Schadenfreude (from 'Schade', sadness, and 'Freude', joy).
Not accurate. "Schaden" just means "harm" or "damage". And in this context, a better translation for "Freude" would be "pleasure".
Neandertal is and has always been the correct spelling. [...] The spelling with the 'h' is anglicized, technically Neandertal is correct, inasmuch as it is the original name, from the original language.
Not correct. It used to be 'Neanderthal' in German before the spelling reform of 1901. This spelling has been kept in some places, e.g. for the local train station. The English speaking world has just kept the old spelling, which is consistent with the scientific name.
But it would take tens of thousands of RF photons simultaneously striking the same exact electron at the same exact time to give it enough energy to break free from the atomic bond it has formed.
That won't do either. Photons are not billiard balls. In the quantum world, only frequency (wavelength) attributes to the effect, not intensity. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect.
We're not that far apart. I meant it in the sense that it is an empirical phenomenon that poses a problem in the interpretation of QM. The concept is philosophical in the sense that it is rather used by philosophers or teachers and not so much by practicing physicists.
I do not believe in particle-wave duality. I believe in Feynman's path integral formulation.
This is not related in the way you might think it is. The former is a philosophical problem in the interpretation of quantum mechanics, the latter is one of several ways of resolving this problem in practice.
Compassion and caring is not bounded by family boundaries, so it seems to me that the evolutionary advantage behind altruism is still questionable.
There are multiple ways in which genes may bring about altruism. Some are more indirect:
1. Kin selection: Help those who share your genes. (A promotes A'.)
2. Reciprocity: Help others, they help you. (A promotes B who promotes A.)
3. Reputation: Let others recognize who is generally helpful. (A promotes B to persuade C to promote A.)
4. "Handicap Principle": Advertise yourself by showing to be able to afford to take risks and provide charity. (A promotes B to persuade C to mate with A.)
How about making use of head/eye-tracking and electro-active lens technology? Expensive, yes - but not impossible. I was under the impression that this stuff is in use these days in military-grade flight simulators.
Sorry for nitpicking: The term "antisemitism" does not (anymore) derive its meaning from "anti-" and "semite". Since the 19th century (or so) it is established as the term for _racially_ motivated adverseness against jews (in particular) -- as opposed to anti-judaism, which is the term for religiously motivated adverseness against jews. It's an unfortunate diction, but that's the way it is.
The comparison is a false one. I won't speak for the Japanese, but the Germans were passive and peaceful after having been defeated because most of them thought they themselves, as a state and a people, had originally provoked the devastation. They had chosen their leaders, had followed them into a senseless war and they hit the wall. After the backlash, there was no widespread feeling of injustice. The allied forces were greeted as liberators by a large majority of the German people. By then, it wasn't their war anymore, but their leaders' war. They were waiting for their leaders to surrender officially. If a majority of the Germans had felt unjustly attacked, I'm pretty sure any following occupation of 60 million angry people would have been hell, even if most of their cities and their infrastructure were destroyed.
The Iraqi people hadn't provoked anything. Tens of thousands died for the failures two governments they hadn't chosen. The remaining feeling of injustice throughout the Muslim society is going to be a problem for the US for decades to come.
Slashdot Mirror
But this was before that happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG
Atwood's Law: "Any application that can be written in JavaScript, will eventually be written in JavaScript."
P.S.: The world really is 6000 "years" old.
Schadenfreude (from 'Schade', sadness, and 'Freude', joy).
Not accurate. "Schaden" just means "harm" or "damage". And in this context, a better translation for "Freude" would be "pleasure".
Neandertal is and has always been the correct spelling. [...] The spelling with the 'h' is anglicized, technically Neandertal is correct, inasmuch as it is the original name, from the original language.
Not correct. It used to be 'Neanderthal' in German before the spelling reform of 1901. This spelling has been kept in some places, e.g. for the local train station. The English speaking world has just kept the old spelling, which is consistent with the scientific name.
But it would take tens of thousands of RF photons simultaneously striking the same exact electron at the same exact time to give it enough energy to break free from the atomic bond it has formed.
That won't do either. Photons are not billiard balls. In the quantum world, only frequency (wavelength) attributes to the effect, not intensity. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect.
We're not that far apart. I meant it in the sense that it is an empirical phenomenon that poses a problem in the interpretation of QM. The concept is philosophical in the sense that it is rather used by philosophers or teachers and not so much by practicing physicists.
I do not believe in particle-wave duality. I believe in Feynman's path integral formulation.
This is not related in the way you might think it is. The former is a philosophical problem in the interpretation of quantum mechanics, the latter is one of several ways of resolving this problem in practice.
"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette
Compassion and caring is not bounded by family boundaries, so it seems to me that the evolutionary advantage behind altruism is still questionable.
There are multiple ways in which genes may bring about altruism. Some are more indirect:
1. Kin selection: Help those who share your genes. (A promotes A'.)
2. Reciprocity: Help others, they help you. (A promotes B who promotes A.)
3. Reputation: Let others recognize who is generally helpful. (A promotes B to persuade C to promote A.)
4. "Handicap Principle": Advertise yourself by showing to be able to afford to take risks and provide charity. (A promotes B to persuade C to mate with A.)
How about making use of head/eye-tracking and electro-active lens technology? Expensive, yes - but not impossible. I was under the impression that this stuff is in use these days in military-grade flight simulators.
Still lame. It clearly should be "7h3j3570r".
I don't think this is any more plausible. Those who doubt that 0.999... equals 1 will also say that "0.333... will never reach 1/3".
http://douglasadams.com/dna/980707-03-a.html
Unfortunately, Germany has a 5% election threshold clause.
Sorry for nitpicking: The term "antisemitism" does not (anymore) derive its meaning from "anti-" and "semite". Since the 19th century (or so) it is established as the term for _racially_ motivated adverseness against jews (in particular) -- as opposed to anti-judaism, which is the term for religiously motivated adverseness against jews. It's an unfortunate diction, but that's the way it is.
The comparison is a false one. I won't speak for the Japanese, but the Germans were passive and peaceful after having been defeated because most of them thought they themselves, as a state and a people, had originally provoked the devastation. They had chosen their leaders, had followed them into a senseless war and they hit the wall. After the backlash, there was no widespread feeling of injustice. The allied forces were greeted as liberators by a large majority of the German people. By then, it wasn't their war anymore, but their leaders' war. They were waiting for their leaders to surrender officially.
If a majority of the Germans had felt unjustly attacked, I'm pretty sure any following occupation of 60 million angry people would have been hell, even if most of their cities and their infrastructure were destroyed.
The Iraqi people hadn't provoked anything. Tens of thousands died for the failures two governments they hadn't chosen. The remaining feeling of injustice throughout the Muslim society is going to be a problem for the US for decades to come.
So, if some guy in the US wants to nuke Saudi Arabia to revenge an attack done by some Saudi extremists, what might the Iraqi guy think about revenge?