They would owe you money because the entire premise of this discussion is that they have a debt to you. A debt literally means they owe you money.

Of course it's an academic exercise. Physics is academic research.

I can't figure out your point. And I really can't figure out how it's like L'Académie française.

Sol and Luna aren't proper names, they are Latin names. They aren't improper names either, just not better. Their English names are the Sun and the Moon. There's a fine point of grammar in there about inserting the definite article "the" in there, much like in "the Earth" vs. "Earth" vs. "Terra" but never "the Terra".

The Latin names aren't all that obscure either. You might stump people you ambush on the street, but "solar" and "lunar" are well-known terms. I agree that satellite has come to mean man-made satellites in everyday parlance.

No, they don't. The only example I can think of for that is IUPAC organic chemical naming conventions, and that's because IUPAC naming conventions define an algorithm for naming an unbounded number of chemicals, even ones never mentioned before, unambiguously.

Here are some short, simple scientific words from the top of my head that are often used differently by the non-scientific community:

force
energy
work
power
theory
weight (very similar to planet, the public often conflates weight and mass which are separated in scientific contexts)
proof
accuracy / precision
chemical
bug
insect
fruit (hence the infamous debates about tomatoes)

You've got it backwards. You're saying before you can solve the problem, the problem needs to be solved.

Since always. Ever notice how variables names in physics formulas (and pure math formulas) are single-characters, even though that means we have to reach into multiple alphabets? That's punishable by death in most software contexts.

It doesn't have to be perfectly inelastic for that to be a problem, it has to be sufficiently inelastic.

A lot of power drain is inelastic, eg. refrigeration.

I have to challenge you on that. Show it formally, or I will have to disregard your claim. I do not believe you can back up your claim.

I will say that atheism doesn't preclude a belief in the absence of gods, it only requires an absence of belief in god.

Let me illustrate the difference:

I don't believe my next door neighbour has a 4K TV in his bedroom. I also don't believe that my next door neighbour has a 4K TV in his bedroom. I neither know, nor care, whether my next door neighbour has a 4K TV in his bedroom. I have an absence of belief concerning the presence, or non-presence, of a 4K TV in my neighbour's bedroom. I think it's unlikely, but not so unlikely that I'd bet money on the subject.

I do affirmatively believe, however, that my neighbour has a bedroom, even though I've never seen it.

And I believe that my neighbour does not have 100 4K TVs in his bedroom. I affirmatively believe in the absence of 100 4K TVs in the bedroom of my neighbour, despite never having seen it and despite admitting that it is hypothetically possible. After all, I believe in the existence of more than 4K TVs whose locations I have never identified, and I believe in the existence of bedrooms sufficiently large to house 100 4K TVs if you pack them correctly, especially the smaller ones. But I do not believe that he has 100 4K TVs in his bedroom.

What about forcing participation on voting, but not forcing the vote to be valid (you can choose "none of the above")?

It removes apathy vs zealotry as a political weapon, since you have to go vote anyway, but doesn't force you to avoid undefined.

Nooooope.

For example, it takes more faith to believe that there is a psychic duck flying through space deliberately diverting meteors from hitting the Earth so that Earth will have time to develop civilization, than it does to believe that there is no such duck, even though the lack of a psychic space duck is not disprovable because he could always have just used his psychic powers to erase the memory of anybody who tries to make an observation. A being of logic would not include the possibility of the psychic duck just because it had heard of the concept -- that would be biasing its decisions toward old ideas.

Your statement is common, but it's a variation on saying that something has a 50% chance of being broken: either it is broker, or it isn't. It's a facile analysis and it's unfair to both atheists and theists.

Regardless, everybody has to agree on definitions. Wikipedia says:

The "most inclusive" definition is not an aberration or a vandalism, and is the one used here.

On agnosticism:

People aren't born believing that they can't possibly know whether or not God exists, that's a conclusion that rational people make.

As corollary, agnosticism is not incompatible with atheism and in the strictest sense isn't even incompatible with theism or the stricter senses of atheism (in that you can acknowledge a truth value as strictly unknowable without regarding it as a 50/50 even-money option, like the psychic duck).

He didn't say average *people*, the context was explicitly about how good a grasp of science people had. Yes, scientists have an above-average grasp of science, and non-scientists therefore have, on average, a slightly below-average knowledge of science, because the sample is biased by the removal of scientists.

And those immigrants are already counted in the statistics for the US height.

Real personal traits are, in fact, representative of who you are and what your personality is.

Torvald's didn't say the "many eyes" thing at all. Eric S. Raymond did.

While true, there's still more to it if we tie to a case like this:

An important takeaway is that "systematically hiring away A123’s high-tech PhD and engineering employees, thereby effectively shutting down various projects/programs at A123," would not be legal in Canada because that doesn't protect any proprietary rights. A123 does not have a proprietary right to PhDs and engineers, it has a proprietary right to trade relationships with clients and confidential information.

Genuine question: how do they authenticate you so that they know to send the OTP to you?

Do they just assume you have physical possession of your phone? i.e. just "something you have"? If so, why would you imagine that's better than having a password?

My naive guess would be that there's both a password and phone authentication going on at some point in your banking process. Such two-factor authentication is not absolutely required by all banks in the US, it's not uncommon and it's pushed hard by many of them, and usually it goes password-first, then phone auth.

I grew up 4 hours away from the nearest city.

The only people who don't take credit cards are teenagers (for babysitting and mowing lawns, generally). And even that looks like it's changing.

I have emergency cash at home or when I travel, in case disaster strikes and takes down the credit network. That's about it.