Sisyphus

The Star Trek universe is a good example. Technology allows a political system to flourish and succeed that, in other circumstances (like real life current day) would almost certainly fail spectacularly. A real life dirt cheap "food replicator" could have staggering political consequences.

lucaspa, it seems like you're using a definition of "Christian" that is a much smaller subset of those who self-identify as "Christian." Are you aware of this?

Why not? There are other factors of course (various aspects of "competence," for example), but sure, popular satisfaction is as an important yardstick as any. No. That's just begging for derailment. Let it suffice to say that such governments have existed at various points in history, and that I can foresee that they might easily exist in the future. In any case, there are darn few, but what I find admirable is not really the point, is it? Nope, not me. I'm too accustomed to democracy. Of course, you're using "serf" as yet another weasel word, aren't you? "Monarchy" technically just means "rule of one," though in modern times it's usually used more specifically to refer to an inherited sovereignty. Yes. Your point? Every government, including democracies, use threats. I can't choose not to obey the laws, because I'll be punished if I don't. If I attempt to overthrow the government, they'll kill me. This fact does not preclude the fact that I happen to support this government.

Isn't this rather unscientific market research?

So I'm trying to get a more intuitive grasp of the implications of relativity, and that seems like having a good grasp of visualization. I don't need help with the math, exactly, I'm more interested in more experiential accounts, which I think will probably be a good exercise all around. Let's start with these, and maybe I'll think of more later, or you could add your own. So say you've got a big, solid disk spinning fast enough that the edges are moving at a good portion of C (to simplify, let's say .5) relative to the axis. Standing at the edge and looking inwards, what do I actually see? How about from the axis? Or say this disk is a wheel, and it's rolling. It's spinning at the same speed. I'm standing on the "ground" as it rolls by. What do I see?

This is one story I don't really understand. What exactly was the wrongdoing, here? As far as I can tell, they were fired for political reasons, which is not in itself wrong, but is wrong if you claim it was for other reasons, and it gets more wrong the more you cover it up...? Is that about right? The talking heads seem particularly incoherent on this one.

The fact that you can't conceive of anything besides those two options demonstrates my point nicely, I should think. What do you call an ardent monarchist? It's not self-rule (except in the sense that any government must be), but it is happily submitted to. How is it not? You said if people are willingly governed, then that IS democracy. It isn't. It's just government. Or any other reason for favoring the government, yes. The word "tyrant" implies that most don't, of course, or at least that the ruler is cruel/incompetent/whatever. But so what? Do you not understand that I'm NOT saying EVERY government is good? That, in fact, most might well be bad? What I AM saying is that good governments can come in varied forms, according to circumstance. Not every ruler is a "tyrant." True but irrelevant. Incidentally, "freedom of press" is not synonymous with "democracy," either, though there is a strong correlation and they can strengthen one another, which is part of the reason I will fight to preserve both in my OWN country. Of course, democracy has the curious tendency to sometimes annihilate itself, when the majority wants less democracy! It is impossible to literally fight in those cases, since, if you win, you're imposing the will of "the people," which means imposing the exact thing you were fighting against..... But this is getting derailed, I think. I was talking about the rule itself (e.g., law), which in every government ever has been imposed through threats of punishment.

I don't understand this part. You can't compare clocks that are in different inertial frames, because the observers in each frame won't agree. But why is that necessary? I thought you wanted to bring them back to being at rest with respect to one another?

At least I have a sense of irony.

I love how this turns every conspiracy wacko into an armchair structural engineer, who somehow make definitive statements about what could or could not have happened despite no training, no knowledge of the specific damage inflicted (which nobody has), and the totally unprecedented nature of the event. Is it imperfectly understood and worthy of study? Of course, that's why it's STILL being studied so intensely. The jump from that to "it couldn't have happened!" is EXACTLY the same fallacy as the "God of the gaps," where people claim phenomena which are not yet perfectly understood COULD NOT have happened naturally and therefore must be miraculous. Frankly, I've read through this whole thread, and not seen anything all that implausible. Taking out half the support columns and dousing the damaged remainders in kerosene and diesel fire seems like enough to weaken steel enough that one mangled floor (not even the main support columns, just the beams connecting columns to floor) would eventually collapse and cause a pancake effect on each successive floor below it. But then, I'm not an engineer and I don't have detailed computer models of the structure and possible damage scenarios, so I'll leave the investigation to those who actually know something about it.

But do you agree that such an interpretation of existing legislation would be justified? I agree wholeheartedly that unnecessary and redundant laws should be avoided, but my point was more that, one way or another, there has to be a line drawn somewhere, and the debate should focus on where and how, not whether.

Is anybody else getting kind of fed up with Japan? Dolphin torture, refusal to acknowledge war crimes, racist, conformist, hypermaterialistic culture, anime....

I think you have to consider it a matter of degree. That example would be unreasonable, but would it be as unreasonable to make a law prohibiting unattended loaded weapons in a house with children? Or maybe not even making a law, would it be unreasonable to classify that as child endangerment/criminal neglect and already against the law? Or how about, instead of on your coffeetable with you right there in room, it was on your front porch and you were inside?

