ribuck

No, I'm not "forgetting" anything. My post was exploring your claim that "You have to put more or almost as much fossil fuel into them as you get out". You have raised an entirely different point: that sunshine is not constant. If you're interested in exploring that, there's a good introduction here: Can you get “green energy” when the sun's not shining?

Darren, your posts are adding no value. You have shown no interest in rationally exploring any of the points that you have raised.

I've tried to find good evidence to back up your claim, but I can't. Do you have a reference? I can buy a solar panel from Amazon UK for £200 which generates 100 watts under full sunshine, which it would receive for about 2000 hours per year where I live. Over a 20-year lifespan, that's 4000 kW-hours, which would cost me £800 if I bought the same amount of power from the grid. The panel is unsubsidised, so if it costs £200 it's not going to use more than £200 worth of energy in its production.

The NAP is an absolute principle, not something with fuzzy colour and depth. But it goes more like this: According to the NAP, it is never moral to initiate the use of (aggressive) force. If you choose to initiate the use of force, then according to the NAP it is not immoral for others to respond with force. However, others are not obliged to respond with force. They might forgive the starving man who breaks into a building to steal food, but would attack the kidnapper trying to take their child. The starving guy understands that he is taking his chances though. That's fine. In a free society, you're welcome to stop when the police wave you down. In a free society, you're free to use a toll road whose owners require everyone to stop when their police wave them down. Equally, if there's a toll road where drivers are not stopped for intoxication checks, you're free to not use that road because you fear for your safety. The providers of toll roads will aim to provide for whatever mix of convenience and safety their customer base desires. This achieves benefits that are as good as (or better than) those promised by violent measures, but without the violence.

Yes, absolutely. In my part of the world we would do this as a BSc with a major in physics and a minor in astronomy. It's a versatile degree that leads to a wide range of solid careers.

There are two contradictory creation myths in the bible: the one at the start of Genesis, and the one starting at Genesis 2:4. So it's already not possible to "resolve them with what science knows". The two accounts don't even agree as to whether animals or humans were created first, or whether Eve came from Adam's rib or was just created from fresh molecules. It makes no sense to attempt to reconcile these stories with science.

Bizarre! The warning that snorting smarties can cause maggots to hatch in your nose shows why children don't take paternalistic advice seriously. Even if the claim is true (which I doubt), it's presented in a way that is clearly scaremongering and is not credible to a child.

Are you perhaps on some type of medication that is making this harder for you?

With a BSc and an astronomy major, you can get a job in an observatory, a museum, or a planetarium. Or perhaps as an editor or consultant for science magazines, hollywood productions, etc. If you want to do pure-science research, you can continue beyond Bachelors and become an astronomy professor. If you can stretch yourself to a degree in astrophysics, lots of exciting well-paid jobs become available relating to spaceflight (communications satellites etc). The best jobs in this field go to those with more than a Bachelors.

Agreed. What they actually want is universality of rights rather than equality of rights.

There are plenty of people whose death has changed the world forever. Archduke Franz Ferdinand, for example. And there are plenty of people whose survival changed the world forever. Adolf Hitler, who was rescued from drowning at the age of four, for example There's no doubt that the resurrection story changed the world, but probably more for bad than for good (given the number of religious wars since then).

Religion says "Here is a story about the origins of life, for you to accept on faith. Other religions have different stories, for their adherents to accept on faith". Science says "Here's the story that is best supported by the currently available evidence. If better evidence comes to light, we'll refine the story."

