This looks more and more like a hobby for you, and those like you. Every fucking subject, regardless of what it's about is "Look at what obama did".. Obvious shills, lacking any form of logical argument, completely off topic, only here to say "look obama bad look!". I feel sorry for your sad existance.
It's a wonder that this need to be explained, but the logic is dead simple. Healthy people can do work, the sick cannot (or do significantly less of it). If that still baffles anyone as to why the support of healthcare is by definition needs to be by those that do not require healthcare at the time, then I'd imagine that their your are a bit underdeveloped.
That seems to have more to do with a story about mental illness than anything else. He is an apperant schizophrenic, what's worse is that he had an episode during the speech. If this is true, then chances are that he truly did translate what he percieved. He deserves nothing but sympathy if that is the case, and medical care. Schizophrania can absolutely make someone lose their own sense of where they are in the world, and is an absolute nightmare to endure.
Mod is Curious. My main argument is that arguing about intent is futile, as this will amount to thought crime if taken to its logical conclusion. Is that really not worth pondering? (At least, it would be nice to know why not -- if this is truly overrated.)
Which is a style of dicipline that is only ever applicable to children. What this is is despicable, and no amount of rationalization will ever justify it. Blatant abuse of power for petty, self-serving gains.
Any tool can be used for evil. That's the problem. Not your fairytales about intent, of which you have no fucking clue of. You know so much, why the fuck aren't you solving all of our problems, genius?
Committing thousands or millions of small crimes used to be hard. Now with the internet and computers, it is easy. It seems like you are arguing that multiple counts of the same crime shouldn't stack.
No. They should not. At least not proportionally. Because computers are the kind of tools that can amplify an event exponentially into oblivion, it makes no sense. Human lifetimes are finite, and we serve absolutely no-one by indulging ourselves in locking up non-violent criminals away for eternity. That idea is simply frightning from a civilized stand point.
I said the exact opposite of that. I even asked, in brackets, "how does infinite regress begin?". Infinite regress is an uncaused cause.
That goes against the foundation of all scientific inquiry; the very reason people do tests is because there is an assumption that causality exists. And I would agree that not all things require a cause (thats pretty much the argument with God), but if the universe has a beginning, then it does.
Quantum fluctuations are spontanious. So I wouldn't go as far as "all".
In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[1] as explained in Werner Heisenberg's famous "Uncertainty Principle".
Look, you're missing the concept and what is being explored in the articles -- I hope you didn't just stop at the wiki. The experiment in the laboratory is the observation of quantum fluctuations, and measuring their effects. Specifically, experiments consistently show that the "emptier" a space is (the more energy we take remove from it), the more voletile it becomes. "Nature abhores a vacum." seems to be the reality. Assuming we start with absolutely nothing before the big-bang, this type of fluctuation is the most likely event to kickstart everything.
Also, it does no one any good to keep pointing out the obvious, that we can't directly observe this event. I don't believe I'm arguing this point. What I'm explaining to you is one of the current running theories behind the event. You can argue its premise, but you wouldn't be arguing with me. We cannot observe it because the CMB is opaque, and the plank scale is a real limit, at least for the time being. But we can study the laws of physics and try to work out how these things behave under different conditions.
The thing about the word 'slut' is that it's not *always* used to offend. Like with "nigger", there is a trend in the western world for women to own the word in a similar fashion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut_walk. Just saying there is more to this than just the surface.
The only thing you can assume about me is that I find the question not relevant and not worth pondering. Any answer to it brings us no further to anything than where we start from. Hence I used the dog chaising tail analogy. I could use the phrase "mental masturbation" if you prefer. I never said I'm ignoring questions of existence, I'm flat out stating this isn't one of them. Another way to look at it is that I hold no belief at all. So the universal answer to any question you may have that starts with: "Do you believe in..." is "No.". Always. So yes, to answer your question, really, but not in how you understood it.
Keep reading, please. Keep on reading. Eventually you'll hit the concept which I'm actually describing. So far you're close, but off the mark, my friend.
1. Uncaused cause is in the *exact same boat* as infinite regress. Both are assumptions. However, infinite regress, itself is an uncaused cause (how does infinite regress begin?)! Therefore its reasonable to suggest that not all things need a cause.
2. Quantum fluctuations are a physical property that can be observed from within the universe, yes. This says nothing about it being limited to the universe we're in.
3. The evidence is a laboratory. That's how they came with this explanation in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
This looks more and more like a hobby for you, and those like you. Every fucking subject, regardless of what it's about is "Look at what obama did".. Obvious shills, lacking any form of logical argument, completely off topic, only here to say "look obama bad look!". I feel sorry for your sad existance.
