zapatos

It is generally accepted that there is no aether or preferential FOR.

I honestly cannot follow your logic. You have on many occassions spoken out against people's empathy for others simply because there is something bigger to have empathy for. You say we degrade the atrocities of bigger events by taking notice of smaller events. 'Why remember the 11 athletes when we can remember the thousands dead in Japan?'. Why stop there? Don't remember the thousands dead in Japan, if you wanna remember something, remember the hundreds of thousands dead from the 2004 tsunami that killed so many in Indonesia! No, wait. Don't remember that, remember the China floods of 1931 when millions died. Then again, that is puny compared to AIDS. Or the Spanish Flu. Or Black Death. Can we only show empathy and have remembrance for the biggest death toll of all? And sorry for harping on this, but should we not spend time caring for animals when there are people to care for? Should we not work on making a better shovel when we could be making a better surgical tool? Should we not be experimenting on the LHC when people are starving? There is room for empathy, effort, remembrace, etc. for all things, great and small. I think you do a disservice to others by minimizing their feelings and efforts.

Then yes. But remember that from the perspective of the person in the space ship it is the person 'at rest' on earth or the theoretical observer 'at rest' on any near object in space who appears to be moving in slow motion. As an aside, I found your use of the term "...literally virtually..." to be interesting.

We have not yet found all of the rules of the universe, and likely never will.

No. The expansion is believed due to two things: 1. Dark energy as mentioned by IM Egdall, and 2. The continuing motion that originated with the Big Bang as mentioned by Airbrush. The motion due to the Big Bang is what predominated early, and motion due to dark energy is presumed to dominate the continued motion (and acceleration) now.

From whose perspective? From whose perspective? It is important because without it the theory of Relativity would have been falsified.

Can I have a citation please? I've never heard of electrons, atoms and protons travelling at the speed of light.

I think you are going to have to define 'time travel'. To me and my clock, I 'travel' forward in time at the rate of one second per second. Doesn't matter if I do it on earth or in a fast rocket. Time does not change for me. How you see me from your FOR has no impact on me, and you cannot consider one frame 'normal' and the other 'slow'. You don't 'gain' time in the journey. As far as I can tell, relativistic speed has nothing to say about time travel.

That's one way of looking at it. You could also say that the twin on the ground spent his time in "fast motion".

People fear loss of control. If I have a gun I am in control. It doesn't matter if you have one or not because I have one and have some control over my situation. If no one is allowed guns, even though it may be likely that you do not have one when you show up, I know that I definitely do not have one and so I have limited control. (Edit: Actually I am not necessarily referring to myself. I didn't buy a gun until I saw the mess in New Orleans after hurricaine Katrina.) I remember a study not too long back (can't find it though) that found that many people who fear flying stated they would be less fearful if they could be in the cockpit. Didn't matter that they knew nothing of flying, they just felt that if they were up there then they would have some control.

I'm having a hard time finding anything specific but I did find this comment: http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml#No_Vest_Bullet-PROOF

I don't know the physics behind this so I am only guessing and basing this on personal experience, but wouldn't a .45 to the head be more than a distraction? I've had my head knocked many times by hitting the ground, hitting somone's fist with my nose, a baseball to my helmet, and others. I was knocked unconscious once and was disoriented several times. Would a bullet to the head have a similar impact as a baseball to a helmet?

While it appears unlikely that a bullet would have penetrated his armor, to Bill's point, even if wearing armor I imagine that a shot to the head by a .45 would probably do a great deal to slow the shooter down.

I'm not ignoring the fact, I just don't think it justifies inaction. Guns are going off, people are dying. Do I take a chance and shoot back, or stand meekly by as more and more people are gunned down? How many would have to die before you could justify shooting back? It sucks. I recognize that. But the choices are shoot or don't, and I like to think I wouldn't go down without at least trying to save myself and others. Horrible. I'd probably want to die myself. How would you feel if your kid was drowning and someone had some wooden crates they could throw down in the water for your kid to float on, but they didn't because they were afraid they might accidentally hit your kid and kill him? And as a result your kid drowns?

From my perspective, if someone is right now doing deadly harm, you take action right now to stop it. I have no doubt that shooting in a nursery school is a dangerous proposition (you may hit a kid), but not shooting is also a dangerous propostion (the perpetrator may shoot every kid in the place). If you are quick enough to make a good decsion regarding angle of attack, number of shooters, cross fire, etc., then more power to you. I doubt very many people would handle that situation well, so I would only expect them to do as well as they can. If someone is shooting at my kids, and someone returns fire, I am not going to criticize the defender for having the wrong gun or not shooting from the best position. He is putting himself at risk to help others. That is generally how I define a hero. When it is a matter of life and death, I will always choose doing something rather than doing nothing, even when you have incomplete or incorrect information. I hated it when police would not enter Columbine because they weren't sure it was the exact right thing to do yet, all the while hearing additional shots ringing out, refusing to enter the building to try to get out the wounded who were waving for help from the windows. As far as how mishaps are addressed legally I am unsure, but I believe that acting in good faith is generally a good defense, such as giving medical aid to an injured person even if you are not an EMT.

