Exactly how can we be blamed for each and every piece of legislation, when the only choices we have at voting time are between two candidates? Parties should be abolished for the sake of Democracy.
[quote]As long as the majoriry of voters are more concerned with voting in favour of tax cuts and a harsher criminal justice system than with safeguarding civil liberties it will be so.[/quote]
Humbug.
You mean vote for the opposing Party, so they can govern in ways we voted them out for in the first place, and so on, and so on, while no cohesive plan exists for a future more than 4 years away?
When did Hollywood come up with its own ideas in the past?
Depends what you mean by "Hollywood". I'd consider Woody Allen to be an integral part of Hollywood, and he comes up with this own ideas (much of the time). I mean hey, as much as anyone does. Truly original storyline ideas are fairly rare.
So I'd say yes, Hollywood does make it's own stuff up, from time to time. Perhaps in the near future we'll see more integration between Hollywood and indie filmmakers. Mainly for facilitation & promotion I hope, not destroying it. There's money in them thar hills after all.
Fair enough - kind of. I always have a problem with Occam's Razor. "Simple" is a very relative concept. "God made everything the way it is" is pretty simple. O.R. assumes everyone has the same values and world view.
Anyway, as for "being scientific", science is full of major discoveries made by people who asked seemingly silly and unconventional questions, like "what if I was sitting on a beam of light" and "what if the heavens aren't made up of glass spheres". So saying "let's be scientific" should be an invitation to question, not a deterrent.
TFA states: "The Earth's magnetic field is measured to vary in field strength and it is a well known fact that the magnetic field strength is currently experiencing a downward trend."
Being a complete lay-person at climatology etc. I can't help but ask a possibly silly question; if there may be a connection between the charged particles entering our atmosphere at any period and subsequent changes in temperature or weather patterns.
Are there any studies of possible connections there?
They're honestly crazy, and while I don't think the Chinese government should stop them from practicing, I really think they should just let them be so people can see how crazy they really are.
"..they should just let them be so people can be free to make up their own minds." There, fixed that for you. You may as well say the same thing for the Evangelical movement, they certainly look nutty to me. But at least they're free to be what they want to be, and who am I to judge someone else's experience?
We take the Dalai Lhama's word as gospel, even though he definitely has his own incentive to distort the truth.
Politicians do it all the time. But we don't call them evil. Well.. almost. Everyone has an agenda and there's nothing wrong with that. At least the DL is for freedom and knowledge, not supression and deception. If not everything he says is free from an agenda, we can forgive that considering he's seen his people decimated. If your family had been murdered, I doubt you'd smile and try to discuss it amicably with the culprits.
Whether you like them or not, you can't deny that they destroyed a two-thousand year class system.
What? Watch the movie called "Up the Yangtze" then tell us the class system doesn't exist anymore.
Brutality is not always what a person *does*, but also what he/she will ignore for the own benefit. I personally believe that more harm has been done (by the UK, US, and even my own country Oz) in looking the other way, than has intentional good been done. I say intentional, because in the course of business we have allowed prosperity to trickle out to others in the world, though it seems rather like an afterthought.
So civilisation, as we live it now, is very much a two-edged sword. If we weren't kept safe and relatively prosperous, perhaps we wouldn't have the leisure to think about how everyone else in the world is getting along. But I rather think the price for our standard of living has been way to high in all kinds of ways, mainly the fault of a system of commerce gone completely mad.
Capitalism has begun to determine how we live, how we feel and how we run our democracies, where once it was a natural extension of the way we lived, felt and interacted with others.
Our system has inflicted a lot of pain on other peoples. Now, when it comes back to bite us, we don't like it one bit. High time we had a long, hard think about the structure of our commerce and government.
I mean, it's ironic enough that the once-great US democracy has turned into a 50% turnout and of those people 50% are unhappy with the outcome. It's Coke vs Pepsi politics, it's insane. At least from out here.:)
Thanks for taking the time to answer my silly questions.
I think I see what you mean, but one more question remains.. the influence of gravity does seem to convey information faster than light, if I'm not mistaken. Though the Sun's light reaches us after 8 minutes, we feel the effect of its gravity *now*, not what its gravitational effect was on us 8 minutes ago, is that right? If that's true, then if a nearby star collapses into a back hole, won't we feel the gravitational effect immediately even though light/radiation from it won't reach us till later?
Assuming I'm on the right track, it seems to follow that if this mysterious object (or objects) did once exert a gravitational effect on those galaxy clusters, surely it still *is* exerting an effect, unless it has since moved to such an incredible distance that it no longer has any discernible effect, or has been destroyed/dispersed?
The idea here is that "something" was once within our observable universe
Ah ok, I see where I misunderstood. However, if you're saying it "then expanded so that it is no longer in contact with us in any way", doesn't that also make reference to something which is *now* outside our spacetime?
If something is outside our spacetime, is there any way of referencing it conceptually that is logical or meaningful? That's not sarcasm, I'm just curious.
And that does account for the gravitational behavior we observe.
Which is interesting, as I've heard that information can't travel faster than light (admittedly the radio wasn't very far away from me at the time).
