Yes. It's usually easier not to stand up for your rights and just take it. But that's the philosophy of slaves and peasants.
"regardless of their actions" is a bit strong -- someone is hanging around there, aren't you?
Yes, those horrid teenagers are sitting in their back yard or walking down a public sidewalk, so they deserve what they get![/sarcasm]
are they perfectly silent and peaceful everytime? not?
Let's attack an entire group for the actions of a few of them! That's so stupid and immoral I never would have thought of it!
The mosquito thing is better than the old solutions of spraying cold water or throwing eggs.
No, it's just harder to get the police to do their duty. If he was doing as you suggest, to people accross the street, he could be prosecuted for assault. By doing it this way he can get away with noise ordinance violations.
I had nearly given up on getting a response. One more post and this would have dropped off of my user page.
New apartment, new job and an out of state wedding. I barely had time to sleep.
most children aren't capable of grasping the all to adult concepts that are a part of sexuality
True. I guess I think that telling them that sex, guns or swear words are bad is going to leave an impression that won't go away easily, while telling them that sex is for grownups and not for them protects them without generating the same nagative feelings. I don't want my (future) adult kids' opinion on gun control or sexuality to be set by my attempts to insulate them as a child. Maybe my desire to keep hitting = "No, bad!", knives = "No, hurt!" and sex = "No, adult!" is a bit more than is really necessary, but I take child rearing very seriously, and I want them to be as free as possible to make up their own minds as they grow up.
Build an absolutely perfect Federation and then hurl seriously gigantic threats at it.
Yes, let's go with the most overused sci-fi plot imaginable and make a show for people that think with the moral sophistication of a fundamentalist preacher.
Give me stories from the alternate universe. We have some of the basics laid out, but there are plenty of questions left unanswered. It's origional enough that it wouldn't feel like a rehash of old episodes (if done right), but would be safe enought to get past the corporate gatekepers.
P.S. The best episode of "Enterprise" ended with the words "Empress Hoshi Sato".
So, would you describe the men as "pillars of the community" and the woman as a "role model" when trying to explain it to a child?
No, why would I? It's not good or bad, just adult. I don't understand what prompted you to ask the question in the first place. Would you do the same thing with beer?
Here's my interpretation of the conversation:
You: I tell my kids that beer is bad.
Me: Beer isn't bad, it's just not for kids.
You: So you tell your kids that beer is super-cool and it's the only thing they should drink?
Me: What?
If I talking to a child who had accidentally come across it, I suspect that's the route that the discussion would take.
Why do you want to tell the kid it's bad when you wouldn't tell and adult the same thing? You teach you kids that adults can use knives but kids can't, without saying that the TV chef is "bad", isn't that the right way to handle sex as well?
No, they had a clear goal of making women understand that having a guy...
Some of them had that goal. Others had different goals.
Women have an impressive double-standard to live with
So do men.
The staistics for false claims of rape are in line with false claims for other crimes.
OK, we agree that there are some false claims.
But of course, any attempt to raise awareness or to encourage women to talk about what happened to them is "blurring the line between 'rape' and 'regret'".
Attempts to reduce crime and help victims should be praised. Attempting to blur the line between feeling like you were raped and actually being raped should be shouted down - and some people really do want to do that. Also, men can be victims of rape as well.
By your reasoning, we should assume that any person who claims they were robbed or assaulted is lying just because some people lie about it, or live in fear that we could be sent to jail by having someone pointing a finger at us and saying "he stole from me" if we don't defend the reputation of accused thieves.
I don't know where you're directing this rant. Not every person who claims to be the victim of a crime is actually a victim - end of story.
The only proper way to handle these situations (IMHO) before the matter is investigated is to assume a crime happened when dealing with the accuser, and to assume there wasn't one when dealing with the accused.
it's not irrational to take into account what is objective fact (peak oil)
No, it isn't. But that's not what you're doing.
Economic collapse, massive loss of arable land, an increase in infections + decrease in the quality of our diets (eg no seafood). Rampant inflation (since agricultural commodities will be difficult and transport nigh on impossible without oil, water and soil). The biggest extinction event ever will likely have massive psychological effects - which is in itself a health problem.
You've gone from stating a fact (oil is a finite resource) to predicting "biggest extinction event ever" by ignoring everything from alternative energy sources to basic economic theory. That is irrational.
