Masked Monkey

The problem with that is that the logic taught through philosophy is based on the woefully inexact medium of language. Paradoxes don't exist in nature, they don't exist in mathematics. It is only when you apply language to things that a paradox can exist. :king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

I remember the first time I heard the ontological argument ... it reminded me of the proof of God's existence that summs up ALL the other philosophical proofs: Either God exists or 1 + 1 =3 1 + 1 != 3 Therefore God exists If that proof satisfies you, the so do all the others, if that one doesn't, neither will any of the others. I was raised Catholic (yes, I accept your condolences) and part of my misguided relationship with my wife got me involved with a somewhat fundamental church. I have to say that the pastor was just about everything I believe a true Christian should be, he did not judge or condem anyone. The ONE thing I got from him was a clear understanding that Christianity, as explained in the New Testament regardless of translation, was that being a "Christian" was a matter of FAITH and FAITH alone. IF the Christian God is the one true and existing God, then any "proof" of His (since it is the Christian one, he is male) existence would take Christianity out of the realm of Faith and break that fundamental key to everlasting life offered by that religion. I cannot make claims about the other major monotheistic religions, nor about the polytheistic ones, but I believe that reliance on Faith is a key ingredient to the power and pervasiveness of any religion. As for philosophy, I disagree with your statement as an absolute. The philosophy engaged in by ancient and medieval philosophers is not the philosophy of today. Much of modern philosophy is ethics, or at least what we identify as philosophy. The pieces you don't see are in art, literature, political science, sociology, science, religion, business administration ... The very battle for equal rights goes beyond a simple "ethical" one but into a philosophical one. I call myself a "Physicist" because that is the modern term for my chosen career, but in truth, that modern term does not describe who I am in that career, nor how I behave in that career. I am not just a physcist, but rather I prefer to think of myself along the lines of a much older term to describe my career. I am a Natural Philosopher. :king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

Ok, I have to admit, you say "Spinning Class" and I picture you sitting behind a wheel turning cotton into yard hoping not to prick your finger, and here you are looking for someone to finger your ... :king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

ooooh ooooh, that hits another one. It is generally believed that hydro power is less green house gas producing than coal/natural gas electrical power stations, but that may not be generally true. Hydro power generally involves the storage of vast quantities of water in places not used to having water stored (meaning you have to build a dam), even with a rapidly flowing river, you still store it so as not to "waste" the potential energy when demand is low. While the creation of a lake associated with a dam may be fun for those of you who like to water ski, the environmental damage can be quite large. Methane is > 20x more damaging a "green house" gas than is CO2, and biological material (meaning trees, bushes and illegally dumped bodies) generally produce a LARGE quantity of methane when they decompose under water. Without careful mitigation (meaning removing all the plants and dead bodies and lining the bed with cement), the reservoir will produce a greater "green house" effect than the equivalent natural gas power plant. Not to mention all of the endangered and un-endangered species that will inevitably exist on the site of your proposed hydro plant (hope Bambi and Thumper know how to swim). :king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

