Leaderboard

Isn't the ability to bullshit the means to nearly all wealth?

Who knew?

Ultimately this statement is true. Now keeping the guns out of the hands of people who do is the key. Also known as gun control.

You're not going to.

So can a piece of string.

The video is complete click bait hokum. It's so laced with jargon and pseudo-science words that it's virtually incomprehensible, and I suspect that is the intention. From what I can decipher, the maker postulates some method of changing photons so that they interact with the strong and weak nuclear forces, and then using a "field" of these photons at extremely high frequencies to create a shield around a spacecraft that would isolate it from normal spacetime and, incidentally, protect the spacecraft from radiation and debris while it moves at extremely high velocities. It's complete nonsense, and only tosses around Alcubierre's name as a way to attract attention. It has nothing to do with Alcubierre's paper. This type of thing just makes me angry. The guy is nothing more than a troll. New category - science troll.

Orbital velocity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed

In the all local commissions (e.g. temporarily used school) counting votes there should be members of the all parties involved in election, members of UN, EU, and couple from other major countries. Each voting card should have unique ID (MD5/SHA checksum?), visible only in UV light, and printed in quantity equal exactly the number of people who can vote. After finished voting, there should be counted not just used voting cards, but also checked remaining empty not used voting cards, to ensure their quantity matches, and whether they all have the right checksums. Local commissions don't only send data to central commission, but reveal results on-line. Media counts by them self. Voter can use UV lamp and his/her own smartphone to make photography of his/her own voting card with revealed checksum. There should be on-line database with revealed voting cards with their checksums visible in UV light. So everybody could check whether their vote is correct by looking up unique ID/checksum. Without revealing their personal data to everybody (that was introduced to disallow attack on people supporting one party/person). That reminded me, one ancient way of voting. Using black and white stones. Everybody take stone with color they want (it represents person), and puts in jar. In modern version, if we have two opponents, voter receives two voting cards, one puts in box, second one is "canceled" and must take with him/her. So, if something is wrong with counting, voters can check it by revealing voting cards they took with them, and not used. ..please add your own ideas how to make cheating much more complicated.. ps.I modern world, in some countries, fraudulent elections have been replaced by influencing minds of "not so smart", uneducated and undecided voters. Brainwashing on a large scale.

Given the current controversies over data retention and leakage, I think this idea is too early before the security methods and protocols are sorted and accepted to be reasonably secure. This won't work in a universal care system because everyone is treated the same. It's a recipe for discrimination on the part of the insurance suppliers.

You have got this so wrong, that even though CharonY and Strange have already corrected you I think the point needs to be stated even more strongly. This powerful piece is moral from top to bottom. It is a brilliant and scathing indictment of the mind set, policies and beliefs of significant portions of the Conservative party in the early 1980s. It is intended to make people laugh, true, but its fundamental purpose is to remind the public of the thinking that lurked behind the public utterances. The strategy is well conceived and flawlessly executed. Lure the audience in with the promise of laughter, then make the outrageous comments wearing the face of the "enemy" and let loose with both barrels.

