Ok, by government, I meant the original form of the Constitution not the monkeys we have in, right now. They and most of the laws they have passed, which have been passed in self-interest, should be left on a small desert island - an isolated one.
Regardless of your stand on morals, yes, it is addicting. The same neurotransmitters are activated, as there are in certain illicit drugs.
And, with all due respect, I completely disagree with your assessment that addiction does not even apply. You can argue about what it is phycologically, but biologically it acts like an addiction.
But part of the confusion maybe confusing porn with sex, at least sex in marriage. In any case, I think you are your own best counterarguement. One would expect, from what you have written, that you are obsessed with it. It is not the purpose of life. It is not the game and score. And it certainly is not the measure of all things, be it power, wealth or control.
No intent to offend, but you are obsessed and have a very distorted view of life if you think sex is the sum total of our existance. A very distorted view of life.
I think that the reason to be opposed to pornography is best expressed in your own words - sex is not the meaning of everything. If that is all the meaning there is in your life, that is pretty darn meaningless.
If we followed your ideas to their logical conclusion, then the only person I would ever be concerned about is ME! ME! ME! It's all about ME!
Well, that is a way to live life.
The problem with pornography is that it is an activity that focuses an individual on what he (or she) wants and not on what would make others happy. It focuses the self on itself. It is fascinating to notice how many self-justifications we see on this subject - that is almost all there is. That is almost all there is to read.
If each individual of our society is only focused, on his or her own self, THAT will destroy our society and all the evil laws and politicians will be just many deck chairs on the Titanic.
Addiction is a fundimentally selfish and self-centered behavior, and without our being concerned for the well-being of those around us, our cherished government(s) will not endure.
I am glad to see that someone else at least does not completely depend on doctors. Too many people want to tell you otherwise, but there is only one person responsible for your health, and that is you, not a doctor.
Yes, there are times to see a doctor, and times when their hard-earned learning comes in handy, but still, you are the one responsible. You think that the doctors care? They don't have time to care about anyone once they leave the office. They simply don't have time.
Should he have self-prescribed Cipro? Maybe, maybe not. (Should you muck around with your linux kernal?, maybe, maybe not) He is an adult. Let him do his own research and come to his own conclusions. This is probably a lossy time for this rant because he is not well- but as you can see he is doing far more for his health than the doctors, at least so far.
And lest I sound harsh, I wish I could help, and I wish him the best.
The problem is not even a matter of whether you have the 'balls' to do it. Look at the size of these things. These are smaller than a grain of rice, far smaller than a rice grain.
It is a matter of finding it, and digging through enough flesh until you find it. Ouch, I bet that stings.
Slow down there, you had better believe there is another side, and no, I am not an significant source of pollution. What I am is physicist in solar physicist.
You suggest that we completely understand the atmosphere and the things that drive it. We don't.
Here is the issue we have with it. At least 3 times in the last 2000 years the sun has, for its own mysterious reasons, stopped producing sunspots. These are called the Wolff and the Sporrer and the Maunder minimums. (Excuse my spelling) These sunspot minima are correlated with signifcant atmospheric change. The last one, and by far the best observed, the Maunder Minimum, happened the same time as the Little Ice Age. Periods of high solar activity correlate well with increases in terrestrial temperature, eg. the Dust Bowl Days.
Right now, we are entering a period of exceptional solar activity. [I am of course talking about years at a time, because at the moment, we have just started into the declining phase of the solar cycle.] And likewise, we notice the Earth getting a bit warmer. This happened in the Middle Ages too.
The only real objection, is that we have no idea, how this is happening. It doesn't appear to be Total Solar Irradiance, but we have not had high quality observations for that long. More likely, it has to do with the sun's extended magnetic field, and whether we are impacted by slow or fast solar wind, or both. That does have an effect on the upper atmosphere.
I admit, this is not an objection to be ignored, but nor is the very good correlation between global temperatures and solar activity.
Stop acting like anyone who disagrees is a crackpot or a terrorist. That is devisive and short-sighted.
yet....
1: tremendous dearth of high quality studies showing benefit
2: flouride ion used is RARELY, if ever, the same as found in nature. Generally you get a low quality industrial by-product that can not legal be released in to the oceans, but can into your drinking water. (serious, you can't make this stuff up)
3: serious evidence and backing by nobel-prize winning neurologists that fluoride is a significant accumulating neurotoxin.
4: benefit to teeth is debatable, and effect to the rest of the body is significant
There is no reason to mass medicate an entire population to try and fix one problem, while causing others.
And just for fun, I will mention, that both the Allieds and the Axises used it for (I don't know how well it worked, if it did) mind control. This last point is good trivia if nothing else.
