someguy

so then, if this is true and I must admit i completely agree with you, how good really is democracy? If the people can't figure out what is fallacious, what is a lie what is window dressing, and what makes sense and is good for a community both nationally and internationally, then why does it seem like a good idea to have the people decide who governs? I honestly only see two good arguments in favor of a democracy, the first is that it prevents a population from being led by an abusive leader, or government, that exploits them reasonably well (assuming elections don't get rigged and stuff like that). This is a good point. The second is that there is no other option that can achieve the same. this is untrue, and besides where there are wealthy there are exploited, government or not and to me exploitation is exploitation regardless of the source. there's a better way.

I'm not really sure.. but i would think it would be the most dense material. so a bar of mercury at 0 kelvin would probably be up there.

I see what you mean about spacial dimensions necessitating the higher dimension to exist. I'm not sure if that is completely true i can't fathom a one dimensional object, or at least i can't understand how such an object could exist.. but that doesn't necessarily mean it is impossible i guess. I can certainly imagine three dimensions without the 4th though, not very exciting but i don't think that lacking the 4th dimension would cause an object to cease to exist. the 4th dimension is necessary for how our universe is has become and will be but I think in order to qualify for existing you don't need the 4th dimension. though i suppose that depends on your definition of existing. Using higher dimensions in a theory could easily explain many things.. pretty much anything since no one can know what a higher dimension would be like. But I still have yet to see a reason for believing they exist. Using God in your theory could explain just as much just as easily, we could use god to explain the lack of mass in the universe just as easily. I have yet though to see a reason why we need a God to exist. That alone though is not enough to say that they don't but i prefer to first find reasons for needing stuff to exist before saying they are because that way i won't conjure things that don't exist. Superstring theory from what i know uses mathematical postulations in order to suggest multiple dimensions and many other things about superstring theory. and from what i understand the only reason they made those postulations is because it made the math tidy and simpler. But nature doesn't really necessarily tend to be neat and nice mathematically it just is whatever it is. Pi is not a nice and neat number yet it is such a simple part of nature.

the human body is designed to desire those foods it needs after having tasted them a few times. If i'm hungry for meat it's because there's some kind of substance in there my body is requesting. If too many animals die from too much meat consumption it is not because each individual consumes too much meat it is because too many humans exist compared to the size of our planet and its capacity to sustain life in evolutionary terms.

communism is a bad idea I think, the ideas it was based on were good. Marx observed capitalism well, it's a little outdated now but still. His socialism is not defined but whatever that is is probably good. giving up having some ultra rich taking advantage of the ultra poor i think is a good thing. economic equality i believe is a good thing. but achieving that is the key and communism not quite good enough. but there is a way. You would need to completely change how governments work and are constructed. I've been to china and I've been to Cuba and what communism is supposed to be these places are not. But they are still called communist countries. China felt to me like the most capitalist place I'd ever been.

It depends where and when you are in history.

If no animals were grown on farms we'd probably be out of animals by now.

Well natural selection is not smart at all. If mankind messes nature up too much natural selection will destroy humanity and start back from scratch and nobody will care. If you want to preserve humanity, at this stage, when we have clearly decided to challenge evolution by inventing solutions to our problems perhaps designer babies could be our solution. Smart is smart "good" or "bad" who cares. smart will help humanity make good decisions, maybe those decisions would be to revert to a style of life where the common person uses much less technology than we do today, maybe to use all of our resources to colonize another planet, it's hard to say. I am certain that humanity would be much better off with an army of wise or super intelligent people governing the world. Designer babies could possibly achieve that. we have already messed up our genetic code the way you're thinking of Lucaspa, basically only certain diseases continue to kill us most other genetic mutations stay in our gene pool regardless of what they are. Certain genetics allow beings to accomplish certain tasks intelligence is both knowing what tasks to accomplish and the ability to figure out how to do it. I actually pretty much agree with you but we have already gone too far. Humans evolved to become smart. And we discovered language. and therefore the ability to share thoughts. Then some of us managed to invent things and discover realities of the universe and share those with other people. and then having technology and the ability to speak there is no reason to evolve further in intelligence as a specie. We are really just marginally smarter as a specie than certain monkeys, and evolution in fact makes that necessary. That means the majority of humans use technology they don't really understand nor do they understand what repercussions there could be or how the things it affects work and whatnot. people are for the most part trained to know a lot about very little and to concentrate only on their own duties with money as their objective. with the world under their control and fuel by their fuel to possess more of this technology things could get out of hand and mankind could destroy itself. Having a skewed number of abnormally intelligent people could really help humanity out and lead our specie in a better direction than the randomness greed takes us. They would be charged with knowing a lot about a lot and making sure our non natural activities don't destroy us, making sure we don't do stupid things like go to war for no reason or just for money. and for that designer babies could be the answer.

