A good conclusion to my second paragraph would have been that the idea of being wrong about my imaginary zombie friend was literally inconceivable, in that there were actually psychological mechanisms that prevented the formulation of that complete thought.

(Didn't mean to post as AC)

Arguing with someone who chooses to disregard science is not a skill indicative of scientific aptitude. You can apply all of the logic and evidence with the best imaginable skill, but it still doesn't work when the teacher dismisses all of the evidence as a ruse by Satan, and finds no logical fault in an omnipotent and heavy-handed God whose existence is impossible to verify. You can't argue science with these people until after you convince them that they are crazy.

My entire family is crazy. I was raised as a southern baptist, and seriously indoctrinated. I can still remember when I was twelve and I was overwhelmed in guilt every single time the idea that this was all bullshit even entered into the back of my mind. At that time, such thoughts never came forward for serious evaluation. The only thing bearable was just to go along with it, never questioning anything, not even to yourself, under penalty of extreme psychological discomfort. Any debates over the issue were accompanied by unbearable guilt for even tolerating an internal acknowledgment that the other person might have a point.

There's no healthy arguing with people like that. I am not quite sure how I got over that and turned out to be physicist.

I think you missed my point. If they detected some contraband in the air as you whizzed through the checkpoint and subsequently pulled you over and subjected you to increased scrutiny, I would not have much of an objection. They stop, inconvenience, hassle, and attempt intimidation indiscriminately, i.e.WITH NO REASONABLE CAUSE. I didn't say anything about a warrant.

Cops can't ask you for your papers on the street without cause, but you would probably argue that they can take a picture of your face with a smart phone and detain you "for a reasonable amount of time" while the picture is uploaded and checked against their databases to their heart's content, all without violating your rights.

I probably shouldn't have responded anyway. The name, the sig, the senseless insults, and the attitude all scream troll.

*in order to acquire evidence against you when there was no previous suspicion of wrongdoing.

I have said something similar already, but it is not like the dog is sniffing your parked car while you are at a store. They stop you and detain you (though briefly) in order to let the dog sniff your car. They are hassling and inconveniencing you in order to acquire evidence against you. That is exactly what the fourth amendment is meant to prohibit.

It is not a strictly passive search. They stop you for several minutes while a dog circles your car five or six times and four agents peer through all of your windows. Then the dog allegedly signals, and they assert that they now have probable cause to perform a search. I live in Tucson and drive through these damn things all the time. The first part happens to me about 15% of the time, though the dog has only signaled once. There has never been any pot in that truck in the four years that I have owned it.

This can be done passively by building a Faraday cage into the walls of the theater. You would almost have to do that anyway to containing the jamming signal. The only reasons for active jamming are subversive or oppressive.

In the context of physics, 'rate' on its own almost always means 'first time derivative.' Also, a constant acceleration implies quadratic growth. The irony in the GP is that, of the the many interpretations of rate, he fixes on one that is inapplicable in the current context and can only be considered correct through the abuse of semantics, while accusing others of being unable to apply their own knowledge.

We can probably debate the meaning of the word 'irony' now.

Ah, we didn't have that one. We also had no math requirement senior year, but that was not the world's best school district. That is an easy question for google though, so perhaps I should have checked that before posting.

A quantity that grows at a constant rate grows linearly. A quantity that grows at a rate proportional to its value (which is necessarily not constant, unless it is zero) grows exponentially. What you describe is something like x-dot = c, which is linear growth. Something like x-dot= c x is exponential. (if you are familiar with the symbols from calculus). I wouldn't go as a far as calling you a "stupid fuck", but what you are saying about constant rates is incorrect.

Maybe, but not in the first 30. Ten years ago there were two classes that qualified as AP math at my school, and they were meant to be equivalent to Calc I and II in college. Perhaps he is confusing the common course "college algebra," taken by those that do not go the calculus route, as an AP class.

Why should you tip that much for a bottle or even draft beer? Do you also tip for a cup of drip coffee? Save the tips for something that requires time, effort, or skill and isn't something you could do yourself in four seconds if there weren't a counter in the way. I'll tip if I get a bloody-mary or my wife demands some sort of blended mocha thing.

This was posted earlier:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c65_1291178670

They may think that you are trying to distract them, and suspect you of aiding terrorism. You don't even get a trial for that anymore.

LMGTFY: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/stories/what-are-carbon-credits

You missed his point about the opening. It equalizes the internal air pressure to the water pressure at the bottom of the structure. There is still a relatively small pressure differential due to the varying water pressure along the height of the structure. The ceiling would have to tolerate expansive forces. Since the water pressure is linear with the depth though, the effect would be a property of the structure itself, not dependent on the depth at which the structure was placed.