Is "feint" supposed to be a pun? Not trying to be a dick!

>> ^CheshireSmile:

American: lieutenant, British: left tenant
American: a-loo-mi-num, British: a-loo-mi-nee-um
American: plow, British: plough
American: tidbit, British: titbit
American: color, British: colour
American: trunk, British: boot
American: sidewalk, British: ???????????
American: REsearch, British: reSEARCH
American: bernard, British: ???????
answers please


American: berNARD
British: BERnard
Can say this with confidence because there is a British guy in our choir who goes by BERnard.

And according to this site:
http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/british-american.htm

It's sidewalk vs. pavement

Thank goodness, I thought I was losing it
No wonder I could only understand 3 or 4 words.

>> ^ponceleon:

Actually it is not Italian. If you listen to the director's commentary on the DVD, it's basically jibbrish made up of a lot of languages and none. Similar to what the hunchback spoke in The Name of the Rose.
Edit: Source http://everything2.com/title/Leeloo%2527s+Language

Italian, but she's speaking way too fast for me to pick up more than a few words

"Hot is simply a measure of how much energy something has." (1:15)

This is slightly inaccurate, right? Two species of gas can have vastly different amounts of kinetic energy, but still have the same temperature. That's what specific heat measures.

I always assumed temperature was strictly translational kinetic energy, and the reason water takes so long to heat up is because the energy it acquires goes into other modes of freedom, such as vibrational or rotational motion (hence its high specific heat).

Can someone back me up or correct me on this?

I believe this is from the documentary "Why We Fight"

Part 1 of 10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgDBOuJn9G0&feature=related

What do you suppose it says behind him?
"Separation NOT B..."

The thing about America is that it is a very geographically mobile society, with many of its citizens changing location so often that it is impossible for them to identify with a single state, let alone a town. Not to mention we are linked by a shared language and (until recently) a shared, monolithic media culture.

I cannot agree with the statement that most Americans identify more with their state than their country (especially urbanites). I speak also from my own personal feelings and those I know (who consider themselves American far more than they do Floridian).

^ Sacha?

>> ^sillybapx:
Novoseven, a clotting factor administered to stop uncontrolled bleeding...


First time I read that, it was "uncontrolled breeding."

Nothing drives two nations apart like superficial differences.

On a completely unrelated note, does anyone know the name of the song starting at 3:15?

Hmm, it's a tricky question. I think it's just evolution over long periods of time creating different species that Creationists oppose, not evolution per se. I don't believe many Creationists disbelieve in selective breeding or the evolution of traits within a species (since we have incontrovertible proof of that).

Analogously, I don't think most Creationists have any solid ground upon to debate the fundamentals of QM, and most don't care to do so. However, if you try to apply it to the creation of the universe, they will oppose it.

And yes, all scientific theories are just models that grow more accurate as our knowledge expands. Newtonian mechanics is perfectly usable at small speeds and large sizes, so I don't think it's been quite abandoned just yet (I believe all it took was Newtonian mechanics to get to the moon).

Also, QM consists of several subcategories: quantization of light; wave-particle duality, etc. I think string theory is mainly concerned with adjusting and refining certain aspects of QM (and combining it with relativity!) then replacing it.

Anyway, I think we basically agree with each other on the big picture, which is a good thing

^As a matter of fact, yes, I am, since quantum theory has been well validated by experiment. And since it doesn't directly contradict any religious dogma, most religions find it easier to accept than evolution as well.
There is no great national debate about quantum mechanics like there is with evolution. It is the standard theory taught in college, and no one is clamoring to have other (contradictory) theories taught beside it.

I believe Einstein only thought some aspects of QM were ludicrous (like probability density functions). Didn't realize Schrodinger did. And there are many very smart people today who solidly accept it.

^I'd say evolutionary theory is harder to accept, not grasp.