Ten oz

Researchers at Princeton University have begun crystallizing light as part of an effort to answer fundamental questions about the physics of matter. The researchers are not shining light through crystal -- they are transforming light into crystal. As part of an effort to develop exotic materials such as room-temperature superconductors, the researchers have locked together photons, the basic element of light, so that they become fixed in place. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140909130810.htm I saw this in the news today and thought it was rather interesting. In the article an "artificial atom" made of 100 billion atoms is described. Can someone explain, in a for dummies way, how an artificial atom is made. I am guess it has something to do with applying electromagnetism to specific elements to make then behave as one atom? Also, if a person were to ingest the crystal made of light would they basically turn into superman? Just kidding

I addressed your "question". In my last post I provided links showing that police in St. Louis county have a history of racial bias. That information coupled with the higher rates of stop and searches (stats to which I also linked) clearly illustrate that in Ferguson it is not blacks who are instigating the interactions they're protesting. What more can I do to address your question? You have supplied ZERO information to support the assertion your question imposes. What evidence do you. What is your assertion based on other than your own general philosophy?

I am merely pointing out how in practice there doesn't seem to be any connection between a work force being desperate and productivity. You are right that there is also no direct connection between wealth and productivity. The wealthiest country per capita is not the most productive country. As I stated in my last post resources management, both natural and intellectual resource management, tends to be the key to a healthy economy. For clarity, this is an off topic discussion. I do not think providing people with $60 a day as a form of altruism is a good idea. I appears to me that starting with the premises you listed has worked more often than it has fail in modern society. Then again it could be argued that all the Countries in the world today with high standards of living got there partially built on questionable histories of imperialism?

By on to something I just meant that you had made a point, brought something into the discussion, I felt was worth further exploration.

While what you are saying makes sense and generally would be accepted as correct it is not reflective of the actual state of the world. Countries with more poor people are not more productive than countries full of middle class people. Working harder to makes ends meat isnt the common thread of the most wealthy or productive Countries. Management of resources physical or intellectual is. Good wages, free educations, subsidized healthcare, affordable housing, and etc do not cripple economies. Does not encourage apathy. Lots of people around the world live in poverty. Lots of peiple would do just about anything for pennies. Those areas of the world are not the most productive one.

Lot of people were arested, lots of people were injuried, and no it does not skew that statistics as they are complied throughout the whole region and country over years. None of those above questions support the assertion of your question. The protests were in response to a claim of disproportional stop, search, and arrest rates and not the source of those rates. http://ago.mo.gov/VehicleStops/2013/reports/161.pdf Last your the St. Louis county Lt. Patrick Hayes was fired for directing officers to target blacks. Yes, Ferguson is in that county. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-county-police-lieutenant-denies-racial-profiling-order-that/article_2935ade9-37ec-5ba8-be59-3b73b3a6e398.html The Cop at the center of this recent controversy had previously been relieved from another local police department that was disbanded over racial issues. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html Multiple officers were fired or agreed to step down after being caught threatening journalist and protestors. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/missouri-officers-job-ferguson-threats-article-1.1921712 My problem with your question is all the beating around the bush. The "devil's advocate" and "sake of discussion" stuff. You pose a for the sake of conversation question then insist on stats and other forms of evidence to disprove an idea that by your own post was just tossed out to play devil advocate. Clearly the idea was more than just for the sake of or devil advocate. If you have a point, make it.

I am not coloring your words. As posted your question asks if blacks aren't bringing trouble onto themselves. Simply adding "deliberate or not" and "real or precieved" doesn't change the conclusion implied by the question. Implying that blacks non deliberately do it does not make the implication impartial. Based on real or false information on purpose or by accident you are indicating a specific thing. A person or people either do something or they don't. Deliberate or not they have done something or they haven't. Adding those words doesn't change the action. That question can not be answered in the affirmative as deliberately or non deliberately unless one assumes the notion true. The experience as reported by minorities, not only blacks, can not be true and the answer to your question be yes. By experience minorities do not report their behavior to be "more likely to fight back". For reasons real and or perceived part being the same difference. As for my bais, I am merely pointing out the trouble with your question. The suggestion it makes that you seem to be trying to deny. Cut the fluff; you are asking if it isn't something of their own doing.

You did draw a conclusion which you hedged as a "devil's advocate" and "just for the sake of" comment. The basic implication of your post was that blacks bring trouble with police on themselves by essentially being too sensitive. It is an ugly implication as it denigrates a large group of people while at the same time implying their feelings and experiences are moot. The comment was supported nothing other than a question mark.If you would like to debate this as a thoery I am willing to do so. I not going to carry the debate "just for the sake of conversation" though. What are you supporting your assertion with?