Why is it so hard for you to grasp the idea that kinky sex alone is not enought to make someone good or bad? It's just something people do. End of story. Some are evil or abused, some are pillars of the community or role models, but their consentual sexual practices have no bearing on which group they would fall into.
If a younger child saw Bukkake, my first concern would be for their feelings, like make sure they're not scared or upset, and also to let them know that that kind of thing is only for grownups. But I'd never suggest to them that it's bad just because it's sexual.
For an older child, of course, the context would be important. If it's a rape scene (or something similar), then I would make sure they knew that this was like the bad guys in a violent movie. But if it was concentual, they I'd say it's just people having fun, but it's only for adults.
Since you sidesteped my question, I'll ask it again. Why on earth would you assume that your Bukkake guys are "bad men" and she's a "poor woman"? And why would you assume that a bit of sarcasm would make your point clear?
I'd much, much rather explain to a child why the bad man on TV shot someone than explain why all of those bad men are glunking all over some poor woman's face.
That has to be the worst comparison I've even seen. You're taking Gunsmoke or Xena level violence and comparing it to kinky group sex.
More realistic examples would come from something like House, M.D.: we can see a guy's eye pop out of its socket, watch a doctor get splashed with blood when his scrotum explodes, and then get an eyeful of gore when he gets sliced in half - all in one episode. On the other hand, when House steps out of the shower or a woman is topless we have to be very careful not to show the naughty bits. Even more amusing, before we see the topless girl from the back, we get to see a full frontal shot of a guy with fully developed breasts.
A better example would be: I'd much, much rather explain to a child why all of those rotting corpses are laying around than explain why the pretty girl has her shirt off.
And I haven't even gotten to you odd sexual morals. Why on earth would you assume that your Bukkake guys are "bad men" and she's a "poor woman"? Can't they all just be adults having fun?
Your opinions are not necessarily nonsense, stating as a fact that "You don't own the playground" is.... we make the rules and effectively own the land by controlling it
OK, at least I've figured out that our disagreement centers on our differing interpretations of the word "own". To me, the words "owns" and "governs" are very different:
You may well question if it is legitimate,...we "own the playground" - by sheer force!
Just to point something out, your statments would suggest that hostage-takers own their hostages, which seems to abuse the word. I don't think you can have the word "own" mean very much without implying some sort of social legitimacy. To keep things straight, I would say that the carjacker has my car, the US government can govern what I can do with it, but I'm still the only one that owns it.
Next time, try: "Yes - you shouldn't own the playground. Your government might be in charge of stopping the fights that break out, but they shouldn't own it."
Using your 'might makes right' definition of "owns", that would be correct. But that type of definition seems so odd to me that it doesn't seem to express my opinion.
Just to make it clear, I think it's fair for the EU to set almost any restrictions it wants on stuff it owns, like roads, parks, waterways, etc. But I don't think it's fair to do the same thing for stuff it governs, like private computers, software markets, etc.
Breaking up an impactor does not significantly reduce the damage.
If surrounding fluid had no signifigant effect, you'd be correct, but in this case the atmosphere will treat one large object much differently than many small ones. Breaking up the object increases its surface area, and has the same effect a parachute would. Imagine a major-league pitcher throwing a handful of dry sand at a batter's head - a ball could knock him out, but the sand probably won't even reach him.
If you've been paying attention over the last few years, you'll note that discussion has moved from attacking impactors to diversion schemes. There's a reason for that.
Yes, but not the reason you're giving. Blasting the object into pieces is like wearing your seatbelt in a crash, you lessen the damage you take, in this case the extinction-causing impact is turned into a few city-leveling ones or even just a few isolated strikes. Deflection is more like using your brakes to stop the crash from happening - it becomes a non-event. That's why it's prefered.
The problem is all the heat that is generated from an impact that could be life ending.
The heat isn't the problem, it's the dust. If enough dust was dumped into the atmosphere sunlight wouldn't reach the surface, and things wouldn't be so nice for us surface critters.
And how is the atmosphere a bullet proof vest?
It blocks a tremendous number of meteors from hitting the Earth every day. And the ones it doesn't stop are slowed tremendously.
Yet a planet without atmosphere isn't very conducive to life.
I don't get this, how are we losing our atmosphere?
At cosmic scales, the atmosphere is about as bullet proof as your average sheet of toilet tissue.
