MigL

Only have one issue with bike riders Imatfaal, and its probably misdirected as it should be towards city planners or law enforcement. If I'm travelling down a busy street, with a lot of streetlights, I have to be very careful when overtaking a bike rider as it involves moving into the next-over, busy lane, in the absence of bike lanes. When I come to a light and stop, that bike rider will not stop behind the vehicle ahead of him, but proceed to pass on the right hand side, and go to the front of the line,. This necessitates the dangerous passing maneuver, over and over again after every stop-light. All vehicles, car or bike, on the road need to follow the same rules. No passing on the right hand side, and no travelling down the wrong side of the road ( like you Brits, or are we on the wrong side ) Sorry for the off topic jaunt, but you opened the door...

Getting back to the difference between the time dimension and the spatial dimensions, and correct me if I'm wrong, but... In GR we have dS^2 = dx^2+ dy^2+ dz^2- c^2dt^2 ( sorry for the lack of LaTex) making the actual multiplier for the time variable, ic , not simply c . That means, although orthogonal to the space dimensions, time is treated mathematically as imaginary.

My opinion, for what its worth... These refugees are trying to escape oppressive governments and situations. They see Western nations as safe havens because of the attitudes and culture that have formed our societies. Is it any wonder the majority of them think like we tend to ? If they didn't they wouldn't be coming here ( or to Germany ) Unfortunately it only takes one nutbar in their midst, for us to paint all refugees with the same brush !

Originally there were two competing models for light. By models I mean mathematical descriptions of reality. One described light as a classical particle, while the other model described light as a classical wave. Both models worked, i.e. they made testable predictions and described reality, but only in specific circumstances; and sometimes the areas of applicability of the models even overlapped. But neither model was applicable 100% of the time ( circumstances ). In the first half of the last century, QM introduced the concept of the quantum particle. Neither a classical particle or a wave. But a model of reality which has both a wave nature and a particle nature, and even describes quantum effects ( like the double slit ), but not to everyone's satisfaction as it involves a paradigm shift in the way we view reality ( probabilistic not deterministic ). And although this is different than the wave particle duality you wish to discuss, the Pilot Wave hypothesis was first introduced by L. DeBroglie ( that was my recollection Strange, not D Bohm ) as a way to reconcile QM's wave particle duality. You'll have to look it up for specifics, but it created more problems that it solved and was ultimately abandoned. So to recap, we make models which attempt to model reality. They will always be a model, and NOT the actual , real thing. As such they can never be 100% descriptive, but have certain areas of applicability. A good physicist is aware of those boundaries, and stays within those areas, otherwise his predictions are non-sensical. Incidentally, we are all here to learn, even those with PhDs at the leading edge of their field. We can do that best by asking questions and carefully considering answers we are given. If someone asks you a question they are trying to understand your idea, not ridiculing it. I'm sure we can all agree that squabbling doesn't lend itself to learning and understanding.

In politics, impressions are everything John. It shouldn't be that way because she's clearly the more capable candidate. She just gives people the wrong impression and comes across as unlikable and untrustworthy. ( so much so that a sizable portion of the population consider her LESS trustworthy than someone like D Trump ) Even her smiles/laughs look forced. Maybe the Democrats are regretting the way they treated B Sanders now, but they cheated the populace by handing H Clinton the nomination win, and now are hypocritically accusing the Republicans of cheating to win the Presidency ? But back to appearance/ impressions, I know we shouldn't elect leaders bases on 'looks', but we are, to a great extent, shallow. We have elected, in Canada, a Prime Minister who has continued all of the previous Conservative policies ( including the greenhouse gas emission targets for which Harper was vilified ) and increased the deficit. But he takes lots of 'selfies" because he' s a good looking young man with 'cute' hair. And everyone says he's the best thing since sliced bread !

Very interesting ( and informative ) maps Delta. Thank you.

Come to think of it... R Giuliani is a lot like J Goebbels. ( just kidding )

Of course. But do I need to include a disclaimer with all my posts stating that 'this is an opinion based on information available to me'. And how do you know that I'm not familiar with, and a close friend of theirs ? You mean your post is also an opinion based on available information ? Who'd have thunk that ?

I apologize to any other women on this thread. Unless the information is offered, I don't make it a point to ask, as my arguments are not based on the gender of the people involved. At no time have I mentioned multiple abortions and women's morals. I have simply made the argument that at some point, the fetus is a person, with rights equivalent to the woman that is carrying it. The argument has changed direction, however, and seems to be focused more on the right of women to do as they will with their body. The problem is rights are not isolated. With rights come responsibilities. You can't have one without the other. Example... I have the right to drink irresponsibly. But I have the responsibility not to be stupid about it, such as driving under the influence and killing somebody. They put you in jail for that and take away a whole bunch more rights. Now lets get back to the woman with the five abortions... Your argument is that its her right to have sex irresponsibly, and then avoid all consequences and further responsibilities, by killing a possible human being ( depending on when in the pregnancy, society deems that to be ). And not go to jail ! So you can call us bigots if you want, and take your marbles and go home, but so far these are just alternate viewpoints. We have no power over what you do. And the only intolerant person here has been you, Sirona, for immediately labelling our viewpoints 'bigoted and sexist', simply for being at odds with your own.

I noticed Ten oz didn't comment on option # 5 in his post # 82...

Becoming a dictator involve the condoning or backing of the military. I don't imagine it could ever happen in the US. At one point it couldn't even happen in Russia when Yeltsin was around. Sadly, Putin seems to subjugating the newborn democracy ( if it can still be called that ) to his will.

