s/Bush/Kim Jong Un/g

I haven't read the original article, but I'll display my ignorance anyway. There are two ways one could interpret moving from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest: as an absolute pressure change, or as a relative change. The atmospheric pressure at the top of Mt Everest is 33% of sea level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest#Death_zone), which is a difference of 14.7psi*0.67 = 9.85psi. At the same time it's a relative change of 67%, i.e. the pressure at the top of Everest is 33% of the pressure at sea level.

Comparing that to ascent from underwater to sea level, you could ask for a difference of 9.85 psi or a relative change of 67%. Taking the 9.85 psi diff, since a depth of 34 feet (fresh water) is equivalent to an additional pressure over sea level of 14.7psi (one atmosphere relative, two atmospheres absolute), that would be the equivalent of coming up from 34feet*0.67 = 22feet to the surface. Or you could ask for a relative change of 67%, i.e. going from 100% to 33%. That would mean coming from a depth of 3 atmospheres absolute = 2 atmospheres relative = from 68 feet to the surface.

It might be if you printed it in the right Ront.

"...the theist idiots are at their usual game... suppression of dissent." Did they manage to erase someone's post?

> 1. "4" does not exist in physical reality. It is a purely mental construct.

First, the OP said nothing about "4" existing in physical reality. Similarly, if God exists, most religions would hold that He does not do so in physical reality. (Which is what makes the Christian doctrine of the incarnation so strange--which is quite different from saying it's impossible, but it does make Christianity different from most--maybe all--other modern religions.)

> 2. Calling an arbitrary event "God" is just stupid, but quite in line with usual theist "argumentation".

I doubt that the OP (nor I) would call God an event. Quite the contrary.

> 3. This is just misdirection. There are valid theories that do not require anything besides random chance.

Chance, as applied to what? Chance/ probability in the abstract suffers from exactly the same problem you pointed out for the number 4: it doesn't exist in physical reality. And yet we exist in a physical reality (well, one could debate that, but you don't seem to be doing so). So chance had to apply _to_ something, and the question is where that something came from. And yes, the "something" here is more abstract than matter, but it had to have some properties to which probability can apply, or else you're still left with no physical reality--just another number.

"any 'universe' that's created by this process is temporary." Fair warning; ours is shutting down on 8 December at 3:17 PM EST. Don't bother paying your mortgage next month.

I assume this was sarc. But if not, the point is that the conjoined particles aren't even near each other.

Thanks, I wondered about that! I had thought that it was more like "When two identical photons are coupled and the phase of one is *measured*, then thanks to the magic of quantum mechanics, the phase of the other photon has also been *measured*." Are these statements equivalent?

Might help to let some air in the bulb

That was my first thought. I recall seeing the tech do ultrasounds of my pregnant wife, and saying "see, there's the baby, and let's see, it's a girl/boy." I completely had to take their word for it; to me it was like looking at clouds. Admittedly that was a long time ago, maybe the technology is better now.

As for the FDA, I don't know that they should get involved; so long as it's marketed to the public as an interesting gadget/toy, rather than a medical tool.

In case someone doesn't catch the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L....

"The only way to rectify our reasonings is to make them as tangible as those of the Mathematicians, so that we can find our error at a glance, and when there are disputes among persons, we can simply say: Let us calculate, without further ado, to see who is right."

And I'm hoping the next version of Microsoft Office will fix the ugliness that is Office 2013. Hoping, but not expecting.

(And yes, I use LibreOffice--at home.)

I've never heard *that* definition of liberals before. By that definition I must be a Republican-voting liberal.

" Immigration is a universal issue." Well, there is North Korea...