Oh how you all have hit many of my pet peeves. Oil reserve estimates fluctuate more than Oprah'a weight, if the current administration proves anything, it is that you have to look for the political agenda of anyone reporting "factual" information. Plus, there is always the red herring of the particular issues (ie costs) of getting it out of the ground. GM is a publically held corporation, those of you who come from countries with more socialistic additudes may believe that the COMPANY has a responsibility to improve fuel economy, to offer products that are more "environmentally friendly", but they don't. As a corporation GM's only responsibility is to make money for it's owners. That's it, no more, no less. In doing so, it is general practice to obey all local, state and federal laws. Under that model, the COMPANY does NOT have the responsibility of developing more fuel efficient vehicles simply out of the goodness of its "heart", and will/should only do so based on the demand of regulating authorities or consumers. You can bitch and complain all you want about the fuel economy of American made Trucks & SUVs, but the simple fact is that there is a large American demand for these vehicles, and GM consistenly makes these larger vehicles with better fuel economy than foreign competitors. It is true with any American company that as the desires of the market changes, so will the products produced, and forcing a change will result in plummeting sales (just ask Coca Cola about that whole "New Coke" thing). The FASTEST way for GM to go out of business is to say "we will not produce any vehicle with a fuel economy lower than 30 MPG highway" As for the cost of refined fuel products ... well, again, there are so many factors that go into the price of a given quantity including local and national tax structures, that a simple comparison of prices comes down to an apples and oranges thing. Hmm, what next ... oh, hydrogen cars. Read a study a few years ago that investigated the "failure modes" of these vehicles under normal highway accident scenarios. Apparently, there are 2 basic failure modes for the fuel cells. 1) the hydrogen escapes and simply dissipates up into the air harmlessly. 2) the whole vehicle (and much of the surround area, like the other vehicle in the accident) is consumed by a massive explosion. I certainly don't want to be the CEO of a car company that puts out it's first line of experimental hydrogen based cars only to have one BBQ a loaded school bus. ok, finally, Electric ... anything. Whenever you think about electically powered anything, you have to remember that electricity is basically a "use it or lose it" commodity. The cost of storing electricity is astronomical compared to the price of producing it. Currently, we have 3 basic options 1) convert it into chemical energy (battery) 2) covert it into mechanical energy (some sort of flywheel type device) 3) store it as electromagnetic energy in a capacitor bank (electric field) or in a High TC superconducting magnet (magnetic type). All of these methods are woefully inefficient. Of those options, batteries are the only commercially practical devices because the failure modes are rather benign. You don't hear of batteries exploding very often, but the recycling and disposal of batteries would be a major issue of the world converted to electric cars. ok, enough bs from me, other than to say that of all the methods of generating electricity at the power levels needed to meet worldwide consuption without contributing to global warming is nuclear; not to mention that nuclear power is also fat, cholesterol, sodium, and carbohydrate free :king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

I wanna see a bad movie with steve Oh, and Viv too :king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog (if they can copy their posts, I can copy my response )

Joebo, You blew it in mentioning the bf thing, you know that as soon as you blog about it, it is all gonna go to crap . So just keep your mouth shut ... well not exactly but you know what I mean :king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

I wanna see a bad movie with steve Oh, and Viv too :king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

I remember when I was an undergrad (yes we had color tv and CD players , but those DVD things were called LaserDisks and were the size of LPs ... those vinyl things ), anyway, there was a study done on the California budget over the previous 30 years, I believe, (mid 50s - mid 80s). It turns out that there was a strong anti-correlation between the money spent on building libraries and the money spent on building prisons. Any time a library was funded, less money was funded for a prison and vice versa. What I didn't understand (well, I guess I do) is that the prisons seemed to have overwhelmingly won the battle. Don't they get that if you build more libraries, odds are you will need fewer prisons. Well I'm in favor of libraries all around. great :wacko: , now the scientist in me is wondering if there was a time lag in the funding or not ... meh ... my problem, not yours Try to have fun on the essay Steven, you will do fine. As for taking chances ... I know the feeling ... really well. :king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog Hoping to add "Prof." to that

Blonde works for you I say you go with it :king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

You know that just means it's your turn... You guys have covered everything so there's nothing left for me to blog about! Oh, yea, I could see my blog. "Had an AMAZINGLY awesom time in SF, came home to find out my company was letting me go when the grant ends in January." Snoop

Any identification of sexuality is a red herring when it ventures outside the "heterosexual" label. Without pulling out Foucault to get technical, you have to separate love, sex practices, sexuality, and living situation. "gay" is a label for sexuality, not the sex you engage in, or who you love, or how you live your life. Sexuality is about preference and desire, not about behavior. If they all fall in one category, how could I have spent 10 years with a wife who I have an increadable love/hate relationship with, enjoy the sex, never been with her in my mind, had somewhat limited sexualtivity with men, and clearly identify myself as gay. meh, just my 1.37$US + tax :king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

Then why was it in the shape of a bear?

