MigL

Of course, CharonY. I probably wasn't clear enough, but both Honda and Toyota have Auto manufacturing plants here in Canada which are not unionized, ( and the Koreans had a plant in Quebec which has since closed ) as opposed to GM, Ford and FCA, which are all unionized. And you're right, I don't know how you'd assess productivity, but I do know their employees are very loyal. I do seem to remember reading that even where Toyota and Honda have unionized workforces, they tend to work with the company in a non-adversarial manner. Which seems to differ from the North American style of doing things. But none of this changes the fact that I've never said I'm against unions. Nor Communism.

So now Phi and Delta are criticizing me for my phrasing, and John thinks that because there's a quality concerning Communism and unions that I don't particularly like, I must be opposed to them. I have stated numerous times that they are necessary. Maybe if you read people's posts you won't have to constantly demand answers ! And yes John, I was in a unionized workforce for approx. 15 yrs. At my current employment I've been a non-unionized, salaried employee for 13 yrs, but our management team was recently brought in from the Southern US, and made life miserable for some. So much so that this past December we unionized. As for evidence, not that anyone else has provided any to the contrary despite your assertions, I submit the productivity of American Auto plants, with their unionized labor force vs the productivity of Japanese and Korean Auto plants. You tell me which are unionized and which employees are treated with more respect.

I'm afraid I have to say the same thing as Sensei did, John... "What on Earth are you talking about ?" I suggest you re-read post #2, where I state... "a lot of us would suffer needlessly. Just as workers would without protection." Does that sound as if I'm opposed to labor unions ? Sometimes they are needed, just as Socialist policies are needed to ensure a 'just' society. Sometimes they are NOT needed. And that is the basis of my comparison to Communism.. If I'm unionized, and I can never earn more money, get more time off, or receive better benefits than my fellow employees, what is the incentive for me to do a 'better' job ? Simply adequate will do. And that is why I say both unions and Communism tend to breed the lowest common denominator. And why I believe Communism and Capitalism need to be in balance. The weak and needy need protection and a hand-up. But they also have a need to strive for something 'better'. I'm glad I gave you the opportunity to get some information 'out there'. And I hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction ( but I suggest you could have done that yourself by re-reading my post )

All of the things that you mentioned, John, are now protected by legislation in western countries. Are you then saying labor unions have no further role to play ? ( see, I can 'twist' your words too )

Even Spock had to modify that rule, iNow.

They don't build bridges like they used to.

Both Communism and Capitalism are prone to corruption, as are all systems of governance. Lets not pretend Communism under J Stalin or F Castro was the ideal Communism. Those leaders amassed great wealth and power. Nor do we have the ideal Capitalism in the US. Not only is it tempered with some socialism, but, there are certainly barriers to bettering oneself. And it is also a corrupted system. We are after all, a species which tends to take advantage of, and exploit, our own kind. Its built into our genes. Survival of the fittest and all that. Sometimes all we can do is hold our nose and pick the option which stinks the least, Sensei.

Certainly, a 'just' society has to balance the common good of all its people with the heed to better oneself. Communism/Socialism and Capitalism have to co-exist, but the devil is in the details. The 'right' balance is obviously going to be different for different people. ( and sometimes different for the same people, at different times in their life )

Come on John. I know you read the rest of the post. Or are you just picking and choosing parts of my post to argue with ? ( come to think of it, I've often done the same thing )

Well, what is the reasoning behind your thinking ? Communism is a lot like labor unions, they both tend to produce the lowest common denominator. Everyone uniformly poor, and everyone a bad worker. Unfortunately, if it wasn't for shared resources in our society, which is what Communism or Socialism refers to, a lot of us would suffer needlessly. Just as workers would without protection. So is it a necessary evil ? Or an undesirable benefit ?

Agree with what you say Bells, but throwing out 'sexist' and 'homophobic' labels right out of the starting gate does no-one any good. I have used bathrooms which although not designed that way, were being used by both males and females ( long line-ups in crowded nightclubs in my younger days ). There was never any 'shy bladder' effect, even when the girl in line behind you was telling you to hurry, because you'd usually had plenty to drink. And no, I didn't stick around to see how she was gonna manage at the urinal.

