MigL

You need at least two political parties. Ten oz, for one to be considered liberal and the other conservative. North Korea and Syria have no political parties. They are dictatorships. I don't see your point.

Well, when you post your liberal list, I'll tell you which points I agree with or don't. So far, only iNow and Raider have posted their liberal/conservative lists, and those are the ones we've been trying to discuss. But others keep bringing up Democrat/Republican differences. Please don't tell me what I think. Or do you think your definition of 'liberal' is the only valid one or that counts ? edit : directed @ Phi

Sure, Phi, you know I've never been a big fan of 'labels'. I would like to point out, that to the average Canadian, Democrats are not liberal at all, but actually, somewhat conservative. ( Republicans are in another category altogether ) So why is this thread going in that direction ?

I was wondering when you were going to weigh in Phi. ( where have yo been ? ) And while I agree with most of your response, I still think you should replace the word 'conservative' in your post with 'Republican'. Most of the rest of the world's conservatives ( and even SOME American Republicans ) are not the evil incarnate you paint them to be. Again not all conservatives are Republicans. And not all liberals are Democrats. Can w stop conflating them ?

No, I meant your thread about liberal values was excellent, iNow, because it gave people who may consider themselves conservative, an opportunity to examine their values, and see that they aren't very different from others who consider themselves liberal. People of different ideology are not so different, we have a lot in common; we all want the best for everyone, but sometimes disagree on implementation. Conservatism, in a nutshell, says that a wheel is round for a reason'; don't try to re-invent it just for the sake of change. And I see from Ten oz's response that this thread is about to go the same way. The world does not revolve around the US Ten oz. There are over 6 bill people who are NOT American/Democrat/Republican. ( I love you guys though )

That's true iNow, and it was excellent while it lasted ( at establishing common ground ) but it quicklydegenerated into a Democrat/Republican slugfest.

Well, what do you know, I guess I'm a conservative. Although I don't go as far as not trusting the Government ( no.3 ). and I don't believe Religion has any place in Politics/Governance ( morals yes ). However, I also like a lot of liberal ideals. ( I get a feeling of 'deja vu' writing this post )

What happens when that apple that you 'know' to be red ( Captain Kirk said so ), is blue shifted into the ultraviolet, or the infrared ? Can you still see the light, John ? Photons are still getting to you are they not ? But they are carrying information about the apple in another frame. Similarly, a gas arc can glow in the infrared or ultraviolet, can you still see the light ? Or are the photons just carrying information about temperature and composition ?

The OP says liberal views. To me that means liberal and conservative views. Certainly NOT Democrat and Republican views. There are plenty of threads about the sad state of American politics. Can we stick to the topic please ?

Seems you guys have 'US blinders' on... To the rest of the world liberals are not democrats and conservatives are not republicans. I would venture to say that Canadian or British conservatives are probably to the left of most US democrats. Its hard to have this discussion when the American 'standard' is applied to the rest of the world. ( Canada has no death penalty and even conservatives don't want it. But to answer Ten oz's question, maybe we can just maim them a little bit )

I also notice that the list isn't prioritized. Sometimes the biggest decision is the priority of these ideals/beliefs. For example, a country should take care of its weakest members ( no.1 ). Obviously the best way to do that is to make sure everyone has a job and is a productive member of society. But companies should also pay their employees a fair living wage ( no.6 ), so what do you do when another country has lower wages and your industries cannot compete on a world market ? Your choice is then, lose jobs ( as we've been doing since the 60s ) or introduce regulations and trade barriers. You clearly cannot have both and, as they say, 'the devil's in the details', and if you don't get the fine tuning right you make more problems than you solve. Liberals and conservatives ( NOT democrats and republicans ) sometimes have a difference of opinion as to the best 'split' in the above situation. Does that make either of them wrong ? Edit: Dimreepr just addressed this, also.