What do you wipe your butt with?!?!? My 2-ply has no chance of stopping a bullet, but the Earth's atmosphere blocks meteors less than 35 meters wide so completely that they don't even reach the surface.
Nobody is worried about damage to the crust. What scientists are worried about is dumping large amounts of particulates...
Most of the particulates from an impact would be rock from Earth that are shattered, not from the meteor. If the meteor was turned into dust first, there wouldn't be nearly enough to cause major climate change.
...and energy into the earth's atmosphere.
Nobody is that worried about the energy. On a global scale, it's insignifigant.
Regarding your grading methods, you seem to be one of those physics TA's that merely looks at the final answer and deducts significant points for minor arithmatic errors, despite having a 10 page solution with the correct method (eg a problem from a typical Jackson level E&M class).
Oddly enough, that's my mental image of you! The guy who keeps jumping in to correct the minor errors of other students. The original answer had all of the correct parts, and I think it was rude of you to suggest that he doesn't know what he talking about.
As for the "ridiculous hypothetical experiment", I'll ignore the ridiculous part, at the moment we are talking about a hypothetical experiment - frictionless pulleys, massless strings, perfect spheres and all.
Secondly, the grandparent is implying that merely having a spherically-symmetric shell implies the field inside is zero. And this is only true in the absence of any masses outside.
First: The origional question was "Help me out...wouldn't the mass of the "spaceship" affect the experiment?". The answer was "Gauss's Law says that the gravitational acceleration of a body anywhere in an enclosed sphere is 0.". Because the question focuses only on the spaceship, that answer is basicly correct, as far as I'm concerned.
Second: He says "At L4, L5 Earth and Sun graviational forces are balanced. The only accelerations that don't cancel out are the two body accelerations of interest.", which implys that outside bodies can cause acceleration, but in this particular case, bodies other than the spacecraft don't matter. He covered his ass there quite well.
while ignoring the actual reality of building a self-contained ship...
I'm not going to argue that it would be easy to carry out this experiment. But the answer to the original question has to remain "At least in theory the spaceship can be made in a way that will keep it from affecting the experiment with gravitational forces".
There are many ideas on property and ownership, in the end it depends on your political point of view. I have yet to see the final argument, and you didn't even try. Don't make the mistake of taking for granted what just happens to fit your own agenda. IMO There are no givens on matters such as property, just opinions and arguments. The fact that they are still being discussed after thousands of years, suggest this.
I agree with every word of that. Let's see how well you follow your own advice:
That is just nonsense. The people own 'the playground' and the government represents the people. Such is the law here and people seem to agree at least on those basics.
So my opinions are "nonsense", while yours are "the law here" and what "people seem to agree... on". You're such an ineresting hypocrite - you insult me for merely expressing my opinion, while I'm supposed to take your opinion as the truth, without an argument any stronger than the one-liner I gave you.
Just to recap, you asked for my opinion, and I gave it, along with a very brief explanation. If that's enough to upset you, then next time you're in this situation count to ten before you start writing and double check your double standards before you post.
You missed the point - in his example Brad is the government. You're suggesting that the government can do whatever it wants without restriction - "Comply to our laws, or else..."
When the GP asked "Would you say he can do as he pleases?" the answer is obviously supposed to be "no - Brad can't just do what he wants", and the point he was making was that there should be restrictions on what governments can do.
a RIGHT conclusion in this case is that according to YOU Brad has all the right in the world to take Mike's lunch AND beat him up and no one, even teachers, has a right to stop him - after all, its between Mike and Brad.
You're almost right, but you're missing a very key point. From a libertarian viewpoint, Brad is violating Mike's rights by harming/threatening him, so Mike has a right to defend himself. It's also perfectly OK to transfer this right to other people, like his friends, teachers or the government. So from this perspective, the government is being given the right to intervene by its citizens, and it can only do so in ways that those citizens could if they had the power to do so.
Banding together does make your group stronger, but it also leads to greater corruption at the top. "When you grow up you'll understand this."
You have a very good explanation about how supply and demand set prices, but I have two questions:
When a monopoly sets prices, they do it based on supply and demand (not competition).... Even though MS is a monopoly, the number of sales does depend on price.
How is setting prices based on "competition" different than doing it based off of supply and demand? I really don't see a difference, except that with competition several different groups are setting their own price(s).
