Monopoly apologists always drag out the "its so much better if you use the 'auction property if it isn't bought' rule". I've never seen a situation where it matters, everyone always buys every single property that they land on. Every single time. Occasionally someone will be a little short on cash (from buying tons of property already) and there's a little bit of "should I really mortgage stuff to buy this property?" But they always do it, nobody ever leaves property unbought.

No, it raises the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy that doesn't mean anything like what it sounds.

If it doesn't mean anything like what it sounds, then that is a language fail.

Sorry, the "correct" use of the phrase "begs the question" is one of my pet peeves, because it makes no logical sense.

In my experience, most relays have a "Instantaneous" setting that goes off as fast as possible if you have like 20-30 times as much current as should be there, a "Short Time" setting that goes off in few seconds (a fixed time, exactly how long is settable) if the current is several times times what it should be (exactly how much current is settable) and the "Long Time" setting which follows $Fixed_value = [Current]^2 * time ("I squared T").

The "Long Time" setting integrates current squared when ever the current is above the "Pick-up" value which is typically around 20% over normal rated current. Exactly how much the integrated value has to reach to trip on "Long Time" is very complex and has to be coordinated all the other relays and systems. Generally, the lowest level of breakers are given time to trip first, in hopes that the problem is solved while only interrupting a single circuit. The upstream breakers are set with a higher value so they will trip after the downstream breakers had their chance.

I can at least understand trying to kill terrorists. Civilians get killed because of our desperation to kill the terrorists. I mean, it's horrible and all, but at least there is an understandable goal there.

This seems just flat out petty. If we hacked websites to locate terrorists, or anticipate attacks, or disrupt their finances, I could understand that. But to hack in and just insert our own video? And admit that we did it? It just makes us look like script kiddies putting "USA rulz!!! LOL OMG" on stuff.

Crap like this makes our enemies hate us just a little bit more, and makes our allies just a little bit more reluctant to support us, and doesn't accomplish anything material.

Um, yes it does. Article I section 8 is exactly an enumerated list of items Congress is allowed to write laws about. And the 10th amendment explicitly says anything not on the list (or added later by an amendment) can't be done by Congress.

Wait, what constitution are you reading? Article I section 8 specifically details the kinds of laws congress can pass. "Taxes, duties, imposts and excises" are the very first things mentioned.

He showed up during the Eugenics Wars, which didn't get much press coverage because they happened at the same time as the O.J. Simpson trial.

Hmm, I guess we aren't at all on the same page here. Nerds are not, in my experience, trying to gain social acceptance, they are just trying to enjoy things they enjoy.
I basically see two options here, someone who enjoys D&D/Star Trek/Computer Programming/Whatever can either:
Continue enjoying the things they enjoy and accept the fact that the majority will shun them for it, or
Give up on things they enjoy, and pretend they enjoy things that really don't give them pleasure, so as to try fool their peers into thinking they are more 'normal'.

I've tried both approaches at various times in my life, the second one is not only a very sad way to go through life, but it is also ineffective. The others just see through your sham and shun you anyway.

Being a good person really doesn't enter into it, nerds are generally quite nice and respectful of others (there are exceptions). That is, in fact, one of the "weird" behaviors that set them apart from others, nerd sub-culture doesn't engage in the usual put-downs and insults that "regular" kids like to dish out.

You can enjoy Magic the Gathering without forgetting the rest of the world.

Who's forgetting the rest of the world? I'm not sure what you are even getting at here.

You can enjoy D&D and not drone on about it endlessly to people who don't care.

Ok but that's a fairly universal human failure. People who love football (or whatever) are just as likely to drone on about it endlessly to people who don't care. Its just that since there hobbies are more popular they have fewer people complaining (because more people share their love of football/whatever).

Also, all this stuff you mentioned is just entertainment. Do you really think entertainment choices are this important?

Well, your original post already mentioned not giving up computers and math and such. What else does that leave besides entertainment choices to cause one to be labeled as a nerd?

Being labelled is not a behavior. If it doesn't fit, it's a lot less likely to stick.

Ok but usually in this case it does fit and therefore stick. Nerdy kids do, in fact, like nerdy stuff

Preemptively giving up is not really good for much. It's a poor lesson for kids. It tells people they can't count on you for anything.

