champu

Half? half!?! What are you trying to do to our beloved metric system! See, but you've gone down 11 decades and up only 2, that's the imbalance I'm talking about. It's really just because the ampere is too big, which makes the volt too small, the farad too big, the ohm too small, the siemens too big, etc. (side note: I was hoping that fixing these could make the freespace permeability and permittivity and maybe some other constants more reasonable in magnitude, but now that I actually think about it, that may be a losing battle.)

The kilogram, actually. Yes, oops... But ah, the plot thickens! It would appear an understanding as to the absurdity of the magnitudes of the base units was built into their very definition!

SI is nice and all, but the magnitude of most of the electrical units are completely jacked up, the coulomb got everything off on the wrong foot, and now most of the units are huge in terms of terrestrial calculations. if your physical constants all have to be > 10^10 or < 10^-10 you might consider revising your base unit. a gram? okay... a meter? yes, yes, fine... but a farad!?!

My problem with the Drake equation is (in reference to the variable names above) with "fi" and "L". I've talked about it a bit before in other threads, but I'll try not to just repeat myself. "Simple" life, it would seem, has a much broader range of environments it is capable of existing in. I think in the process of evolving into anything we'd consider intelligent, life would have to battle with the dynamic nature of the planet / solar system / galaxy. I think this battle would significantly limit "fi", and later on "L" as well if the life got smart, but not smart enough to stay ahead of its changing environment. Are humans going to suffer such a fate? *shrugs* Maybe, although we've already launched probes that have left the solar system, so even if we go no further before something crushes life on this planet back to square one, you could argue we've made our mark. Given the sample time/space cross-section of the universe you'd have to examine before the probability of finding intelligent life came up out of the noise, and the cross-section we're restricted to even having access to observe during what may be a relatively short "L" for humans, I don't think the probability of us finding anyone to "talk to" is all that high. I think the probability that we eventually discover modest forms of life, or remains of modest forms of life is much higher, and I dare say even worth spending some money on. (whoops, that's my bias showing...) One thing I noticed a lot of in this and other threads is a misunderstanding when someone makes statements of probability, and a confusion about how that might relate to faith. An example was given about driving a car, so I'll use that. If I say, "given what I know, I estimate that my car will get me to work safely with a probability of 0.997" and then get in my car and start driving, that is by no means a profession of faith. Likewise, if I say, "given what I know, I estimate that my car will get me to work safely with a probability of 0.003" and then get in my car and start driving, that is not a profession of faith either. The latter case could be called stupid, but it's not a profession of faith. Faith isn't about rounding probabilities up or down to justify a decision you made, and it's certainly not synonymous with such an act.

I did not argue right and wrong. I was, in fact, very careful not to do so. I was just trying to put the situation into perspective. Let me try and put it another way... The only premise under which the executions may be deemed acceptable is one in which the right of one person (even just one!) to follow their religion outweighs the right of one other person (just one!) to exist. This is an unsettling premise when considered domestically, and it's downright terrifying when considered internationally. When Iran says they want to destroy Isreal we shouldn't worry about it because it's just a "crackpot leader blowing off steam", and the whole of Iran doesn't actually believe that. Now when Iran says they want to kill all the porn stars we are not supposed to say anything because it is, overwhelmingly, what the masses want. Are these the same thing? No. But I'd argue that the premise is the same, and that's what I have a problem with.

This isn't about forcing moral views on another group of people, this is about objecting to the fact that this other group of people is forcing their moral views on adult film actors... ...by killing them...

The mullas just know porn when they see it. Thank you Mr. Stewart.

The listenership issue is all well and good, but the comments made didn't address this. The motivation seems to be simply that those in charge don't want to renew the deal because they don't want to give tax dollars to a radio station that gives airtime to a person they don't politically agree with. also from the article: So it sounds as though the technical side of this is being given a back seat. Btw, John, Miami FL is in Miami-Dade County not Broward County.

How many square centimeters of the woman's skin need to be exposed for it to be considered pornographic?

pfft... amateur... To begin to comprehend how truly enormous the universe is, you simply need to realize that it's bigger than this: [extends arms out to sides rendering a classic, "fish this big" pose] There you are... now you're well on your way.

They're welcome to define the god they try to prove to exist in a universe outside the realm of logic, but the argument is taking place here. So I'm still going to call people out on it.

My thoughts on Pascal's Wager.

