Cometmaker

RayK, I agree that purposeful and systematic actions to destroy possibilities of rational human action is a war against myself and my loved ones. We are subject to non-objective laws which threaten our fundamental existence in many ways because our rights to pursue rational actions are removed by threat of force. We cannot preserve human life, which by its nature is more than mere physical preservation, without facing significant penalties. When judgments based on erroneous understanding of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) started to be made, that was when a fight for our rights could easily be won through LTEs and speaking to elected representatives, among other actions. When ASTM building standards and performance tests for snow loading reflect particular test contexts, but started to be enforced without regard to their relevance, that was when protests and peaceful campaigning were steps which were no-brainer priorities. In our current context, a rationally selfish individual may choose to spend limited time on the selective advocacy of rational ideas to carefully-considered audiences. This is to simply retain the potential to take actions for literal short-term, survival. Even before one can commit to advocacy for longer-term freedoms. By longer term, I mean committing to changing "net neutrality", FAA noise reduction classifications, income tax, property tax, FDA medical device regulations or some other rights violations, all of which have personally-relevant consequences. The inaction on the parts of those who have lived before me have, in part, resulted in the need for current positive peaceful actions to be spread very thin and anemic. To focus one’s priorities on changing even one of these problems takes more than firing off an LTE once in awhile. Should it come to brute, life-depriving force, I cannot fight a government apparatus. But I can use my mind effectively to save what I value while it is still not a situation of brute force, which for my context means committing a lifetime to creating the circumstances for those values to flourish, rather than exclusively advocating against my opposition for the same duration. It is each individual’s responsibility to prioritize where they commit their daily courage during wartime. You resort to unjust name calling against PhilO when you have no facts to back up your position. If you have concrete, effective suggestions that can be accomplished without sacrifice, suggestions which result in more than prioritizing attending protests and writing LTEs as if they were ends in themselves or medals of honor for all rational people, I would be glad to read them and work towards taking those actions. I hope you do have concrete suggestions which would bolster my respect for you, even though I do not think you will post a retraction. However, I deemed this division among the good and right significant enough to take time to post about the nature of your error in hopes that it translates into introspective evaluation and positive actions for readers of this public forum.

To reiterate the responses in the thread Changing the language and usage, the Court of Appeal decision in Autogiro Company of America v. the United States aptly states that things are not made for the sake of words, but words for things. By proper law, an inventor - any of us - is his own lexicographer, but this does not allow any word to take on any meaning for the sake of constructing and interpreting claims by predating and cannibalizing English language misuse. Communication is useful, language only historically so. Communication is achieved by individuals who invent and alter language to describe entities and their relationships, not by honouring linguisitic agreements unless doing so implicitly makes communication easier.

Thank you to every man who has made it possible for me to enjoy cosmic scenery and the awe of understanding a speck of it. Thank you for fueling a desire to leave no explanation of nature to others who come after me.

Scott, are all the following possible within Overseer self-self evaluations? -The goals are realistic within the context of the person's life but the means of achieving those goals are not. -The goals are unrealistic within the context of the person's life, and as a result the means appear to fall short of those goals. -The goals and the means are unrealistic within the context of the person's life. Are there people who evaluate themselves as Overseers but treat others justly because they recognize different standards apply to other people in their contexts? Are there temporary Overseers? By temporary, I mean an example of a temporary coercive propulsion might be a homeowner who refuses to be at the mercy of hurricanes or earthquakes in the 21st century. That person places harsh demands upon himself for many years to create the financial means to own a home that is structurally sound and beautiful. After the self-discipline and injustice he believed he required to achieve the desired goal, the homeowner returns to a life fulfilled with a variety of enjoyable activities, including work, without experiencing guilt for his enjoyment. I am also interested in your comments on whether perfectionists can be psychologically healthy without becoming Overseers. This is what I see is the thinking difference between an Overseer and a perfectionist: Overseer: "What I do is never good enough." [Average overall results.] “The exam results show I am not good enough. I have to try harder, even though I don't know how I can. The person sitting next to me didn't even come to most of the classes, and she did better." Perfectionist: "I can't do this. I don't think I’m good enough. I better be wrong about that or I would feel really bad. I have to prove to myself I am good enough." [better than average results.] "That was good enough considering I just learned how to do it a week ago. Next time I can do it better and faster by…".

Maybe I needed to quote your post about billboards. I didn't think my single sentence put that much work on a reader, with or without caffeine.

The practical morality of electing politicians who promise to deliver voters from nightmares, instead of making it possible for them to achieve dreams, is not a "sensitive" subject that has epistemological or hypothetically debatable relevance to your desire for a delayed realization that there is "something missing" from your field of vision.

A belated Happy Birthday!

I had considered my writing to be appropriate for a public board with the majority of readers age 16 and up. I will keep your feedback in mind.

The Craft of Scientific Presentations (see link above for contents) contains good advice on how to present technical subjects in stressful circumstances.

HubbleSite Space Adventures

One can compare the benefits of flight options of various types of aircraft with Travel$ense. If anyone knows of software that would allow easy comparison, using live information, about travel time and costs of other modes of transport compared to flight (both small jet and commercial carrier), please post a link.

I am assuming there is more than one type of widget available, and more than one widget may be purchased between 9 to 5. If customers can be grouped by transaction efficiency regardless of the particular widget they came for on that day sometime between 9 to 5, and if customers can use other customers' widgets (meaning customers must check their inventory of widgets and the widgets used by those around them to see if they can use any held or existing widgets, given that a widget purchase log is explicitly created and classified after each transaction. Those unable to express what widget type they need or who did not realize a widget type did not apply to their needs are also identified.), I refer you to Heppner and Grenander's stochastic model of individuals interacting in beneficial competition in The Ubiquity of Chaos.

In the examples la zafada provided, the meanings remain the same whether those words are omitted or included. The purpose of language is not to adhere to rules which exist in outdated style guides but to express concepts in a way understandable to others. Whenever two independent clauses can be reduced to one, unnecessary capitalization avoided, and sentences distilled so that the meaning is understood better and faster as above, changes in a language are good. Pop lyrics and some poetry rely on changing grammar rules to convey meaning. "But if this ever-changing world in which we live in makes you give in and cry..." "I can't light no more of your darkness..." What makes sense to the intended recipient - for the communication medium and context - should prevail, and does.

Happy Birthday!

The book is based on the author's freshman for-credit course "Everything I needed to know about physics, I learned from reading comic books". The author provides light, bedtime reading with discussions on basic physics topics in concrete, superhero applications including conservation of energy, quantum mechanics and Newtonian forces. I personally do not enjoy comic book scientists and caricatures of how they work nor the portrayal of fantasy-as-science situations, but this book shows what actual science topics can be explored with students despite those less than ideal depictions.