iNow

While I appreciate the sentiment, I think it's important to note that the money hasn't yet reached the problem, so it's far too soon to dismiss its impact. What we are seeing now is more the result of the psychology of the populace, removing their money from the system and exasserbating the problem. Also, European and Asian markets have been experiencing a down turn, one they did not really expect. This further makes the situation here worse. The markets are dropping, but the bailout has not yet reached them. We will see continued drops, but the action of the bailout will take more time to come to fruition. In sum, while many of us are frustrated the action was taken at all, it's far too early to dismiss that action as a failure, and without it matters could, in fact, be far worse than they presently are. It looks like the financial news out of Detroit played a large role in today's drop. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/us-stock-indexes-add-losses/story.aspx?guid=%7B2067E099-1A1C-4B3B-B193-D2B70F65B7D4%7D&dist=msr_1 U.S. stocks on Thursday sprinted to fresh five-year lows, with the major indexes slammed for a seventh straight session as financial shares and General Motors Corp. tanked and global credit woes spurred panic-stricken investors to flee equities. "There are only two things that will turn this market around: One is any sign that the credit markets are thawing out, and the second is we finally find a level at which stocks have finally become too cheap," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at Jefferies & Co. One year to the day after climbing to its peak of 14,164.53, the Dow Jones Industrial Average ($INDU: Dow Jones Industrial Average $INDU 8,579.19, -678.91, -7.3%) sank 678.91 points, its third-largest point loss on record, to finish at 8,579.19, pushing the blue-chip index under the 9,000 level for the first time since August 2003. The Dow's close leaves it 5,585.34 points, or 39.4%, under its year-ago high.

Fine, then. A diety is neither included nor excluded from evolution by natural selection, and the theory still works just fine (although, in my mind, the fact that it's not included in the theory means it's excluded, but whatever... I cannot keep up with the mental contortions and gymnastics which is the desire to argue in favor of deity).

Which brings us full circle, right back the point Bascule made that started this tangent: That's the point I was agreeing with. You're comparing apples and oranges. It's not a 1 to 1 comparison between the pre-Fed-Reserve economy and the present day economy, hence my comments implying that you're using spherical cows. The profound interconnectedness of present day global markets means that despite what we do internal to the country, we are very much NOT in charge when viewed from a broader perspective. As for the rest, I quite commiserate and share your frustration about our lack of power as the populace, and how we're no longer actually being represented by our representatives. As usual, we agree on much more than we disagree.

It was not my intent to suggest that he's living in a dream world of unicorns and thinks only his ideas will result in uptopia. That wasn't my point. I was trying to show how his ideas are, in fact, good ones, but that for them to work we would need to live in an idealized society (it was not my point to suggest that his ideas were to achieve that idealized society, just that they would only work in the way he intends within that idealization). I think part of the confusion may be because I said "represent a cow as a circle." The analogy I was going for is actually the "spherical cow." I was tired last night, and mistated. I may be wrong, but IMO the ideas espoused by Dr. Paul apply more to "spherical cows" than they do to the "actual cows" of our 21st century interconnected global economy. His views on how we should all participate (or, more appros pos... not participate) in "global" issues are also feeding my perception of his plans here. In theory, it would be helpful not to engage or intervene in the issues of other countries, but with the internet and the environment and everything else we are truly one planet, and 19th century approaches are not what we need to transcend the 21st century issues humanity faces collectively.

I am almost completely paper free. I much prefer reading things on my computer, especially since it's so much more portable and I can also search large files and applications for specific pieces in a hurry. Also, I go through so many papers and presentations and status reports and specs and blah blah blah that I'd need a whole warehouse to store it all if I did so on paper. Having access to a few network drives, and putting in place a creative folder structure, I can find what I need in seconds, no matter how old or obscure. I don't do much math in my postion, but I do write some code, and I find that the computer allows me to do this much cleaner than anything I put on paper. Further, even if I were writing math, the latex would work. If I need to do something where hand writing is required, I'll throw it into Paint or use the edit tool in PowerPoint. I think the last thing I printed at the office was a map from google that I could take with me in the car to find the office party. In the last several years, I haven't printed a single thing work related unless an older collegue asked for a printed copy. Printing is far too wasteful, far too unorganized, and doesn't allow the quick searches and edits that are so common in my dailies.

I don't know, mate. I was just responding to your question authentically. Sometimes, it slows us down if we are too rigid with our interpretations and we try to take everything very literally.

I don't care what color their shirt is if they're doing the right things, like providing maximal opportunities for renewables, environmental protection, healthcare, etc. They can call themselves the damned Whig party for all I care. It's not the label that is important, but the actions they are taking, the progress they are making, and the path on which they are setting us as a nation and a planet.

