A Tripolation

I'm thinking more along the lines of direct combat...or even guerilla tactics. The "Aliens" are superior in that they are stronger than us, faster than us, their blood is acid, and they could rip us to shreds in a matter of seconds. But now, I see that humans would have many "superior" adaptations over aliens, such as our hands and tools and weapons that the aliens do not have, and could not even control. But I would think that being stronger and smarter than your competitors would be a universally valued trait. Aside from the microbial world, could you give me an example of where being stronger and smarter ISN'T an advantage? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged To that I say, Action Movie

Ok, well does anyone know what the proper term would be? I think "superior" is a good term Sisyphus. The Aliens are prectically "superior" in every way. In a way, if the Bacteria is able to "overpower" our immune systems and all of our medicine (which also entails overpowering our greatest medicinal minds, our greatest technologies, and medicines), then yes, I think it should be considered "superior" as well. And to JillSwift, that is an AWESOME point. Humans have adapted an ability to rapidly adapt.

Hmm...I find it odd how we all show an incredible amount of surprise when factions withing the two major groups start up something stupid...haven't they been doing that since ya know...the beginning of politics? Liberals are whiney when conservatives are in power and conservatives are whiney when liberals are in power. They ALL engage in mud slinging...one party is no better than the other. The VAST majority of the country is in the center of the political spectrum, with a slight lean to the conservative side. Seems like the politicians would take note of that and start trying to compromise with each other. Ok, rant's over. To the OP, as a conservative...I think it makes us look like Jackasses. That is the most stupid, petty, vindictive idea I have heard in a good long while.

Hmm...I certainly see what you all are saying. Ability to survive in your environment determines how well evolved you are. Makes sense. But, like with my Alien example, if they were to appear on Earth, they would be "more well-evolved" as they would flourish in this environment (all of Earth) by wiping us out and making this their home, right? The playing field would be level, and the surviving species would be the better evolved, right (which I'm almost certain would be the Aliens)? There would be no co-habitation or anything like that, so an altruistic relationship is ruled out. Thoughts? I'm probably still way off and I apologize for it.

Oh, I see what you and Mokele are saying, iNow. I just guess Im thinking more of "unfit" as in the event of an apocalyptic situation or other things where anything less that perfect health would make you end up dead. But I was also thinking in terms of "perfection" as creatures that are practically unstoppable. Take the Aliens in the "Alien" movies for example. Even with firearms, humans would be no match for them, intellectually of physically. A creature such as that seems to be almost a penultimate version of life right? Perfectly Evolved?

Sorry if this question has been asked. I did a search for it and nothing came up. Anyways, what I mean is that what with the advent of medicine and technology, we keep people alive that wouldn't have lived (or reproduced) a few decades ago, let alone a few centuries ago. I have a very limited understanding of biology, so I was wondering if we were "controlling" natural selection to an extent. People with genes that are "unfit" for survival usually survive in the developed countries. Some even have children and pass on their bad genes. Is this sort of thing happening, or do I have a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of natural selection? Also, taking the concept of evolution to the extreme, will humans progressively get smarter or gain more physical advantages? Is there a "terminal velocity", as it were, for evolution? A life form that is perfect in every way for its evironment?

Excellent point, Padren. Might I just add that sometimes the smallest details turn out to be one of the most influential? And since we all agree that a long debate is required for a satisfactory health bill...I can't argue with anyone

Bascule, do you really want people voting a certain way just because a major player in their party says so? Nobosy should be "falling in line". With that way lies a radical government, which is bad. Sorry if I misinterpreted your words. And as for the OP, to me, Obama promised wayyy too much change than he was capable of providing. Right now, even with all his charismatic influence, he can't get a health care bill passed even with a majority in Congress...kinda says something about his future endeavors.

Well, if you actually want to do true engineering, you are going to have to stick with what exists currently. But there are people whose job it is to design and draw up plans for future habitats. They didn't just one day decide to go and build the International Space Station. It was in planning a loooonng time. It took many engineers and scientists and other people a long time to design a working space station. If that's sort of what you were hoping to do, then a degree in Structural or Materials Engineering would be very beneficial.