This comment is not intended to suggest arming the public is good or bad, but if I was in the theater when the shooting started I would have liked to have a gun. I would have emptied it at the shooter and hoped for the best. Doesn't matter if I was successful or not, or if it resulted in my being shot, I would have liked the chance to shoot back. I would also hold no ill will toward anyone who shot back at him and accidentally hit me. At least an effort to end the bloodshed was made. While in hindsight we may have found that shooting back was not the best idea, I think at the moment it was happening the only reasonable response, if possible, was to shoot back.

I do understand your point but I think you are presenting it a bit unfairly. I agree they wish to maximize shareholder value, but that is not accomplished by simply charging the highest rates possible and paying the fewest claims possible. If they ran their operation like that they would soon be out of business as the competition would charge a bit less and offer a bit more to run you out of business. There are many business models to follow to maximize shareholder value, all the way from barebones coverage to care that allows you to advertise that you have 'The healthiest group of customers in the world!' Again, I don't think I have to know how my health is going to play out. My insurer, by covering millions of people, know very accurately how many heart attacks, cancers, etc. they will have to pay for each year. I know how the average health of all those covered is going to play out. Agreed. Yes, and the reason is because if there is a cure that is cost effective to the consumer, they will buy it. If the business doesn't provide the cure and tries to keep me on insulin, I will walk away to another provider. That is a clear advantage to the private model. Ok, that sounds like a good idea. OK. He can always be cheap. Cheap inexperienced labor. Cheap construction materials that meet code but not current standard practices. There are builders I would buy from and builders I would not. When my son had Lasik we paid a lot of attention to quality.

It may be difficult to sell an individual a health policy, but that is not really what they are doing. They are selling a large group of people health policies, and they do that very well. Health insurance is no different than life, car, or home owners insurance in that respect. They have a very good idea how much to charge individuals so that they can pay all their expenses and make a profit. Need we also put car and life insurance under the same umbrella as you propose for healthcare? Yes it is in the nature of health for me to keep getting sick. Again, I don't see the home builder and the health insurer as different. A home builder can short change me just as much as a health provider can. Low grade materials, poor workmanship, etc. There can be good and bad home builders, just as there can be good and bad health providers. And if they build the home poorly, they can keep you coming back for repairs, etc. They do have a customer for life. No one drops health insurance because they get well. It is profitable for an insurance company to get me to stay healthy. I'm on my wife's policy. They pay us if we meet certain health requirements, such as weight and exercise. So in your scenario, the insurance provider and doctor are under the same roof? Split the profits rather than the insurance companies loss is the doctor's gain? I can certainly both under the same roof being better. But again, this is the same as a home builder. That builder also want to spend the least amount possible on your home. I like how the new healthcare bill, which kept private insurers, insists insurance companies do things like spend less on advertising and more on healthcare or pay a penalty. Of course they've been regulating minimum standards for home builders for ages.

I'm not sure I can agree with this. I understand why you say it is a conflict of interest but isn't there a conflict of interest in every business? The goal of homebuilders is not to make a house for you, it is to make a profit for their shareholders. The goal of fast food restaurants is not to feed you, it is to make a profit for their shareholders. Fill in all the rest... The other point is that making you healthy is not necessarily an impediment to making a profit. For example, paying a small amount for your blood pressure medicine is surely more cost effective than paying for the health care due to your heart attack. A health insurance company that does nothing to keep you healthy will surely not make a profit. So if done correctly... Home builders give you shelter and make a profit for the shareholders. Fast food restaruants feed you and make a profit for the shareholders. Health insurance keeps you healthy and makes a profit for their shareholders.

I'd say this is just about right. It also comforts me to know that if injustice is done to me it is due to flawed humans, not a 'superior' being from whom I might have been expecting more justice and compassion.

I'm having a hard time coming up with a response. I've never met anyone so condescending and pompous before. How do you have a discussion with someone who feels that only he is capable of being right?

Right. Not only OK, but the right thing to do. Those two can go together. I did not say if it is the right thing to do then it is automatically OK. You are saying that killing is never OK, even when it is the right thing to do. I disagree with your position and was saying so. I understood completely, I just disagreed. You make it sound as if the only reason to disagree with you is if one does not understand you.

When you said... ...I thought that your point was that it is never 'ok to kill', but as the lesser of two evils, society may choose to do so anyway. Since I entirely got that wrong, can you tell me what your point actually was?