Mokele

While I do agree that we cannot simply blame the media for all our political ills, I do think they have indeed had a role in the dismal state of affairs. They have the ability to ask truly insightful questions, to take politicians to task, but instead they lowball, they pander, they take explicitly biased positions (::coughcough::Fox::cough:, and generally sell out in order to profit. The media have basically failed at their job, and the result is that the most respected journalist in the world is on Comedy Central. Honestly, everything that needs to be said on the subject was said on .

Speaking of which, and rather off topic, doesn't it strike anyone else as really Weird that a state constitution can be amended by a simple majority popular vote? I mean, what's the difference between a constitutional amendment and a law passed by ballot, then? And why even give courts judicial review and the ability to strike down laws, given that any law that passed by anything like a sizable majority of the legislature would surely be re-instated as a constitutional amendment if the court overturns it. It seem, well, dumb. I cannot for the life of me figure out why it was set up that way, rather than the way it works at the national level, requiring a 2/3rds vote. Mokele

MolecularEnergy has been banned as a sockpuppet of Tom Vose.

I just dug up the following two links: Survival of 15% from a 59 meter fall off a bridge (however, subjects were suicidal, so may not have tried things like adopting a good posture). Survival of high-velocity free-falls into the water - notes that 116 ft/sec is survivable, equivalent to a 186 foot fall. Apparently, feet first entries are the only people to ever survive without injuries, and cliff divers regularly dive 100-135 feet. Mokele

The 'driving' one is a bit of a stretch - they can handle some aspects, and the DARPA Urban Challenge has shown they can drive, but as of yet, no program has been able to handle what a good human driver can. It'll happen, I have no doubt, but it's not there just yet. Mokele

Actually, you CAN force a free society to do stuff. It's in the "society" part - the whole basis of society is that we *all* agree to rules in order to allow us to live together and reap the benefits of cooperation. In *this* society, we agreed to the rules of the constitution, which includes allows the courts to override the majority in order to protect the essential rights. You want to let nobody force you to do anything, go live in a cave. If you're in the US, you get the benefits only if you agree to the rules (Constitution) and pay the club fees (taxes). Welcome to civilization. So, you support beating your wife? Because that's what marriage meant at the time it was written. You support banning interracial marriage? Because that's what marriage meant at the time it was written. You support women having no rights beyond as property of their husband? Because that's what marriage meant at the time it was written. Terms, and societies, evolve. We can and do change terms. Remember when "voter" meant "white, rich male over 21"? So, you accept the CA supreme court's decision to legalize gay marriage, then? Because they did their job - they weighed everything, and found that "tradition" wasn't a sufficient reason to deny people rights. And you do realize that "argument from tradition" is a logical fallacy, right? Bullshit. Slippery slope fallacy. The change is based on sound legal judgment - the 14th ammendment, which guarantees equality under the law. The idea that somehow the Nazi's are going to sneak in and change terms around is just plain stupid. Reductio ad absurbium. 3 fallacies in a single post, that's got to be a record. A fringe viewpoint does not constitute a legitimate legal-based objection. How many libertarian US Senators or Representatives are there again? Oh, that's right, zero. See what I said in the segement you quoted: "Any other reason accounts for such a small percentage of the opposition as to be inconsequential. " Your views are a tiny fringe group, not the vast bulk of those who oppose gay marriage. You could have fooled me, given how you're scraping the bottom of the logical barrel in order to justify your opposition to gay marriage. Really? So I should tell my wife she's now basically my slave and property, and beat the hell out of her if she dares speak back? No, I have REPEATEDLY said that not all political disagreements are equal, and some are clearly more important than others, something you conveniently ignore in order to falsely represent my views as some radical demagogue. You're mis-representing my views in order to have something to more easily attack. That's called a Strawman. Mokele

Your brain has the same issue, and it filters things a LOT, long before they even reach the brain, and once they reach the brain. In fact, the inability of the brain to properly filter and discard large amounts of information leads to *major* brain problems that reduce you to a nonfunctional vegetable. Given a robot body, it could, by visiting power outlets. And before you object to those, remember that we do the same thing - we don't make food, we just steal what plants and animals have gathered by eating them. Why is this a criterion for intelligence? And what's so say a machine intelligence couldn't have the occaisional glitch. We have glitches because we're not produced by design, but rather by an imperfect process of evolution. It couldn't *now*, but can you seriously look at one of the 1960's room-sized computers and then an iPhone, and tell me that technology won't advance to that level? Mokele

Take "physical" and "non-physical". The latter category contains no items, no matter what some may imagine.