honestly, I couldn't care less If gays get married, I understand why they want it so much, and for those reasons we should let them. The real question is if gayness is genetic then maybe if society really accepts gays and gays are not afraid to hide that they are gay even from a very early age, then maybe there will be less and less gays. Probably in the past many gays had a spouse of the opposite sex and produced children because they needed to hide the fact they were gay. If they stopped doing that then maybe the gay gene would sort of be left out of the gene pool. then, sometime in the future there will be so little gays that it becomes really taboo again people start hiding in closets again and the cycle continues. I don't know... it seems to me that in the past there was a time when being gay was much more accepted in europe than in recent history. but artificial insemination and other things could help against that now I guess.

Probably everything else you do in your lifestyle ruins habitats much more than eating meat. I think a lot of people are so worried about killing animals using animals for fur and eating animals. But really this is the best thing for them given our nature. because eventually the only animals left will be those that produce profit, or things like rats and seagulls and pigeons that can live in cities off of us humans. Sure that would mean all animals would be in captivity but captivity is better than extinct and extinct is what they will become if there is no money in having them exist and money in taking away what they need to survive. So save the animals and wear fur.

It's tough to say if this is a good idea or not. on the one hand it could totally mess up our diversity of genetics which allow many different humans to be fit for many different tasks. It wouldn't bode well for capitalism. Most people would want to make their children really smart and really physically attractive and really physically able and talented at everything. if everyone was this way people would be way too over qualified for certain jobs and go crazy. On the other hand we'd probably get very wise as a population and we would solve all of the problems of humanity and become really a good community rather than individuals at war with each other. or maybe we could somehow regulate our genetic population so that we get some really really smart people and then other people for doing the jobs that dont' require so much intelligence, but then you would be in a sense making slaves and we'd be back in the day with plato and natural slaves and citizens and that doesn't seem ethical to me. maybe if we build an army of super wise to rule the planet.. i'd be more down with that. I think designer babies could possibly be the best thing that could ever happen to human beings, but it could also possibly become the worst it depends how it is allowed and monitored. But imagine the world with 10 000 einsteins only 10 000 would be huge probably there would be revolutions all over the place. we don't even get 2 einsteins alive at the same time, at least i don't think so.

It depends which animals. Some plants react to touch all plants will follow light. reaction to stimulus does not indicate self awareness. when you wonder if an animal feels pain it is not enough to notice that it reacts to stimulus which is known to cause pain in humans, even if the response is indicative of feeling pain since the animal could not be aware of itself and therefore not really "feel" pain, or rather not know that it is feeling it. some animals are self aware humans are one such type, most aren't. so knowing that then I would have to say that testing on the non self aware animals is perfectly ethical. It's like testing on machines that can grimace. but still, i wouldn't want to be the one doing it.

actually the vacuum of space technically never sucks anything. it's just a low pressure zone. if you have a bottle of air out in the vacuum of space and you open it the air would get sucked out.. or rather blown out because pressure likes to be equalized. Gravity would prevent your trick from happening because the force of gravity pulling the air down would be greater than the propensity to equalize. your idea is similar to believing that putting a straw in a glass of water would cause the water to jump out of the straw because the air is lower pressure than in the water. but that doesn't make sense just from observation and that's because gravity is holding it down, and since water is denser than air it stays at the bottom. water is a little different than air though because it sort of sticks together into balls so i don't think it would equalize the same way as air would. but if there was no gravity and what kept our atmosphere attached to the earth was some sort of membrane wrapped around our planet then your straw, poking out the membrane, would work.

