swansont

What have you tried so far?

Your two recent answers are contradicting each other. Which position are you taking — that infinite speed only connects two points along a trajectory, or all points?

1 flies in the face of "human life is a gift from God," and for 2, why have the sperm and egg meet in the first place, if the zygote is going to be spontaneously aborted?

If you go down this path you have to acknowledge the somewhere between a quarter and half of all conceptions end in miscarriage. God is the ultimate abortionist.

Why only 2?

The brightness theorem tells you it can't be any hotter than the source of the light. That's a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Knowing which path the photon takes, i.e. forcing the photon to pass through one slit or the other, destroys the interference. Having multiple paths allows for interference to occur. Where is the photon being observed without interacting with it?

If you find that you need to work with the different volumes, you were told that they have equal density, which means you should be able to solve for the relative radii of the two bodies. But it doesn't appear to be asking for surface gravity, so finding the ratio of the field strength at an arbitrary distance would seem to be sufficient.

Generally speaking, you don't. There are some measurements that can be done which don't perturb the system, called quantum nondemolition measurements.

! Moderator Note This is a science site, so feel free to discuss on-topic material. If you want to serialize a novel and get feedback, I suggest you start a blog.

How is this related to the OP? Voters by themselves can't compete with corporations in terms of contributions. The one lever they have is to boycott. And conservatives boycott, too; the American Family Association is currently boycotting Home Depot. The Southern Baptists boycotted Disney for years.

Was this referring to relativistic effects or biological effects?

I had not seen the ad until now. Wow. Who borrowed the communal backbone and got it made? All warfare is based on deception. Similarly, all politics is based on fear. The distinction I was trying to draw is instilling fear based on things known to not be true (e.g. death panels), vs. business as usual.

A Slate article on it http://www.slate.com/id/2269845 It's a CYA maneuver. It's too vague to be of any use whatsoever, but if something does happen, they can't be blamed for not telling us.

The contention, which is missed by the NYT and others who are covering it, is that money comes in via other avenues than the dues. So saying that collecting dues is not improper avoids addressing the issue. Nobody has actually refuted the claims — they've refuted a strawman. How is it misdirection? If it's important to you, then you worry about it. If not, then the argument isn't going to sway you or get you out to vote. Like I said, as FUD, it sucks. I'm not saying that the left never lies. I'm just saying that these two instances you provided are not clear examples of it.

Foreign election contributions are actually illegal, and a reduction of the number of women in congress is likewise not manufactured. Obama as a Muslim or socialist, or "death panels," etc. are actual lies made up to instill fear. The liberals suck at FUD. It may be because they are less homogeneous, and can't come up with an instance of FUD that energizes the bulk of their constituents all at once. Or maybe they collectively lack a spine and can't go on the attack.

True. But e.g. is an accepted Latin shorthand used in journal articles, and the most of the others are abbreviations leftover from the USENET era, rather than being text-speak.

We don't do that here, nor would we tend to tolerate more than one or two 1337 abbreviations, just as we tolerate a very few text-ish abbreviations.

You're going to have to do better than sources that rely on declarations such as "the Jew-controlled media made him a 'hero.' " and which distorts history. This is a science site. You need to back up your claims with reputable sources, not ones comprised of anti-Semitic rants.

When you create the void, the air is pushing the liquid into the container. If air can get into the container, gravity is unopposed, and the liquid can fall (pour) out.

1 is known as Olbers' paradox. It's a problem if the observable universe was infinite and old, but this is not the case with the big bang. The observable universe is finite in size and age, and distant objects (as well as the background radiation) are red-shifted.

Most of us (especially so for the ones answering the questions) aren't twelve-year-olds texting on phones. Which is just about the only excuse* for not attempting to use proper English (of whatever flavo(u)r you've been taught). *the other being "I'm Sarah Palin"

Temporarily adjusting the tax on income has the problem that income can be adjusted and deferred, especially for the rich. If you decided to do this for e.g. two years, there will be a whole lot of wealthy people who not-so-mysteriously have relatively little income for those two years. —— As for the original question, I think it doesn't address the long-term issue that got you there. It's liposuction without an adjustment in the diet/exercise program.

"The mods presumed you would figure out why you had it coming" isn't entirely accurate; when a total ban occurs, those who actually do the banning typically log the action and inform the subject, and that did not happen here. Mr Skeptic's phrasing might lead one to conclude that there was a consensus or conspiracy not to pass the information along, and that is not the case. The quote from pharyngula, while true, misses the point. It was not the perceived rudeness of contradiction or truth that was the issue here. It was actual insults and putdowns, that did not have to be part of the discussion in order to make your point, that led to this. IOW, you can disagree, and/or point out someone's errors, without calling them an idiot. If you want to do that from your own dais, fine — anyone who whines about it can justifiably be labeled a shallow, superficial wanker. But a discussion forum is trying to foster participation, and that sort of incivility is just not conducive to that goal.

At this level of analysis, I think the following applies: if the error will give you a bias, it has to be considered a systematic. Otherwise you treat it as random. (In more advanced analysis, there are multiple types of noise; 2 and 6 would not be random)