Second, Microsoft might be a monopoly in the legal sense (greater than X% marketshare, etc.), but there are plenty of other operating systems out there. Are you sure that Microsoft is an economic monopoly?
It's not a stretch to argue that the President has a legal obligation under Article IV, Section 4 to prevent intelligence gathering.
You missed the "when the Legislature cannot be convened" part. As long as the legislature can do its job, the president doesn't get to take over. Also, the domestic part only take effect when a State asks the Legislature for help, not just whenever the Legislature sees fit - that's what the "on Application of the Legislature" part is talking about.
Most terrorists are in fact agents of foreign governments.
No. Most terrorist organizations are not supported by any governmental organization.
For the President to treat such people as not mere criminals, but rather as combatants is good for us.
The problem is that allowing the government to invent new classifications lets it avoid all of the devices we've put in place to keep it from abusing its power. Alleged criminals have a set of legal protections under the Constitution, POWs have rights under the Geneva Convention and other treaties, but alleged "enemy combatants" (in the current administration's view) have no rights at all. You might as well say that freedom of religion doesn't apply to Islam because Islam is now considered an "enemy belief system", or that the right to a fair trial doesn't apply to gang members because they're defined as "enemies of society".
Because if done right,...
If we could trust the government to do the right thing, we wouldn't need the Constitution - heck, we wouldn't have needed the Revolutionary War to start with.
The very fact that we give foreign agents trials at all is a testament to our civility.
No, that just means you have very low standards for what constitutes a good judicial system.
Liberals are, like conservatives, the consummate hypocrites.
Yep.
The CIA's efforts against terrorists aren't what should scare anyone. What should scare everyone is the fact that there are no checks and enforcements against presidents who are out of control and that the people simply don't care.
Because we aren't allowed to have any real oversight of the CIA, for all we know they're even more out of control than the President.
Without public education, they obviously can't learn anything.
I have to disagree. Plenty of people teach themselves things, or learn them from other people, every day. The idea that public education will help the poor has a short history, and I have yet to see any solid evidence that it actually works.
If a white person in America is proud of the achievements of all the white men... does that make her racist?
Yes. She's basing part of her self-worth on what race she is a member of, implying that her sense of self-worth would be different if she was a member of another race. That's racist by definition.
I am proud of my caste. I am proud of belonging to the oldest surviving line of philosophers, mystics and poets. Does that make me a casteist?
Yes - you're making a value judgement based on ancestory. When you say that you're proud to be part of your caste you imply that you'd think less of yourself if you had been born into a different caste.
He answered the question posed by the post he replied to. If you want to nitpick:
Gauss's Law leads us to the conclusion that the gravitational acceleration of a body anywhere in a sphereically symetric shell, due to the shell, is 0.
Your example with the brick has nothing to do with the origional question - "wouldn't the mass of the "spaceship" affect the experiment?". As a physics TA, I'd have given you a 'A' for understanding the math of Gauss's Law, but a 'C' for missing the point.
Slashdot Mirror
Give me stories from the alternate universe. We have some of the basics laid out, but there are plenty of questions left unanswered. It's origional enough that it wouldn't feel like a rehash of old episodes (if done right), but would be safe enought to get past the corporate gatekepers.
P.S. The best episode of "Enterprise" ended with the words "Empress Hoshi Sato".
Here's my interpretation of the conversation:
You: I tell my kids that beer is bad.
Me: Beer isn't bad, it's just not for kids.
You: So you tell your kids that beer is super-cool and it's the only thing they should drink?
Me: What?
Why do you want to tell the kid it's bad when you wouldn't tell and adult the same thing? You teach you kids that adults can use knives but kids can't, without saying that the TV chef is "bad", isn't that the right way to handle sex as well?The only proper way to handle these situations (IMHO) before the matter is investigated is to assume a crime happened when dealing with the accuser, and to assume there wasn't one when dealing with the accused.
If a younger child saw Bukkake, my first concern would be for their feelings, like make sure they're not scared or upset, and also to let them know that that kind of thing is only for grownups. But I'd never suggest to them that it's bad just because it's sexual.
For an older child, of course, the context would be important. If it's a rape scene (or something similar), then I would make sure they knew that this was like the bad guys in a violent movie. But if it was concentual, they I'd say it's just people having fun, but it's only for adults.