That is the standard arguement, but it is also erronous. You could make the same arguement about Einstein's thought experiment with the moving train being struck by lightening simultaniously at both ends. Of course, different observers will see it differently. That doesn't make it time travel or a violation of causality.
Frankly, quantum mechanical tunneling seems to be a phenomena that does happen simultaniously, distance regardless. Though, to be fair, at least with light, there is some dispute over this. (Darned group and phase velocities!)
And thank you to whoever it was who pointed out FLT != Time Travel
Precisely!
We were looking at a a rising generation of children who would never crack a book open, and suddenly "Harry Potter" comes around and you have kids tackling tomes the size of the Old Testament. Frankly, we need more Shakespeares for our day. Tolkien and JK Rowling go a long way, but we need more.
That is a fascinating and underexplored train of thought. What will happen when everybody has sufficent? You can bet that those on top won't like being on the same level as the rest of us.
I don't see AI replacing expertise and truly original thought. Indeed, (even after reading Godel, Escher, Bach), that is the one spot that people can do better than others.
Talk about real upheaval when gold is a trivial item! Not that this Asimov-type future is very close, but have that many people given thought to what will happen? Just sci-fi writers I suppose.
This would be a fundimentally different society. Will society be graded by intelligence or at least diplomas as opposed to wealth? Or will it be Hollywood popularity and political power?
The parent post was not flamebait, in my opinion (for what little that is worth), but points out a fundimental flaw in our system and where the logical end takes us. Fantastic, and incredibly scary.
I think I will look forward to it.
It is a pecular world we live in, that such things are indeed possible. We tend to think of others as we do about ourselves. But the fact is that there are others, with the means and time, who think that some small oligarchy (including them, not you) has more intelligency than the masses. And that this is the ideal way, therefore, the masses must be attempted to be kept down.
And this is in their own writings. Not that one master conspiracy is extent, or even desirable for those without our best interests at heart. But to think that every socio-political lunk-head out there exists for the common good, or has ideas of good coincide with reality, is naivity at its apex. (or would that be nadir?)
You know, you would think that. But Julian Schwinger pointed out that there is no good reason to come to that conclusion ie. that the same nuclear reactions that are favored at high temperatures are favored at low temperatures. There is no reason, per se, to expect neutrons.
Further more, he pointed out, that because of the spin state of the nucleus, dipole transitions would be forbidden - read no gamma rays.
Here is where you can find a lot of the last 15 years of research - If you are the sort to read scientific papers. http://www.lenr-canr.org/
Keep in mind, that politics works by consenus, but science does not. It is usual that the old generation resists the theories of the young. Einstein never really did accept Quantum Mechanics.
That said, we need to approach this with an open mind. It is known, for instance, that chemical environments and E/M fields can change some half-lives. Unfortunatly, that is not really useful or practical yet. But, if they can be altered, why not manipulated? Some of you people talk like Quantum ChromoDynamics is a well understood linear theory. It just ain't so!
Continually bowing to every expert is a sure way to ruin science. The amatuers must learn to think for themselves or science will increasingly become an elistist affair.
If you seriously want to study it, try
http://www.lenr-canr.org/StudentsGuide.htm
or
http://www.lenr-canr.org
And of course nuclear reactions should not act like that. Science is obstinate enough that it continues to mock us and tease us. Unexplained results happen in all areas of science.
Park mostly just makes fun of anything AND EVERYTHING that has not been fully proven or established yet. It is already well known that some chemical environments can change nuclear halflives. The fact is we don't understand QCD very well as it is highly nonlinear.
If we listened to Park all the time, nothing revolutionary or counter-intuitive would EVER be discovered.
"I felt it in my bones that we were going to have a burn...
We got the fire under control, and it would not have gone a foot farther; but the next thing I knew they came and told me that St. Paul's Church, about two squares north, was on fire"
That doesn't sound like radiation. If so, there is no way the fire marshal could have been so close, but possibly.
The huge stone and brick structures melted before the fierceness of the flames as a snowflake melts and disappears in water, and almost as quickly. Six-story buildings would take fire and disappear for ever from sight in five minutes by the watch....The fire also doubled on its track at the Union Depot and burned a half a mile southward
in the teeth of the gale-a gale which blew a perfect tornado, and in which no vessel could have lived on the lake...
Strange, fantastic fires of blue, red and green played along the cornices of buildings. History of the Chicago Fire, pg. 85,86
The most striking peculiarity of the fire was its intense heat. Nothing exposed to it escaped. Amid the hundreds of acres left bare there is not to be found a piece of wood of any description, and unlike most fires, it left nothing half burned... The fire swept the streets of all the ordinary dust and rubbish, consuming it instantly.Ibid. pg. 119
So, while there are definately, some things that can be explained by radiation, it is by no means the whole story. Even the firestorms in Germany created by incendiary bombs and the atomic bomb in Japan left charred remains. Something different is going on here.
