IMI

Is there an answer for this, persay, or is it just a thought process evaluator? You have 4 jars of pills. Each pill is a certain weight, except for contaminated pills contained in one jar, where each pill is weight + 1. How could you tell which jar had the contaminated pills in just one measurement?

I couldn't agree with you more that human nature must change to avert disaster (getting back to the original subject of the post). If "survival of group" could overtake the current "survival of self" mentality the world would be a far better place. Do I think it will happen? Yes, but unfortunately not until after some cataclysmic event.

Semantics? It's not semantics when you are using an erroneous definition of a word. The word "war" does not, in it's base form, imply participation by organized military/combatant units. Say, for instance, you there are two groups of people, say two tribes of nomadic herders, each of whom is affiliated with their respective groups for reasons other than to serve as a cohesive military unit. Both groups happen upon the same plot of land, one that is optimum to sustain the herd, and themselves, but will only support one group or the other. This is the only area of sustenance for quite some distance. As a result the tribes engage in combat to decide who shall inhabit the land. One tribe eventually drives off the other ending open combat. The other tribe retreats but is still determined to take the land. They resort to skirmkish tactics which prolongs the unrest. These tribes, it can certainly be said, are in a state of war with each other despite the fact that they are not specifically military units in any way, shape, or form. These groups may be transformed into military type units, but they weren't so to begin wtih, which brings me to my next point. Militaries evolve in respone to conflict, and not the other way around. To say that to rid the world of militaries is to rid the world of war is erroneous. Strong militaries, more often than not these days, prevent wars. The Cold War is a perfect example of this. The fact that China had a surmountable military, in concert with their relationship with the Soviet Union (who also had a mighty military), convinced the US not to attack China for their forays during the US-North Korean War.

Only if you define war as other than how it has already been defined.

Tis' true. I used to place my mobile on top of my alarm clock when I was sleeping. About a half second before the phone would ring I would hear a hiss from my alarm clock.

I'm not sure I understand. You are wearing earphones listening to the radio? and you get static when your phone rings?

There are actually non-lethal weapons in existence that use low frequency sound. They disrupt a person, renduring them, in some instances, unconscious, due to extreme pain and nauseau, yet it causes no real damage.

If there were no militaries there would certainly still be wars! In fact, maybe more. A strong, well armed, well trained, military is a deterrent to war.

I know, sorry, I was just playing devil's advocate. Good thread though, I learned something today...a new way to look at things. Thanks all.

So, is the phone on my desk accelerating towards hitting the floor? It isn't moving but if it will ever be knocked to the floor in the future then every second it is closer to that happening.

I never looked at it that way. Very cool. Makes sense. If something is moving up, and losing speed, it is getting closer to coming back down and hence accelerating.

Is the ????? for me or RadEd?

I see, so you are saying that although something is travelling upwards, and losing speed in that direction, it is in the process of accelerating downwards?

If you throw the ball straight up it will come straight back down. Therefore, it won't have a trajectory. Trajectory is associated with curved travel. Aside of that, if it's velocity is 0 how can it still be accelerating? If only for an instant it stops moving all together and begins falling. In fact, as it moves upwards from the point of launch it is losing speed vice accelerating. It won't begin accelerating until it starts falling.

Imagine how much money, not to mention lives, the government would save if drugs were legalized. No more drug war. The cost of drugs would plummet and put drug lords out of business. The government could tax drugs like they do alcohol and tobacco (drugs themselves) and focus on addiction treatment. Wow, what a concept!

What's next...Metal Gear?

Mine is the international morse code procedure signal for a question mark.

NO....Time does not exist as anything more than an adjective. Time merely describes duration between two given points. Think of it like speed. I know speed is probably not the best example, because it is based on time, but bear with none the less. Speed, of and by itself, does not exist. Speed measures rate of movement. "Speed", except for a bad Keanu Reeves movie, doesn't exist in any physical state. Same with time.

Governments would never cover something up to avoid mass hysteria. There is no reason to believe that anyone would be alarmed by such a possibility. How could something in a Bruce Willis movie come true?

I've read that nuclear war has been supplanted as the greatest threat to the planet. The current greatest threat is population itself. We are fastly outgrowing what the planet can sustain. Societal classes will change from 3 to 2 tiers. The middle class will disappear leaving us with only a large lower class, and a small upper class. Disease will flourish in the slums of the poverty stricken lower class. Hunger will be the meal of the day. Lawlessness will pervade. The elitist upper class will attempt to control the minions, in order to segregate themselves from them, but will ultimately be crushed. Some would say that this is a paranoid expectation. Others would say it is already happening, today, all over the world.

They don't call it the world's oldest profession for nothing. Of course it should be legal. Anything someone can do in which they will only harm themselves should be legal. I don't believe in the government protecting people from themselves. It's legal in, among other places, (and as was mentioned) Nevada and Amsterdam. It is tightly regulated. The women are medically checked weekly and must adhere to strict guidelines. In Amsterdam, the basic fee is 50 Guilder ($35 US). That gets you basic "service". If you pay a little more...you get a little more. In Nevada, depending on the quality of woman, prices range from under $100 US to several thousand dollars. Obviously, several thousand will get you a supermodel while for under $100 you will get a fat, hairy, toothless Eskimo Oh, and the reason I know all this.....I saw a documentary on prostitution. That's my story anyways

I've always wanted to go to Phoenix. I almost moved there. I was tired of the east coast rain and snow that the Baltimore/Washington area has to offer. I like a good hot dry heat!

Matter, are you in Boston?

Sounds like the Fiona's in Bedford.

I've not been there. Dreadful is it?