But here, in effect, we are gathering information on something outside our known universe. Why doesn't the article mention this seeming quandry? It not only implies (proves?) that "gravity information" travels faster than light, but they're assuming that gravity - as a physical property - functions *outside* our spacetime. How is that possible if everything I've heard about gravity relates it directly to the presence of "spacetime"? (Cue billiard ball rolling on elastic surface)
Have they thought about how space and time may not function in quite the same way outside our universe and therefore the effect they're observing can never really be explained without knowing the nature of that external spacetime?
Is there even any sense in saying "outside spacetime"? What does that mean exactly? Can gravity exist outside spacetime? Perhaps there are other forces that exert influence on gravity, much like a magnet pulling iron filings?
Maybe this is an alternative possibility to the Higgs Field - a force yet to be identified which exists outside spacetime that influences gravity thereby causing mass?
It's about using IFRAMES + CSS to make confusing visual elements that cause users to perform actions they didn't think they were performing. Feel better?;-)
"In peace, you'd need to prevent men remaining behind alone without partner (because for every extra woman one man has, another has to do without,..."
Uh, this implies women are required to be monogamous. An oft-desired outcome in times long past, but if you're talking about a modern civilisation it's hardly realistic.
"... the "serial non-commiters" still have no excuse to use the women around them."
That's a value judgement. A relationship which ends with one person not wanting to commit is by no means the definition of "using" someone.
I'd also say that human beings are animals _capable_ of reason but also subject to instinct, emotion, habit, hormone, etc. Try using reason to rise above abject fear. Can you use your reason to "rise above" the love you feel for your wife? I'd wager most of the things we do and decisions we make are mainly due to influences other than reason. Think about it.
Having come from a CB86 / Commodore BASIC / GFA BASIC / MS BASIC / GW-BASIC / QuickBASIC / VBDOS / VB background, I felt really sorry for all these C people who had to learn a whole new language again. All I had to learn was what an O did and how to orient it.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought we were against animal testing?
"Stephen Conroy yesterday attempted to hose down concerns ..."
Not sure why we bother looking so hard.
Just wait till the Twelve Tribes get here... not long now!
No way. Within that decade someone will lose and laptop and we'll hear all about you. :)
Exactly how can we be blamed for each and every piece of legislation, when the only choices we have at voting time are between two candidates? Parties should be abolished for the sake of Democracy.
[quote]As long as the majoriry of voters are more concerned with voting in favour of tax cuts and a harsher criminal justice system than with safeguarding civil liberties it will be so.[/quote]
Humbug.
You mean vote for the opposing Party, so they can govern in ways we voted them out for in the first place, and so on, and so on, while no cohesive plan exists for a future more than 4 years away?
When did Hollywood come up with its own ideas in the past?
Depends what you mean by "Hollywood". I'd consider Woody Allen to be an integral part of Hollywood, and he comes up with this own ideas (much of the time). I mean hey, as much as anyone does. Truly original storyline ideas are fairly rare. So I'd say yes, Hollywood does make it's own stuff up, from time to time. Perhaps in the near future we'll see more integration between Hollywood and indie filmmakers. Mainly for facilitation & promotion I hope, not destroying it. There's money in them thar hills after all.
Fair enough - kind of. I always have a problem with Occam's Razor. "Simple" is a very relative concept. "God made everything the way it is" is pretty simple. O.R. assumes everyone has the same values and world view.
Anyway, as for "being scientific", science is full of major discoveries made by people who asked seemingly silly and unconventional questions, like "what if I was sitting on a beam of light" and "what if the heavens aren't made up of glass spheres". So saying "let's be scientific" should be an invitation to question, not a deterrent.
TFA states: "The Earth's magnetic field is measured to vary in field strength and it is a well known fact that the magnetic field strength is currently experiencing a downward trend."
Being a complete lay-person at climatology etc. I can't help but ask a possibly silly question; if there may be a connection between the charged particles entering our atmosphere at any period and subsequent changes in temperature or weather patterns.
Are there any studies of possible connections there?
Ah it's slowly becoming clearer now.
It's just back then on Earth, they were called Colonies, not Tribes.
They're honestly crazy, and while I don't think the Chinese government should stop them from practicing, I really think they should just let them be so people can see how crazy they really are.
"..they should just let them be so people can be free to make up their own minds." There, fixed that for you. You may as well say the same thing for the Evangelical movement, they certainly look nutty to me. But at least they're free to be what they want to be, and who am I to judge someone else's experience?
We take the Dalai Lhama's word as gospel, even though he definitely has his own incentive to distort the truth.
Politicians do it all the time. But we don't call them evil. Well.. almost. Everyone has an agenda and there's nothing wrong with that. At least the DL is for freedom and knowledge, not supression and deception. If not everything he says is free from an agenda, we can forgive that considering he's seen his people decimated. If your family had been murdered, I doubt you'd smile and try to discuss it amicably with the culprits.
Whether you like them or not, you can't deny that they destroyed a two-thousand year class system.
What? Watch the movie called "Up the Yangtze" then tell us the class system doesn't exist anymore.
That is, I think, the best point made so far.