(Yes you may! Feel free to be bold and suggest things!) The "rite of passage" is not about external control. It is absolutely 100% about non-coercive actions. I may choose to lend my car only to people who have undergone some "rite of passage" that demonstrates their ability to control a car and also their general maturity. In the same way, I might invite guests to sleep over after a party. It would be non-coercive, and entirely consistent with self-ownership, for me to provide separate bedrooms to children who had not undergone some "rite of passage" that demonstrates their understanding of sexuality, while allowing the other children to co-sleep as they wish. The difference is that "explaining" and "teaching" is done by others. The rite of passage comes after that and demonstrates to the world that the person understands these things and is emotionally capable of dealing with them. In most countries today, the "rite of passage" is arbitrary (reaching the "age of consent"), and is backed by violence. In a free society, "rites of passage" may emerge that are better indicators of a child's readiness for sex. In a free society, violence would never be sanctioned against a participant in a consensual act. However, voluntary actions would be OK. For example, a shopkeeper may choose not to serve adults who engage in consensual sex with un-passaged children.

You claimed that life "defies" entropy, implying that life cannot decrease disorder. The refrigerator example illustrates the universal principle that order can increase when there is external energy input. If you don't think that this principle is universal (and therefore applicable to life), please state to which aspect of "life" it is inapplicable, and we can discuss that aspect. A vague sarcastic comment like "Life is just a bit more complex" isn't useful in a serious discussion. Once you retract your claim that life defies entropy, we can look at this new question of yours. The science is not 100% settled as to how this DID happen, but there are sound theories and good evidence as to how it CAN happen. So go for it! Demonstrate this, and you will have broken Darwin's theory. It's a mark of Darwin's intellectual honesty that he stated this. It's telling that you started your sentence with the word "Even" in the quote above. Your implication is that Darwin was trying to push a viewpoint rather than to seek the truth. This may be a case of projection.

That's a great idea! Of course, not as a basis for violent retribution (as June says, if it's consensual then it's allowed), but as a social mechanism for non-violently encouraging age-appropriate behavior. In the western world, there have been such rites of passage in the past. It's not so long ago that many western subcultures frowned upon sex before marriage, and the rite of passage consisted of courtship followed by engagement followed by marriage. In high society, there was another rite of passage before that: the debutante's ball was a signal to prospective suitors that the girl was now old enough and mature enough to be courted. For the male, starting work and gaining economic self-sufficiency was a very meaningful rite of passage. A hundred years ago this might happen at age 14. Even amongst my schoolfriends, some left school into employment at 14 (the minimum allowable age at the time). In UK memoirs about World War I, it is frequently mentioned that boys queued to enlist at age 14 (by mis-stating their age, because the official minimum age was 16). But I have no idea how a modern "age of consent" rite of passage would look. I imagine it would involve the parents and peers of the teenager, and would show that the child's family and peers endorsed the idea that the child had sufficient maturity to make their own decisions in life.

I'll be happy to discuss "the universe" when we've finished discussing life and entropy. Your statement was: "I have a hard time myself discrediting the idea of a higher power when there is a very natural, observable rule called entropy that life somehow defies." I showed you how life does not defy entropy any more than a refrigerator does. Can I therefore assume that you no longer "have a hard time discrediting the idea of a higher power"?

Fortunately, no-one has an effective monopoly on language. So you are free to refer to an imprisoned drug user as "caged", to taxation as "theft", to news as "propaganda" etc. But to answer your original question: They are stupid because their paycheck depends on it.

Darrenpollock, if you think life is incompatible with the rules of entropy then you need to study entropy before contemplating life any further. As TheRobin said, you don't have a closed system here. Every type of life takes some form of energy as its input (sunlight, food, heat, etc). If you are putting energy into a system, you can transform that system into a more ordered state. Consider a refrigerator. We put energy into it, and change room-temperature air into cold air (inside) and warm air (around the coils at the back of the fridge). If you think life violates entropy, then so does every refrigerator.

Well of course Stefan created a job in philosophy for himself, so it can be done. But usually the only job that follows a BA in Philosophy is teaching students who are studying for a BA in Philosophy. Astronomy and electronics, on the other hand, readily lead to satisfying and well-paying jobs. If you can stretch to astrophysics instead of just astronomy, even better.