Since you sidesteped my question, I'll ask it again. Why on earth would you assume that your Bukkake guys are "bad men" and she's a "poor woman"? And why would you assume that a bit of sarcasm would make your point clear?
More realistic examples would come from something like House, M.D.: we can see a guy's eye pop out of its socket, watch a doctor get splashed with blood when his scrotum explodes, and then get an eyeful of gore when he gets sliced in half - all in one episode. On the other hand, when House steps out of the shower or a woman is topless we have to be very careful not to show the naughty bits. Even more amusing, before we see the topless girl from the back, we get to see a full frontal shot of a guy with fully developed breasts.
A better example would be: I'd much, much rather explain to a child why all of those rotting corpses are laying around than explain why the pretty girl has her shirt off.
And I haven't even gotten to you odd sexual morals. Why on earth would you assume that your Bukkake guys are "bad men" and she's a "poor woman"? Can't they all just be adults having fun?
Just to make it clear, I think it's fair for the EU to set almost any restrictions it wants on stuff it owns, like roads, parks, waterways, etc. But I don't think it's fair to do the same thing for stuff it governs, like private computers, software markets, etc.
As for the "ridiculous hypothetical experiment", I'll ignore the ridiculous part, at the moment we are talking about a hypothetical experiment - frictionless pulleys, massless strings, perfect spheres and all.
First: The origional question was "Help me out...wouldn't the mass of the "spaceship" affect the experiment?". The answer was "Gauss's Law says that the gravitational acceleration of a body anywhere in an enclosed sphere is 0.". Because the question focuses only on the spaceship, that answer is basicly correct, as far as I'm concerned.Second: He says "At L4, L5 Earth and Sun graviational forces are balanced. The only accelerations that don't cancel out are the two body accelerations of interest.", which implys that outside bodies can cause acceleration, but in this particular case, bodies other than the spacecraft don't matter. He covered his ass there quite well.
I'm not going to argue that it would be easy to carry out this experiment. But the answer to the original question has to remain "At least in theory the spaceship can be made in a way that will keep it from affecting the experiment with gravitational forces".Just to recap, you asked for my opinion, and I gave it, along with a very brief explanation. If that's enough to upset you, then next time you're in this situation count to ten before you start writing and double check your double standards before you post.
You missed the point - in his example Brad is the government. You're suggesting that the government can do whatever it wants without restriction - "Comply to our laws, or else..."
When the GP asked "Would you say he can do as he pleases?" the answer is obviously supposed to be "no - Brad can't just do what he wants", and the point he was making was that there should be restrictions on what governments can do.
You're almost right, but you're missing a very key point. From a libertarian viewpoint, Brad is violating Mike's rights by harming/threatening him, so Mike has a right to defend himself. It's also perfectly OK to transfer this right to other people, like his friends, teachers or the government. So from this perspective, the government is being given the right to intervene by its citizens, and it can only do so in ways that those citizens could if they had the power to do so.Banding together does make your group stronger, but it also leads to greater corruption at the top. "When you grow up you'll understand this."
Second, Microsoft might be a monopoly in the legal sense (greater than X% marketshare, etc.), but there are plenty of other operating systems out there. Are you sure that Microsoft is an economic monopoly?
The Feds have my best interests at heart? That's news to me.
I have to disagree. Plenty of people teach themselves things, or learn them from other people, every day. The idea that public education will help the poor has a short history, and I have yet to see any solid evidence that it actually works.
From your own link:
GDP - per capita (PPP):
USA - $41,800 (2005 est.)
Germany - $30,400 (2005 est.)
PPP comparisions are rather rough, but that's still quite a gap.
Yes. She's basing part of her self-worth on what race she is a member of, implying that her sense of self-worth would be different if she was a member of another race. That's racist by definition.
I am proud of my caste. I am proud of belonging to the oldest surviving line of philosophers, mystics and poets. Does that make me a casteist?
Yes - you're making a value judgement based on ancestory. When you say that you're proud to be part of your caste you imply that you'd think less of yourself if you had been born into a different caste.
Gauss's Law leads us to the conclusion that the gravitational acceleration of a body anywhere in a sphereically symetric shell, due to the shell, is 0.
Your example with the brick has nothing to do with the origional question - "wouldn't the mass of the "spaceship" affect the experiment?". As a physics TA, I'd have given you a 'A' for understanding the math of Gauss's Law, but a 'C' for missing the point.