AL

We should encourage the private sector to get involved in space exploration. Big corporations throw hundreds of billions a year in marketing to have their logos plastered on billboards and baseball stadiums, and to sponsor concerts and other events. Why not stick a logo on a rover and have "Mars Rover Mission 2012, brought to you by Nike?" Nike is going to spend that money anyway, so it might as well go to help exploration and there wouldn't be any griping about "wasted" tax dollars. I don't get why our space program doesn't do this. Are we still worried about NASA secrets being leaked to the Soviets? Cold War Space Race II: Sputnik's Revenge.

So when a bubble comes into contact with an anti-bubble, do they annihilate one another and release energy?

Hmm...that's interesting. Yeah, I'd definitely be interested in online reading material so thanks in advance if you can post the links. Since I don't do peer review I don't read journals, but if I can get a rough idea of what this Penn State physicist came up with it would be helpful.

As you can tell by my avatar, huge War3 fan here. I played Reign of Chaos like hell when it came out and was ranked on the Lordaeron ladder for Free-for-all and Arranged Teams. When Frozen Throne came out, I had less free time so I didn't get to play nearly as much. With the two new heroes that came out recently (Goblin Alchemist and Firelord) combined with the new hero that came out in May (Goblin Tinker), it seems like Blizzard is intent on providing new content to keep the game alive....which is all the reason I need to get back into it as soon as I have time. I also played Counter-Strike too, but first person shooters aren't my cup of tea. World of Warcraft is going to Pwn with a capital P.

The movie "The Siege" starring Denzel Washington came out in roughly '98 also and it showed many things resembling the aftermath of 9/11. If there's any conspiracy going on though, it's the sheer amount of money writers and film-producers are making on conspiracy theories.

Time and space are intertwined. There need not be a "beginning to the beginning" if time is undefined "prior" to the Big Bang. I use the term "prior" loosely there, but you get the drift. In a multiverse theory, I suppose you could define a prior time in whatever universe spawned ours. It doesn't seem necessary though. From a philosophical standpoint, "nothingness" cannot be, therefore "something" must be. The problem though is that time need not be part of the something that was. I know it's difficult to imagine a point where time doesn't pass, but if you think of a singularity without attaching any thoughts or connotations of time to it, you'll find that there is nothing illogical about a singularity simply having "always" been, and thus no need to conclude that something came from nothing. Again, I use the term "always" loosely there since it connotes time. It's difficult to detach time from our language.

Yeah, it's not technically correct to call it the study of "mythical" creatures. To call a creature "mythical" is to already presuppose it doesn't exist.

Even that's a bit sketchy. Some really intelligent people are inarticulate for whatever reason. Maybe they're uncomfortable in a social setting, or are dyslexic or savants who suffer from speech impediments. I think what's most important is what people actually do and accomplish in life, not what they're theoretically capable of doing based on some theoretical measure of intelligence. Marilyn vos Savant could have a 500 IQ for all I care, but it wouldn't mean diddly if she spent her days gloating about it instead of using it for the betterment of mankind.

Do words like "hour" count As one or two syllables? If two, I screwed up.

Capacity for reproduction is not the current delineator in light of the fact that sterile or old people with no reproductive capacity are allowed to marry. Would you disallow an Rh-incompatible couple to marry simply because they cannot have babies together? It seems that love and consent are the factors here, not baby-making. Isn't that begging the question? Heterosexual relations are the only ones that can reproduce, so trivially gay relations cannot be the "most enduring aesthetic" in human reproductive relationships. If you meant to say that heterosexual coupling is the most enduring human relationship, that's clearly not an absolute truth -- the very existence of gay couples disproves it.

First of all, what is normal? Some of my friends think that talking to faceless strangers on an internet discussion forum is not "normal," but judging by the millions of people on the internet who do so daily, it seems pretty common and usual enough for me to justify saying that it is indeed "normal." Since there are millions of gay people in the U.S. alone, I'd argue there is some "normality" to them. Second of all, what is so instrinsically special about "normality" that we should prefer it over abnormality? Even if someone could demonstrate that internet posting or being gay was, without a doubt, "abnormal," why then does it follow that we should avoid doing it? I see no logical connection there.

Asinine in principle, but quite descriptive of political reality.