Ok, I voted a few days ago, and I voted for NYC because I currently live in Virginia. Since I have no clue where I will be living or working after January 31. I don't care anymore. As for the date ... well ... I voted for June simply becuase my birthday is the 7th. (which is also the anniversary of the date that GA went to a dedicated server). Oh, and who the hell is Tim the Traveller who is either in Wi or Tx ... sounds like a slut to me. :king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

Regardless of who it was, they certainly got your best side :king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

I didn't notice anyone looking at Joe or Steve of course I had no need to look at anyone else . Good thing joe likes to walk in front :king: Dr. Mr. Snow Dog

Thank you Joey for working to make GA a fun place where many people can play and have fun, as well as read the works of some of the best authors on the internet. Snow Dog

Without wanting to make it a big issue, part of the history of any social movement designed to gain acceptance for a repressed minority is to "reclaim" the derrogatory words used against them. The 'N' word is used publically and often in many black communities. To them, when used internally, it is more of a statement of common identity. For me to use the same word (note that I don't even say "The 'N' word" in public, Damn CA liberal) would be offensive. Surprisingly, the feminist movement tried to reclaim words like "c**t", "bitch", "whore" etc. That is part of the reason it is acceptable for women and girls to call themselves "bitches". Much of the common use of the word "queer" stems from an extension of feminist theory and theories of sexuality that are used to historically place non-heterosexual sexualities on equal footing if not more historically natural than heterosexuality. This movement was termed "queer theory" for reasons I do not recall at the moment. It is a tough transition for many within any repressed group to understand the actions of more radical or more conservative members of the same movement. Bottom line, there is a difference between taking offense and feeling offended/insulted. It does us no good to take a derrogatory term used against us as grounds for an emotional response. In fact, the use of such a term says nothing about us as individuals or as a general group. HOWEVER, taking offense at a term that is used is a non-emotional thing. It is an identification of a word used by someone (knowingly or unknowingly) that is designed to be hurtful. Taking steps to identify and rectify the offense is always proper, but never mandatory based on the safety of the moment. Bottom line, I am proud of you Xander. You did the best thing you could do. You witnessed something that bothered you. You didn't let it bother you in and of itself. You realized that the situation in which it was used represented an authority figure talking to lessers. You took steps to identify the incident without endangering yourself, knowing the personality of the teacher involved. Furthermore, you took the step to keep communication with the teacher to allow her to as much as possible right any wrong feelings that may have been created within you. Keep it up :king: Snow Dog

funny thing, I never heard that. Most of the time I did understand, or they could explain it to me. But I was also willing to let "inside joke" with their friend stay inside. :king: Snow Dog Besides Luc, you really wouldn't understand

I have no doubt that, whatever you decide, you will land on your feet and make a good life for yourself. You've dealt with your mom, you know what she is like and how she will respond. She may surprise you, but in my experience, those surprises and behavior changes due to implied or direct threats are very short lived. Living your life on your own starts with ... actually living your life on your own. My only worry is that this is the same person who was afraid to approach a cute guy in whom he was interested. There are parts of you that are still very young, and without a net you may find yourself in over your head (wow, did I mix metaphors ). Bottom line, you know you have many friends here (and I am sure other places) that will help you if you need us. :king: Snow Dog

In a comment on James' pictures and discussion. I don't believe it is an accident that the CNO cycle is the standard death of starts, and that carbon, hydrogen (building blocks of starts) nitrogen and oxygen make up the majority of the basic building blocks of organic matter. Just some food for thought (so to speak ) :king: Snow Dog

*Snow Dog takes another deep breath* Complex number and the consideration of the complex plane is actually a trick used to apply the same math to two directions at once. Yes, to consider 4D space time, you have 3 imaginary numbers . *Hands out plastic bags to catch exploding brains* Unfortunately, in physics, the math often results in imaginary solutions. Sometimes, based on the application they have meaning, other times, they don't. It really has to do with having equations that describe what you want + another solution. Like the Pythagorean theorm. a^2 + b^2 = c^2. if you solve for "b" and get an imaginary number ... it means you don't have a triangle and the equation doesn't work. Or, you could take the negative root when removing the square, and "c" would be negative . I believe The Reaper commented about light. First off, except at absolute zero, there is always light due to blackbody radiation, just not in the visible. I should also point out that light and vision is a funny thing. Something can look green because either it reflects/emits all light BUT green, or it reflects/emits ONLY green. For instance, green paint absorbs only green, so when you mix all the colors of paint, they absorb everything and it looks black (no light reflected). But when you shine a green laser ... it is only green (most likely), so if you shine all different color lasers together, it looks ... white .. all the colors combined. :king: Snow Dog

