syntax252

OK--I understand that due to the Earth's rotation, that someone standing on the equator is moving 1000 MPH West to East. And I even understand that the Earth is going around the Sun, so we are moving at a speed that could be discribed as "just a hellin'." Now I got this kid who want's to know how fast the solar system is moving in the galaxy. Can any of you smart fellers help me on this? And while you are at it, you might as well figure out how fast the Galaxy is moving through space, because that is prolly what he's gonna want to know next. By the way, how many directions are we moving in at the same time? Any why doesn't that make us dizzy?

Well, I have a brighter view, albiet with a somber ending. I think that the whole world will industralize to the point that they will all share in the rewards of industrialzation, that is to say that they will be paid more, will have more, consume more and, in a lot of places, live longer more healthy lives. Now for the somber part. I am concerned that the old planet just might not have sufficient resources to support some 6 billion people living lives as opulent as 300 million Americans do. If it comes to that, when push comes to shove, I am afraid that we could see war on a scale not here-to-fore dreamed of.

I think that killing is indeed in the nature of some people' date=' at least to the extent that it comes a lot easier for them. I doubt that it is inherited though, unless it is some sort of maldevelopement of the brain. But, regardless of [b']why[/b] it is easier for some people to kill, isn't the fact that it is easier for them to kill enough reason to get them off the streets and into a secure place where they can't? At least after they have demonstrated their willingness to do so?

I am in favor of executing people who have murdered others, but I don't trust the state far enough to get it right every time. That leads to quite a lot in the way of appeals, which leads to a lot of time passing before the sentence is actually imposed, which leads me to believe that it is probably not very effective as a deterrent. About all one can say for sure is that it is one hell of a recidivism reducer. On that note, I read an article recently that pointed out that there have been hundreds of people killed by murderers who had been convicted of murder and were later released, or who had killed other prisoners or guards. Many more that even the highest estimates of people who have been executed by mistake. Still.........

It seems to me that man's reliance on intelligence for survival has changed the game somewhat--perhaps a lot. In a primitive setting, the things that made life more probable, that is to the point of procreation were physical things like strength and endurance. As man's intelligence developed, things like mechanical ability and problem solving rose in importance until now, physical attributes are not very important at all. Whaddya think?

I have long had a theory that humans rose to the top of the food chain because of 2 primary things. Intellience and hands with opposable thumbs. After all, what good would intelligence do to an earthworm? What would he do with it? But since our ancestors had hands, they were able to grasp tools that made life a more probable eventuality. If evolution depends upon random mutation to see what works out to be an advantage to a species, then it seems to me that the human hand is a valuable asset to the utilization of any flashes of intelligence that may occure. A horse may have a colt that can imagine how to make a spear, but what is a horse going to do with that sort of knowledge? This is of course, an oversimplication, but do you see what I am getting at?

If China is truely a laissez faire capitalist economy, then would it not follow that the workers will do what we did in America? Wouldn't they form unions and demand more pay and better working conditions? And when they all get their little cottage to live in, won't they then turn to environmental concerns? And won't all that cost Chinese manufacturers more money to produce their products? Won't that sort of equalize the equasion to some degree? If China does not pay their own workers enough money to buy the things that they produce, they will be missing out on one of the world's biggest markets, right? And If they do pay them that kind of money, we will be able to compete with them--I think.....

My wife took a couple of pictures of me this morning when she found out that I had posted my "beard" picture, so here is what I look like today....

No. It is just an old hillbilly's expression, passed on to me by my old paternal grandmother. It indicates a state of gabberflastation. It is a way of saying "that be a pure wonderment."

According to the link that J.C. posted, the Earth has to rotate more that 360 degrees to make a solar day. I gather from the link that the answer to my question is that the Earth rotates 366 times in a 365 day year because the rotation is counter clockwise for both the orbit and the rotation as seen from a point above the North pole. Right? Edited to add: So, I guess that it takes a little less than 24 hrs. for the Earth to rotate 360 degrees on it's axis. They said 4 minuets less.

I am more than a little dubious about these "out of body" experiences.

If the Earth did not rotate on it's axis, but it did still orbit the sun, then one day and one year would be the same. See what I am saying here? So, the question is, in a 365 day year, how many times does the Earth rotate on it's axis? 364? or 366.

I will.

It would seem like we have already included robots in our everyday lives to some extent, and as far as I can see, it has freed us from mundane chores so that we can devote ourselves to more intellectual persuits--like discussion forums. How far this will go, I would not care to hazard, but I will tell you one thing, if I could have bought a robot and sent him to work in my stead, I probably would have done so 40 years ago......

Here is one I wrote for my wife when she turned old enough for social security. On being sixty two Are you concerned 'bout gettin' old because your sixty two? Are birthdays pilin' up so fast it's got you feelin' blue? Well here's a thought in which my dear you really ought to delve You're not sixty two today you're only fifty twelve! JD

Would you agree, or do you disagree that that is a decision for the Supreme Court?

Well do you have any case referrence data to back that up? No, as a matter of fact, I am not attacking him at all. Hell, I feel sorry for him. But it is apparent that he is transfixed on this one issue--is it not? Yes. You will have to define "expemption" Merriam Webster didn't have a file on it. Well then, go ahead and qualify an answer if you wish and I will take a look at it.

Nooooooooo, because they were not asking anyone to engage in any prayer. All they were doing was pointing out that in America we consider a referrence to God to be one of out freedoms--unlike in communist countries. I consider him to be fanatic because only a fanatic would consider the issue to be important enough, even if he thought it was offensive, to take a case to the US Supreme Court, when at the same time, other religious referrences are rife in this country. The reason that it is of no consequence to be "forced" to "endure" a religious referrence in a public school, is because the USA is full of referrences to religion in our every day lives--as I pointed out about a page ago.... Do you think the good doctor would consider the Declaration of independence to be off-limits to school kids also? Or that "in God we trust" should be taken off our money? Or that churches should be somehow disgised as hardware stores so that these kids would not have to look at them? Either the answer is "yes" or it is "no." In either case, it exposes him as a fanatic zelot.