I meant beef as in the battle to grasp the concept. Sorry, it's just the way i speak. but as for the definition well the definition is as much as we can know about it. but you would like to conceptualize these things as your senses perceive. or in terms that your senses understand rather. Is that right? you can't really poke air with a stick when it is calm and back in the day they thought that if a box was empty then it was filled with a void rather than air. I wonder if you think about it if you would struggle also with understanding air. you cannot smell it or really feel it unless it is windy. but we know that it is made up of tiny little atoms maybe that's what cleans up the definition. the universe is made of energy all that which exists is energy, you will not find a void of energy unless you have discovered nothing but you won't ever discover nothing because nothing doesn't exist that's why it is nothing. If nothing existed then it would be something, and therefore not nothing. If you look at space it seems like a void.. and it is a vacuum, but there's tons of other stuff there, gravitational fields, neutrinos, magnetic fields, debris. It is all that which is. sometimes clumped together in a concentrated mass, sometimes spread very thin, it is motion. it is the fabric of the universe. I don't know what it feels like all the time, sometimes it feels like water sometimes it feels like a burn, sometimes it feels like my keyboard, sometimes an electric shock. i don't know what an atom feels like. and there is no real answer either because what something feels like depends on human sense. it depends on the size relationship between me and the object. something can feel smooth but if i were shrunk would be rough. or the earth seems flat to me but if i were super gigantic it might hurt my foot if i stepped on it. There's some stuff that's just too complicated for our sense and we can never understand like we understand tree or rock, but then again some of what we think we understand about these things is in fact just an illusion. our senses are devious and are too limited to encompass the complexity of the universe, and even if they could, it would be sort of mistranslated, not the absolute way the universe is. for example, color is not a property of light nor the universe. It is the translation our mind makes of light within certain wavelengths. color exists only in our minds. perhaps really what you're actually looking for is for your mind to be tricked. ;-)

ya swanson that's what i meant. if you look at a spaceship moving really fast through space you gain ground. if you look at a spaceship moving really fast through time you would be "carried" to a further point in time ( compared to the stationary object ) so you in the spaceship age normally and time inside the spaceship is normal from your perspective but when you get out of the spaceship or for example come back to earth, the stationary observer, you would find that everyone else aged much more than you.. like if you were carried to a further point in time. I prefer to look at it this way rather than time slows down for the person moving faster but essentially they are saying the same thing. like if i was walking towards you you could say from a physics standpoint that you are moving towards me. both would be right as for why in an absolute sense, like what is the purpose of life kind of why, the answer i guess is that it just is that way. as for why like how einstein figured it out, he used an imaginary scenario knowing already that light is constant. basically as i recall in his scenario he imagined a beam of light shining down in a moving train, a really really fast moving train. if you saw it from the outside, it would form a diagonal. in a still train just a beam straight down. if you timed the trip of the beam from top to bottom looking from outside it would take the same amount of time for the beam to reach the bottom in both trains. But a diagonal beam is longer than a straight beam. so the moving train beam covered more ground in the same amount of time. this could only occur if either the beam moved faster in the faster moving train or if time was different in the faster moving train. since the speed of light is constant then it must be that time is changing. If i'm not mistaken it was some other guy.. i think a french guy that figured out the speed of light is constant before einstein came up with relativity.

