Cadmus

Of course. You do it every day. This is well-documented in what is known as the twin paradox. However, you have it in reverse. You are also taking it to extremes. There is no need for "almost light speed". Anyway, when you speak of 6 months and 6 months, the only possible context for that is earth time. Therefore, the person who left was gone for 1 year of earth time. During this time, the people on earth will have aged 1 year, and the person who left will have aged almost not at all relative to them.

I have never mocked you. I think that your interpretation is too strong. First of all, all of this is speculation, no matter how educated. Therefore, at best I think that you should consider that it implies that "it is currently believed that ...". Second of all, I think that what they mean is the abrupt creation of the universe as we know it today. I find it difficult to believe that they want their readers to take it from them that it is absolutely certain that nothing existed before the Big Bang. Pre Big Bang era is outside of the consideration of most scientists, due to the (fairly) complete lack of evidence. Therefore, I think that they ignored any such era, if it exists, rather than explicitly denying any such existence. Again, I think that they are referring to the universe as science is able to study it now.

Scientific American has a major article on this. I seem to remember that it was in May or August of 2003.

First of all, note that your output is all on a single line. However, what is used is not print(), but println(), which causes line feeds. You meant to use print(). For your personal information, note also that it is typically not considered good form to begin method names with an uppercase letter. Consider a simpler case, where n=1. The if statement fails, and the print prints 1. Then, Mystery(0) is called. The if statement fails, and the print prints 0. Then, Mystery(-1) is called. The if statement succeeds, and the method returns. The calling method then contintues, after the call to Mystery(-1), printing out n, which was 0. The method ends, and it returns to the calling method. The calling method then continues, after the call to Mystery(0), printing out n, which was 1. The initial method call then returns. Examining the output, we have 1001. If we extrapolate to an initial n=4, and change the println() to pint(), then I would anticipate the output that your anticipated. I think that if you run this problem, you will get this output. I think that your problem is that you do not realize that there are 2 print() statements for each value of n. Therefore, each value will be printed twice. In between the calls to print(), there are calls to Mystery() with a lower number, and so its pair of print() will appear between the print() for the earlier call with the higher number. The final call will be with n=0, and therefore 2 zeros will be at the center.

No medical background is required to form an opinion of that nature. Two points: 1. Don't you think that $750,000 is a lot of money? 2. Just how many decades of care do you think that this money would last? How many millions do you think have been spent so far on people trying to take control of her life? Excellent observation. You are suggesting that she dreamed up the Sciavo case, not having heard about it from anywhere. You are playing along with her dream, and you accuse her of not getting info from anywhere? Why not create your own dream and see who plays along?

I disagree. This is clearly not necessary. It is desireable, I agree. However, based on the way that the government works, and the way that people are swayed by silly propaganda and self-serving ideas, it is clear that people are typically not honest with themselves, and therefore that it is not necessary, however desireable.

I agree. However, for many people there are more important issues at stake that children, who don't have much of a voice it seems. Government domination of people's lives is something more motivating to some people, it seems.

Although you express your opinion as being so dominant and correct, I don't feel compelled to accept it as gospel. Please tell me how you define crime such that you can make such a strong statement. Why is it that all of Schiavo's opponents, such as the Bush administration don't seem to share your view? Why do you state your opinion in such strong terms as being so much better than that of others? What is your purpose?

I must admt that when you said "we", I thought that you meant we. I did not realize that you consider Congress butting in for obvious political brownie points on a single case where 2 dozen judges had already weighed in over a decade, against the wishes of well over half of the population according to all of the polls mentioned on news channels as being what you meant when you said we. Perhaps in the future you might avoid the word we when you don't mean you or me. p.s. Please excuse me if this hurts you in some way.