Maybe you can be the laid-back parent. The one that's always available to help, or to have a cuddle, but never exposes her to stressful situations. Young children learn by imitation, so you don't even need to teach her to use utensils. Just eat something yourself whenever she's eating. Always lay small-sized cutlery beside her bowl, and it won't be long until she enthusiastically tries to copy you by using her utensils. You can then help if she wants help. If a slamming door freaks her out, maybe she associates it with something unhappy (e.g. arguments in her other house). It's probably not possible to find out the root cause, but you can try to stop doors from slamming. If they do slam, start associating the slamming with something positive. For example, every time a door slams make sure you give her extra attention for a few minutes (cuddles, rides, songs, whatever). It won't be long until it no longer freaks her out.

Hello inflation. Inflation dis-incentivizes saving. Without saving you don't get capital investment. Capital investment increases the efficiency of production. Without increases in the efficiency of production, the advancement of society stalls. People might think "wow, I'm getting fiat for free", but they end up poorer than if they had to work for their money in a free and prosperous society.

Lots of good research has been done into music, and quite a lot is known about the combination of culture and physiology that makes people appreciate and/or enjoy music. For example, it's no co-incidence that the range of musical tempos (from say 50 to 220 beats per minute) corresponds to the human heartbeat rate from rest to fully aroused. An easy introduction to this is the BBC's "Science of Music" series, however it may not be available outside the UK since the BBC doesn't recognize the world wide web. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01sk5xs/episodes/player I found the following page quite interesting, especially Section 3 which explores the correlation between personality characteristics and musical preferences. Amongst other findings, heavy metal fans tend to have low self-esteem and are creative, whereas fans of mainstream pop tend to have high self-esteem but are not creative. It's possible (but not proven) that there is causation, e.g. that people with low self-esteem are more likely to prefer heavy metal than chart pop. http://www.fastcompany.com/3022942/work-smart/the-surprising-science-behind-what-music-does-to-our-brains

I looked it up so that I could post a reference for those who are interested. In doing so I discovered that the restrictions were lifted a year ago, 26 years after the Chernobyl accident. Chernobyl made 9800 UK farms unable to raise sheep for food, affecting the four million sheep that were on these farms, and harming the economic viability of those farms (and costing the taxpayer a lot of money) for 26 years. Reference: "Post Chernobyl monitoring and controls"

People with different personalities do differ in how much they need to be with others. But who says you need to "be alone" just because you "live alone"? I know people who live alone, but who make a point of having a regular routine that brings them into contact with familiar people. For example, they visit the same coffee shop every morning at the same quiet time every day, so that they get to become regulars and to know all the other regulars. They visit the gym every afternoon, where they become regulars and get to know the other regulars. And they have a hobby on the weekends where they get to spend time with others. From their "hobby" group, they invite people to their house now and then (they try for once a week), and of course it often gets reciprocated. Then, it doesn't matter if they are alone at home sometimes.

If I were in your position, I would definitely take the commission. You are quite clear that it would be advantageous to you. It seems your argument against taking the commission is that it might boost her career. I don't see why this should concern you. When I buy something from the store, I don't worry about whether or not it boosts the storekeeper's earnings; I just look at the costs and benefits from my point of view. So I feel perhaps you have a slight desire for revenge. I don't think revenge is a productive thing, but nevertheless you can "have your cake and eat it" if you wish. You could accept the commission, and produce a work of art that functions at two levels. On the more superficial level, it would tick all the boxes for the retrospective. On a deeper level you could add some meaning relating to her corruption and censorship. You could incorporate a parody of her singular style. You could make a statement about the relationship between integrity and falsehood. Of course if she is as shallow as you suspect, she won't suspect a thing. You can keep it as your own private joke, or you can share it with your clients and friends, or you can "leak" it during the exhibition and create a lot of interesting publicity that would probably be good for your career. Anyway, congratulations on being invited! It says something when a former teacher wants to bask in the student's glory.