Pi is Knowledge

Or any other language, for that matter.

I read somewhere that eye color comes from melanin, meaning that the color of a person's eyes is determined in the same way as a person's skin. Does this mean that, say, a blue eyed person living in a sunny place would eventually develop brown eyes, but the same person living in the dark would still have blue eyes?

Or is it completely genetic? I do know that eye color *does* change over time with some people when they age. I know someone, for example, who once had green eyes, but now has brown eyes. I'm just curious as to if eye color is subject to the same changes as skin color.

I've recently gathered that any question asking for an "opinion" violates the y/a TOS if they question is not asked in "Polls and Surveys."

If this is true, why does this site even bother to allow people to talk about Philosophy, Religion or Politics? In fact, out of the billions of questions I see on here about "What is your favorite book?" "romance advice," "Do you like this artist/public figure," and so on, it's hard to believe that this is a serious policy.

I know I am missing something here. Could someone perhaps tell me what that something is?

I have a Mac, and am trying to find a Paint equivalent for it, since while Macs are cool, software availability is one of the things they suck at. While I've found a couple, my mac is a 10.4, which is apparently very outdated in terms of new program compatibility. Right now, I'm leaning toward some of the archaic (1 year past or more) versions Paintbrush. (GIMP requires that you keep the disc that came with the computer. Yeah right.) In any case, I know that programs like Firefox, Adobe and Office regularly update themselves, sometimes for security reasons.

Now, the controversy of "Macs can't get viruses" aside, I'd like some opinions on whether downloading old programs is actually dangerous for security. Let's assume even that I was doing this on a Windows, for instance. Is it a good idea?

This is a frustrating problem. so far, I have performed long division, ending up with 1-23/(t^2-16) and then integrating the result, which should be t-23(1/8)(ln(abs(t+4))-ln(abs(t-4))) if I follow a table of integrals. Does anyone see an error or know of an easier way to do this problem?

Both carbon and silicon are in the same column of the periodic table, after all. They can both form the same amount of bonds, can't they?

I would prefer an explanation as to how you got to the answer.

I would look for a planet that looks like home, a place that reminds me of Earth... But I don't know if I would decide to land there when I found my planet.

Is anyone able to describe their own planet to me? Would you stop there when you found it? Would you know if that planet is the right one?

Proposition 105 in Arizona essentially states that when any measure that has to do with imposing taxes or spending is put up for vote, the majority of the *population* must vote 'yes'--not just the majority of the people who showed up to vote.

I do not agree with this proposition. I see no reason why anyone of any party, democrat or republican, would agree with this proposition. I would like someone to point out to me how this proposition would be useful.

This proposition works like this: if 49% of the population shows up to vote for a new proposed program, (of any political leaning) and all if 100% of the voters vote 'yes' for the program, the program will not pass, because 51% of the population did not show up to vote for the policy.

How often does over half of the population show up to vote for anything other than a presidential election, and even then, when do they all vote the same? Never. This proposition essentially cripples the process of introducing new policies into the state of Arizona that require money--and effective policies require money, so this proposition encompasses most if not all future proposals for new programs or measures to update the state's taxes for inflation and changing times.

The only reason I can think of why this would be a good propostion would be to prevent 'secret ballots,' but then, why not just propose a law against secret ballots then? Isn't there already a law against that? Is this a sympathy for people who are unable to show up to vote? Why not just propose a law requiring ballot days to be on weekends?

Is this proposition supposed to be symbolic of some sort of freedom? Why sacrifice the functionality of the government for a (redundant) symbol of liberty?

I believe voting is a responsibility. If a citizen does not show up to vote he does not deserve his vote to count. It is not difficult to vote, or to register to vote. It takes one minute to register online. If a citizen is unable to show up for election day, he can use mail in ballots and such. If he is unaware of future elections, they are listed publicly, and he can mark the election dates on his calendar. If the citizen is too tired to take any effort to vote--if someone is too lazy to vote, there is no reason whatsoever for his vote to count. This is what the founding fathers of the United States believed in--responsibility.

I also would like to know whether it is desirable to build such a database.

It appears to be impossible to genuinely support a political factual claim in this modern world. When a politician states something as fact, the other politician denies it. No one corrects them. The politicians simply exchange contradicting each other, and the argument becomes a contest of who can speak more assertively instead of a question of whose ideal is philosophically more appealing.

I will use the vice-presidential debate as an example, as it was most recent:

Both Biden and Palin stated, several times during their debate, that each others' statements were flat out wrong. Obviously, two paradoxical claims cannot be correct at the same time--either McCain or Obama voted for a specific piece of legislation, or they didn't. These types of facts should be considered a waste to spend valuable debate time on.

However, the questioner of the debate apparently couldn't verify these claims any better than the answerers. Suddenly, this entire debate becomes largely meaningless, because it is not supported by any reliable evidence.

