MrCapitalism

In my college experience, introduction to formal logic was the only philosophy class that was worth attending. I would recommend a rigorous logic class if you're eligible for one, as everything else is sure to be brain draining propaganda. I've been completely zoned out in a "history of philosophy" class and was asked upon to call a question, which I then proceeded to completely improvise. The professor commented on how amazingly insightful my answer was , which didn't make me respect the quality of the material. I took a class on existentialism, which was a complete disaster. On day one the professor told us, "philosophy doesn't really matter in the world anymore, it's been replaced by science." Looking back I think I should have walked out at that point, seeing as how science wasn't really responsible for the ongoing invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The first question of the final was "what is existentialism?" and I still remember how impossible that question was for me to answer, after having spent three months studying it, and how stupid of a concept that it needs to be on the final. So stick to formal logic, college philosophy really really sucks.

Your question sent me on a quick search of youtube to maybe find the answer. Here's a video on the Fukishima failure. Here's another one on the 1961 meltdown of a small experimental reactor (SL-1). Here's a video of Chernobyl.

They're very visible from the ground, if you pointed one at an aircraft, that aircraft would know exactly where you are. If it has weapons hanging off of it the damage to the pilots vision probably isn't going to be worth the risk.

I don't know, how much can I get for it when I sell it?

Yep. But really, how different are your driving choices from those who break speed limits? I can't say your decision is especially egregious. wow. that may change things... I didn't even know there were statistics on this. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/redlight/

Wouldn't it be nice if the victims returned fire for once? Oh, but then it wouldn't be on the news.....

Expands. They're called gas laws. Question: Why does it rise? Answer: Buoyancy So why is hot air buoyant? Because it is less dense. And why is hot air less dense than cooler air? Because it expanded. So atomic energy is "absorbed by air molecules"? How does air react to absorbing energy? It's temperature increases.

Neither option violates the NAP... so fundamentally I don't see the problem as an issue of ethics. Do whatever you want. Besides, if you don't release it, how do you know that somebody else isn't working on the same thing and will discover the same technique next week?

Well played... well played

I asked this question to my coworkers and here are some responses. Horses, goats, sheep, chimpanzees, pigs. i think i've seen my dog smile although rare. It may have something to do with the muscle structure in the animals faces.

I can't speak for other specialties, but in aviation technical skill comes with a sense of responsibility and humility. Harrison Ford does a good job of explaining the mindset I think...

aviet64, Thanks for the clarification on the post. However, it's still a mystery to me. Did you choose the title of this thread, or was that the title of the twitter post? What was your intention of posting this?

Thanks for the update.

Customers boycotting businesses they disagree with = a moral good. Businesses boycotting customers they disagree with = a moral evil.

Your OP is just a title and a picture, and yet there's so much subtext to analyze. After thinking on it for some days, I don't think I can do a coherent post, but more of a stream of consciousness.. First, Him. 6 replies into this thread and nobody has mentioned that he's most likely lying about his wealth. Looking at his picture, he doesn't project the image of somebody who's a young business tycoon. If he was, his success would have earned him some form of notoriety. I personally think the giveaways are the blank facial expression and his choice of a screen name of 'millionare23.' Uh huh, sure you are buddy. So what does a young, 23 year old millionaire have for interests? "Football, Money, Shopping, Clothes, Partys (sic)" Bullshit. That's a woman's interests, except the football thrown in, in case she forgot he had a penis. I think you guys have done a decent job with how shallow his opening line is. Money for sex, that's what he thinks women are worth. More importantly, he's specifically screening for women that find such an exchange acceptable. Low self esteem women. But he's a liar. So he's trying to find a woman that has such a low self esteem that will flirt with him while knowing he's a liar. He looks like a nice guy to me. Why's he taking such a pessimistic view of dating? Lying to girls and trying to buy their love with fake money? Where did he get the idea that this strategy works? Probably from his personal life, especially the model of his parents. Maybe he already tried being genuine with romantic relationships and found the results lacking. Or, he's never had romantic success, and doesn't know that honesty and devotion is the key to a woman's heart. And now, Her. Obviously his approach was less than ideal. So how did she (I'm assuming it's a woman..correct if wrong) decide to respond to him? By putting his courtship on public display, in this forum. No analysis, just the image and the thread title. "If this is how your parents met, how would you(sic) turn out?" First of all, the dude wrote you two sentences and you're already thinking of children with him. Holy shit. He's projecting a false image to disguise who he really is, and your immediate response is to funnel him into your life script, without any attempt to get to know him first. Maybe he doesn't want kids, maybe he's going to find out that he doesn't like you. Why should he make any effort to show you who he really is, when you couldn't give a crap who he is? You're not even willing to ask yourself if you like him, but instead, "will my future non-existent children approve of him as a father?" It's hard for many men on this forum to process female aggression, and it took me a couple days to see yours. I experienced this post as a passive-aggressive. He failed in his attempt at courtship, and your response was to publicly shame him. The men on this forum were able to process the difficulties which may have modeled this behavior for him. It appears that you weren't interested in such empathy. A man which is in touch with his emotions would experience displeasure at a rejection, and a great deal of embarrassment and shame at seeing a prospective mate putting his courtship on public display for ridicule. I think that with his message and persona that he is screening for women of low self esteem. I also think that by using public rejection, you are also screening for men with low self esteem. What kind of man is going to try and win your heart when he knows this is the consequence for failure? Not a gentle dude for sure. Modern dating is an abyss. He tends towards one extreme by claiming to be a millionaire. She tends towards another extreme by judging him according to an elaborate expectation of the future. Where two people are supposed to meet and find love, I have no the slightest clue. If any of my analysis has merit, it might also be insightful for the other posters to ponder why they didn't discuss any of the subtext, or the aggression in her OP.

Could you go into more detail about what problems you're having with these words, and their use in RTR?

It's the nuclear bomb thread all over again...

Found a cool video related to evolution. This is basically the first chapter of Origin I highly recommend reading Darwin in his own words.

What books have you read which are critical of evolution? I think it would be interesting to learn more about them.

How do you know?

Do you believe that a cloud has to physically move for it to disappear?

If that big cloud on the right was so impervious, then why did it disappear 10 seconds into the footage? Why did it take 18 seconds later for it to reappear?

He's not "oversimplifying atom bombs." Quite frankly, he's insulting the physics involved. That would be fine, if the physics were fake. But he hasn't come close to prove that enough to so casually dismiss them. All you got is the "film evidence was faked by a magic government film studio, using techniques 60+ years ahead of their time (and not to be duplicated) hiding inside of a tiny radio building in the Hollywood hills." And yes, I'm insulting your theory to the contrary. It's easier to believe that "whacking to pieces of metal together can level a city" than your position. This is an argument from incredulity, 'I can't figure out how this works, therefore it's wrong.' The rest of us don't know how it works either, but at least we can believe or own eyes when we look at film footage of it doing it's thing.

Welcome!