Japan would've never surrendered without knowing of the devastion that we could cause with a weapon we had and they didnt. Of course it wouldnt have lasted 20 years, but we would have had to literally fight every inch for that island, just like we did all the other Japan-controlled islands in the Pacific. And also, the War Council was deadlocked 3-3 on whether or not to surrender. The emperor broke the deadlock and voted for surrender (and MANY historians attribute this to him knowing that they could never fight the Allies' new weapon.)

Yes, Padren, that is the level of consciousness I was attributing to the AI system. They would be aware that they were created and that their intelligence is limited to processors and transistors and other things all created by humans. And I agree with the very first post about the Singularity of recursive intelligence. If you had the means to constantly improve yourself, why wouldnt you? Any other input would be great!!!

Would they revolt or would they just exist? Keep in mind that I'm using the term Artificial Intelligence to mean something that can truly think and LEARN on its own, and rationalize. Not with logics or control systems, but something akin to true human thought. Yeah, maybe I did just see The Matrix on TV...but I still think it's a good question. I don't know if this is psuedoscience or not. Apologies if it is.

A competent hitman would WANT you to think that no modern psychic has haver been assassinated. There very well could have been for all we know.

By manipulate I mean that we can control something to an extent. Im sorry, I dont really know enough science to convey my thoughts well. Like Im thinking, time only flows in one direction, but if we were able to manipulate it as we do spatial things, we could stop it or reverse it or do whatever we wish with it, right?

I know. I know enough to know that Tolsomoff is talking about sci-fi stuff. But if we live in four dimensions, how come Time cannot be manipulated by us in any way shape or form? Isnt it totally abstract and intangible?

Ok, as I was advised to tell you all so as to avoid undesirable responses, I have looked around on wikipedia and google for an answer, but I can't understand any of it. I'm an english major that likes science, and as such I cannot comprehend anything about the M-Theory or String theory or the other stuff that pops up in searches. Is there definitley more dimensions than the three that we know of? Is time considered the fourth dimension? And if so, does that mean that entities that reside in this dimension could manipulate time as we manipulate the spatial dimensions (hypothetically speaking)? Could we live or even travel to higher dimensions? Or could higher-dimension beings travel hereto our world? Any information or links to explanatory sites would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Wow...this is such a great discussion. Id just like to thank all of you for participating and being so civil about it Great posts! From both sides!! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Thats a good point, but more than likely, the person didnt want to kill, just threaten and thats why he didnt have a gun.Living in the rural area we do, he could have EASILY gotten a gun form the weekly gun shows lol. And tasers dont take down everyone, especially of theyre hopped up on drugs. A gun takes down everyone, especially the shotgun my father used to stop him.

No, not at all. I agree with those terms. I think some areas should more heavily regulate guns, but not completely rid them. NYC has a complete ban on guns IIRC, and yet ALOT of crime is committed with a gun. And yes, I would much rather be mugged than have to shoot someone, but if they were trying to kill me or just beat me for fun, then yes, I would prefer to shoot them with the .22 I almost always carry in unfamiliar places.

I think Bascule's point was that if someone wants to kill someone else, then they will find a way, and complete banning of guns will not stop them. Thus, it is illogical to take guns away from people who would only use them in self-defense against others with guns. Apologies to Bascule if this isn't what he meant. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged He's a criminal right? If he had wanted a gun, are you saying he couldn't have gotten one due to the UK's omnipotent ban on guns? In that situation(one where the criminal buys a gun), it would have been favorable to you to have a gun as well, yes.