A quick google will net a lot - here's the first one I found: http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html A lot of the research traces back to a now-deceased Yale History professor, John Boswell, who directly translated many of these formerly ignored documents. Mokele

I was just looking it up, and apparently to hit terminal velocity in arms-in position (the most streamlined), you'd need to jump from a bit more than 400 meters. With legs and arms spread, you'd need to jump from 154 meters, which is still about 3 times to record. How you hit *is* important, but for the sake of argument, let's assume they orient their body vertically, arms and legs tucked in, feet first. This should allow for more streamlined entry, but also mean that your legs could absorb some of the damage (since, after all, you don't actually *need* your legs to live). Plus, many of your internal organs are structured to hang via connective tissue and attachment structures, so this would mean their deceleration would push them up (which has less risk of rupturing valuable connections). I'd be a bit worried about the celiac, superior and inferior messenteric arteries, though. Still, there's a lot of messentery to distribute stress through. Mokele

So, I'm sure we've all seen plenty of movies where, in order to escape some enemy, Our Intrepid Hero jumps off something really tall into water below. I also recall hearing the urban legend that hitting the water from more than 90 feet up is like hitting concrete. This is obviously wrong, since the world record high dive is almost twice that (172 feet, Dana Kunze). So, what is the actual maximum height, and if nobody knows, how would it be best to calculate it, based on force, energy change, or impulse? Mokele

Legally recognize, not religiously. By your logic, people should have been 'persuaded' to recognize inter-racial marriage. But instead, we rightly realized that the Constitution exists in part to prevent the majority from denying rights to the minority, and the Supreme Court overturned it. People are still free to express their displeasure, but their freedom does NOT extend into denying others their rights. And you have just completely missed the point. The POINT is that the "definition of marriage" has changed so much and so often that it's a completely bogus argument. Oh, and as for your "man+woman" crap - wrong. Plenty of societies recognized gay unions, and Christianity itself performed gay marriages until the 10th century. Allow me to make it simple for you: What damage would it do to your goals to allow gay marriage? Regardless of your philosophic position, allowing it would temporarily solve the situation until you can gain enough political clout to implement your ideas. Hell, if you allow gay marriage, rather than civil unions, it'll be *easier* for you, because then you'll just have to pass one bill removing governmental privileges from everything called 'marriage', rather than two. That's irrelevant, and one of the oldest tricks in the book - "I can't be racist/misogynist/homophobic - I've got friends who are black/women/gay! Now let me get back to taking their rights away." Seriously, I've heard that one so many times it makes me want to smack whoever says it. You cannot be progressive by association - you have to walk the walk yourself. Bullshit. Cite sources. Seriously, I have *never* heard of a law-based objection, and I've been following this issue intensely for many years. Every time, it's a bunch of religious bigots talking about how evil gays will pollute marriage. The plain and obvious fact is that the opposition to gay marriage is based on homophobia, backed by religion. Any other reason accounts for such a small percentage of the opposition as to be inconsequential. Really? Then why has he said that homosexuality is not natural, not a right, and shouldn't be in any way protected? By the way, this is in a conference with reference to Africa, where gays are frequently brutally murdered in the street. Some compassion, eh? You are strawmanning. Not all positions are equal. A disagreement over a 1% increase in property taxes, while it does affect people and take money, is not even close to comparable. A few thousand dollars is NOTHING next to a lifetime of persecuation and being denied equal protection. Some issues ARE more important than others. Mokele

And now you're gone. Evading past bans is itself bannable.

I don't want 'apologies', I want evidence. You want to *really* make amends? Go back to every post you've made, and reply with actual evidence of your claims.