Everything that supplies more calories than it takes to digest CAN be fattening. Your body can burn carbs, fats and proteins. Its the amount that matters

Its a sneeze, fer cryin' out loud, get over it. I really don't think you can sneeze at will, so I don't think you can 'maliciously' sneeze on someone. Maybe your after-shave stinks and caused the sneezing.

Hi Markus. Nice explanation of the EFEs. Have never seen them explained so simply before. ( still remember your GR stickies on that other 'forum' )

Wow ! OoooooK... You seem to think you know a lot about Einstein and scientific history. SR was not discarded by Einstein, but was a precursor to his groundbreaking work with GR. As a matter of fact, if Einstein hadn't published in 1905, chances are good Poincaire would have presented a working version of SR within 5 to 10 yrs, as he was that close. His work with GR, however would probably have taken 50 to 100 yrs to equal ( if ever ), as there was no-one even remotely close to what he accomplished with curved space-time geometries. I suggest re-reading his 1905 paper. While it may be more limited in scope of applications, it is by no means redundant.

I'm suggesting Deacon, that it should be morally acceptable to do both. Or neither. If society has finally accepted that some men may be women trapped in a man's body ( or the alternate for women ) necessitating sex reassignment surgery, why should we deny a man who isn't confortable with his homosexual feelings, the genetic/neurological treatment to resolve those issues ?

( I understand but I'm trying to stir up discussion ) A person with a coma, severe head injuries, or even someone born with severe mental abnormalities may have the same low level sentience, and may eventually recover/achieve a higher sentience level. But so will a foetus.

Mods, please split this off if we're getting off topic. But I don't see the distinction StringJunky. In one case we are manipulating a person's physical make-up so that they better 'fit' into their perceived place in society. And in the other genetically/neurologically manipulating them to better enable their perceived fit into society.

What about after a person stops being sentient, according to your definition ? If a person goes into a coma, or even has brain activity but only reacts to basic stimuli, should we start cutting them up and harvesting their organs ? What would be the difference that justifies one but not the other ?

So DrmDoc you "think our quest should be about finding ways to be happy with oneself without radical changes and for others to be more accepting and respectful of our differences" ? So you don't agree with sex reassignment surgery, and the very need for transgendered people ? Did you mean something else or are you being hypocritical ?

The equivalence principle is certainly valid but I wouldn't say that "we don't feel gravity, only pressure on a surface". More appropriate would be pressure on a 'volume' ( if that makes any sense ). In a positive G maneuver, in an agile aircraft, your blood is forced away from your head, resulting in black-outs, unless compensated for by a G-suit or a reclining seat. You don't just feel the Gs pushing you down, every individual part of you feels that force ( or acceleration ).

Both of your questions have the same answer. As Swansont has mentioned, gravity isn't strong at all, in fact, it is extremely weak. So weak, in fact that you can counteract the gravitational 'pull' of the whole planet on an apple with one hand.

Ukranian 'know-how' and engineering don't take a back seat to anyone. I will speak to what I'm familiar with... The Antonov design bureau has designed/built most of the transport aircraft used by the former USSR, until the recent re-alignment with the West threw away that arrangement. One could argue that if the West had wanted to boost Ukranian autonomy/economy, Europe would have chosen a derivative ( with European engines ) of the excellent An-70 transport aircraft, instead of sinking billions into the Airbus A-400 mess. It could have been operational 10-15 yrs earlier. Similarily ivchenko-Progress has developed , and continues to develop, aircraft engines of all sizes and power ranges. To understand how important this is, consider the problems China has faced in trying to develop indigenous engines for their military aircraft. The Ukraine could, if it wasn't for lack of available funding, have an aeronautical industry comparable to, at least, the UK or France

Darn ! Your avatar gives it away !

Whether intrinsic or extrinsic, Euclidian, or 'flat' geometry fails when curvature is involved. In Euclidian geometry a triangle's angles always add up to 180 deg, and Pythagoras can be used to measure distances. In any 'curved' geometry this does not hold. A triangle's angles add to more than 180 deg on a positively curved surface such as a sphere. And less than 180 deg on a negatively curved surface like the inner part of a doughnut ( torus ). Reminds me of a joke/riddle... A hunter sets off from his camp due South. After travelling 50 mi he turns due West. After travelling 50 mi he shoots a bear. Then he turns North and, after travelling 50 mi is back at his camp. What color is the bear ?