It is worth noting that Chicago fire was not typical in many ways.
The fire was unusually hot. One factory that burned melted pig iron 200 feet away. Buildings burned on a timescale of minutes, it was reported. Unlike your normal everyday fire, nothing was left half-burned.
It also burned INTO the wind, which is contrary for usual fires.
A guy in the New York Evening Post wrote, "buildings far beyond the line of fire, and in no contact with it, burst into flames from the interior".
The other facts I noted may be referenced in
The Annual Record of Science and Industry for1876, pg. 84
and
History of the Great Conflagration Sheahan & Upton, Chicago, Illinois, 1871
Slashdot Mirror
Regardless of your stand on morals, yes, it is addicting. The same neurotransmitters are activated, as there are in certain illicit drugs.
And, with all due respect, I completely disagree with your assessment that addiction does not even apply. You can argue about what it is phycologically, but biologically it acts like an addiction.
But part of the confusion maybe confusing porn with sex, at least sex in marriage. In any case, I think you are your own best counterarguement. One would expect, from what you have written, that you are obsessed with it. It is not the purpose of life. It is not the game and score. And it certainly is not the measure of all things, be it power, wealth or control.
No intent to offend, but you are obsessed and have a very distorted view of life if you think sex is the sum total of our existance. A very distorted view of life.
If we followed your ideas to their logical conclusion, then the only person I would ever be concerned about is ME! ME! ME! It's all about ME!
Well, that is a way to live life.
The problem with pornography is that it is an activity that focuses an individual on what he (or she) wants and not on what would make others happy. It focuses the self on itself. It is fascinating to notice how many self-justifications we see on this subject - that is almost all there is. That is almost all there is to read.
If each individual of our society is only focused, on his or her own self, THAT will destroy our society and all the evil laws and politicians will be just many deck chairs on the Titanic.
Addiction is a fundimentally selfish and self-centered behavior, and without our being concerned for the well-being of those around us, our cherished government(s) will not endure.
Yes, there are times to see a doctor, and times when their hard-earned learning comes in handy, but still, you are the one responsible. You think that the doctors care? They don't have time to care about anyone once they leave the office. They simply don't have time.
Should he have self-prescribed Cipro? Maybe, maybe not. (Should you muck around with your linux kernal?, maybe, maybe not) He is an adult. Let him do his own research and come to his own conclusions. This is probably a lossy time for this rant because he is not well- but as you can see he is doing far more for his health than the doctors, at least so far.
And lest I sound harsh, I wish I could help, and I wish him the best.
The problem is not even a matter of whether you have the 'balls' to do it. Look at the size of these things. These are smaller than a grain of rice, far smaller than a rice grain.
It is a matter of finding it, and digging through enough flesh until you find it. Ouch, I bet that stings.
Easy in, but not easy out.
You suggest that we completely understand the atmosphere and the things that drive it. We don't.
Here is the issue we have with it. At least 3 times in the last 2000 years the sun has, for its own mysterious reasons, stopped producing sunspots. These are called the Wolff and the Sporrer and the Maunder minimums. (Excuse my spelling) These sunspot minima are correlated with signifcant atmospheric change. The last one, and by far the best observed, the Maunder Minimum, happened the same time as the Little Ice Age. Periods of high solar activity correlate well with increases in terrestrial temperature, eg. the Dust Bowl Days.
Right now, we are entering a period of exceptional solar activity. [I am of course talking about years at a time, because at the moment, we have just started into the declining phase of the solar cycle.] And likewise, we notice the Earth getting a bit warmer. This happened in the Middle Ages too.
The only real objection, is that we have no idea, how this is happening. It doesn't appear to be Total Solar Irradiance, but we have not had high quality observations for that long. More likely, it has to do with the sun's extended magnetic field, and whether we are impacted by slow or fast solar wind, or both. That does have an effect on the upper atmosphere.
I admit, this is not an objection to be ignored, but nor is the very good correlation between global temperatures and solar activity.
Stop acting like anyone who disagrees is a crackpot or a terrorist. That is devisive and short-sighted.
Everybody knows it
Everybody says it
yet.... 1: tremendous dearth of high quality studies showing benefit 2: flouride ion used is RARELY, if ever, the same as found in nature. Generally you get a low quality industrial by-product that can not legal be released in to the oceans, but can into your drinking water. (serious, you can't make this stuff up) 3: serious evidence and backing by nobel-prize winning neurologists that fluoride is a significant accumulating neurotoxin. 4: benefit to teeth is debatable, and effect to the rest of the body is significant
There is no reason to mass medicate an entire population to try and fix one problem, while causing others.