There are also many jobs that could be done by machines or as collateral responsibilities of other workers but cheap labor is more profitable and or desirable. Whether its janitorial, farming, manufacturing, or etc the type of labor required is often decided by the cheapest means a business can exploit. That doesn't mean that type of labor is actually neccessary. Which is why throughout the history of many countries like the United States we were able to end unfair labor practices such but limited to Slavery, indentured servitude, child labor, unequal pay for women. Providing the people in those examples with better pay, more security, better treatment, and etc would have hurt the economies rather than helped by your theory. Rather countries that have unions, higher wages, higher levels of education, more economic stability, and so on tend to also have better economies and happier citizens. Even within countries regions with more economic stability thrive. Here in the United States from examples states with higher wages and more benifits for there residents ar more productive than right to work states that begrudgingly enforce the basic minium standards.

Not to be rude but your suggestion reads as though it were more than "just for the sake of conversation". Your chioce to distance yourself for the idea by stating you are merely playing devil's advocate implies you understand the notion is a flawed one. Why mention it at all? Perhaps you are passive agressively making a statement by pretending what is clearing an ugly notion is some how worth debate just for the sake of it..

This implies economic stability is directly associated to work/production. The less a person has the harder they work. I think that is a fallacy myself. there are productive people at every level of the economic ladder. Just as wealthy and poor people alike are responsible for various inventions that have transformed society. Money is merely a form of power. It is used to influence and control people. Sometimes for productive purposes and other times for destructive purposes. Either way money isnt the reason for human productivity. I do not believe in a world where everyone had economic stability production would suffer.

The plausibilityof the example is what makes it funny.

Perhaps an early hominid accidentally died by falling into lava, by chance something good happened the next day and that is where the idea of god appeasement through sacrifice came from?

@ the OP, unfortunately I am a bit of a cynic when it comes to capitalism. If such places existed offering people money I believe the people receiving money would quickly be exploited. I can imagine any number of schemes where an average person would simply wind up owing their $60 a day to someone else. That money would get factored in as income and people would be be given loans for homes and cars they otherwise can't afford. Flexible interest rates and inflation would ensure they weren't able to keep the cars and homes. After a brief up swing to the economy there would be a collaspe leaving an enormous amount of people permanently indebted.

In my opinion Kissinger is a warmonger. What makes you believe killing ISIS members would help Western interests in the region? How did we get here in the first place? Do you believe if the United States had not removed Saddam and haven't been undermining Assad that a group like ISIS would be terrorizing the region now? Can you say for sure destroying ISIS doesn't lead to something worse? Since the War on Terror began a decade ago do you believe the western world has successful done anything to improve the region or make themselves safer? I personal do not think they have. We (USA) pushed into Afghanistan and as a result many rebels moved into Pakistan. Today Afghanistan is home to little more opium drug lords and Pakistan which was previously a strong U.S. allie is great diminished. Terrorist still call both places home. We also pushed into Iraq and removed Saddam. Iraq did not have terrorist. Today they have ISIS. But hey, both Saddam and Osama are dead so it was all worth it right.... What makes Iran and Syria "failed" states; the U.S. not getting along with them or the fact that Russia does? Saudi Arabia beheaded at least 19 people in August for offenses ranging from drug smuggling to sorcery. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-executes-19-during-half-of-august-in-disturbing-surge-of-beheadings-9686063.html Saudi Arabia still stones women to death for adultery - http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3326/islam-lashes-stoning-women Saudi Arabia is a known human rights violator for their treatment of migrant workers and women - http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/21/us-saudi-un-rights-idUSBRE99K07X20131021 You call Syria and Iran are failed states then ask why Saudi Arabia is doing something because they can afford it; because Saudi Arabia doesn't care. The West turns a blind eye to all the human rights violations of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, and etc. Wealthy countries that sell the West oil get a pass. Wasn't Bin Laden Saudi? Don't many wealthy families in the above mentioned countries finiancially support groups like Hamas, Al Quada, and ISIS? Assuming you know that they do what long term problem does killing individual ISIS members solve? What long term goal does removing Assad achieve?