Dimreepr; This is one of the reasons why truth is measured. We know that people lie. How do you think we know that? We measure their statements against prior statements, the facts of the situation, the consistency of their own statements, etc., and what we know about them. Lies can be uncovered. And why do you think that is? Why would someone not want to face or admit a truth? As Koti keeps saying, the truth really does not care, so why would someone care about a truth to the point of denying it? Because it makes them feel bad. It makes them think that they are wrong or maybe bad, and no one wants to be wrong or bad, so they deny the truth. That is the main point of this thread. Are truth, right, and wrong related? The better question is: Should they be? Can truth be mingled with right and wrong without being corrupted? I don't see how. When you mix truth with right and wrong while defining truth, what you end up with is moral truth -- or maybe you could say religious truth. I don't remember anyone worrying about whether facts are right or wrong, they simply are facts, or they are false. Philosophy studies truth; we don't like to see it corrupted. In most of my threads, I find that the membership is more interested in opinions regarding right and wrong than they are in any truths. Opinions are not worth squat unless they are based on truths, and those truths have to relate to the topic -- because truth is relative. In my thread Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex, I learned that sexual harassment was bad and a problem for women. That is all very interesting, but the thread was about power, and the last time I checked, Page 10, the members still had no idea of what a woman's power actually is or why governments and societies work so hard to control that power. It became a useless thread that did nothing more than take some rep points from me -- a waste of my time. In my thread Dinosaurs, Deuteronomy, and Ebola, I learned that a lot of members have issues with religion and can not discuss anything related to religion without becoming quite stupid. I learned very little about disease, nothing of it's relationship to ecosystems, or whether or not bacteria and viruses can actually influence the self-balancing of ecosystems much like hormones self balance file forms. I was too busy addressing the member's statements on the right or wrong of religion. Again, I lost rep points and wasted my time. In my thread Consciousness and Evolution, I had learned and did not state my ideas up front. Instead, I let the membership ramble on for seven pages while they debated whether or not all life is conscious, even though Philosophy and Science have both confirmed this is so. I am assuming that people either do not want to understand that they are consciously on a similar level with all life, or they do not like the idea of eating things that are conscious, which would be where the right and wrong of it comes in. Luckily, I had Tar covering my back and countering the down votes, so I got to finish the thread and even learned a few things -- mostly from Tar. I would like to do a thread on Freud's ideas about infantile sexuality. I think there are some truths there that have been overlooked, but are very important to our families, our society, and our future. Can you imagine what kind of a nightmare that would be? People love to hate Freud, and everyone insists that infants are innocent, but sexuality is bad (a religious view) so infants can't be sexual. Between all of the finger pointing and rights and wrongs, I would never be able to get to the points that I would like to make or learn anything. Truth would be irrelevant. So I wrote this thread in the hopes that I might be able to convince a few people to extract their ideas of right and wrong from the Philosophy threads. And maybe I could learn how to present my ideas in a way that does not trigger these responses, but still has integrity and holds my interests. Gee Strange; I agree, it is not simple. I tend to understand truth and visualize it as a reflection of reality. When I say this, you might think that I mean a large screen or mirror that reflects reality back, but it is more like thousands of mirrors. There is at least one reflection for every question asked, and many times there are more mirrors relating to that question because the question has more perspectives or consequences than just one answer. Some of the mirrors reflect motion as they are related to time. Some are clear, other are more or less murky, and still others are blank when we do not know the truth of the matter. When we all see a clear, static reflection of something, we tend to call it a fact and say that it is objective. There are some truths that we see clearly and commonly, but they are not facts. I call these Common Truths, as they are common to many people within certain groups, or they are common to situations. There are also Classic Truths, which are truths that have stood the test of time. Time is very relevant to truth because of change, but also because when there is no change this improves the reflection's clarity. This is why long-held beliefs are difficult to change, because every day that passes makes the reflection more clear, more trustworthy. This does not just hold true for religious beliefs, but also for the belief that the sun will rise in the East, and you will wake up in your own bed. I also designated Acceptable Truths as truths that could be relied upon because at least three different things pointed to the truth of it -- preferably three different types of information. I believe that Science uses a lot of Acceptable Truth and some Common Truth. There is also Simple Truth, which is just whether or not a person lied. There are Designated Truths, which are measures or directional truths that we establish so that we can measure and weigh reality. Science uses a lot of Designated Truths. Then there are Universals, which are universally true. There are Laws of Physics and Nature, which are pretty valid. There may be more, I can't remember. When I wrote the thread, A Measure of Truth, I was looking for some way to define and classify types of truth and the reliability of different truths. I concluded that if a truth could be called Acceptable, Common, and Classic, it would be reliable enough to form a premise. I like some hip-hop, and I like some opera. That is the truth. Truth is not right or wrong, it simply is. Gee iNow; I agree with you. The biggest differences between Philosophy and Science are their procedures or processes. The procedures differ because Philosophy puts it's work into the all important premise and believes that starting off with truth is likely to lead to more truth, but starting with a false premise is almost guaranteed to produce garbage. Science puts it's work into the testing and believes that many things can look like they are true, but testing can sometimes prove that they are garbage. My thought is that when we start with Philosophy's truth and end with Science's testing, we are damned good and the results are very reliable. That is my inner philosopher talking. Gee Ten oz; When I was talking about "white lies", I stated that they were part of social truths. When you go to visit Great Aunt Matilda and ask, "How are you?" Do you really want to listen to an hour of complaints about her gall bladder surgery, her arthritis, her loss of hearing, her aches and pains, her worry about death, and her missing her favorite soap opera because you showed up at the wrong time? Or would you rather hear, "I'm pretty OK. How are you?" Even if you insist that you would be deprived of the information and want to hear Matilda's complaints, I can assure you that it will only happen once or twice, because the third time you will stop visiting. Great Aunt Matilda knows this, so instead she will tell a few social lies. Gee Koti; I agree that the truth does not care. I can not agree that it is absolute as I can not know that. I have issues with theories of everything as they tend to cherry pick the layers of onion that suit their theory. Gee

Inner peace is when you claim you have inner peace but repeatedly argue with other members on a forum.

IMO the American people aren't like a courtroom. Doesn't work like that. In court, if evidence(DNC emails) is obtained illegally(through hacking), that evidence is to be thrown out and can't be used. However, since American people don't simply ignore evidence against the DNC simply because Russians hacked it, they meddled in the elections. My very honest opinion, if you want it, is that the best way to avoid being ambushed is to not be pulling BS like that in the first place. If the DNC hadn't been lying to people in the first place, covering things up, and rigging the democratic nomination regardless of how votes went, the emails wouldn't have caused anywhere near as much damage. The horrible crime the Russian hackers did was publish nearly 20,000 emails. On top of that, the DNC had ANOTHER opportunity to fix it. They could have said something like "We're doing an internal review. People were caught lying to voters, people were caught hiding things, people were caught rigging the elections, these same people will be investigated and probably fired. We, as the Democratic National Convention, do not tolerate corruption and will take all actions possible to get rid of it in our party." And then they could have followed through with it. https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-hacking-fast-facts/index.html (unless CNN is controlled by Russian hackers and so are all the sources they've listed, the information I've posted here is in that link) And this link outlines some of the things the emails say. Racist things(Skip to the last one on the page for that one), corruption, trying to rig the primaries, etc. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37639370

So pretty much, my science teacher spoke about that egg thing where there's two eggs, one hollow and one normal,and if you dropped them at the same time they will hit the floor at the same time. But i thought that the more the mass the more attraction it will have to other matter of higher mass (the earth). Sandbox talk: So if you perfectly dropped the two eggs at exactly the same time in a vacuum so there's no opposite force and it were attracted to a gravitational force equivalent to earth,with the surface being absolutely flat, the egg with the most mass will hit the ground first at a small scale compared to the other hollow egg. Its a stupid thing but i want to prove a lady who spent 9 yrs of her life learning physics wrong.