Sisyphus

Sorry, how is that an answer to my question?

Then it seems you, the Old Testament, and I all agree. Neat?

Not any place on the planet. On American soil. So yes, of course they're entitled to a trial, for the exact same reasons everyone else is. There is no "unless they obviously hate America" exception. If it's a war crime, who have we declared war on, exactly?

Zolar V, I don't think anyone doubts that there is starvation in the world. The contention is about how much starvation there is in the United States.

"The poor" sounds pretty all-encompassing, to me. I don't think chastising those who are poor through laziness contradicts a mandate to those who are not to give those same people charity. Not an equal share, I note, but scraps: enough not to starve. Together it actually sounds a lot like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Work hard and reap your rewards, but also make sure everyone's basic needs are satisfied. And don't worry if others aren't living up to those standards.

jackson, I don't understand what you're talking about. Foreign nationals, not acting as agents of any government, commited crimes on American soil. What does that have to do with courts martial?

The early Christian churches were communes of ascetics, though. And there's the famous quote about the difficulty of rich men being pious (camels and needles). And I distinctly remember some Old Testament bits about leaving the corners of your fields for the poor and travellers, or something. Here we go: Leviticus 23:20 'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.' Leviticus 19:9 'Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest.' Leviticus 19:10 'Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God.' Deuteronomy 24:19 When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow, in order that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. So, all that.

I guess the same reason an apple isn't a property of "redness?" You can probably semantically twist it enough to work, but not, I don't think, without losing sight of the original question.

I think there's some confusion about matter vs. energy and particles vs. waves. That's not the same thing. Energy is a property of things, a capacity to do work. It's not waves. Waves have energy. Similarly, "particle" /= "matter." What we call particles take the form of waves, that are simply discrete in form. All "particles" (electrons, photons, whatever) are this.

1) A lot of starvation in the United States, is there? Statistics? 2) Nobody is renting anything against their will. The landlord isn't taking anything - he's selling the right to live somewhere in exchange for money. If the landlord wasn't offering them a place to live, they would be in a worse situation. (The tenant chose to rent from him over the next most desirable alternative, so presumably the tenant is better off than he would be without that best available option.) 3) In that situation, the landlord doesn't win, because they lost a tenant. 4) Why is it the landlord's responsibility? He is just someone that has had a voluntary business exchange with the person who died. Why isn't it equally your responsibility, if you have more than you need?

Yeah, it seems really fishy. What it sounds like is using him as a ouija board.

Whenever you post twice or more in a row with no other posts in between, the forum software automatically merges them and notes that it has done so. Any comments or complaints about this should go in the sugestions, comments, and support subforum.

Are you a cable news commentator? I hope you're not designing bridges or something. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnd, um, good luck, ajb! If you understand your own work, stay relaxed, and answer honestly, you'll be fine.

If by "communistic state" you mean "everybody has godlike powers that grants them whatever they want without anyone having to do it for them," then I agree.

Just as a child cannot be his own father, this thread cannot contain coherent analogies.

The atom does not look like a solar system. Electrons do not "orbit" the nucleus. If that's what your idea depends on, it's wrong. My "why not" above was in reference to the what I quoted, the claim that "what causes gravity can't be affected by gravity."

Why not?

It doesn't, though. Increasing the temperature of a metal increases electrical resistance. I don't know what "appearing to be solid" means. The resistance of metallic gases is much, much higher than solids. Metallic bonding is, simplistically, like a "sea of electrons" shared in common with a lattice of nuclei. So they can flow freely. The more they are knocking around relative to one another, the less smooth the flow of electrons can be. And if they're separated entirely (i.e. gasseous), the electrons aren't shared at all, and they can't flow.

Well at least, both parties think the exchange will be to their advantage, even if there is a winner and loser, or two losers. (This is readily seen in things like day trading stocks, where both parties have exactly the same goal, and each is betting the other will be the loser.) And obviously, with two "winners" it's quite common for one to win a lot more.

Extracting oxygen from seawater is relatively simple. It just requires electricity. They do this. If your source of electricity is cold fusion, you've built something rather more important than scuba equipment. But yeah, as padren said, as long as you have a power source, you need not run out of air (or drinking water) underwater. Nuclear submarines carry enough fuel for months. With something like an ocean floor habitat, maybe you could get power from a geothermal generator or something.

"Increasing the amount of current that can be applied" is meaningless. You can apply any amount of current. What you're thinking of is how much resistance there will be, and the answer is that there will be a lot more than in the solid or liquid states. Gaseous iron would basically not be conductive at all. If it was ionized, it would be conductive, but that's plasma, not gas. The hypothesis of higher temperature = less resistance is false.

Of course it's not real. It's an illusion.

Your explanation is not entirely correct (a hypothetical black hole would certainly move, for example, but more importantly it would evaporate essentially instantly), but the most important point is that the LHC is not doing anything novel. It will recreate natural phenomena, specifically cosmic rays colliding with the upper atmosphere, with more energy than the LHC is capable of. Yet the Earth is still here. Here's a link from CERN addressing safety concerns in layman's terms: http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html

But it's not nebulous. It can be analyzed very concretely. You have a X% chance of getting Y medical condition per year, that can be prevented at a cost of Z dollars per year, or cured at a cost of W dollars. From that you can make a rational choice based on risk-benefit analysis. It's even more concrete on the large scale, as instead of just a rational bet, you can make accurate predictions. For example in your analogy, if everyone changes their oil every 2000 miles vs. every 5000 miles, there will two different costs of how much people will spend on oil + problems that would have been prevented by oil. One is lower. There is a right answer. So where do emotion and "buzz words" come in?

Technically, she would have to be lighter than a duck.