matter is energy that's where the energy comes from to make gravity. so technically it's not free. it comes from somewhere. You can use gravity to make energy without depleting the source of gravity in fact you could even do it by strengthening gravity like using a meteorite to power a "turbine" for instance since the meteorite did not start on earth and ends on earth you added to earth thus adding to gravity, and on it's way down you could slow it to a crawl and use all of that kinetic energy to power something. of course this would not be technically useful in practice since meteors are hard to come by and side effects may include destroying the planet. If you use water for energy then eventually all your water would be in the lowest parts of the earth. really where the energy comes from that you use when using a waterfall is from getting the water back up the mountain. for this you need the sun to evaporate the water and carry it up the mountain. you could stick some water in a half clear box, clear on the bottom and shady on top, and have the water fall down the sides and trickle into a turbine and evaporate then it would fall again and continue the cycle. but this energy does not come from nowhere eventually the sun will burnout and you can't do this anymore, or if you had too large of a surface of the planet covered with such a device then the planet would be lacking sun. if you want to create an empty space inside a pool so that you would never need to carry water back up to anywhere and just create empty space for it to fall into which i think is what you are getting at, then rest assured you would find that you require at least just as much energy to make the void as you would get in return from your turbine. but really you wouldn't need to create a void, just flow. the moon makes the tide and we can use that for energy. you could possibly use magnets to create flows of ionized liquids or gases or flows of other magnets even? To be honest i'm not really sure where the work that magnets can perform comes from or how it gets depleted i realize it is all to do with charges but... what's a charge? nobody knows really. All i know is that there's two kinds and they attract each other and repulse others like themselves. But still there must be some sort of explanation about magnetic forces and charges that explains why you can't use them for some sort of free energy. I just don't know exactly what it is. as for your beef with space-time... the universe is that which exists, energy. space. mass bends this stuff. objects will follow the bends unless forced into another pattern. imagine if a heavy liquid something like mercury that merges together easily was poured randomly on a really flexible trampoline like fabric that is perfectly slippery and smooth causing no friction on the liquid and you did this all in a vacuum, eventually you would get dense spots and less dense spots and a random object rolling by would be influence by how the dense spots have bent the trampoline, you would also get i guess little mini orbits since nothing would be persuading the liquid to slow except for more liquid and/or the bends in the trampoline the liquid made. gravity is like this but only 3d which is really hard to visualize. space allows for objects to exist in 3d. Time is the 4th dimension it allows objects to move. if there's no time there's no motion, no motion no time. no time then objects just hang in suspended animation and don't interact with each other.. and so in a way kind of don't really exist.. and yet kind of would. we couldn't observe them that's for sure because our brains and bodies require time in order for their parts to move and function.

the most useful thing about time is it allows for motion. if there was no motion in the universe at any level the universe would be essentially paused and there would be no time. you need time for motion and motion for time, they're pretty much the same thing. In fact the faster you move the faster you travel through time compared to slower moving things, and that means you would age at a slower rate than those things moving slower than you. So then time is just as essential as space is as far as existence of the universe is. ya i agree there is a true now, in fact there is only a now. it's now all the time. I'm always trying to catch up with the future but i can never get away from the now and the past keeps up with me relentlessly.

what about gravity? if a gravity well somehow affected me light years away, and suddenly the source vanished when would i notice? light years later? or if you don't like vanishing, what it moved away at some speed would there be a lag? or would i experience the change of gravity as though it were the object right close to me. I know such a gravity well would be hard to find and moving it even harder but you know what i'm saying? just for the sake of argument. how fast does gravity move? it seems to me like it is fixed with the source and no matter the radius it moves instantly with the source as though it were the source. so then if you could manipulate gravity somehow with massive amounts of energy you could send some weird morse code message faster than light. (destroying the universe in the process i guess though, even if the pulses were hyper short)

I like that question and its a good one to ask, questions like this are how you will achieve a better understanding of relativity. We could also say what if a boy was traveling incredibly close to the speed of light.. would there be a delay in the face he sees? that would still work with relativity. I think if he were moving at the speed of light i would have to initially say that the mirror would be black since no light from behind you could make it to the mirror even if you emitted light. if you were very near the speed of light... then i would think there would be a delay and you would be essentially looking into the past of your face. the farther away you hold the mirror the farther in the past you are looking at. but come to think of it. light is kind of a strange thing. If someone is shining a light at you and you're traveling near the speed of light, light doesn't come at you any faster. I think this has to do with the warping of your time frame. so it may be possible actually that the boy's time is warped moving at that speed that it would compensate for the delay and no delay would be apparent. when you think about it.. for all we know we could be moving just on the cusp of light speed. it depends what you compare yourself to to determine your speed. just comparing yourself to light is not enough you need two anchor points. Time slows down for you as you move faster and the limit is the speed of light so if you were moving at the speed of light time will have warped so much for you that moving would be instantaneous so really you wouldn't be anywhere.. or rather you'd kind of be everywhere until you slow again. Light doesn't really age it kind of is everywhere.. from its perspective. we can "see" it moving. that's how i understand it to be at any rate. And I'm pretty sure that's why it sometimes must be looked at as a wave and sometimes a particle.