It seems like you have been following this very long. Had you been you'd know why these "easy targets" weren't taken out. As a matter of foriegn policy the United States have wanted Assad gone. Since 2011 there has been pressure on the administration to arm the rebels who were fighting against Assad. Many even call on the administration to provide air support to the rebels and bomb location in Syria to weaken Assad. News article from 2013 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-begins-weapons-delivery-to-syrian-rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html Eventually in Dec. of 2013 the radical wing of the rebels in Syria took over and basically formed ISIS as we know it today. That is when he West stopped provided aid. However the removal of Assad from power has remained a priority. Attacking our previously supported rebels would've benifited Assad. The enemy of our enemy is our friend seemed to prevail and ISIS was ignored, allowed, encouraged, and or tolerated so long as they were a thorn in Assad's side. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-cuts-aid-to-syria-rebels-as-islamists-advance/ The U.S. and Britain has been working with various elements of ISIS since 2011 officially. Perhaps longer unofficially. Lack of strikes are not do to lack of information. This isn't the first time supporting rebels turned out poorly. Just look at the Taliban and Al Quada. So the position we are stuck in now is a bit of a catch 22 right? Destroying ISIS empowers Assad, Iran, and ultimately Russia sense Syria and Iran have a relationship with Russia and no relationship with the west. With Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan in their current pathetic states Iran and Syria backed by Russia would become the strongest powers in the region. That is not something the West wants to see. An example of this concern was recently voiced by former United States Sec. of State Henry Kissinger who flat out said Iran is a bigger threat than ISIS - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/06/henry-kissinger-iran-isis_n_5777706.html So what would like to see happen? Should the United States move troops back into Iraq to defeat ISIS to the benifit of Syria's Assad and Iran? Perhaps the U.S. should just offer Assad an olive branch and provide him direct support to defeat ISIS? It is a very difficult thing. We, United States, would prefer to see them all defeated ISIS, Assad, and Iran. That last option just doesn't seem possible though.

A year ago politicians were having serious talks about helping such rebel groups as ISIS to defeat Assad. It seems we are constantly focused only on today's enemy. We ignore how complicated the world can be. The United States once armed the Taliban and Al Quada to fight the Russian for example. Some times the only way not to lose is to not play. If the western world must play I hope they take a fast is slow and slow is fast approach.

The discovery that certian rocks produced sparks came from tool making. The playful curiosity would've came later and isn't necessary for having accidentally making a fire. I was just providing extra example. In the case of the hot embers they could not nearly as easily been interacted with nor would they have been as readily availible. I am mildly offended you even have to ask. I thought it was pretty damn funny when I was typing it if I do say so myself... No contradiction. We, humans, have not witnessed Chimps use things in a new way. When we started observing chimps they were already using sticks. We have not witnessed a new use. Simply understanding that at some point in history they must have started using sticks is not equal to us witnessing the process. And yes other animals use things. Hardly the point. Chimps were merely one example. What examples do you have of animals, free from human intervention, developing new types of tools? Animals where we have observed it happen. The God stuff is obviously a joke. Please lighten up. We are debating a speculative topic where we both may be mostly right or completely wrong. In previous post I have clearly stated sharpening wooden spears with other piece of wood. I did not say sharpening spears against rocks. Again, speculative debate. Neither of use will be proving anything here today. It is not known what the intial draw to fire was. The best argument either of us are capable of making serve only to entertain each other. Much like sparking rocks or playing with hot embers entertained our ancestors. If you can a find, track, and take a deer down with nothing but what the forrest provides more reliably than I can make a fire with sticks and stones you need your own survival show. I myself am not ashamed to admit that I would be eating insects over a small fire that took me hours upon hours to create. That is assuming the climate was hospitable. Otherwise I would possibly be dead being eaten by insects.

Fire carrying is not a use but rather a means to use potentially use and thus an inspiration or reason must have proceeded it. Why would a group of hominids scavenge the remains of a wildfire, collect hot embers, and then carry those hot embers to a new local? How would they have known embers alone could even create a new fire? Reason for wanting fire had to come first just as I must present a speculation before you can attempt to top it. Natural fires existed throughout evolution. One day our interaction with fire changed. Other animals and Humans alike tend to use existing materials in the way they are generally used. It is seldom a human thinks to do something completely new with a common item. Even something seemingly simply as the wheel took god hundreds of thousands of years to finally give us. That I am aware of we haven't really seen other animals invent new ways us using common items at all. Chimps use basic stick tools to collect insects. We did not see them invent that use for the stick though, haven't seen them make the leap to sharpening those sticks and spearing larger prey. As for how they came to use sticks in the first place, we don't know. Normally something drives change though. When something new is done there tends to be a series of reasons. Simplicity in theories provide one dimensional explanations. An example of such an explanation would be to say early humans adapted to wearing animal fur because they were cold. While not totally wrong it is very one dimensional. Wearing animal fur wasn't possible before tools capable of skinning an animal and cleaning tissues from fur were invented. For that matter killing animals large enough to wear was impossible before humans designed the tools and stradegies that could kill large prey. So wearing fur required a long progression of changes and advancements. Simply being cold being the least of them. Humans were able to think of doing different things with animal fur because so many other conditions had already changed. That and nudity is sin of course. Perhaps nudity is why god held off so long on giving us the wheel? Sharpening spears and noticing the charred ones that smoked a little bit during sharpening made better spears would've have provided a change in how fire was thought about. Would've provided a reason for wanting fire. Just as many hunting parties resulted in nothing caught I imagine many attempts to create fire resulted in no fires. To say that it is too hard to make fire and thusly wouldn't have been done is nonesense. Killing deer and making clothing from its fur with nothing but stick and stones is incredibly difficult too and yet was done for thousands of years as a standard way of life. I would go so far as to say you and I would stand a much better chance of making a fire with sticks and stones than we would killing a deer with sticks and stones. Yes, collecting fire from natural fires is a lot easier. I have no doubt that whenever possible that is how early hominids did it. I am speaking to the desire to have fire in the first place. Something changed. Something made early hominids view fire differently after millions of years of evolving in a world with natural fires they/we instinctively avoided. What made the instinct to avoid become a desire to have????? Burning bushes that spoke aside.