I don't understand what you are even getting at here. Are nerds giving up on something? The kids are just trying to enjoy things they enjoy, and getting harassed because the majority doesn't enjoy those things and labels them as "uncool".

Why not give up the subculture behaviors and identification instead?

Because the subculture behaviors are things that they enjoy. Magic the Gathering/Japanese Animation/D&D/whatever are things that are appealing and fun for kids of a certain personality type (nerds) and so they associate with other kids with similar interests.

The nerd label comes wether you want it or not. You can try to pretend you don't like that stuff and are into mainstream stuff but that's a pretty sad way to go through life and everyone else usually sees through your fakery anyway.

What annoys me is that nobody offers what is really needed - more elbow room.

My legs fit fine in nearly all airline seats. I hate having to try to suck my arms into my torso in a desperate attempt to avoid physical contact with the stranger next to me.

Business Class fares are completely astronomical. I might consider paying 10%, 20%, or even 50% more to avoid sharing an armrest (that isn't even adequate for one person, let alone two). But last time I checked, Business Class tickets were about $5000, around 4-5 times economy class tickets. (I was comparing LAX to Hong Kong at the time)

If that's true though, then there should be no talk about permits. If "Bigfoot's" activities actually constitute harassment or if there is a legitimate public safety issue, then the Park should be flat out saying "no you can't do that".

By making it a "you don't have a permit" issue, it really smacks of the park rangers don't like it, but it hasn't actually crossed the line.

I mean, are they saying you CAN harass/endanger people as long as you do get a permit?

I sure as hell did when I was in primary and secondary school! Yeah I don't have to think about it NOW, after having done it for decades. But in my childhood 95% of the effort of writing was concentrating on making the letters actually look like letters. And that seriously bogged down the actual process of learning how to write well. I was pretty much saved by the introduction of widespread computers when I was in High School.

I have long thought (in a purely speculative way) that Einstein's logic is circular when he defines relativity. He basically starts with the assumption that "simultaneous" means when the light of two events reaches an observer at the same time and then does the math to make this all work.

But even if the ultimate speed limit of the universe was faster than the speed of light, anything effect that propagates electromagnetically would still appear to follow relativity with light speed as the fastest possible speed. And 99.9999% of everything we observe is the result of electromagnetic interaction.

And which force is it that doesn't affect neutrinos? hmmmmmm

You must have missed the part where you own a house and/or a car, a cell phone, a big screen TV, a state-of-the-art game system, a PC or laptop, and so on. You don't count yourself as having a richer life than people did 40 years ago? Wealth is not money. Capitalism is responsible for these developments.

What the hell are you even talking about here? Your first sentence talks about a bunch of material crap, and your second sentence talks about a "richer life". Those are pretty much orthogonal. Lets break it down your list:
House - Yep I have a small condo, shelter does improve my life. They had houses 40 years ago though, so I'm not sure what we are comparing here.
Car - Sort of - I drive my company car, about 90% of my use of the thing is work related. I hate driving but there are times it is useful. Cars existed 40 years ago.
Big Screen TV - I own an old CRT I inherited from an old roommate that left, I never use it (I have no or satellite service, nor even an antenna to plug into it). Obviously I don't think much of TV making life "richer".
State-of-the-art game system - I do own a Wii, its been broken for the last several months. I haven't bothered to fix it because I honestly don't miss it. Apparently it didn't really contribute much to having a richer life.
PC or Laptop - Computers and specifically the Internet are the one thing I'll give you that made a huge difference in quality of life.
Anything else? Cell phones did eliminate a lot of old frustrations. Looking around my home I don't see much of anything else noteworthy, certainly nothing that didn't exist 40 years ago.

The main problem in life is that we work too much and thus can't enjoy any of the stuff we have (whether 40 year old tech or new). That is why we are miserable all the damn time and hate our lives. But the way society is set up, its either work yourself to death and be constantly miserable, or be out of work and eventually starve to death in the streets. Why isn't the march of technology moving our work week towards 20 hours (or less)?
The answer is that it is more efficient to work one person for 40 hours than to work two people 20 hours each.
And why is efficiency so important? Because that's what sends maximized profits to the rich shareholders at the top.
So instead of having better and better lives, we are forced to fight ever harder to have a job or else starve.So that the rich can get richer without doing any work themselves.