Brutality is not always what a person *does*, but also what he/she will ignore for the own benefit. I personally believe that more harm has been done (by the UK, US, and even my own country Oz) in looking the other way, than has intentional good been done. I say intentional, because in the course of business we have allowed prosperity to trickle out to others in the world, though it seems rather like an afterthought.
So civilisation, as we live it now, is very much a two-edged sword. If we weren't kept safe and relatively prosperous, perhaps we wouldn't have the leisure to think about how everyone else in the world is getting along. But I rather think the price for our standard of living has been way to high in all kinds of ways, mainly the fault of a system of commerce gone completely mad.
Capitalism has begun to determine how we live, how we feel and how we run our democracies, where once it was a natural extension of the way we lived, felt and interacted with others.
Our system has inflicted a lot of pain on other peoples. Now, when it comes back to bite us, we don't like it one bit. High time we had a long, hard think about the structure of our commerce and government.
I mean, it's ironic enough that the once-great US democracy has turned into a 50% turnout and of those people 50% are unhappy with the outcome. It's Coke vs Pepsi politics, it's insane. At least from out here. :)
Geez, again I must have misunderstood what I heard. Must listen more carefully. :)
Thanks again, it's good to get answers to one's own questions directly. I used to annoy my high school physics teacher no end.
Cheers!
Thanks for taking the time to answer my silly questions.
I think I see what you mean, but one more question remains.. the influence of gravity does seem to convey information faster than light, if I'm not mistaken. Though the Sun's light reaches us after 8 minutes, we feel the effect of its gravity *now*, not what its gravitational effect was on us 8 minutes ago, is that right? If that's true, then if a nearby star collapses into a back hole, won't we feel the gravitational effect immediately even though light/radiation from it won't reach us till later?
Assuming I'm on the right track, it seems to follow that if this mysterious object (or objects) did once exert a gravitational effect on those galaxy clusters, surely it still *is* exerting an effect, unless it has since moved to such an incredible distance that it no longer has any discernible effect, or has been destroyed/dispersed?
The idea here is that "something" was once within our observable universe
Ah ok, I see where I misunderstood. However, if you're saying it "then expanded so that it is no longer in contact with us in any way", doesn't that also make reference to something which is *now* outside our spacetime?
If something is outside our spacetime, is there any way of referencing it conceptually that is logical or meaningful? That's not sarcasm, I'm just curious.
Cool, that's the most ironic thing I've heard all week.
Talk Like a Pirate Day was over already?
And that does account for the gravitational behavior we observe.
Which is interesting, as I've heard that information can't travel faster than light (admittedly the radio wasn't very far away from me at the time).
But here, in effect, we are gathering information on something outside our known universe. Why doesn't the article mention this seeming quandry? It not only implies (proves?) that "gravity information" travels faster than light, but they're assuming that gravity - as a physical property - functions *outside* our spacetime. How is that possible if everything I've heard about gravity relates it directly to the presence of "spacetime"? (Cue billiard ball rolling on elastic surface)
Have they thought about how space and time may not function in quite the same way outside our universe and therefore the effect they're observing can never really be explained without knowing the nature of that external spacetime?
Is there even any sense in saying "outside spacetime"? What does that mean exactly? Can gravity exist outside spacetime? Perhaps there are other forces that exert influence on gravity, much like a magnet pulling iron filings?
Maybe this is an alternative possibility to the Higgs Field - a force yet to be identified which exists outside spacetime that influences gravity thereby causing mass?
Man I need a beer. And possibly a towel.
It's about using IFRAMES + CSS to make confusing visual elements that cause users to perform actions they didn't think they were performing. Feel better? ;-)
Hey I might try that on my girlfriend!
Ah, who am I kidding.
China wrote this article before the launch, so it could get it out as soon as success was confirmed, with little to no editing.
"Warm clapping and excited cheering breaks the night sky, echoing across the silent Pacific Ocean."
Ah, I see what you mean.
Watch the 2007 HBO documentary called "Hacking Democracy".
A real eye-opener, all about Diebold's antics.
http://www.hackingdemocracy.com/
Among other things, they showed that you can change the result of a count by altering the contents of the memory card itself.
"In peace, you'd need to prevent men remaining behind alone without partner (because for every extra woman one man has, another has to do without, ..."
Uh, this implies women are required to be monogamous. An oft-desired outcome in times long past, but if you're talking about a modern civilisation it's hardly realistic.
"... the "serial non-commiters" still have no excuse to use the women around them."
That's a value judgement. A relationship which ends with one person not wanting to commit is by no means the definition of "using" someone.
I'd also say that human beings are animals _capable_ of reason but also subject to instinct, emotion, habit, hormone, etc. Try using reason to rise above abject fear. Can you use your reason to "rise above" the love you feel for your wife? I'd wager most of the things we do and decisions we make are mainly due to influences other than reason. Think about it.
Whatever happened to realising it's more polite to offer your number? No surprise there.
Having come from a CB86 / Commodore BASIC / GFA BASIC / MS BASIC / GW-BASIC / QuickBASIC / VBDOS / VB background, I felt really sorry for all these C people who had to learn a whole new language again. All I had to learn was what an O did and how to orient it.