Sayonara

Even more compelling for researchers in this field is the reasoning which concludes that photon dandruff implies photon fungus.

Wait, I'm confused now. Are you asking about leaving the bounded range of the universe and then "looking back" to see the big bang as if it were happening 'live', or going back in time and floating about in the void waiting for the bang to actually happen? (Although I suppose my observations hold true for either scenario, and the bit about visible energy not leaving the universe as you have done is a big downer.)

Whatever happened to Gasperini and Veneziano's work on the pre-bang universe?

Overlooking the obvious objection about an observer not being able to exist in a region without spacetime, I think this safari trip might be plagued with problems. For example, anything produced in the bang remains within the universe, which means no visible energy reaches an outside observer. Also most of the interesting bits occur within the first second of the bang, so you would need one hell of a slow motion function on your camcorder

How can you go from being all-powerful to using 20 or 50 times your own power? Idiot.

What are we supposed to do with this?

An instant classic

Has anyone ever?

Not if interest stayed above the rate of inflation (and assuming the bank or its descendent organisation/s still existed when he got back, and honoured the account). Although he would still not see sufficient profit to get anywhere near paying for the trip...

It's funny because it's true.

Call me cynical but it doesn't surprise me that a demonic triumvirate such as Dell, Intel, and Microsoft might capitalise on peddling crap.

lol You sure would.

Don't ask me; they're your stupid leaders.

This is not a "new trend". It is a rehash of an old idea. Sometimes I wonder how many of these people really have any grasp of the scale of "6 billion humans".

Since mid-2002.

Letting your children use YouTube is no more dangerous than allowing them to play in the street. They will recognise and respond to the relevant dangers only as well as they are taught to do so.

Hence why these things end up in a court - to establish what "counts". The law is not restricted to only dealing with that which can be objectively quantified. ParanoiA, you raise some interesting points as usual. Sometimes I would like to see what ParanoiAland might look like. Bear in mind when you read my viewpoints that, as I mentioned earlier, I am culturally inclined and equipped to discuss this issue from a UK law viewpoint (in which causing the type of distress that the Snyders suffered would be unlawful). As far as the fine points and issues surrounding the legal right to free speech in the US go, you have me at something of a disadvantage.

Not a problem. I would suggest that you do read the rules, as we have some key differences from your average web community.

You appear to be talking about relativity. That's what you want to be reading about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

You need 50+ non-spam posts to use the politics forum.

The distinction is that society prohibits a predictable and invariable offence (such as murder), but allows itself the ability to retrieve proportionate reparations from a breach of rights which derives from the defendant's lawful choices, and which has a more subjective set of effects. Whether or not you buy it, that's the state of play. But the family were not awarded damages on the basis that the Phelpses have no right to free speech, nor on the basis that the Phelpses' right to free speech infringed on the Snyders' rights by itself. This is why I called it a red herring. Same as above. The jury apparently disagreed with that opinion in this instance. I think we all need to trust that when they made their decision they were in possession of more of the facts of the case than we are now. Quite. HOWEVER, as I keep saying, having the right to free speech is not a carte blanche for avoiding punitive damages that arise from your own choices about how you will exercise that right.

It was not intended to preclude any reality of a global plague. Quite the opposite in fact; I was proposing a means of causing mass extinction without requiring complete mortality.

That is not exactly what I mean. I could have phrased it better I suppose; what I meant to suggest is that one cannot expect to injure people and get off scott free by simply shouting "free speech! free speech!". Certainly the law recognises that this is so, and the jury in this particular case apparently agree. You may wish to avoid unilaterally downplaying circumstances with phrases such as "just because you're sad about something", because as I am sure you are aware, it is up to the advocates in any given case to convince the jury of the exact degree of harm that has been done. Then stop inferring it. Lest you are in any doubt about my personal position, I refer you to my earlier assertion that free speech is always permissible as long as it goes hand-in-hand with personal responsibility for its effects. Not in the least. Emotive decisions do not preclude logical reasoning from arriving at the same conclusion. In the case in question, the balance of probabilities suggest that the harm done to the Snyders was neither proportionate to any benefit that the Phelpses could have gained from their actions, that the harm done was avoidable and unnecessary, and that not picketing the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder would in no way have reduced the rights or abilities of the Phelpses to spread their message of hate (which is a splendid way to use your right to free speech, but that's their choice I guess). Being emotive does not need to come into it. You do have that right. Just don't be surprised or indignant if you are punished for how you choose to exercise that right by the appropriate authority. Remember the right to free speech gives you the right to speak your mind, but it doesn't stop anyone else from exercising their right to speak theirs right back at you, it doesn't make any provisions for how that right should be exercised in terms of content, and it does not guarantee against repercussions. I am not making the case that anyone should like or be nice to anyone else. I am simply pointing out that a court ordering damages for perceivable harm should not come as any great surprise, which is exactly what has happened here. I am not going to argue for anyone else, but I am pretty sure that was not the thrust of what I was saying. If you believe in free speech then you must ALSO support the right of the Snyders to object to things that are said to them, regardless of their reasons. You do not have to pick a side, but consistency is recommended. So if taking Phelps to court was not dealing with him in "the right way", then pray tell what would be? Perhaps society would like to give the problem just a little bit more thought before settling on "hurting each other" as the solution. The plaintiff's case was that punitive damages should be paid because of the harm done to him and his family. Insofar as the nature and severity of the harm done was the question put to the jury, whether or not the defendant had the right to put on the performance that caused the harm would have been something of a moot point. Much like it is in this thread, where it is unfortunately being paraded around as a massive red herring. I don't think any reasonable person would say that Phelps is not entitled to his opinion (some may even find it more appealing to support the social pariah), but denying that the Snyders are entitled to take action - within the framework of extant laws - when his expression of those opinions causes them harm, is indicative of a poor understanding of an individual's responsibilities in terms of social membership. It seems a very egocentric point of view, one which the law is required to discard per se and which is therefore pretty redundant in this discussion.

This is probably small comfort, but I would have thought the average person is quite capable of understanding scientific matters such as the dynamics of the solar system given sufficient study, and therefore would be capable of verifying what they were told for themselves, should they so wish. For many such people not doing so is largely an exercise in making time for things that are of more interest to them. You are right though; it is somewhat disconcerting. Although I have to say I think that scientists are generally more reliable than Zeus on a day-to-day basis, so while the trust is no more based on reason it is almost certainly more helpfully invested (if only by a happy coincidence of historical events).

Well, not necessarily. It might be that there is resistance there but not enough to leave surviving individuals within encounter range of each other, thereby disrupting breeding enough to crash populations, and subsequently crashing trophic networks. Although that does seem somewhat unlikely on a global, pan-species scale.