And just for fun, I will mention, that both the Allieds and the Axises used it for (I don't know how well it worked, if it did) mind control. This last point is good trivia if nothing else.
Frankly, quantum mechanical tunneling seems to be a phenomena that does happen simultaniously, distance regardless. Though, to be fair, at least with light, there is some dispute over this. (Darned group and phase velocities!)
And thank you to whoever it was who pointed out FLT != Time Travel
Precisely! We were looking at a a rising generation of children who would never crack a book open, and suddenly "Harry Potter" comes around and you have kids tackling tomes the size of the Old Testament. Frankly, we need more Shakespeares for our day. Tolkien and JK Rowling go a long way, but we need more.
That is a fascinating and underexplored train of thought. What will happen when everybody has sufficent? You can bet that those on top won't like being on the same level as the rest of us. I don't see AI replacing expertise and truly original thought. Indeed, (even after reading Godel, Escher, Bach), that is the one spot that people can do better than others. Talk about real upheaval when gold is a trivial item! Not that this Asimov-type future is very close, but have that many people given thought to what will happen? Just sci-fi writers I suppose. This would be a fundimentally different society. Will society be graded by intelligence or at least diplomas as opposed to wealth? Or will it be Hollywood popularity and political power? The parent post was not flamebait, in my opinion (for what little that is worth), but points out a fundimental flaw in our system and where the logical end takes us. Fantastic, and incredibly scary. I think I will look forward to it.
It is a pecular world we live in, that such things are indeed possible. We tend to think of others as we do about ourselves. But the fact is that there are others, with the means and time, who think that some small oligarchy (including them, not you) has more intelligency than the masses. And that this is the ideal way, therefore, the masses must be attempted to be kept down.
And this is in their own writings. Not that one master conspiracy is extent, or even desirable for those without our best interests at heart. But to think that every socio-political lunk-head out there exists for the common good, or has ideas of good coincide with reality, is naivity at its apex. (or would that be nadir?)
You know, you would think that. But Julian Schwinger pointed out that there is no good reason to come to that conclusion ie. that the same nuclear reactions that are favored at high temperatures are favored at low temperatures. There is no reason, per se, to expect neutrons.
Further more, he pointed out, that because of the spin state of the nucleus, dipole transitions would be forbidden - read no gamma rays.
Here is where you can find a lot of the last 15 years of research - If you are the sort to read scientific papers.
http://www.lenr-canr.org/
Keep in mind, that politics works by consenus, but science does not. It is usual that the old generation resists the theories of the young. Einstein never really did accept Quantum Mechanics. That said, we need to approach this with an open mind. It is known, for instance, that chemical environments and E/M fields can change some half-lives. Unfortunatly, that is not really useful or practical yet. But, if they can be altered, why not manipulated? Some of you people talk like Quantum ChromoDynamics is a well understood linear theory. It just ain't so! Continually bowing to every expert is a sure way to ruin science. The amatuers must learn to think for themselves or science will increasingly become an elistist affair. If you seriously want to study it, try http://www.lenr-canr.org/StudentsGuide.htm or http://www.lenr-canr.org And of course nuclear reactions should not act like that. Science is obstinate enough that it continues to mock us and tease us. Unexplained results happen in all areas of science.
Park mostly just makes fun of anything AND EVERYTHING that has not been fully proven or established yet. It is already well known that some chemical environments can change nuclear halflives. The fact is we don't understand QCD very well as it is highly nonlinear. If we listened to Park all the time, nothing revolutionary or counter-intuitive would EVER be discovered.
That doesn't sound like radiation. If so, there is no way the fire marshal could have been so close, but possibly.
So, while there are definately, some things that can be explained by radiation, it is by no means the whole story. Even the firestorms in Germany created by incendiary bombs and the atomic bomb in Japan left charred remains. Something different is going on here.
It is worth noting that Chicago fire was not typical in many ways. The fire was unusually hot. One factory that burned melted pig iron 200 feet away. Buildings burned on a timescale of minutes, it was reported. Unlike your normal everyday fire, nothing was left half-burned. It also burned INTO the wind, which is contrary for usual fires. A guy in the New York Evening Post wrote, "buildings far beyond the line of fire, and in no contact with it, burst into flames from the interior". The other facts I noted may be referenced in The Annual Record of Science and Industry for1876, pg. 84 and History of the Great Conflagration Sheahan & Upton, Chicago, Illinois, 1871