Huh? So are you saying that humans fight each other NEITHER for socio-political reasons NOR religious reasons, but simply because they come from different groups?

If so, your argument that religion is not responsible makes little sense to me. Religion is a purely human construct. It's part of what defines "the group", as you point out. Therefore, by definition, in your argument, if the difference in groups causes conflict, then those differences in the purely human constructs---such as religion---are EXACTLY the factors which DO cause wars! What am I missing here?

I would add that the claims of religion, particularly infallibility and post-mortem benefits, would make it a greater contributing factor than many others.

I didn't get the impression that the OP in this discussion was trying to censor anyone. I think he was emphasising the lack of mathematical rigour ("red tape") in Feynman's presentation; particularly his reliance upon intuition rather than derivation. If you've ever heard undergraduates trying to reason about things like general relativity using poor metaphors like the bowling-ball-on-a-trampoline model, you rapidly realise how important the mathematical framework is. You HAVE heard undergraduates do things like this, right? :-)

PS: I teach Finite Element Analysis and Continuum Mechanics. Some of it is physics, but with an Engineering bent... :-)

I'm not the OP, but Google for "Leonard Susskind: Theoretical Minimum" for a great set of courses (they're on YouTube, iTunesU, etc.). You can also find guides for the more advanced areas---General Relativity, for example---on sites like arXiv (although they're not connected in any way with Susskind's lectures, they make a great adjunct).

Yes! The Feynman lectures are interesting, but I think that Leonard Susskind's lectures are much more clear. Susskind also addresses General Relativity in a more conventional way, without predicating the whole exercise in electrodynamics. Susskind's approach places more emphasis on the underlying geometry, centred around the metric tensor, and is appropriate across multiple applications of continuum mechanics. I think that the Feynman approach is better for those who already have a decent grasp of GR.

So, with science-literacy declining in the USA, you would like even greater emphasis placed on non-science courses, focusing on human relationships, empathy, etc.?

I'm not opposed to those kinds of courses. We're all human and need the things you're advocating. However, there's only so far that a positive outlook, a friendly smile and an open personality will get humanity before some poor, lonely, anti-social schmuck, who wasn't invited to The Party, has to sit down and actually get The Work done. Ultimately, The Work often involves math (or logical thinking, which is just math) at some level, no matter how many layers of Human Resources, Sales, Management, Legal, Advertising and Accounting might be plastered haphazardly on top of it.

Yes... do the math. Training for a marathon (running ~50km per week) only burns around 3400 Cal / week. This is equivalent to about 1.5 days of average total energy requirement. So, even fairly hard-core training could only increase the amount of food you could eat and remain energy-neutral by around 20%.

So, you could ask yourself which might be easier: cutting back your food by 20% or training for a marathon? I personally do a bit of both, and enjoy running a lot, but staying slightly hungry is probably an easier proposition.

This is why some primary school kids are familiar with Faraday's work, but Maxwell's Equations are not covered until Uni. Maxwell formalised many of Faraday's experimental results in electromagnetism (as described in the Wikipedia article).

Faraday observed phenomena, but lacked the mathematical background to describe them properly. If you have a new field, with readily-observable phenomena (as electromagnetism was), then this approach clearly works well. I can't think of any similar situations in modern science though; the easy stuff has typically been done. Can you name any modern scientists making meaningful contributions in this way? (By "modern", I mean roughly post-1970.)

I don't quite understand your point here. You started by complaining about the test, so why not stick to the point and tell us what problem you have WITH THE TEST?

They offer a prize for demonstrating a supernatural power. That's it, as far as I can tell. Demonstrate it, and you get the money. Of course it's a scam, because nobody can ever claim the prize, but the point is to highlight the people who CLAIM these abilities.

For comparison, consider the Ansari X Prize. You didn't get time with their committee just because you could build a paper aeroplane. The prize was for launching a reusable manned spacecraft. If you could do this, then you could claim the prize. How is the JREF prize any different? How does the number of "preliminary tests" affect the fairness? Are you claiming that people with ACTUAL supernatural abilities are somehow denied access to the money because of this lack of preliminary tests? If so, how do the suggestions above (media attention and/or participation in other skeptic groups) NOT address this concern?

Everyone should visit the site with the threatening message. It's time to put the Slashdot effect to good use! :-)

You can do what you like on private property, but you can't control public roads. If the unexpected happens, the best possible outcome is ensured by travelling at slower speeds and maintaining maximum vehicle control, regardless of your baseline skill.

What happens if you're busy hooning around on your "empty" road and the "unexpected happens"? You'll be just as likely to have an accident as all the other "sheep", because you're closer to your own limits. I've lived in areas with lots of "empty" roads (think driving 10km without seeing another car), and most of the bad drivers in that area weren't honing their skills; they just drove badly. There were plenty of accidents; a surprisingly large number given the local population. You think they were caused by people travelling at the speed limit and taking the turns like a snail? Me neither...

Having read the paper, I wonder: why did they choose to do their calculations using molecular dynamics software and not a finite element package? I could be reading it wrong, but their approach seems to have been to implement a cable-element FEA inside the molecular dynamics software... Struck me as kind-of like using a spreadsheet for image manipulation; maybe it's what you're familiar with, but it sure isn't the easiest route.

OK - this is one of those postings where I ask: which of the links is actually TFA?!

Not to troll too much, but... Are you being sarcastic?

Blender's renderer is really nothing special (and I mean really nothing special). It's no more ethereal than any other renderer out there. If you're perhaps referring to the glow effect in Elephant's Dream, that was done in post; check out the production files at the bottom of this page.