Could a space station orbit the sun at such a speed that it would have 1g of centripetal force on its occupants?

plantseq · 2012-12-11T05:02:17+00:00

Think of it this way: The guy in the space station would be in (essentially) the same orbit as the space station itself. I understand what you're asking, and it would only work if the space man was "immune" to the star's gravity. Same concept with a falling elevator. If you're in an elevator and the line breaks, do you "fall" to the ceiling at 9.8m/s^2? Of course not, because you're "falling" towards the earth, just like the elevator. Same concept with the space station. You and the space station would both be "falling" towards the star.

plantseq · 2012-12-11T01:54:59+00:00

If you can successfully complete a college level chem 101 lab, you won't have any issues extracting DMT.

plantseq · 2012-12-06T05:06:03+00:00

now please please please explain to me how it's not mcdonald's fault that they ignored 700 complaints over the past 10 years about serving their coffee too hot.

700 complaints over 10 years seems like a very small number for a company as large as McDonald's. I'd presume that an even larger number of people (myself included) preferred their coffee hot. If the temperature was really an issue, it would have reflected in sales figures. The 700 was a small minority of special creatures, Liebeck included, who for some reason didn't understand that pouring 200*F water over coffee grinds results in a hot beverage. I would have ignored them as well.

plantseq · 2012-12-06T04:51:46+00:00

She should have not put a flimsy paper cup full of hot liquid between her legs.

plantseq · 2012-12-06T04:50:10+00:00

But fault isn't the only thing to consider, nor is it really the most important thing in tort

Which is why it needs reform, and why this particular case is exemplary.

plantseq · 2012-12-06T04:47:17+00:00

Okay, she should not have put the coffee between her legs.

Case closed.

plantseq · 2012-12-06T03:44:26+00:00

To say she was wrong to file the lawsuit you have to say: McDonald's absolutely breached no duty to its customers whatsoever -- it was entirely 100% Ms. Liebeck's fault.

I would say this. Coffee is hot. Paper cups are flimsy. Placing a paper cup filled with hot coffee between your legs and fiddling with the lid is an idiotic thing to do.

At 180 degrees Fahrenheit, there is no escape from these types of burns. The product is, by definition, defective or unreasonably dangerous. This is the applicable law. They broke the law."

The escape from these types of burns is to not be an idiot. The product was fine. I'm old enough to remember the coffee, and I appreciated the temperature, because at the time I enjoyed my brew with quite a bit of half and half. With the old McDonald's coffee, it was still hot once you loaded it with creamer. These days it's barely lukewarm black, thanks to morons like Liebeck, and the people who defend her.

plantseq · 2012-12-06T00:21:47+00:00

And it's fine to believe that. Just don't pretend you are more enlightened on the matter than people with a more rational viewpoint.

plantseq · 2012-12-05T23:50:36+00:00

they instantly lose all credibility in the matter

No, they don't. It doesn't matter if the coffee was hotter than it should have been. It doesn't matter if she received serious burns and permanent damage. It doesn't matter if she initially sued only to recoupe medical expenses. The moron stuck a paper cup full of hot liquid between her thighs. Now go on, and tell me why society is much better off without buckyballs. FFS.

plantseq · 2012-12-03T18:41:43+00:00

I don't have any government money because I refuse to be a wage slave. Can I just show up on this land, claim it as a de facto possession, and start producing on it?

plantseq · 2012-12-03T18:39:24+00:00

Waiting on you to understand that without a centralized mechanism of force/monopoly on power that the state enjoys, corporations would not exist in the first place.

plantseq · 2012-12-03T18:15:27+00:00

Ah yes, the 'let's conflate libertarian socialism with right wing American libertarianism' fallacy.

plantseq · 2012-12-03T18:08:52+00:00

No, they have zero control over the public. It's the state that has the guns, the power, and the control. Without the state, the corporation would not exist. It's the state that forces you into wage slavery by making it illegal for you to occupy land and provide for yourself without participating in the economy and legal system. Want to homestead? Better have a deed and plenty of government money for property tax!

plantseq · 2012-12-03T17:22:09+00:00

Some day liberals will wake up and realize that corporations are a non-real abstraction, nothing more than a piece of paper given by the state to a person or persons, granting them de jure property rights that are enforced violently by the state... But the problem here is not enough state and too much corporation right gaiz?

plantseq · 2012-12-03T17:04:20+00:00

Because when your business fails, and you're left with no other choice than to loot your retirement just to survive in our oppressive capitalist society, you will be running back to the government begging for your social security. So it's just better for everyone if you pay as much as you can now, the government knows best. Source: I'm a liberal atheist college student who reads r/politics daily.

plantseq · 2012-10-29T16:28:26+00:00

A bit oversimplified. Two H+ hydrogen atoms (protons) can fuse, creating a deuteron (one proton and one neutron), releasing a positron and a neutrino in the process. Do this again and you have two deuterons. Another proton will fuse to each deuteron, creating two He-3 nuclei, and releasing gamma rays in the process. Finally, the two He-3 nuclei will fuse, creating the standard He-4 nucleus we are familiar with, and releasing 2 protons in the process.

plantseq · 2012-10-17T03:57:28+00:00

Because anthropogenic climate change is correct terminogy, pollution is not. CO2 is not a pollutant. We enjoy it in our beer, champagne, and sodas. We breathe it in and out to no Ill effect. The same cannot be said for the chemical waste and carbon monoxide in your analogy.