Suddenly, this debate is a question of which political candidate you believe has the correct factual evidence based on what candidate you 'like the most,' when factual evidence should already be a given in a debate.

Regardless of which candidate was right, neither debater cited their sources when they made their claims. Obviously, they had to spend hours and hours seeking out and researching support for their answers from several hundred scattered sources...

...but their answers contradicted. This would imply that at least one of these sources contained false information... or that one of the candidates is lying...

...but if a candidate is lying, it should be easy to expose the lie...

...but no one can truly expose the lie? Assertively claiming that one candidate is 'obviously correct' is not exposing a lie. There must be some kind of proof. There must be a source...

...but sources are faulty. Sources are biased. Why should they be biased? How can literal fact be biased? Fact is fact. Fact is truth. The truth cannot be changed. That means there can only be a single variation of a piece of information that is a fact...

...so why is it impossible to verify a fact these days? How is it possible for one person to claim on national television that the president voted for one action, and for someone else to claim the opposite, and for the claim to go ignored and unsettled.

When someone makes a spelling error, is it possible to claim that the word is spelled right? ...Absolutely not. It is impossible to refute that statement because it is a fact with an irrefutable source--a dictionary. No one argues with a dictionary because a dictionary is a central, irrefutable information database. The same goes for an encyclopedia. It is impossible for a person to get away with claiming that an Indian elephant is, on average, larger in body mass than an African elephant. A scientist cannot even claim that Pluto is an official planet, because a central, irrefutable information database called the International Astronomical Union brings light to this falsity. (I still believe Pluto is a planet, though.)

For some reason, however, there is no central, irrefutable information database that can display every single instance when McCain cast a vote, and list the past political affiliations of Obama without being contradicted by another source, leaving the arguers to decide what claim is correct based on educated guessing.

Educated guessing in politics has everything to do with opinion and nothing to do with fact. Educated guessing is only relvant when discussing the future. Educated guessing is only relevant when discussing the hypothetical physics of global warming or the future of the economy. Educated guessing should not be needed to discuss the past.

...Therefore... why would it be impossible to include a databse that lists all facts that have nothing to do with opinion. It is impossible to demonstrate bias when listing facts. It is impossible to twist the exact words of a person's statement without lying. If there was a central, irrefutable information databse, it would be impossible to lie.

I am asking, in theory, if such a database would be a welcome addition to the world, and if it would be viable to build one considering the difficulty of obtaining accurate information for such a database, and the actual cost of building such a colossal archive.

Would it be possible (and desirable) to build a central, irrefutable information database that could verify all factual claims?

Today I thought for a moment about what the greatest cause to believe in and try to achieve--in general--and then I realized everyone in the world would have a different opinion, because people think differently.

I have decided to post this question because I do not know how people will answer. I thought it may perhaps be fascinating to see what people actually say to this question--a list of solid answers... or than again, maybe everyone would come up with some unifying principal that I, (just a young and inexperienced human), haven't been wise enough to think of. Maybe I'm just a fool to ask this question, and I should stick with the 'greatest cause' being what you personally believe in.

The greatest cause of mankind obviously need not be something people are striving for today. Then again, perhaps every cause and belief links to something humanity has and will and should always strive for. Don't feel you must restrict your answer by reffering to something as narrow as the present.

A friend of mine wants to start an e-mail account on this website, but claims that the yahoo! terms of service state that they can terminate an account if the personal information given when registering for the account is false or ommited.

This poses a problem for my friend, because he doesn't want to give the website his name and doesn't want yahoo! to interrupt contact with people by terminating the account at an inopportune moment, as since this account will be used for school, an inopportune termination might not end well.

My friend plans to just submit his initials instead of his full name if he is not allowed to omit the name, but because of the somewhat vague nature of the terms of service page, isn't sure whether this places his account in any future jeopardy.

Is my friend just paranoid, or does yahoo! truly feel they must absolutely require a person's name during registration? If so, does this mean that if yahoo merely suspects your name is false, they will punish you?

I take a creative writing class at school, and the teacher wants us to submit the final paper to turnitin.com, but I'm a bit wary about doing so, even though I ultimately have no choice in the matter.

But I still want to know if I can still use anything I submit to the website for anything else in later life, say, if I want to publish elements of it somewhere--will it come up as plagarized, and could I get in trouble or not be allowed to use it...? Or even worse, could other people look at the work I submit, and use it themselves with no reprecussions, considering the data in the turnitin.com archive keeps all the information for life? Maybe I'm being too paranoid, but I'd just like to feel secure with this...

For example, I have Mirage OS installed on a TI-84 Plus Silver Edition, and I've downloaded several assembly programs for it. Will they eventually render my calculator unworkable or effect it in any negative way whatsoever? And even if Mirage OS is a safe program, are there any programs that exist that I should be wary about downloading? I use my calculator primarily for math, and I'll remove those games if they're more trouble than they're worth in the long run.