Skye

I think abhorrent speech is defended in general because it causes no material damage. If speech causes material damages then it's often the case you can sue for damages through defamation. Assembly has an obvious material component so it's not an analogous situation to me.

In my opinion, the problem with long term differences in growth is that the country with the higher growth ends up with a higher per capita GDP which tends to make them an inherently worse proposition for investing capital, since there are diminishing returns of production from capital investment on labour in classical economic theory. So if one country grows rapidly you would expect capital to flow to the other countries, leading to higher growth in those countries. There are a number of limitations and exceptions. Generally this only works for similar countries (eg. developed), it relies on free movement of capital and technology, and there can be policy, population or resource differences between similar countries that lead to differences in GDP size. I think of it as though similar countries are tied to each other rubber bands, while they aren't bound rigidly together, and the growth rates tend to vary chaotically, they stay grouped together over long term. Also, countries that become comparable get slung forward at high growth rates. I'd say Japan was an example of this, and Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea are more recent examples. It also seems these countries overshoot, eg. Japan in the early 90's and Singapore now. It'll be interesting to watch what happens to Singapore over the next few years.

The other thing is whether it was cannibalistic. If lowering taxes in some countries simply led to a shift in capital to those countries then I think the benefits are more dubious. The overall growth rate might not have improved, and the growth countries end up with government debt.

This spambot is set to 'irony.'

You've just outlined this specific case, rather than a general case. In general this isn't going to happen with all government subsidy. There may be situations, say the government subsidising agriculture then buying food for its military grown at a profit, where this churn occurs but in most cases the government isn't exposed to the private sphere to the extent its going to have much of an impact.

I don't think government subsidies are generally sold back to the government for profit.

Coal is cheap and widely distributed. Power plants can be built quickly and cheaply. Plenty of advantages.

So it's not change you can beleive in?

So you begin with steam in chamber 1 at atmospheric pressure and 68 degrees F?

Water, the liquid, doesn't compress very much under pressure but steam, the gas, certainly does. There are already solar powered steam turbines produced commercially such as this.

It's a lot of money to save but military spending is apparently rising by $14bn between 2010 and 2011 anyway. I think it's hard to see spending really being curtailed long term without looking at overlapping and unnecessary capabilities.

john smith, political discussions are found here. No. The Neandertal genome seemed equally closely related to Chinese, Papuan and French genomes.

To maintain the vacuum you need a pump that will be supplied with energy. You're not going to get more energy from the turbine of a hydroelectric plant than the pump uses pumping water from the capillaries.

There's a loss of appetite that occurs frequently with ageing and can lead to weight loss and malnutrition. I think the biochemical basis is still being researched.

Ok, how does light propagate through the ether, and how does ether account for creation of matter?

The district court ruled in 2002 that it violated the establishment clause so I guess so.

There are lots of theories for both motor and sensory decussation. One of the oldest, by Ramon y Cajal in the 19th century, is that it accounts for image inversion by lenses in the eyes. Others developed from this are similar to Mr Skeptic's automaton in that the decussation could be used to lump visual information processing and motor control on one side of the brain. There's also the robustness idea that pretty new. Here's a recent paper that providesmore background: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.1872v1.pdf

It's due to the range of bending and harmonic responses of the bat. http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/bats-new/sweetspot.html

To the existing theories. What would a theory of luminiferous aether tell us that relativity or quantum mechanics don't already?

Wouldn't it be redundant though?

That's not really what they ruled though. The argument made by Anthony Kennedy that the government can erect religious symbols was only supported by three of seven members. Two of them voted that Buono didn't have a right to sue. The justices also voted to send it back to the federal judge to look at again, and Kennedy stated that the case shouldn't be used to make categorical rules.

So the hovercraft is pitching back like a car does when it accelerates? If so, then when it is moving at a constant speed it shouldn't tilt back like that. It will occur when it accelerates, and will vary depending on the rate of acceleration. If you try to account for it by shifting the CoM forward then when it stationary or moving at a constant speed then it will unbalanced. In any case finding out the amount you'd need to shift the CoM to account for it would be difficult, like you've been told, because you need to know the thrust and friction forces on the hovercraft, and finding them would be hard. Instead I'd look at changing the design in a few other ways to minimise the problem: -Lower to the CoM. -Lengthen the hovercraft. -If the motor isn't variable speed, make it so, so that you can accelerate more slowly. -Increase the lift. -Add skirts to reduce the amount of pressure bleeding out the back.

And you'd need a mechanical couple to do that, say a cylinder-piston device...

The problem is that these things aren't all baddies, often elevated levels of them means some problem with regulation. You'd need an alternate form of regulation to control the removal of them, one which is also linked to any regulatory process they are involved in. You also need to work out whether removing them has any positive effect.

This seems to be an intersubjective concept of objectivity. So something is objectified if conceived of as a joint subjective experience, per repeatable experiments. The problem here is that culture itself is a joint subjective experience. Astrology can be a "perceived reality" following "consistent rules," or a woman is a short skirt can be universally considered a slut, with obvious ramifications of those questionable positions. I think a better way of looking at objective reality is that rather than a joint subjective experience, it is something that produces the same result regardless of whether the subject is a person, another person, an instrument or perhaps a rock, depending on the effect in question.