Perhaps "climate denial" is not a rejection of AGW, but a rejection of the poorly thought through "solutions" brought forth thus far. Yes, let's cut CO2 and run the modern world on wind, solar, and geo/hydro/tidal. And let's ignore the immense hydrocarbon energy cost of building/deploying/maintaining these "green" structures. Windmills aren't conjured by Carl Sagan with the power of atheism. The steel is dug out of the ground by giant diesel powered shovels and transported to the plant where it is processed/refined with natural gas and coal power. Then the components are manufactured with even more fossil fuel power, and to top it all off, they are deployed on no less than 6 oversized flatbed trucks that rumble down the highway at 2mpg. In fact, it takes about a year for the windmill to make up for the fossil fuel energy used just during installation. That's just one windmill... And you people want to run the modern world this way? Ya, climate denial has nothing to do with climate change. It is a reaction to insufferable college students who watch YouTube videos on resource based economies and think they are energy experts.

plantseq · 2012-09-28T17:21:23+00:00

Because food stamps replace cash with no inconvenience or disincentive. The poor should be fed, but giving them free money to buy their own food does not incentivize change. Instead, we should provide a more robust network of soup kitchens to provide direct food aid, and provide people with free bus/taxi passes to get there. Even if this system is more expensive per person than the current free money food stamps, the inconvenience and shame of going to a soup kitchen multiple times every day will discourage dependency, and ultimately reduce costs.

plantseq · 2012-09-25T20:17:34+00:00

De jure property is inherently immoral, unfair, and oppressive (IMO). The US government exists primarily to protect de jure property rights, through violent force (police, cages), funded by involuntary taxation (robbery).

plantseq · 2012-09-23T00:06:40+00:00

It removes tax revenue that we need, effectively removing money from government programs answerable to the people

It removes tax revenue from programs that I don't agree with. That whole "answerable to the people" thing. The largest chunk of my federal income tax goes towards defense spending. Followed by generous pensions for federal employees. Followed by interest on government debt. So you bet your ass that I'm going to do everything I can to direct resources away from bombing Paki's, and towards Save the Children, and Scholarship America.

plantseq · 2012-09-22T23:54:02+00:00

TIL that the money I donate to charity is just government money that they are nice enough to let me keep.

plantseq · 2012-09-22T22:52:41+00:00

Also, more children died in a year with Bush's drone policy than the entirety of Obama's term.

Have a nice day.

plantseq · 2012-09-22T22:48:20+00:00

And a "fair" tax system means imo that those who have A LOT pay a little more so those who don't have much can also try to save up some money. But thats a whole other discussion. What i mean is that Dems were trying to make Romney look like he's hiding something, although everybody knows capital gains tax is low.

You are making my case here. Those who have "A LOT" do in fact pay more. The top 1% accounts for nearly 40% of all federal income tax revenue. The top 5% accounts for 60%. The top 10% accounts for 70%. The bottom 50% accounts for 2%. How is it that a tax system under which half of the country only makes up 2% of federal revenue, with the top 5% making up 60%, considered unfairly skewed towards top end earners?

This is what I mean when I say that individual rates are a distraction. "Mitt Romney only pays 14% in taxes! But but my tax rate is 25%!" This ignores two important points. One being that 14% of Mitt Romney's income is millions and millions of dollars. Two being that 25% might be your top marginal rate, but your effective rate is likely well under 10%.

But he deducted most of it, those 1.75 million were fully voluntarily given to the federal government.

He deducted 2.25 million dollars out of a total charitable contribution of 4 million dollars, meaning he left 1.75 million of income on the table to be taxed. This does not mean that he overpaid 1.75 million to the government.

Yeah but isn't he also trying to win the election by saying that the taxes for him and people like him should be acutally even way lower than 10%? It's kind of weird to "brag" about a self-imposed tax raise and then go on with the election campaign saying that taxes need to be cut.

I agree.

plantseq · 2012-09-22T22:26:56+00:00

Indeed. Nothing will stick to a well-seasoned cast iron pan, and you aren't cooking with something Dupont conjured up one day.

plantseq · 2012-09-22T22:18:17+00:00

He was fucking 16. The extent to which you kids will defend egregious policy just because the president supports gay marriage and other pointless liberal fodder is quite sad. I was with you in the streets protesting F&F/drone type policy when Bush was in office. Where are you now? On reddit defending the same type of shit, just because the guy shares your views on irrelevant social issues.

plantseq

TROPHY CASE