As far as the middle east goes, it's so fucked that it would not matter what you'd call it, but clusterfuck would always be accurate.
*I'd imagine that their faculties are abit under-developed. Oops.
It's a wonder that this need to be explained, but the logic is dead simple. Healthy people can do work, the sick cannot (or do significantly less of it). If that still baffles anyone as to why the support of healthcare is by definition needs to be by those that do not require healthcare at the time, then I'd imagine that their your are a bit underdeveloped.
That seems to have more to do with a story about mental illness than anything else. He is an apperant schizophrenic, what's worse is that he had an episode during the speech. If this is true, then chances are that he truly did translate what he percieved. He deserves nothing but sympathy if that is the case, and medical care. Schizophrania can absolutely make someone lose their own sense of where they are in the world, and is an absolute nightmare to endure.
Mod is Curious. My main argument is that arguing about intent is futile, as this will amount to thought crime if taken to its logical conclusion. Is that really not worth pondering? (At least, it would be nice to know why not -- if this is truly overrated.)
Which is a style of dicipline that is only ever applicable to children. What this is is despicable, and no amount of rationalization will ever justify it. Blatant abuse of power for petty, self-serving gains.
I sincerely hope you know the answer...
Any tool can be used for evil. That's the problem. Not your fairytales about intent, of which you have no fucking clue of. You know so much, why the fuck aren't you solving all of our problems, genius?
MERRICA! FUCK YA! (not an american, but couldn't resist)
No. They should not. At least not proportionally. Because computers are the kind of tools that can amplify an event exponentially into oblivion, it makes no sense. Human lifetimes are finite, and we serve absolutely no-one by indulging ourselves in locking up non-violent criminals away for eternity. That idea is simply frightning from a civilized stand point.
I said the exact opposite of that. I even asked, in brackets, "how does infinite regress begin?". Infinite regress is an uncaused cause.
Quantum fluctuations are spontanious. So I wouldn't go as far as "all".
Look, you're missing the concept and what is being explored in the articles -- I hope you didn't just stop at the wiki. The experiment in the laboratory is the observation of quantum fluctuations, and measuring their effects. Specifically, experiments consistently show that the "emptier" a space is (the more energy we take remove from it), the more voletile it becomes. "Nature abhores a vacum." seems to be the reality. Assuming we start with absolutely nothing before the big-bang, this type of fluctuation is the most likely event to kickstart everything.
Also, it does no one any good to keep pointing out the obvious, that we can't directly observe this event. I don't believe I'm arguing this point. What I'm explaining to you is one of the current running theories behind the event. You can argue its premise, but you wouldn't be arguing with me. We cannot observe it because the CMB is opaque, and the plank scale is a real limit, at least for the time being. But we can study the laws of physics and try to work out how these things behave under different conditions.
Not in the bedroom. :P.
The thing about the word 'slut' is that it's not *always* used to offend. Like with "nigger", there is a trend in the western world for women to own the word in a similar fashion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut_walk. Just saying there is more to this than just the surface.
What's sad is this response. Projecting much?
You sir, stand for justice. Respect.
The only thing you can assume about me is that I find the question not relevant and not worth pondering. Any answer to it brings us no further to anything than where we start from. Hence I used the dog chaising tail analogy. I could use the phrase "mental masturbation" if you prefer. I never said I'm ignoring questions of existence, I'm flat out stating this isn't one of them. Another way to look at it is that I hold no belief at all. So the universal answer to any question you may have that starts with: "Do you believe in..." is "No.". Always. So yes, to answer your question, really, but not in how you understood it.
Keep reading, please. Keep on reading. Eventually you'll hit the concept which I'm actually describing. So far you're close, but off the mark, my friend.
1. Uncaused cause is in the *exact same boat* as infinite regress. Both are assumptions. However, infinite regress, itself is an uncaused cause (how does infinite regress begin?)! Therefore its reasonable to suggest that not all things need a cause.
2. Quantum fluctuations are a physical property that can be observed from within the universe, yes. This says nothing about it being limited to the universe we're in.
3. The evidence is a laboratory. That's how they came with this explanation in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity
Off is a channel, bald is a hair-style. Gochya.
They are quite trained to lie to non-believers. The doctorine of taqiyya.
You are simply unfamiliar with what Islam really is.
I would find it funny if he turned out to be one of them.
You must have missed their parade, and the recent shitshow in London. Cameras have agendas too you think?
Another good one is "Off is a channel" or "Bald is a hair style"
Quantum fluctuations remove the necessity of infinite regress, and pave the way to explain the entire universe as a zero-sum of existence.