Why would something be carried unless there were already an intended use? Examples of early transport of fire do not speak to what inspired use of fire in the first place. Obviously inspiration came before particle application? What is a credible reason? Both of our thoughts on the issue are speculation. We know early humans, once they were using fire, both transported fire in pots and started fires. We don't know the origins of the original fire being transported? We don't know what motivatived early hominids to make their own fires. My opinion; Flint and iron rich rocks produce sparks. We know early hominids used them as tools. I don't think it is a stretch to think sparks would've been a wonder to early hominids. Sparks produce light and an odor unique to burned material. Creating sparks just for the sake it or as a game in addition to tool making is easy for me to imagine. Kids do it to this day for fun. As for primitive wooden tools they were often created by friction heavy means. Wood heats up, chars, and smokes fairly easily. Again, it is easy for me to imagine that producing smoke while rubbing a point into a spear would've intrigued early hominids. I also think it is fair to assume they took notice of the added strength in the point of charred spears. These varies ways of accidental or unintended heat and smoke production over time could've helped shape the way they viewed and thought about fire. Wildfires have always happened. I think it is easier to look outside the box when faced with something new, especially if it isn't threatening. New things spark curiousity. Natural wildfires were nothing new and very threatening. In my opinion natural fires would've produced a standard flight vs fight response. Not a response of curiosity and discovery. So what changed?

I have no doubt it would've been easier to carry fire than create fire. I never suggested otherwise. My comments were directed at how humans first came to see fire as a tool or benificial thing. Not how early humans created or transported it. I don't think you can draw linear connections between what humans did with it once they were using it with how they initially thought to use it. Ideas and applications of ideas are often different. I don't think wild fires would've been the source hominids initial interest in fire because it would've been so threatening. Small fires that quickly went out and did not destroyed everything in sight would've allowed hominids to think about fire rather than just evacuate and run from it. Seeing that fire could be contained, small, and short lived would've been a huge insight I think. Which is why I think accidental fires started by hominids is the more likely reason hominids starting thinking about fire in ways no other animals has. No animal other than humans reasonably could've create fire accidentally during other activities. That said once they started wanting fire surely collecting it from wild fires would've been common place. I am commenting on what made them want fire. Not how they used it.

Maybe, I am not claiming to know. Just giving my opinion. Perhaps they would've return post fire. I just don't know of examples in nature where animals return to a still smoldering habitat. Then again there aren't any examples in natures where animals do many of the things humans do......

Any two rocks won't work. Flint and rocks high in iron however will regularly produce a spark. That is only one way. Friction pulling rope or line around trees or rocks could've charred or caught fire. Even using wood to sharpen other pieces of wood would've easily created smoke, heat, and charring. Not a stretch that early hominids could have made the connection between charring/smoke and fire. It took an incredible amounts of time for hominids to figure out how to use fire so however unlikely accidental fires may have been they still did most likely happen. In my opinion accidental fires created sharpening spears, making tools out of flint, and so on seems more likely because they wouldn't have as quickly gotten out of control the way natural fires do.

Good question. This is why I think humans probably didn't exploit the benefits of fire until they started producing as a by product of using other tools. Natural fires or wild firs are very dangerous and would've force our ancestors to flee just as all other animals flee. I don't think early humans hung around wild fires looking to stay warm. Wild fire grow and spread too quickly and too unpredictably

I too have always found the world of chaos without religion theory ridiculous. Humans need other humans. We are a cooperative species. Humans thrive in groups. We are not solitary animals. A humans alone would be too preoccupied with the daily chores of life to do anything else. Creating societies large enough that different people can focus on different aspects of life (farming, building, educating, etc) has been critical to human advancement. God or no god doesn't change the basic fact that humans succeed through cooperation.