Well what do you know... I guess I'm a liberal. But, you know, when I list all the good conservative ideals, I value them also. What then, does that make me ? I like my politics 'a la carte' ? ( liberal/conservative not to be confused with democrat/republican )

Apparently, at one time, immigrants to the US were greeted by the inscription on the Statue of Liberty "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Even the ones from 'sh*thole' countries that had suffered famines and world wars. ( I believe D Trump's grandfather immigrated from Germany in the 1890s, and made his fortune building hotels/whorehouses during the Yukon rush ) Those immigrants in the late 19th century and early 20th century made America great, and, the economic powerhouse that it has been since. How can D Trump make America great again without a similar immigration strategy ? Times sure have changed.

Thanks Koti. Furyan5 may have taken this discussion a little too seriously. You gotta have some fun.

Would have to agree with iNow, diet is probably the primary factor, nothing to do with race. Ethnicity, on the other hand... Being of Italian descent, I notice my own BO changes if I eat too much garlic or preserved meats. I've noticed the same of Slavic people ( garlic and pickled foods ). X-posted with BeeCee.

Sooo. No-one liked my movie review ? ( sometimes we take ourselves too seriously )

Just because his discussion methods were a little unorthodox ( and a little rude ) doesn't make him wrong. And I will say again that most of this discussion is pointless ( but otherwise interesting ) as its mostly about semantics... But what our eyes 'see' or detect is the interaction of only certain frequencies of EM radiation with out detector cells. Why do some 'colors' appear brighter than others when there is no change in intensity of the EM radiation ? Why do we not see infrared/microwave radiation when every warm body is emitting it ( even in the dark BeeCee ) ? "Visible" light interacts with our receptor cells. "Invisible" light such as infrared or ultraviolet does not. In a Physics discussion 'light' is EM radiation, not a specific subset of the spectrum ( that's why there is a definition for 'visible' light ). So while you may be able to say you can 'see' visible light, you definitely cannot see 'invisible' light. Does that clear things up ?

I don't see how anyone can challenge evolution, especially in the winter when we all get colds and flu from mutated viruses, that the previous year's vaccine has no effect on. As to the original OP, and the chances of life arising by chance ( anywhere in the universe ), I will only quote Jeff Goldblum once in my life... "Life, uh, finds a way" from Jurassic Park

What ? No comments about my movie review ?

Sorry did not mean to tread on your toes, Stringy. But the tariff did force Bombardier to negotiate a 'free', 51% acquisition of the C series jets by Airbus. ( Airbus builds some jets in the US and can get around the tariffs ) It has made Airbus, the only winner in this situation, an even greater challenge to Boeing. With their ( and the State Department's ) bullying tactics, both Boeing and Bombardier ( and Canadian taxpayers ) have lost out. Now Boeing is trying a merger/acquisition with Embraer, so as to be able to compete with Airbus' more complete lineup. ( Brazilian government has already quashed that idea, and unwilling to give up control )

The information the violet photon carries, John, is not related to itself but to its last scattering, or, temperature of its emitter. The information itself is 'altered' in some situations. Light coming up out of a gravity well is red-shifted. The car's color doesn't change. The information getting to the detector ( eyes ) does. ( Wait a minute, is that argument in my favor, or against ? Damn, I hate this definition stuff. )

Now I know what 'tempest in a teapot' means. Was this story reported in Daily Mail ?

No different than the complaint filed by Boeing, a member of the most heavily Government subsidized industries ( defense ), which was 'rewarded' by the current Administration with a 300% tariff against the Canadian Bombardier C Series order by United Airlines, on the grounds of subsidization by the Canadian Government.

First rule of heat sinks... Highest thermal conductivity and largest possible surface area. And who builds their own flashlights ?

I really didn't think this would need an explanation... 'Seeing' is the brain's interpretation of information it gathers from certain detectors ( usually the eyes ). The detectors work by ( usually ) interacting with EM radiation. Whether something is 'visible' or 'invisible' depends on the ability of the information, the EM radiation, to get to the detectors, the eyes. This can be due to the path ( something may be in the way ). the intensity ( its too dark, I can't see anything ), or the type of information ( some animals can 'see' infrared, we cannot ). The point I'm trying to make is that light, or photons, are the information carriers. And while we 'see' by interacting with the information carriers, a photon itself cannot transmit any information about itself ( it would need to radiate light ) for us to be able to 'see' it. I.E. photons are invisible. everything else is semantics.