Bill was, is, and always will be a male whore ( not that there's anything wrong with that ). He's personable, interesting, and flirts with every woman he sees. Hillary seems cold and distant in comparison, and, although very competent, comes across as unlikeable to many. I really don't think they spend much time together, as his mistress ( the energizer bunny ) visits him quite often ( according to Secret Service sources )

Trump changes his mind ( and denies having made the previous statements ) as often as he changes underwear. Judging him on things he says he's going to do is a bit premature.

Well, here we are... A bunch of guys sitting around discussing what rights women should, or shouldn't, have. Doesn't seem right ( or ethical ) to me.

So again I have to ask... What should a good man do, other than protest and riot ? Do you think the election should be annulled and done over ? I would predict an even bigger win for D Trump in that case ( then again my predictions have sucked so far ). Do you think the 'progressive' areas should go their separate ways ? I don't think the break-up of the country is a viable solution. Do you think the Electoral College should be scrapped ( I do, by the way )? That would seem a lot less self-serving had you ( or any Democrat, including the President ) mentioned it during the last 8 yrs. Do you think the evil D trump should be shot ? OK, that's a little extreme, maybe just wounded ( i'm joking, and in very bad taste ) Heck, even Robert DeNiro has stated that he would not punch D Trump in the face anymore, as he is now his President, and the Office deserves a certain amount of respect. Even though the election results made him feel like he did after 9/11 ( now THAT is extreme and in bad taste; he equates it with 3000 people dying ? )

My apologies. I recognize this is a very sensitive issue. I should not have used the term 'cancer-like growth'. I hope that isn't what caused Sirona to leave the conversation. Any discussion of women's rights would be pointless without a woman's point of view and input.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Take that to mean ... All politicians lie ( requisite for the job, or you don't get elected ) or... The reality of the Presidency is vastly different and constrainig than the la-la-land of the campaign.

I really don't think it was the fact that she's a woman, Stringy. The way the Democrats rigged the nomination is what 'soured' her to a lot of people ( well, OK, me ). The Democrats showed themselves to be as self-serving as the Republicans, and so people voted for the anti-establishment candidate, the outsider, the 'wrench in the works' candidate if you will. D Trump is not a Democrat, but he hasn't made too many Republican friends either ( except for the boot-lickers/ a*s-kissers ). He was simply seen by many, as the outsider who will change the way Government does business.

AS has been stated many times on this forum by Phi and many others, Conservatives, and Republicans in particular, appeal to people's emotions ( fear, insecurity, etc. ). D Trump certainly did, he appealed to people's dissatisfaction with the government and how it failed to represent/serve/answer to them. A lot of people felt disenfranchised and ignored by the government, and this was, in effect, a protest vote ( my opinion, and boy, are they in for a rude awakening ). Now, after the election, The people who railed against the fearmongering, are themselves reacting emotionally. The have let fear of what D Trump will do control their actions. What do they expect to gain/change with the protests/riots ? Do they want the election annulled, and the chaos and anarchy that will bring ? Do they want the north-eastern seaboard separating along with California and forming their own countries ? Or are they simply venting frustration, with no particular aim, but making things worse ? I also find it ironic that you guys who can tell me the high percentage of times D Trump has lied during the campaign, now, all of a sudden, believe that everything he said is the gospel truth, and he will do everything he promised.

What I find more troubling is the statement " a fetus is not a human being ". Does that mean that until the umbilical cord is cut, we are just dealing with a cancer-like 'growth' which can be simply cut out and discarded ? A lot of people and lawmakers have agonized over deciding when the fetus is accorded human rights. And I realize there will be extreme opinions ( some at conception and others at delivery ), but surely, at some point, the fetus has to be granted human rights. What would be your reaction if ( in a country like China ), as soon as the gender is known, couples abort their female fetuses ( or is it fetii ? ) simply because they prefer male offspring ? Would you say it is their right to do so, as the fetus doesn't have rights or legal standing ?

We have the same issue in Canada with proportional representation ( which does seem like a more fair system, but I'm sure would create new problems ), but it only ever gets brought up when the Liberals lose an election. But that wasn't the main point I was striving to make... Why such a low voter turnout in what is arguably the most important election of the last 50 yrs ? And given the low turnout, why all the anger and angst at the results ?

The fact of the matter is that about 50% of ALL Americans who voted in this election also think and respond that certain way. Do you want to censor their opinions also ?

Getting back to the topic, which is the protests, not the legitimacy of the election. ( if there is a problem with the Electoral College system, why does it only get brought up when Democrats lose ? And why was there no talk of changing it during the last 8 yrs ? It does seem a rather archaic system and maybe change is in order ) Most of the videos I've seen show a lot of younger protesters, a lot of high school age as a matter of fact. Given the fact that historically that is the demographic that is least likely to vote, Why do they feel they have the right to complain about the results ? Instead of blaming our apathy at the results, why not blame the apathy of those who didn't bother to vote and caused this in the first place ? If people were worried about a D Trump win, why such a low voter turnout ( lowest since '96 ) ??? It wasn't important enough for people to get off their butts and go vote, why is it, all of a sudden, important now ???

On the contrary, there are almost yearly amendments and regulatory changes to NAFTA. All involve discussions/negotiations among the members. ( google NAFTA amendments )

Ahhh Americans. They're my neighbors and I love them, but they're not ones to pass up an opportunity to riot every chance they get. But you guys gotta relax, and keep things in perspective. There are things that are way more important than this election. Family, health, your job, etc. all are way higher on the importance list. Life will go on, even with D. Trump as President. And don't forget, in four years you have the opportunity for a do-over