Copy/paste a paper - plagarism.

But what about for math/science? You don't exactly write tons of papers, but you do solve lots of problems.

When I couldn't come up with an algorithm to solve problems in O(whatever) time, as required by an assignment, I would often go to the web. I considered this to be research, as I could adopt a similar approach when confronted with analogous problems in the future.

Plagarism is clearly cheating. But is anything short of completely-original work also considered cheating? Is not one of the cornerstones of modern computer science the idea of re-use?

I once dealt with an overly zealous tail-gater when I was riding my bike via a brake-check. The guy passed me on the right (after I had completed my pass and was moving over) without entirely leaving my lane. His car was inches from my bike, it really spooked me.

Suffice to say, I don't brake-check on my bike anymore - some people really are out to kill you.

Your speed is only part of the equation. Often, your position matters more.

If you're blocking traffic by driving three-abreast with 2 other 15-over drivers, tailgating is entirely appropriate. The left lane is for passing.

I wrote a long response, but found that was pretty well summarized by one sentence:

Because 4-cylinder bikes sound like a cat in heat when you rev them.

Some people like vintage stuff. It's OK.

HD is a modern 'vintage' bike.

For un-faired bikes, I prefer them to be air-cooled. The giant radiator at the front is butt-ugly. Some people prefer aesthetics to the almighty price/performance ratio.

You picked a couple topics that are difficult to discuss rationally.

These purchases are driven out of [irrational] passion rather than getting the best price/performance ratio.

Given: sometimes that passion is for the 'fastest machine I can afford' - where the sportscar or bike you end up with is the 'rational choice'.

PS. Don't knock the Corvette - it's a very competent racer.

I'm in the US. Florida, actually. I ride my motorcycle more than I drive my car.

You certainly do need safety checks (required by sanity), insurance (required by law) and a license (required by law) to operate a motorcycle.

Interesting read - but I don't think it totally rules out anti-humans that are outside of our observable universe.

If I understand correctly, the unobservable portion of our universe was a product of the inflationary epoch, which started and ended less than a second after the Big Bang

Perhaps Christian religion, like science, is an evolving philosophy that gets ever closer to approximating the truth.

Pointing out a flawed part of a religion is akin to giggling about Newton's theories not being the 'final truth' on gravity.

Hear, Hear.

I've been espousing this point of view for a while. There is nothing inherent in science or religious fundamentalism that make them mutually exclusive. For that, we can blame overly zealous representatives of either camp.

Live, and let live.

... which makes it a contract with one party.

I'm with you - visiting a site that attempts to bind you to an agreement on the first visit is unlikely to be held up in court.

A key difference here is that they only expect payment after continued use of the site, presumably after the terms of continued use are made clear.

I'm not saying it's right, or even a good solution - but it's a interesting legal distinction

There is such a thing as a unilateral contract that involves a promise made by a single party, rather than reciprocal agreements made by all involved parties.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateral_contract#Bilateral_and_unilateral_contracts

Sometimes, positive action can be considered implicit acceptance of a contract or offer.

For example, If I advertise all around town that I will give my prized house-cat to the next person to climb mount Everest - and you climb mount Everest with the intention of winning my prized kitty, then I cannot argue in court that there was no 'signed' agreement or exchange of money. I made an offer, and you accepted by taking positive action.

In this case, the argument would be that the website's content is the prize and the positive action of accessing multiple pages is acceptance of that offer. It's not a particularly great argument, but it's there.

Transitions from one age to the next, especially in mythological terms, tend to be violent and filled with hardship.

I don't think stopping at something that just "is" is nonsensical at all. In mathematics, it happens all the time. Axioms.

Think of Godel's incompleteness theorem: any sufficiently complex system cannot be both complete and consistent. In other words, there are many truths that are unprovable within that system.

If it works for mathematics, I don't think it's too unreasonable to suspect it may work for the universe. There could very likely be truths about the universe that are unprovable within the system.