Comment author: chatquitevoit 24 June 2011 05:29:30PM 5 points [-]

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

  • 1984, George Orwell (although I really shouldn't have to attribute this one)

Probably my favorite statement on rationality, it's so practical for launching off into every other sphere of thought - politics, ethics, theology, maths/physics, and, well, all else that follows.

Comment author: taryneast 04 June 2011 08:07:30AM *  3 points [-]

Dyson spheres are unlikely. They use too much physical matter to create. Ringworlds are slightly more likely.

Space elevators are awesome though. We should do that :)

Still waiting on the ability to grow nanotubes long enough, though... we're getting there. We can build them long enough to turn into thread - but proper long-filament nanotubes are the only thing (that we know of so far) that will be strong enough for the elevator ribbon.

Comment author: chatquitevoit 24 June 2011 05:24:42PM 1 point [-]

The most feasible iteration of a Dyson sphere would probably be the least dense, which would have great influence on the ways they could be used, and that makes them less likely because they are less commercially useful. Still, it could happen.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 01 June 2011 08:20:21AM 59 points [-]

Just because you two are arguing, doesn't mean one of you is right.

Maurog: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=14222

Comment author: chatquitevoit 24 June 2011 05:21:12PM *  4 points [-]

...or that both of you are wrong. Most times people argue, neither party actually has a fundamental grasp of their own position. If both did, it would either change the argument to an ENTIRELY different and more essential one, or dissolve it. And either of those options is of absolute gain for the participants.

Not that I can do anything about this aside from in my own actions, but it's annoying as hell sometimes.

Comment author: RobertLumley 02 June 2011 12:20:54AM 3 points [-]

“Life is a tragedy for those who feel, and a comedy for those who think.” – Jean de la Bruyère

Comment author: chatquitevoit 24 June 2011 05:18:09PM 4 points [-]

And what does this make it for those of us who do both?

Comment author: MarkusRamikin 15 June 2011 10:20:28AM 1 point [-]

"She made rules about food because it made it easier to decide what to eat" - This actually works for such a person? Interesting, I think a lot of people have the opposite problem. I wish I found it easy to follow my own rules.

Comment author: chatquitevoit 24 June 2011 05:02:55PM 1 point [-]

This is a valid attempt to deal with conflicting stimuli from the world - to create standards to which you adhere consciously because you don't trust your intuitions to motivate you rationally in the environment with which you must interact. And really, such attention is partially what it means to be conscious/human - to audit your actions 'from the outside' instead of merely reacting. And with today's bizarre and skewed 'food environment', as it were, this becomes VERY necessary, especially for people with a predilection for analyzing their own behavior even in such supposedly mundane (but really fundamental) things as food consumption.

View more: Prev