The SAME shapes, or just "shapes?" I could see making an argument (though I don't know how you could possibly prove it) that the universe has distinct structures on any scale, but those structures are pretty obviously different, no?

You've just replaced my body with my head. Look at which map directions my head is facing in each example. If those directions change, my head is rotating.

I'm temporarily on a very slow internet connection. Could you summarize it?

Optimistically, "humans" will no longer exist when we intentionally change ourselves into something different. Pessimistically, we will no longer exist when we evolve naturally (along current trends) into something rather less than we are now. Remember, intelligence is inversely correlated with number of children, and we effectively protect the lives and reproduction rights of those whose genes wouldn't allow either in a less technologically advanced society. Or, something like a nuclear war kills most of us and destroys civilization, and the small pockets of survivors each individually are more vulnerable to the sorts of things that cause extinctions of other species, like climate changes.

Yeah, what does "fractal" mean in that context? Obviously not the literal meaning...

Undoubtably true, but I don't think it really qualifies as an explanation, particularly with regards to "illegally purchased." Purchased from whom? Did that person purchase it illegally? It seems like somewhere along the line, somebody had to buy the gun legally, unless the factories are regularly raided by pirates. That being so, it seems like it should be possible to drastically curb black market sales just by being less laissez-faire with gun registration. If somebody is murdered with a gun, shouldn't it be possible to find out who bought the gun originally, and hold that person fully responsible? Wasn't there a movement a few years ago to make a ballistic database of every weapon sold from which it could be traced? Didn't the NRA throw a hissy fit (thereby killing it, because of their ridiculous influence in Congress)? Why do you suppose that is? They claimed what they always do, vague BS about freedom and the second amendment. So it couldn't have anything to do with greed, could it? Destroying the black market would hurt the "legitimate" market.... I'm not yelling at you, it's just that our nonsensical policies really annoy me. We could have more gun freedom and less gun danger simultaneously, and all it would take would be for somebody to blow up NRA headquarters...

I'm not sure where I am on it, either. I want to be against gun control, if that means anything, but rationally, I can't help but see problems. My point with that sentence was that "fighting back" is meaningless when everyone is carrying an easy to use and basically instant lethal weapon. I'm walking behind you down the street. I take out my gun and shoot you in the head. Ok, now fight back. What's your move? Obviously, you don't have one. You're dead. But that scenario would only be likely if I had reason to believe you were armed as well, and could therefore expose myself to mortal danger by not incapacitating you. Otherwise, I would much rather just use my gun to threaten you, not becoming a murderer and not expecting you to shoot at me as I'm running away.

Every government necessarily demands the people consent to be so governed, but that doesn't make them all "democracy." A democratic republic means formalized, egalitarian elections. Contrarily, most governments in history have basically been absolute monarchies, supported out of religious conviction, love of the monarch, nationalism, sincere belief that the monarch is their better, approval of the rule of order and protection the monarch provides, etc. Like ANY government, obviously, there is also an element of fear of reprisal which hold them together to a greater or lesser degree, a fear which could not exist without the consent of a large enough percentage of people to exert this power. Often it's a minority. Often not.

If you read carefully, you'll notice I was talking about STUN guns, like the kind of thing Mokele was speculating about. In the next paragraph (the one you didn't quote) I'm talking about conventional, lethal firearms, which I say would drive muggings way down, because they'd all have to become murders (carrying a gun is not a defense against getting shot, it's just an incentive for your attacker to shoot you first), and people are reluctant to kill. But yes, I think it's inevitable the murder rate would go up, even as all other crime goes down. A STUN gun, however, makes it just as easy or even easier to rob somebody than by shooting them with a conventional gun, and doesn't make anybody a murderer. Absolutely anyone could easily rob absolutely anyone else. Zap. Take. The only exception would be in crowded areas, where bystanders could happily zap a fleeing mugger, foiling crime with none of the danger of running down and tackling somebody! You seem like you're responding primarily to me with the rest of your post ("this reminds me of..."), but I'm not sure how it relates, so....

Seems like if everybody carried a stun gun, the mugging rate would go through the roof, because shooting somebody with a stungun first is an incredibly easy and risk-free way of mugging somebody. Carrying such a weapon wouldn't protect you at all, it would just give muggers incentive to shoot you right away. Similarly, if everyone carried concealed firearms, most "muggings" would consist of shooting the victim first, since it would be the only safe way to do it. Muggings would almost certainly go way down as a result (since hopefully people are more reluctant to murder a stranger than to take a stranger's wallet), but second-degree murder would almost certainly go up.

You can always tell if you're accelerating and by how much by looking at the rest of the universe. If you're accelerating but assume you're stationary, the laws of motion no longer work. Specifically, you'll see the entire rest of the universe accelerating in the same direction with no forces accounting for any of it. Rotation is even worse, since you'll see everything "making circles around you" going far, far faster than the speed of light. Acceleration is not relative that way, only velocity.

Yeah, I'm not sure what's "liberal" about that crap.