Yes. Care to offer some evidence to contradict that? Oh, wait, you're allergic to evidence. You just prefer spouting random big words and expecting people to act impressed. How about this: I'll remove one warning point for every time you actually support an argument with evidence. Mokele

Can you actually support that statement? That every individual has precisely the same intellect flies in the face of everything from established theory to simple personal experience. Can you cite experimental evidence? And if that is the case, why do identical twins separated at birth and raised in very different circumstances have almost identical IQ results? Why are the IQs of siblings, even those separated at birth, more similar than one would expect of strangers? Again, citations please. Personality is strongly genetically influenced, again supported by twin studies. Ditto for most other aspects of 'human nature'. I sincerely hope this is not the basis for your argument, because it's entirely incorrect. Humans only use 10% of our brains at any given time, but 100% of the brain is used. And there's a term for an event when more than 10% of the brain is in use at a time - a seizure. Mokele

Bullshit. "it wasn't my account!" is the oldest lie on the internet. Seriously, you've dug this hole yourself by making ludicrous claims, and then getting pissed off when we ask for the same support we would demand of anyone. And now you wonder why we question every word you post? Mokele

IIRC, airplanes have a higher cost of transport (joules/(meter*kg)) than birds, but both birds and planes have to support their weight, which this balloon wouldn't have to. The cost of swimming is actually the lowest cost of transport of any mode of animal locomotion, so this might be more economical that other methods of long-duration flight.

Yes, unless they're publishing papers to which they've made substantial intellectual contributions (more than just washing glassware and processing data). Really? Then how about you actually take its advice and provide evidence for your claims?

It's worth noting that Mercedes not only doesn't need a bailout, but after buying Chrysler, they apparently recognized Chrysler for the failure it was and dumped it about 18 months ago. Mokele

Perhaps I overstated, but it *does* cast a pall over his loft claims and otherwise good image. It's like finding out the nice little old lady next door has been poisoning cats. I know that personally, I cannot be friends with someone who does not support gay marriage - I can tolerate difference, but I will not willingly associate with a bigot. It's a black mark on their character that I cannot ignore, and which should not be ignored. No, I think he's genuine, which makes me question his intellect. So, what would you do? Sit back and just wait, ignoring the suffering all around you? There will *never* be time when backlash won't occur, or there will be no sacrifice. Such possibilities aren't an excuse for inaction, they're an excuse to up the funding of the police force and demand the equal protection under the law given to us in the Bill of Rights.

Look, it's simple: you've repeatedly made claims that are contrary to current understanding. The very nature of science is skeptical - science demands evidence to support claims. You've either failed to or refused to provide such evidence, and often your claims are counter to know fact. For example, you never did return to your whole 'quantum neurobiology' stuff - never provided any evidence for your claims, in spite of claims that you would.

We take people seriously if they can rationally support their claims with evidence, period. We've had prominent members who were definitely not 'scientists' on account of being still in high school, but because they had a clear grasp of the topic and supported their arguments with logic and data, they earned a great deal of respect.

Look, we're getting bogged down in a meaningless semantic argument. Whether you're a scientist or not is utterly irrelevant. What matters is if you can defend your claims with logic and data. That's the gold-standard.

Yep. Spinal reflexes, which don't involve the brain, are usually things like the patellar reflex, pulling your hand away from a hot stove - very simple actions in which neither the stimulus nor response requires any great degree of processing or control. However, some actions are complex, yet still mostly governed below the brain, in the spinal cord. Walking, for instance. You can take a cat (I have no idea why they're the animal subject of choice for these experiments), cut the spinal cord in the back, and when given a simple series of pulses from an external generator, the hind limbs will walk, and do so well enough for simple, unobstructed, straight movement. The cat can even pick up it's feet higher if they bump into a short obstacle to avoid tripping. Turning, balancing on a narrow surface, all the more complex stuff cannot be done without the brain, but the basic control circuits for many movements are in the spine, not the brain. I even recall hearing of how a decapitated alligator swatted a scalpel on the back of its neck away with its forelimb. Mammals, and humans in particular, seem to have opted for a lot more brain-based control, but the spine is far from a passive wire bundle. Mokele