npts2020

Part of the question comes down to the definition of infinity. Is it merely any number so big as to be incomprehensible or is it an impossible concept (what is infinity plus one)? By the first definition I would certainly say the universe is currently infinite, the second is far less certain and borders on impossible IMHO.

Arch2008: On what basis are you saying time is finite?

Put a crisp new $100 dollar bill in an envelope and send it to me. I will see to it that the asteroid does not collide with the earth on that day.

Why would distance between objects or mass make any difference then?

Actually federal judges are nominated by the president and approved by a simple majority of the Senate (which in reality needs more support if a filibuster is threatened). Every state has its own system though, some elected, some appointed.

Personally I like the idea of free markets but there will always have to be some limitations, e.g. you can't allow someone to build nuclear bombs and sell them to the highest bidder. Regulation implies government and some sort of ethical judgments about what is to be allowed or not. Some economists like to claim ethical neutrality but in reality they make all sorts of ethical judgments to reach their conclusions (a good one is how much is a future life worth compared to one today). The problem comes when two people disagree about what comprises "ethical" behavior, this is a cause of much disagreement in economics and one reason I can think of why economic models don't work as well as we would like.

Pangloss: And you have not seen me comment about the effects of an open border, which is quite different from allowing any qualified applicant to gain citizenship. The problem comes when you don't inquire any further what "qualified applicant" means and assume it means anyone who applies. The current definitions used by DHS, are what I am talking about unless stated otherwise. I am probably a little slower than some but I still don't see where this sort of immigration has been discussed in most of the posts (not just yours) so far.

It is small potatoes compared with the amount of money that will go down the drain before anyone figures out that you can't save the economy by giving money to those who lost it all to begin with. If the goal was to save the economy you would be giving that same money directly to entreprenuers instead of banks. IMO the real goal is to affix wealth with certain entities outside of governmental control, and our elected representitives are going for it hook, line, and sinker.

4,000 years is only a short time if we are talking geological or cosmological scales. On a human scale it is a very long time, well over 200 generations.

Sounds good in theory but we are talking about humans being involved.

You might see me struggling to get out from underneath of one of those backpacks but I doubt you would see me ever carrying it around.

You need to have a circuit. An anode touching a diode is only half of the circuit.

An easy way to remember it is that a siderial day is how long it takes for the earth to complete 1 rotation on its axis (on average). A solar day is how long it takes for the sun to reach its highest point in the sky from one day to the next (on average). About 3 minutes and 56 seconds difference due to earths orbiting the sun.

One would expect a nation of immigrants to allow more immigrants than any other and on a sheer numbers scale is probably true. However, would we expect a country like Andorra to allow as many immigrants as America? If you measure as a percentage of population or available land you are wrong as I have already mentioned several countries where rates as percentage of population is higher. Anecdotal evidence is not proof but I have personally dealt with U.S. INS on behalf of others and have never seen anything to contradict what I have been told by my friends. In your opinion what is a good rate for immigration and what should one have to do to qualify?

Interesting, airboats for land use. I am so stuck in the engineering paradigm of using turbines to generate the power I never even considered one of those cars.

Some mass is potential energy (e=mc2), particularly unstable isotopes. Every time an atom undergoes radioactive decay, the particles emitted have kinetic energy equal to the change in mass.

The next bubble will be the U.S. Treasury. When people finally figure out that it doesn't really have that much money either. At least that is what my ouija board tells me.

Pangloss: I would never argue that we don't need smarter people in government but that seems unlikely in a democracy where anti-intellectualism seems to be a common sentiment. It may be the best we can do is have less self-centered polticians (is that an oxymoron?), who will at least consider the common good. Severian: Solar power was just the example I used. I do not believe any single source will be a panacea (even nuclear if there were no problems associated with it). Having said that, I think that decentralizing power production and diversifying it will keep prices more stable and decrease the need for government regulation of energy generation. Can those be achieved by nuclear (or fusion) power? I agree 100% that we need to learn how to use fusion, where we disagree is the about the widespread application of nuclear power. How much has the cost of building nuclear power plants decreased since the first ones were built (or even say the past 20 years)? My guess would be they are more expensive but if someone can show that I am wrong I will accept it. How much has their efficiency increased? I can state with certainty that both solar and wind technology has dropped in cost by an order of magnitude and efficiencies have nearly doubled in the last 25 years. Furthermore, costs (for solar at least) are expected to go down even more and efficiencies increase from the current 14-17% to 20-25% within the next decade. Can we expect the same of nuclear?

The FISA Court (for DHS) basically rubber stamps the wire tap request, the court has only ever turned down a handful of requests, then they go do it. They can also wiretap you first and get a warrant later. I'm not sure what happens if the warrant is turned down after the fact, something that has never yet happened.

On what do you base this statement? I have had several emigre friends tell me that it would have been easier to go almost anywhere else. Using homegrown talent is a good idea if you can wait long enough to do that and there is no substantial difference between homegrown and foriegn expertise. Would the Manhattan Project have succeeded in anywhere near the time it did if there were no foriegn scientists involved? IMO we are about to face similar challenges with the upgrading of our infrastructures, tackling global warming, etc. As society becomes ever more technical, are we likewise producing significantly more engineers and scientists?

I disagree that no models would have been correct. Read Barry Commoner's books "The Closing Circle" circa 1971, "The Poverty of Power" circa 1976, and "The Politics of Power" circa 1979. From what I have read about climate change since then I would say he was right on. BTW this was before there even was such a thing as a computer climate model.

Science is compatable with some religions. For example, the Dali Lama is very interested in science and many Buddhists are very good at the scientific method as are some other religious people. The only religion that science is not compatible with is the dogmatic one that claims to be the only truth (even outside spiritual matters) regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

Well this part of Virginia was in church then. I shot a great round of disc golf with the rest of the First Frizbyterians attending.

Just offhand I would say it is possible but not with current technology. It would be similar to trying to extract energy from an electric eel.