No, I wasn't implying such a literal interpretation of outlaws. I meant simply that criminals wouldn't abide by laws, as they are criminals. If you'll permit a personal example, I was terrorized as a kid. Around when I was 15, someone broke into our house. They were not there to kill, but to steal. I woke up, saw him, and screamed. My father keeps a shotgun in his room, and he came into my room with the shotgun (seeing as how I just screamed bloody murder). The thief had a hunting knife, but saw the shotgun and gave up. My dad forced him to his knees and held him until the cops came. With restristive ownership, how should my dad have confronted this guy? We live in the country, police response would have taken a good 10 minutes, and that's if a state trooper was nearby on the back roads. So yes, I do believe that if guns were banned completely, criminals would become much more brazen knowing that they don't face a sawed-off, double-barrel 12-gauge. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Hmm, Sisyphus, I don't listen to talk radio. I simply thought that were the US government to ever deny peaceful protest and threaten bloodshed in case of demonstration, it would anger quite a few people and these people would have guns. Now, the National Guard could quicky put down a rebellion with their superior weaponry and training, but the backlash of the murdering of American civilians would be so nasty, it could potentially cause a civil war. The threat of this alone would keep the government in line were things to ever get that bad, I think. I tend to think along the lines of Alan Moore's V and his "The people should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of their people". While this is a potential happening in the US, it clearly isn't in Iran, and we see what is happening there. And Sisyphus, if you would refrain from implying that I'm too stupid to think on my own, and gather my ideas from talk show hosts (idiots at that), I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Hey all. I don't know if this question is asked a lot (apologies if it is). I just wanted to know what the smart people on this forum think. The only decent reason I here from the anti-gun people is that it would reduce the number of accidental shootings. But then more children die from swimming pools than guns...so why don't swimming pools face the same judgement? I think that guns should be allowed, but with more strict regulations than what they have nowadays (the current laws make it easy for people who should not have guns to get them.). I also know from history that prohibition DOES NOT work, and that people who want illicit items will just buy them illicitly. And there's also the cliched statement, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns, because the law-abiding gents won't buy something illegal. And the criminals dont care anyways. So what do you think? If you are for or against, Id love to hear your reasons. Also, do you think that if the citizens of Iran were as well armed as the citizens of other countries (UK and US for example) that the supreme ruler would resort to shooting people so quickly? I believe he would think twice about it, but Im not for sure. Again, love to know what you think. Thanks!!

Yes, they were home...they were sitting on their porch and their cars were in the driveway... Even if they werent home they wouldve had to drive past the fallen tree. I cannot see of any circumstance that would prevent them from contacting us about it, or helping us when we were there, as they were home, and it was a Sunday. If anybody can please let me know. I do not wish to be angry for no particular reason.

It took us till the next day because it was on the south end of our farm, and we live on the north, and had quite a bit of fence to cover. They live about 10 yards from the tree and 20 yards from where the fence was taken down...so...I think that explains why it took us awhile to find it. And Sisyphus...if they were planning on taking care of it, wouldnt common sense have told them to at least call us and tell us about the problem (they know every name in the family, and have a phone book, and we are listed)? What if our cattle had gotten out? Im sure that if they planned on doing something about it, they wouldve had the courtesy to place a phone call. And we didnt ask because, no offense to anyone here, city people have this allergic reaction when they are involved in any sort of physical labor. In the past, other neighbors have said this to us, and I quote "I dont care if my tree falls...what do I need with a tree? You fix it, I dont mind it where it's at". This has happened twice during my life. Put simply, I would have offered my help, and that is the point of my question. Would you have offered help or taken comfort in the fact that it isnt your responsibility legally?

The tree was down for over an entire day before WE noticed it...I think its safe to assume that they knew the tree had fallen considering that their yard was impeccably clean and that branches were everywhere else /BUT their yard. It was the biggest tree in their yard, so it is impossible that they did not see it. And had we tried to sell the tree for profit (as it would ahve made EXCELLENT timber were it not for the fact the Oak was hollow on the inside) Im sure they wouldve seen it as their tree. So, we were returning their property. A truly jerky thing to do wouldve been to roll it in the road by their house and let the county take care of it So...would you have helped iNow? Let's assume you knew the tree was fallen...and that you had seen us using the chainsaw (they went back into their house when we started...they were stting on the porch but I guess the chainsaw disturbed their peace.)

No, we didn't ask...that's the point of my question. Would you have offered to help us? When you ask, the person is usually under obligation to help, so I was wanting to know if you would help of your own volition. Trust me...they knew the tree was down...they would have to be blind not to see it. It was a monster that took out that entire side of the fence.