and mostly lurking now.

Oh, and I reported your post for attacking Unicawrn just now as that's against the rules.

THAT is attacking a person, rather than attacking an idea. Also, I'm still waiting for an example of a staff member breaking the rules without being treated like any other member by the rest of the staff.

People often change one variable of our universe and then claim that since the resulting universe is different than our universe, a god must exist to "fine tune" the parameters. I've argued for ages that this is incredibly bad analysis even forgetting the unjustified jump to gods. Now, I've stumbled upon a paper that shows that we can eliminate an entire fundamental force and come up with a universe like ours. Fine Tuning is dead.

"You're idiotic" is attacking a person; "Your idea is idiotic" is attacking an idea. Learn the difference. Example? Also, I'm not a staff member (/me looks angrily at John).

No, that was ExtraSense. Farsight was RELATIVITY+.

Heh. I didn't know you could report your own posts, but sure enough, the button is there. Perhaps your eyes are better. Have you found any examples of a staff member breaking the rules without being treated like any other member by the rest of the staff? Also, one of the staff members may want to move this to the Suggestions/Comments subforum. And we can't forget Alex when he was 5 or however old that youngin' was when he joined.

All of my quotes have been entirely in context. And you don't see how big of a difference a sign makes in equations? You really must not know much math. a-b is not the same as a+b. axb is not the same as ax(-b). a/b is not the same as a/(-b), etc.

I still have nightmares about debates with him, but I'm a better thinker because of it. Pyramids? I'm more concerned about the GOATS on Mars! And There Was The Guy That Capitalized Every Word.

Indeed. If you remember any of my earlier posts, my endorsement of Sayonara3 says quite a bit. And I have indeed been around for a while. Because of that, it might be worth listening to me about things like this. I see how the staff operates now, and how it operated before, and I can guess how it will operate in the future. I can't think of any instance of a staff member breaking the rules without being treated like any other member by the rest of the staff.

Do you have any examples of staff breaking the rules where they weren't admonished by another staff member?

Because vectors pointing in opposite directions have opposite signs. You said one of them pulls while the other pushes. It's bleeding obvious. While not a 1-to-1 (1-to-1 functions are boring, anyway), a circle is a function if you do the relation in polar co-ordinates.

No, I didn't.

Then do the math instead of making bombastic claims without any support. Put up or shut up. Your version CLEARLY requires very different math.

I somehow don't think that members will be typing "You didn't wash that" in political arguments when they've got nothing else.

That's precisely why the equations are different. Your version is wrong.

No, it's completely different as it does not provide the same answer. Give us an equation.

Opposite signs are not "exactly the same". The math is different.

And here's why math carries more understanding. Because you know *how much* different things effect each other. Right now, the above quote is nonsense. Do the math, and it's testable. Go ahead and disprove relativity. Give us the correct equation, and apply it and the actual relevant equation to a scenario for which we already have data. Let's see which one is more accurate. Saying "things interact" is handwavy and doesn't tell us at all *how* they interact. Math wins.

This is one of those knee-jerk topics, so I'm going to begin with a request and some explicit clarifications. Request: This thread is about this article. Please refrain from commenting unless you've read it and read all of it. I'd like it if a moderator could remove any defense of child molestation (unless, of course, they have overwhelming arguments, in which case a separate thread should be made). Clarifications: I do not now, nor have I ever condoned child abuse be it sexual or otherwise. Hopefully that goes for the rest of the membership. The title of the article is a bit misleading (one of the reasons I didn't include the name in the hypertext). We're discussing modification of the current laws; this may extend to, but does not necessarily extend to, complete legalization. Ok, now to the discussion. If one doesn't know much about the laws, some of the points may seem absurd, so here is a follow-up article by the same author discussing some of the current laws and some examples. The original article's thesis is two-fold; it is arguing that the laws need to be modified within the next 10 years, and it argues that the current laws are counter-productive to prosecuting the molesters. The first part of the article goes into the "why ten years" bit, by talking about a current project underway by Google. This section has received criticism because people think the scenario would never fly in court. The troubling bit is that people are (there's an example in the second article) prosecuted in similar situations now with current technology. If the example is unrealistic, it's not because it wouldn't be prosecuted, but rather because of the timeframe set. Most people agree that the second point of the article is spot on. There's no real reason why a teenager should be treated under the law like a person who has video of a child being raped just because he or she received a text message from his or her girlfriend/boyfriend. Some general criticisms of changing the laws are two claims: 1) Availability of child pornography increases the amount of molestation. 2) For production of child pornography to occur, someone must be harmed. Well, it seems that 1 might not be true, and might actually be opposite. There's a study that suggests that the correlation is the opposite, and there's another study (www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Child_porn_viewers_unlikely_to_abuse.html?cid=996966) which suggests that pedophiles who view child pornography are less likely to molest children than those who do not. As for point 2, under current laws, it is factually false because of point 2 above. Under current laws, teenagers sexting and girls lying about their age on /r/gonewild are exactly the same as media depicting children being raped. So, my opinion in short is: the laws should be modified, but not necessarily scrapped altogether. *edited for formatting*

The situation is clear. You have no unqualified right to write whatever you want wherever you want. You allowed to write on this private property given you abide by the rules to which you agreed by registering. This, however, is not a right. Do you not like the rules? Well, I guess that's goodbye then. If you find it hard to stay away, I'm sure an admin would change your password if you request it.

Mathematics is a language just like any other except it's better suited for the task. You not understanding it doesn't mean it doesn't carry as much understanding as English or French. In fact, it carries more. You tell me in English how electric fields and magnetic fields relate. I guarantee the Maxwell Equations carry more understanding than your English. If you can't do the math, you don't understand what's going on.

That's almost the exact opposite of true.

[citation needed]