Severian

It is something you should practice. Next time you are out and about, look directly into people's faces as they walk towards you. If they make eye contact, hold it and don't let go. Most people look away instantly. Some hold it in return, in which case you should smile and nod (as if you know them), or if it is a girl and you are feeling adventurous, wink. When you are past them, and here is an important bit, don't turn around and look at them. I think that sort of exercise increases self confidence.

I just go an LG Viewty with my upgrade, but I don't think I like it. Unfortunately it is now too late to send it back.

I believe it was wrong, simply out of principle. It was a deliberate targeting of civilians. Once you do that, you are as bad as the enemy. (But as Sisyphus implies, I would also say bombings like Dresden were wrong.)

I think once a theory has evidence which has reached a 5 standard deviation significance, we should regard it as fact.

I would say energy is the conserved quantity associated with the invariance of physics under time translations. Or more technically, it is the time-like component of the Noether current associated with space-time translations.

You can't grab them because if you did, they wouldn't be virtual. In fact, they are completely unobservable.... which is, I suspect, at the heart of Bob's objection.

I was asking you to prove that the Many World Interpretation is wrong (since you made the claim that it is).

Can you prove that statement?

Contrary to what a lot of people have said in this thread, yes, I do think that the vacuum energy is a potential energy source. The thing is, we simply don't know enough about the vacuum yet to be sure. For example, imagine a vacuum structure where there were multiple, nearly degenerate vacua, separated by a potential barrier. The true vacuum is the one which is lower in energy, but it could be that the universe is sitting in the meta-stable vacuum, at slightly higher energy. Then, if you could locally move your local vacuum to the true minimum you would gain energy. The barrier would have to be pretty huge (otherwise the lifetime of our meta-stable vacuum would be too short, and we need it to be longer than the age of the universe) but you could imagine some sort of catalyst providing an alternate route around or through the barrier. Then you would have a massive energy release, and a domain wall forming around the region of space that you flipped to the true vacuum. At this point you have to be fairly careful, because you don't want it to spread (and risk destroying the universe) so you would need some mechanism for slowing its growth down. You also want to do this so that the energy release is manageable and can be properly used. I have no idea how you would do this, but I wouldn't rule it out. Interestingly, some models have vacua just like this. The next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard model, for example has 3 vacua which are perfectly degenerate. But various extra higher-energy effects (which I won't go into here) mean that these cannot be properly degenerate but one is lower in energy than the others (the true vacuum). This would also drive the environmentalists nuts of course since you would be 'using up' space. The energy you got out would be incredibly difficult to put back in again, and the region of space in the new vacuum may even have different physics. But I think my point is, we simply don't know, so never say never (in fact, I can think of dozens of other scenarios off the top of my head where vacuum energy could be used as an energy source).

Don't all news programs make things up?

While I agree with that (i.e. which QM interpretation you chose is not science, but opinion or belief), I don't think the many-worlds interpretation is any scientifically less reasonable than the Copenhagen interpretation. Scientists should feel free to have opinions and world-views, as long as they don't infringe on scientific observations. Since you cannot make an experiment to tell the difference between these interpretations, they are equally valid world-views and no scientist should be derided for beliefs that do not contradict observation.

Anyone who voted 'no' is an idiot, since we have plenty of observational evidence that 'yes' is the correct answer. I believe in an intelligent designer and evolution, so I am a counter-example to the claim that it isn't possible to believe both.

Incidentally, and somewhat off topic, is your title next to your name a reference to that game my nephews have been annoying me with all week, where you try not to think about a certain topic, and if you do think of it you have to say "I lost the game"?

Get a grip. I never suggested you were being dishonest. I was simply saying that I thought rusty was asking something different from your interpretation. My statement was "Sorry toastywombel, but I don't think that is true at all", so I was merely stating my opinion as to what he was meaning. To know for sure we would really need rusty to tell us himself.

Since the EU parliament regard internet access to be a fundamental human right, I have to conclude that you are attempting to violate dr.syntax's human rights.

I don't think the statement "I think you are referring to Richard Feynman's Sum Over Histories" is true at all, since he isn't.

You have a strange definition of 'normal'.

Sorry toastywombel, but I don't think that is true at all. Feynman's Path Integral formulation of QFT is not suggesting alternate realities. It is deeper reasoning for the principle of least action. I think the OP is talking about the Many-Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

Even if that interpretation were true, in what sense would it be you who already did the dishes? And for that matter, the dishes in your universe would still be unwashed. Indeed, if you lay claim to the action of washing the dishes in that other universe, I am sorry to tell you that you have infinitely many dishes still to wash in the others.

I think dr.syntax has a valid point. It isn't just a case of "Close your browser and never open it again" since many modern services are required in order to live a normal life. We are assumed to be able (and want) to use these things, so no provision is give to those who can't or won't. Before the modern internet, your privacy was protected but you were still able to function as a member of society. Increasingly we are finding that if we want to preserve our privacy, we are not allowed to take part.

In the video, they showed the area and it looked pretty far to the bus-stop. I think the kids would need binoculars. On the other hand, the place where the woman was supposed to be didn't look like his property (in that it didn't appear fenced off or anything). Where are people getting the info that she was trespassing?

Not sure what you are getting at here. Noah was passed out drunk and naked, but he isn't rebuked in any way.

A better question might be "Why is it wrong?" Isn't it just a matter of (your) social convention that a naked body is something to be ashamed of? In a more balanced society, there wouldn't even by an eyebrow raised by nudity, nevermind the implication of raising something else implied by making nudity a taboo.

In the mornings, on my way to work, I walk past some 'garden flats' which are flats that are set back from the pavement (sidewalk for the US folks) by about 3 feet and maybe 6 feet lower. These have windows that look straight into the person's house, so on dark winter mornings, when they have the light on, if you look to the side while walking you see straight into their flats and can see them having breakfast or whatever. Every time I walk past these flats, I make a deliberate point of looking away from the windows to give them privacy. When I was young we were taught that to look into someone's window in this way was very bad manners. It is a shame that good manners seem to have vanished from the world.

These lectures by Angel Uranga are pretty good (and free!)