How exactly do you all think China has been able to steer itself toward such great success and progress, and to make such quick adjustments and changes to things like air quality at the Olympics? The stagnant gridlock in our congress is VERY MUCH a problem. I'm not saying differing views and ideas are not important... I'm saying we are at a time where we need much less talk and much more rock, and the partisanship tug of war is killing us (quite literally).

I keep thinking this same thing every time people bring up Dr. Paul, and his ideas. While they all work great on paper, those idealized situations are not reality. It's a bit like when mathematicians describe a cow as a circle. It makes the calculations cleaner and the descriptions much more straight forward, but clearly circles are not cows. The same goes for the economy. While these ideas are much more than nifty in theory, they fail to account for the very real dynamics of the densely interconnected world in which we presently find ourselves.

What makes you assume that any consensus achieved would be a blind one?

We have a system like that at work, and we can even record it then publish it later for people who were not able to attend directly... publishing the event like a movie, or with MC questions to ensure engagement. I agree, it's quite a useful system.

There's got to be some sort of "using far too many words and unnecessary legnth to try winning an argument" fallacy, right? If you can't fit it on an index card, you don't understand what you're talking about.

Yes. The earth and the sun attract one another due to gravity. The strength of that force is contingent on the mass both and the distance between them.

Aww... Come on... Just 5 minutes. Pleeeaaazzzzee! You did make a good post. I concede that. I just took issue with the response it received, and also how my questions are going ignored. I don't think it's about "getting the last word," but I agree with your point that it's time to terminate this where it stands. Lucaspa - Do you also agree with that, and that we can move away from this exchange, moving back into the vast arena of subjects on which we whole-heartedly agree?

As mentioned already, the psychological part is forever, you just retrain yourself how to react. Per the physical, it is hard to say how long withdrawal lasts, since it will be different for different people. Regardless, most physical symptoms are gone in 2-3 days (within 72 hours) and others may last as long as 2-3 weeks.

Nobody here is talking about meaning. What exactly is the definition? Right, and how is that defined, exactly? Right, and what was that definition again?

And you, Phi, are deserving of the online forum equivalent to an Emmy for some of the sparfs you've done. Really funny. They are really bad for the guy with intestinal distress, as the laughter you cause might result in a bit of a mess for such poor souls.

That is a cool question. Kids rock sometimes. This thread may get better answers in the Chemistry forum, but in General Discussion I'll give it a try (I'm not formally trained in chemistry, so please take my comments with a grain of salt). It would seem that the space "in between molecules" is an aggregate of forces, all pushing and pulling on each other. There is going to be little or no mass, except perhaps those particle/antiparticle pairs that are alwasy popping into and out of existence (like the ones around black holes that Stephen Hawking determined could lead to BH evaporation). Otherwise, it's just empty. Forces and the occasional quauntum doodad... but, after that, it's like anywhere else in the universe that is more "empty" than "containing substance." This is all, of course, premised on the idea that our current models are correct. Clearly, new discoveries on things like dark matter and dark energy or even Higgs bosons could very well change all of this, and we may one day find out that the emptiness is truly itself a rich canvas of activity and change. Who knows, right? Sorry... I probably didn't help much. I could barely pull my sentences together in a meaningful way, let alone in a way that a 7 year old can understand. Hopefully someone more educated than me on this can come in and offer up something more clear. Enjoy. Thanks for helping bring science to the kids of the world. I salute that greatly.

I guess I'm not perceiving the clip the same way you are. He called him a witch doctor because he claimed to be casting out witches from Palin, not because he had dark skin. I tried to cover this above briefly, but it's only appeal to ridicule if that is the only source of support for your argument. Example - Oranges taste like chicken. I know this because if you disagree you're a retarded moron. That's not what Maher is doing. He may be resorting to ridicule, but the argument he's making does not hinge on said ridicule. Also, you cannot really have a "tone" of appeal to ridicule, which is why Bascule has asked you to cite specific examples (which we all understand you are not able to do since you've not seen the movie). I have to ask... Is it still somehow a logical fallacy even if the comments being made are true and accurate?

Those aren't racial stereotypes. Those are generalized assertions with little to no supporting evidence. You are trying to achieve a detailed canvas by painting with the broadest brush possible, and that ain't gonna happen. Where did you learn that nonsense? You don't seem to have ever met many people of different ethnic backgrounds, so you are instead filling in the gaps with your imagination and misconceptions.

No. Sorry. Evolution and creationism are not on the same footing. One is an idea based only on iron age fairy tales and the propogation of lies. The other is based on mountains of evidence and successful passing of tests and empirical research across multiple scientific modalities. You are living proof at just how effective the lie campaign has been by the religiots.

Easy enough to correct that: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27034267#27034267

She IS an ape, so she DOES look like one... as do you... as do I... as does every other human on the planet. She's got great features, but she's still an ape just like the rest of us.

She probably didn't want to open herself up to attack from Faux News and the likes of the Limbaughs in the world.

Can you please elaborate on your point? Which math? Wrong how?