The whole purpose of male and female was to have two separate sexes? Isn't that begging the question? I think people need to stop reading too heavily into nature's "purpose" for things. You don't argue that it is unnatural to wear clothes when nature gave us body hair for that "purpose." You don't argue that it is unnatural to drive cars when nature gave us legs and feet for that "purpose." Why then would you argue it is wrong for gay people to have relations with one another simply because it defeats whatever natural "purpose" you had in mind? This is an entirely different issue. Without documentation on an illegal alien, we don't know if the alien might be a criminal, or we wouldn't know who to contact if the alien got injured or killed while in this country. Therefore, it is both in our interest as well as the alien's interest to send the alien back. As for gay people, they offer no such threat or dire circumstance, therefore there is no justification for discriminating against them save for "my religious text says so" or "tradition for the sake of tradition," both of which I'd hardly call justifications.

You are, of course correct about that. It is a silly quote that has no underlying principle that can be used to justify the miscegenist's position. Which is why such a claim makes for a poor defense of banning interracial marriage, or in the case of today, homosexual ones.

Gee, this sounds familiar. Where have I heard this before...oh yeah, here: "If the negro is denied the right to marry a white person, [and] the white person is equally denied the right to marry the negro[,] I see no discrimination against either." --Illinois Republican Senator Lyman Trumbull, in defense of anti-miscegenation laws.

First of all, any calculation of the odds of our universe forming the way it did is entirely speculative because we have no other different universes with which to compare. It could be entirely possible that our universe is completely deterministic (bound by fixed equations that govern it), with fixed parameters that cannot be modified, and thus the odds of it turning out the way it did were 100%. But without other universes to contrast ours with, this is all speculative. Second of all, there is no rule in probability theory that states that 1/10^110 million is equal to zero. Even if it did, one should be aware that zero probability does not imply no chance of occuring, specifically in the case where the probability distribution is continuous (such as the Normal distribution, where any singular event has 0 probability of occuring), or if the distribution is discrete but infinite. These Creationists are merely grasping at straws to find holes in evolution. Notice how they spend more time doing that than actually finding support for their beliefs with evidence. They're assuming the false dichotomy that if evolution is falsified, biologists will default to Creationism.

My pet hamster only cost $8. If I were to purchase a clone, I'm sure it would cost in the thousands of dollars. So no way. They say you can't put a price on life, but I just did.

I apologize in advance if this has already been posted before, but have you guys seen this yet? http://www.mchawking.com/ It's a Stephen Hawking gangsta rap parody that's really well done. You can download sample MP3s here: http://www.mchawking.com/multimedia.php?page_function=mp3z There are only 2 free downloads now, but there used to be dozens. Most of the songs talk about science, but a few are political, and a few others talk about gaming.

I'd also like to add that in addition to corporate sponsors, international cooperation would also ease the financial burden. If other nations like Russia, Germany, Japan, etc, want to assist on a Mars mission, they could swallow some of its cost. Plus sending an international team to space is a good way to foster global unity, but we'd have to be willing to set aside our holier-than-thou American pride first.

About me: I'm 23 years old and got my bachelor's from UC Berkeley, with double majors in Math and Economics back in December 2002. I currently live in San Jose, CA, where I'm doing web design work while I try to pass some Actuarial exams and become an Actuary. I like the scientific method in general, and I believe we need people to use more empirical and deductive reasoning and a lot less emotional reasoning. I particularly like Math, Physics and Astronomy, although all sciences interest me.

A professor from Tulane University named Frank J.Tipler makes an argument for immortality called "Omega Point Theory." This is not just some random quack like that Alex Chiu guy who sells those immortality magnet rings over the 'net. Tipler's site can be found here: http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/summary.html More about his theory can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_point Personally, I'm very skeptical of his arguments -- especially since there's some theology/religion attached to it. Plus the theory is contingent upon the Universe having enough critical mass that it will eventually collapse again in a Big Crunch, which is something that has yet to be proven definitively.

Indeed. I see someone has already voted Nazi to try to be cute. It's like the infamous internet penis size poll, where average penis length was 18 inches, and most people who participated put down "Your Mom" as their location.

Money should not be an issue if NASA is willing to allow corporate sponsors to get involved. I'm sure Microsoft or Coca-Cola would pay a heft sum to have their logos plastered on the rockets, or to have the first landing astronaut hold a Coke can in his hand as he sets foot on Mars.

I don't think it's about the Xbox so much as it is about the perceived disrespect. If you think someone has stolen your things, you're going to feel disrespected. Not that this in anyway justifies this pointlessly and stupidly tragic event, but I think that's the real psychological angle here, and not simply because the dude loves his Xbox.

I'd vote Naga from War3 or possibly Xel'Naga from SC. Just the fact that we don't know what Xel'Naga look like makes them infinitely cool. Of the races in this poll though, I'd go with Protoss. "Do you believe in time travel? And now for your first lesson..." "Do you believe in time travel?"