I disagree that this is even relevant. Anyway, I think that you can blame the right to lifers for this inhumanity, as it is they who have helped to criminalize more humane methods of active euthanasia. Do you have anything specific in mind to cause you to make this statement? I doubt if he was ever disallowed to divorce her. Are you suggesting that he be forced to divorce her? I disagree. We are trying to discuss what we think the decision makers should take into account. No one on this forum has any real say in the decision. Speak for yourself please. You are entitled to make that assumption, but "we" have no such requirement.

Since you have taken the time to rephrase, I will try to respond to your question. First, a slight quibble over your use of the word correct. I do not think that pulling the plug is the optimal way to let her die. There are numerous ways that are preferable. This option seems optimal only in light of the unfortunate restrictions against active euthanasia. Your alternative to this passive method of euthanasia is active euthanasia. I prefer that active methods be made available. Of all of the active methods of euthanasia that I can think of, cutting the throat is far from optimal. It is not the cleanest or the quickest. That being said, if the governent were to sanction active euthanasia, and if it were to sanction cutting the throat as a means to achieving this, and if he were to select the method that you recommend, then I personally would not raise an objection.

From her perspective, there is no moral difference. From the survivor's perspective, there might be a difference. Before launching into my opinion of the nature of any difference, we will have to quibble over what you mean by your question. I personally do not spend a lot of time disucssing behavior in terms of "moral" behavior and "moral" differences. You are demanding a response that discusses "moral differences". How can I answer your question, as I really have absolutely zero idea what "moral" means to you. Either ask your question without the word moral or tell me what the phrase "moral difference" means to you. The last thing I want is to answer your question based on my meaning and then have you carp about how that is not what moral means in your mind. I have absolutely no idea why you are asking this question, and I get the feeling that it is a highly loaded question, revolving around you use of the extremely subjective word moral.

There is no such thing as "space". There is only space-time. Everything that exists, in the form that you call matter, is space-time. There is no "emptiness".

Although you attempt to shock us with the stark, deeply unpleasant reality of your objections, surely you must recognize that many people, even on this forum, are willing.

If you do not recognize any difference at all, then I am afraid that no amount of explanation can help you understand how the bulk of the country thinks.

Are you serious? Really, are you? Do you really think that all of the people in this entire country who think that husband should be allowed to let his wife die, and that all of the people on this forum who think that the husband should be allowed to let his wife die, do you really, really think that all of these people think that he might as well cut her throat because morally it is the same thing? You ask to cut the crap, yet your question smacks of it. Do you really think that people will answer that there is no moral difference?

I view you differently for posing the question is such terms.

I agree. How can people seriously wish that Florida would stick the guy in jail for a law like adultery. Shall we ask that laws return society backward, just to punish a guy for allowing his case to become public fodder?

Perhaps so. We can all be sure, from the people on this forum, and in the white house and congress, that Schiavo would rather be alive than die, no matter what her husband says. Her husband cannot know what she really wants because it is not on paper, and we can be sure that Bush knows her much better than her husband and that no one has any ulterior motives in this case but only her best interests at heart.

I see. What she now has constitutes normal life in your mind.

The word dark does not mean that we can't see it. It means that we do not understand the phenomenon involved. Dark matter is a name for a phenomenon that scientists think that they see but cannot account for. To account for the missing mass, consider that we can only see light from about 15 billion years away. Anything farther away in space would not be visible, and this could account for most of the universe.

Try looking into mouse events and mouse motion events.

I think that a good, though not exact, analogy is a rubber band. As a rubber band is stretched, there is no increase in matter. The band expands. I think that whatever you might mean by new space is inserted, you should probably drop the idea. One of the most important questions outstanding is whether the unverse, like a rubber band, will eventually reach the end of its expansion and return to its starting condition. As scientists look to new distances in space, they get the impression that the rate of expansion is much greater at great distances. Scientists want to label such phenomema, but with the wisdom to realize that they really have no idea what is going on and that they should use a modern naming convention to make that fact explicit, they use the label dark to represent the fact that terms such as dark matter and dark energy are names of poorly understand packets of bahavior.