It just seems that the word 'marriage' is best used to describe a reproductive relationship between a male and a female.
So if you don't have kids then you're not really married? There are plenty of couples who get married with no intentions whatsoever to have children, the government doesn't stop them. They get all the legal rights that couples with kids get.
I think you should be able to marry whoever you'd like to. In a truely free society actions aren't made illigal unless they cause harm. Reguardless of whether you agree with it or not you have to agree that allowing gay marriage doesn't harm anyone.
I don't know about making divorce illegal though, thats just silly.
More or less so then having gay marriage as illigal?
While the studies show that children definitly benifit from having both parents, they also show that kids with only one parent still have a great shot at living a healthy happy life. I don't think the difference is large enough to be basing laws on.
I have to agree with you on divorce being way to common though... I want to throw up every time I see a local commercial for the "spouce eliminator."
So then you'll agree that outlawing divorce is a good idea? And that the children of single parents should be taken and put in a household with parents of more then one gender?
The appeal to tradition is still a fallacy. If the tradition has good reasons then it should be argued on the merit of those reasons, not on the fact that it's tradition.
I'm horrible with foreign languages, but I've spoken with others who are bilingual. They've told me that the way they knew they had become fluent was that they switched from thinking in their first language and then translating into their second to simple thinking in the second language.
I can't even comprehend what it would be like to think in another language. Foreign language classes are the only classes I have ever truely and miserably flunked.
The major airlines aren't the only people in the air, there are also private pilots, smaller airlines, gliders, hot air balooners, skydivers. Without some governing body to force all those interests to cooperate and maintain safety then there would allways be assholes that didn't care and got others killed.
As for the second part of your post I wholeheartedly agree. The war on drugs, janet jackson, all that crap is being way mishandled by the government.
The founding fathers had never seen a true industrialized nation, the industrial revolution hadn't happened yet. The beginnings were certainly there, but a level of industrialization like the US has today didn't exist in any country at that time.
The founding fathers never imagined an industrialized society either. The type of government the founding fathers envisioned could never hope to effectively govern the US as it is today.
That would involve going faster then the speed of light which would actually complicate things more then it would simplify them. Aside from trying to give meaning to a measurement of time that is imaginary, you would also have to deal with the possibility of breaking causality. It would just get very ugly and the accepted view of most physicists is that it's just not possible.
The math is actually not beyond us. There have been some very interesting results using ray tracing to simulate what the surroundings would look like if you were to be accelerated to a relativistic speed.
He couldn't start a private airline company that doesn't require ID because it's not an airline rule, it's a TSA rule. And as for buying a plane, walking, or driving. None of these are reasonable substitutes for a flight when one is travelling from california to DC.
The entire point here is that checking ID's isn't necissarily better. People already have to go through metal detectors and have their luggage swept for bombs. It's not even moderately difficult to get a fake ID. The invasion of privacy has no associated benifit.
Gilmore specifically asked whether it was a company law or a govt law. He was told eventually that it was a govt regulation but he was not allowed to know what that regulation was.
Well, the water already needs to be at a defined temperature. So why not define sea level as the sea level at a point in the world who's current average temperature over a period of time (say the last year), is equal to that temperature at which your water will be fixed at.
Of course... this is all getting rather complicated... I like the idea of just defining planks constant to be a particular value.
Measuring inertia is the same as measuring weight. Your just measuring the force due to acceleration instead of the force due to gravity. And a balance is used to determine that the weight of two objects is the same. But I'll admit the balance fairs better then a scale because there doesn't need to be any calibration with respect to the force of gravity at whatever location you're at, it just divides out of the equation. But blances still need to be "calibrated" in the (loose) sense that you need balancing weights who's mass has been pre-determined. The problem with a balance is that it can't be used from the ground up, it requires some previous measurement of mass to have taken place.
Slashdot Mirror
Seperate but equal? I think it's been shown that that doesn't work.
So if you don't have kids then you're not really married? There are plenty of couples who get married with no intentions whatsoever to have children, the government doesn't stop them. They get all the legal rights that couples with kids get.
I think you should be able to marry whoever you'd like to. In a truely free society actions aren't made illigal unless they cause harm. Reguardless of whether you agree with it or not you have to agree that allowing gay marriage doesn't harm anyone.
More or less so then having gay marriage as illigal?
While the studies show that children definitly benifit from having both parents, they also show that kids with only one parent still have a great shot at living a healthy happy life. I don't think the difference is large enough to be basing laws on.
I have to agree with you on divorce being way to common though... I want to throw up every time I see a local commercial for the "spouce eliminator."
So then you'll agree that outlawing divorce is a good idea? And that the children of single parents should be taken and put in a household with parents of more then one gender?
The appeal to tradition is still a fallacy. If the tradition has good reasons then it should be argued on the merit of those reasons, not on the fact that it's tradition.
It doesn't need to be discounted. It's not a scientific theory, it makes no predictions.
I can't even comprehend what it would be like to think in another language. Foreign language classes are the only classes I have ever truely and miserably flunked.
Selling it for redistrobution would make password protection the best solution. Just sell a password.
As for the second part of your post I wholeheartedly agree. The war on drugs, janet jackson, all that crap is being way mishandled by the government.
It's a simplified example, but you get the point right? New technologies create new problems that the government needs to deal with.
Because when people invent planes we need another branch of the government to make sure they don't run into each other.
The founding fathers had never seen a true industrialized nation, the industrial revolution hadn't happened yet. The beginnings were certainly there, but a level of industrialization like the US has today didn't exist in any country at that time.
The founding fathers never imagined an industrialized society either. The type of government the founding fathers envisioned could never hope to effectively govern the US as it is today.
That would involve going faster then the speed of light which would actually complicate things more then it would simplify them. Aside from trying to give meaning to a measurement of time that is imaginary, you would also have to deal with the possibility of breaking causality. It would just get very ugly and the accepted view of most physicists is that it's just not possible.
See here and here.
I would think the packaging containing the word "peanuts" would be enough to suffice for labelling.
may? You mean their's doubt?
He couldn't start a private airline company that doesn't require ID because it's not an airline rule, it's a TSA rule. And as for buying a plane, walking, or driving. None of these are reasonable substitutes for a flight when one is travelling from california to DC.
The entire point here is that checking ID's isn't necissarily better. People already have to go through metal detectors and have their luggage swept for bombs. It's not even moderately difficult to get a fake ID. The invasion of privacy has no associated benifit.
There is a law, the TSA acknowledged that there was a law. Did you read the article?
Gilmore specifically asked whether it was a company law or a govt law. He was told eventually that it was a govt regulation but he was not allowed to know what that regulation was.
It would be pretty hard for this administration to say that with a straight face.
Of course... this is all getting rather complicated... I like the idea of just defining planks constant to be a particular value.
Measuring inertia is the same as measuring weight. Your just measuring the force due to acceleration instead of the force due to gravity. And a balance is used to determine that the weight of two objects is the same. But I'll admit the balance fairs better then a scale because there doesn't need to be any calibration with respect to the force of gravity at whatever location you're at, it just divides out of the equation. But blances still need to be "calibrated" in the (loose) sense that you need balancing weights who's mass has been pre-determined. The problem with a balance is that it can't be used from the ground up, it requires some previous measurement of mass to have taken place.
That doesn't measure mass directly. It measures frequency directly. Then you use the constant of your spring to calculate mass.