*Snow Dog sighs and takes a deep breath* When Ampere and Faraday were small children, the Electric force and the Magentic force were separate entities, and all that was known of light was it's velocity. Faraday managed to give us induction ... the ability of a changing magnetic field to induce and electric field (well, he thoughtit induced current, but he didn't quite understand). Maxwell, took the known theories of these two forces and found a way to connect them as being aspects of a single force ... the Electromagnetic Force. (One should note that QED-Quantum Electrodynamics is the theory of the Electroweak force that combines the electromagnetic force with the weak force, the one that hold nuclei together, and QCD- Quantum Chromodynamics is the theory that combined the Electroweak Force with the strong force, the one that hold protons and neutrons together). The funny thing about this combined electromagnetic force was that there was a wave equation that developed if there were no electric or magnetic charges. More surprising, this wave traveled in a specific pattern. The electric and magntic fields oscillated perpendicular to the direction of propogation and perpendicular to each other (transverse-propogating). The neat thing is that as the electric field decreases, the magnetic field increases and vice-versa. In essence, this wave travels by having the decreasing electic field induce a magnetic field, and vice versa. Maxwell discovered 2 amazing things about these waves. 1) they traveled at the exact same speed as the best measurments of the speed of light. 2) that they traveled at the same speed independent of the speed of the observer. It is the second feature that is counter-intuitive Given this frame-independent nature of the speed of light, Einstein developed the concept of lorentz contraction. Actually, Lorentz had developed it years before, but it was merely a mathematical device. Much like Riemann geometry before the advent of General Relativity, and Lie algebra long before any uses in magnetic optics. Prof. Einstein's equation E=mc^2 is true ... to an extent. It all depends on what you mean by "m". Properly expressed, E^2 = (pc)^2 + Mo^2c^4 , where p is the momentum, Mo is the mass of the object when it is at rest (in it's own rest frame) and c is the speed of light in vacuum. In the rest frame of an object, it's momentum is zero (p=0) so E^2 = Mo^2c^4 or E = +/- Moc^2 (ignore the - unless you are into tachyons) or E=mc^2. But that doesn't tell the whole picture. To make things easier, the theory of Lorentz contraction came with a factor gamma, that was called the lorentz contraction factor. gamma = 1/square root(1-v^2/c^2). at rest, gamma=1 at the speed of light gamma=infinity, faster than light gamma is imaginary (again, that tachyon thing so ignore it) You can get rid of the silly p^2 thingy and simplify it if you put a gamma in front of the Mo ... In essence, if you incude the lorentz contraction you can write E = gamma Mo c^2 .... where gamma Mo is often called the relativistic mass that goes infinite as you near the speed of light. when you are lazy, this is also written E=mc^2. Edit: I should hassen to add that Kinetic Energy can be written as gamma Mo c^2/2 or (gamma -1) Moc^2 So depending on what you mean ... E=mc^2 is either a rest frame statement, a lorentz contracted statement, or simply made by an ignorant person. I will NOT discuss the relativity or time dialation online to anyone who does not have at least a BS in physics. Unless we both have a few (4 or more) hours of undevided attention. Without the ability to do math and draw pictures ... your brain simply cannot absorb it without training. Please not my apologies to Messirs Ampere, Farady, and Einstein for my bastardization of their concepts and notation in order to express what they said in terms of moder explanation and understanding. :king: Snow Dog

Happy Birthday Sam Tell Vance he has to do that thing you like that makes him blush :king: Snow Dog

Happy Birthday Nick :king: Snow Dog