Rafael

I have just been watching endless youtube videos of machines claiming to offer perpetual motion or more energy than they get in, and watching all of those with a thorough grounding in science scoff at these claims. However it has left me with a few questions, the biggest one of which is this: Where does the energy in magnets come from? I mean, I can use a magnet to keep a ball bearing aloft pretty much indefinitely, and that definitely takes energy, so where does it come from and where does it go?

Apologies if I seem horrifically ignorant, and there will no doubt be follow up questions...

Do you think that the soon to be ability to have a web address in any script will be a good or bad thing? Will it open the internet to whole new audiences, or will it closet it off into little national domains, or both, or what? How will this effect our interactions with and perceptions of the www?

Apologies for the bad grammar and the odd category. I asked in philosophy because although it involves the net its not really technical enough for anywhere in the computing section, and nowhere else remotely fitted.

I was raised a Catholic, but owing to an intensely curious, questioning and logical nature I am now firmly agnostic> I do not believe because I cant, not because I choose not to. I admire those with faith, and in many ways envy them their certainty and serenity. However on this site many seem to have the idea that I can choose to believe, I would put it to them that this is not so. I studied philosophy at university, and focused intensely on theology. I have looked at every argument for and against the existence of a god, and have yet to be convinced either way. Every theodicy has a counter, and every counter has its own. I have spoken to holy men, read holy books, thought holy thoughts.... and yet I cannot believe, no matter how much I may want to. So what would you suggest? I do not say this to be confrontational, I just would like to know how one makes oneself believe in something....

What are your thoughts on humanities will to be or become? I mean all through history we have tried to force our will upon the world around us, assuming that we actually can will things states into existence. In times of stress, especially when there is so little we can actually do, we seriously physically try to will things into existence. Just think about a sports fan watching a penalty kick on tv....

What are your thoughts on our inherent inclination to impose our will?

Im sorry if the question isnt exactly coherent, but im trying to explain as best i can.

The title is a little obscure I know, but can pascals wager be used to supplement/implement utilitarian, humanist or other moral stances? If so, how?

Can anyone think of an equivalent god to Fabulinus, the Roman god of speech? Not fussed which religion, though id prefer that it at least be pantheistic ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabulinus

Basically I quite often peruse the philosophy section in search of interesting questions, and more than once I have found a question I like only to discover that others have already answered. Now I have no problem with people answering before me (Im not quite THAT desperate to get the first word in), but there are times when I encounter a really interesting question and get all excited only to see that some fellow browser has answered it not only with the answer I was going to give, but they've stated it far more eloquently and precisely than I would have done, rendering my own paltry yet cherished wisdom irrelevant. My usual reaction is either pleased bemusement or quiet admiration, tinged with a little frustration. But how do you react to seeing your thoughts up in pixels before you put them there? Happy to have found a like minded soul or miffed that they somehow pipped you to the post?

And why, of course?..........(this is the philosphy section after all.....)

Oh, and I know. Waaaaay too much punctuation. Im just a fan of the humble comma I guess :)

I love language and words and I love playing with them, but I have been trying to figure out why. Specifically why do I find things witty, apt or wry? Why do we appreciate wordplay and puns? What is it about these juxtapositions of words that appeal to us? Why do we want to be witty? Certainly it impresses people, but why are they impressed?

Hope you see what im getting at, because im not sure I do...

Im currently flicking through the combined works of Einstein with commentaries by Hawking (come on....who could resist the lure of those two names on a book cover) and somethings puzzling me. I am assured early on that nothing can go faster than the speed of light in vacuum, but in the first example of the time discrepancy on a moving rod something is bothering me. This my be a stupid question but please bear with me...

Its the third equation in the Kinematics Part

The second part of this equation runs:

t'A - tB = rAB/c + v

Where

c = speed of light

v = velocity of the rod

rAB = length of rod from point A to B

And the t's give a time of arrival for a beam of light heading from B to A.

It boils down to time = distance/speed

So having read that, how come v can be added to c if c is the highest possible speed? I know it doesnt change the fact that there will be a discrepancy between the two clocks but I cant help the feeling that im just not getting something here

Apologies if this question is incomprehensible.....

From original concept to the moment it hits the shelves, whats the process for creating a new game? Im sure its not just some spontaneous conglomeration of programmers....where do the concepts come from, who programs/creates what, what's made first/last......environment, character, physics engine, items accessories, GUIs, plot lines, quests, controls....

I know its a complicated process so a good link would be just fine.

Also, and I know this may be a foolish and naive question, but if one has an idea for a game, how might one go about finding someone to possibly make it?

So.....plural nouns. I'm bored, I thought id try a few try a few.

A herd of cows

A flock of sheep.

Some unconventional ones:

A murder of ravens

A business of ferrets

A gaggle/skein of geese

And now some of my own:

A depression of goths

A havoc of toddlers

An incessance of cellphones

A bewilderment of philosophers

A bevy of jocks

Can you think of any more apt or interesting ones, either fact or fiction? Challenge yourself people.

I know this should be in the language section, but ive generally found I get more interesting answers here. Plural nouns people. Im bored, so lets try a few.