The life that exists on this planet required a relatively narrow window of tolerances to come about when you consider the huge range of environments we've observed just in our little corner of the universe. It would not surprise me if any other forms of life require different but similarly narrow windows of opportunity. Supposing this opportunity is capitalized upon, it is then after life exists that evolution can be observed. You should be careful not to confuse abiogenesis and evolution, it gets some people rather up in arms. When it comes to origins the simplest explanation, given the information available to me, does not involve a god. That is something that can be reasonably argued. This does not mean that a god being involved is not also an explanation, nor even that it's an impossible explanation. However when people try to argue that god is the only explanation, or that it is somehow an obvious explanation, I find it pretty silly. Notably more so if long strings of logical fallacies are involved in presenting the argument. I'm an athiest because more often than not the simplest answer is the correct one, but I still consider it more of a "working theory" than a way of life. The only way you're going to convince me of a god's existence is to come up with something simpler than my current philosophy which is, "life exists because it can."

Laughter is laughing at the funny thing the funny person said. A good hearty groan is laughing at oneself.

Noice!!!!!!! You shifted right into that one! ...groans...

Argumentum ad Hominem, Argumentum ad Metam You're working alongside your previously quoted author on a road paved with every fallacy there is.

That's not how logic works. You are either in agreement with the principles of logic or you are not, much as God either exists, or He doesn't. Before the discussion even begins, the author of this article displays a lack of familiarity with tools he or she attempts to employ that, quite predictably, goes on to undermine the entire argument presented. Ignoratio Elenchi, Non Sequitur Circulus in Probando Argumentum Verbosium I realize I'm being supercilious, but please understand my contempt isn't held towards what the author of your quoted article intends but fails miserably to conclude. I'm an engineer and a rationally-minded person. I'm quite capable of pointing out that a road being built is not fit for travel without bringing into the discussion my opinion of the road's destination.

The child involved has since recovered, and has joined this woman's other four children in the custody of the woman's mother. It certainly is a slippery slope, but on the other hand, people such as this having five children by the time they are 27 is a sheer cliff with jagged rocks at the bottom. Pick your poison.

I certainly appreciate it as one, but how people can claim that the situation becomes more likely or in any way simpler with the addition of an intermediate step involving something as nebulous as a god between eternity and existence is equally as puzzling to me.

Just as a note, this is not a very engaging way to begin a discussion. It is a strain to believe that an eternal God created an endless expanse and some stuff to put in it. Similarly, it is a strain to believe that an endless expanse and the stuff in it is itself simply eternal. Either defeats the "everything made has a maker" statement, and one adds an additional complicating step to the process of doing so. I understand this author doesn't speak for everyone, but please understand, you can't have your cake and eat it to. Please do not try to use a logical construct to convince me that an eternal being outside the reigns of time and logic exists. It's just silly. I have no discomfort with regards to the concept of God nor with my stance on whether such an entity exists, and it is for that reason I don't feel the need to write books that grasp at straws trying to convince others that what I believe is the truth.

When people talk about canopy "progression" there seems to be a focus on how many jumps they made at a given size before going smaller, with the implication that's the only direction to go. I wonder what the average number of jumps any given skydiver has made on canopies smaller than what they presently consider their "daily driver." What canopy to buy off of student status? Be honest with yourself, and then choose a canopy with the kind of mistakes you may still make in mind.

I vaguely remember graduating 8th grade, and that about 3/4 of the graduating class received the presidential academic excellence award. By the end of the ceremony I think everyone was tired of hearing it. My high school graduating class was 657 people, and all I remember about that (besides the ceremony being dreadfully boring) were the two goofs who, rather than actually taking more AP classes to get as much college credit as possible (my high school offered just about every AP class under the sun, I took 10 of them myself) they retook the classes they got Bs in to get an A so that they could be Valedictorian. I didn't go to my undergraduate or graduate school ceremonies.

I see religion as a way in which man has attempted to come to terms with his own ignorance. Creationism et al to explain away his ignorance of the universe around him, and moral-ridden parables to explain away his ignorance of himself. I see it as a comforting vice to those who choose to follow it. In turn, I liken my concern about its practice to those who wish not to breathe second-hand smoke.

If you look at it just right... ...through a window... ...stare at your reflection... ...and let your eyes go out of focus... ...the system functioned properly.

See my reply above. I also happen to think the Infinity and Mirage designs make it harder to work in a screwed up set to your flaps than other rigs out there. This is not to say there is not a way where there is a will, as I have seen jacked up riser covers on an Infinity and a jacked up main flap on a Mirage. (The Mirage in question would be easier/cheaper for a rigger to fix than the Infinity, but that's a whole other ball of wax...)