A herd of cows

A flock of sheep.

Some unconventional ones:

A murder of ravens

A business of ferrets

A gaggle/skein of geese

And now some of my own:

A depression of goths

A havoc of toddlers

An incessance of cellphones

A bewilderment of philosophers

A bevy of jocks

Can you think of any more apt or interesting ones, either fact or fiction? Challenge yourself people.

Inspired by a question a friend put up..

Theists, would you forfeit your faith (I know we have little control over what we believe, but if we could...) if you knew it would save 1 million lives. Not save as in stop them dying, but save as in convert. Would you denounce your own faith in order to get a million new believers, to save a million souls, even if it meant you went to hell? Or would such a selfless act in fact make it more likely youd get into heaven? If yes, why, if no, why?

I know you will answer to the best of your ability but please give me the reasoning behind your descision. Which scriptures would guide you? Which doctrines? How would you interpret the Bible/Qu'ran/Torah/etc?

Ok I know I will probably get the standard flaming rhetoric in response to this, but I have been thinking.Plenty of theists ask why the athesits are here. Well of course its because they want to discuss or dispute religion. That I can understand, like : How do Christians reconcile the idea of a benevolent God with the existence of evil?, a nice reasonable question, sometimes even reponded to with a nice reasonable answer. It just occurred to me that although a Christian or Muslim can ask a question about their faith, asking for clarification or help, the atheists do not seem to be able to do the same. I mean, no-one comes on here and writes: Fellow atheists, I need your help with some scrip- no wait a minute....

So the atheists and indeed the agnostics and even the ignostics are restricted to discussing the faith of others, which I guess is fair enough.. But why do they so often answer religious questions not concerning atheism with the statement "There is no god"... thats like me asking "When did Motorhead release their first album?" And getting the answer "Theyre the worst band ever with all the musical abilities of a concussed fighting shrimp, you're an idiot for liking them. They have brainwashed you." (Ok not exactly, but its late and Im low on analogies)

I mean, not only is it completely beside the point, its counter constructive.

So many atheists complain that Christians or other theists refuse to consider, even for an instant, the premise that god doesnt exist, which is basically the only tenet of atheism. I know this goes both ways, but....

Why cant folks assume each others premises in order to offer them a helpful and relevant answer, or at least not respond with "Your views are wrong, you have the IQ of a goldfish on crack."?

When you answer someone on YA do you try to understand what they want to ask, or answer what they do ask.

I ask because I just looked at another question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqYEi...

and it occurred to me that people interpret a question in completely different ways. Some give answers based on literal definitions, some go via faith, some get metaphysical. I know that some will try and some wont, but for the ones that dont try and answer in the same vein as the question was asked, why do they choose the particular path they do, I mean why choose the vein that they do answer in?

Do they throw over an interpretation in order to dismiss the subject? To avoid questioning their own views? Out of comfort and familiarity? The belief that their particular vein is the right way to view/interpret a subject? If the last, isnt that an idealogical statement in itself? Should we use our own worldviews to answer anothers questions, or try to answer them in a way that fits with theirs. Think about this.. if an atheist asks a question that is nothing to do with religion; say, why one football teams succeeds over another, do they want to get a faith based answer? (Yes, I know its not a completely analgous example, especially considering im asking in the philosohy section). Maybe its a matter of vocabulary; you say ghost, they say EMP imprint, One person claims Zodiac signs are relevant to our personalities,the other to the prevailing conditions when they were born. They can both mean the same thing, but they may not appreciate the viewpoint mixed in with the vocabulary of the other persons answer?

Ok thats waay too many questions. Ill probably repeat this as a series. But if you can respond to it with anything less than a small thesis I would be most grateful. What are you initial (not too painfully heavy) thoughts? Thanks for indulging me. I should go now, before the irony of this question curls me into a ball on the floor.

I have been watching AXN in Asia and I have found their 24 hour updates on the death of John Travoltas son, including details of the bodies return home and footage of it at all stages, a trifle morbid, if not nauseating, and incredibly insensitive considering how personal a tragedy the death of a loved one is. Would you define this as acceptable TV? If so why? I know I sound biased, and I probably am, but I would appreciate serious answers

The title is only vaguely relevant but please bear with me. I am trying to find a non-inflammatory way to put this..... I believe a persons faith should not be important when looking at a rational argument, but quite often in this section I am either overwhelmed by the vehemence of peoples beliefs or left wondering what their angle is. What do you think the results would be if everyone posting in this forum/page had a label under their name giving their religious stance? So many have it in their names already I know, but how would you react if you could read a persons answer and then see specifically what religious stance they are arguing from, either as a forewarning or as an aide to evaluation?

What are currently the scarcest/most necessary minerals or metals required for computer/microchip/processor production, and what are they likely to be in the future?

After the traditional fanfare and hysteria have died away and the roadshows finish, what happens to all the concept cars that are not put into production? Are they destroyed? Sent to museums? Put into storage? Given to staff? What..?

...in a Leibniz based version of evolution, ie: not that God guided evolution so much as He allowed this particular possible path to occur instead of any other..

Just curious..

Incidentally, Im agnostic. No throwing things please....