well you can fake 3 dimensions on a piece of paper easily enough if you're good at drawing. the 4th dimension is time so you can do the flipping of the pages trick like how cartoons are made to make the object move or grow or whatever your function is. on a computer all you need to do is make a 3d object and move it. Any 3d object with motion is a 4d object. I don't know how you'd go about faking a 5d object though.

you can't accelerate at any rate forever because the object being accelerated requires more and more energy to accelerate it the faster it goes because it becomes more massive as the velocity increases and eventually the amount of energy required to accelerate it becomes too great. that's why they say the speed of light is the speed limit.

I don't know.. Einstein i don't believe practiced classical science as in isolating variables and testing. certainly observation but also imagination. imagining scenarios he could test within his own mind and postulating scenarios where he could logically come to certain conclusions. for example, he didn't discover gravity could bend light by actually bending light with gravity or observing light being bent by gravity, he figured it out by knowing certain principles and imagining a scenario using them and he ended up coming to the conclusion that gravity must bend light. it wasn't until later that we had the proper equipment to observe what he predicted. as for the natural limit to going back in time: people usually think of the twin paradox in terms of as you accelerate time for you slows down. I think a better way to look at it is that as you move faster you are carried through time at a faster rate, just like you are carried through space at a faster rate. so the slower you go the slower you move through time, in relation to other objects of course, until you reach a point where you are in sync with them and time is the same for you and the other moving body you are in sync with. now if you want to go in reverse time, wouldn't you need to move "slower" than the body you want to travel back in time from? this is impossible, you must either move or not move in relation to an object. either still, or slow or fast or faster, you can't anti move you can't unmove, or demove whatever you wanna call it. there's no speed slower than 0. so then i don't see how moving back in time could be possible just by nature of how the universe is. The only way i can see it would be possible is if you could anti-move by traveling into some other dimension, but that seems far fetched and untidy to me. as for math, ya i know what you mean that math is logic in its purest form but i don't think it can help the human error portion of science. I say this because math doesn't really describe something we can understand it just is numbers. we could look all day at formulas that function in 4 dimensions, plot them draw them out as much is possible and still never clue in that the 4th dimension is time. it never says that in the math. so though formulas can never be wrong, and can predict events if we know what the math represents, finding what it represents is truly the tricky part, or representing what we observe with it whichever way around it happens. That is where you can easily find human error, translating the math to describe reality. Personally I find this is where post Einsteinian physics is kind of weak, they're great in the math aspect and if you understand the math then there's information to look at but as for actually describing the universe i think it is lacking. but what's for sure is that if any theory is to hold up it must comply with math, it must be able to be described mathematically and for that math is a very useful tool.

it makes no sense to teach children to use or not use certain words. you can give someone the nicest compliment in the world using "bad" words and you can hurt and insult somebody using the nicest words also. the reason words start of bad and become good is because their original meaning is actually bad or considered bad in a period of history, then later generations "misinterpret" the word or associate it with how it is used. like for instance if you say "this sucks" originally this referred to fellatio, but for a child coming into the world learning new words the term "this sucks" has nothing to do at all with fellatio and it simply means "this thing is not good" many words in the english language change like this. If you look at many of the origins of words sometimes just rereading them and forgetting their colloquial meaning you can notice this like for example.. mistake miss-take bad take to take badly or understand badly but we look at it just as the whole word meaning error because we learn words not by studying their origin but by how they are used by people. I say swear away. if nobody cares about swearing.. then nobody cares.. teaching your children not to swear just creates bad words. but really there is a reason for such things. language and dress and other things are used as identifiers to segregate class. particularly obvious when looking in the past and at french language where it got really complex for nothing, there are multiple verb tenses that serve no real purpose and nobody really uses. but in those days when french was "in" you could clearly know that someone was rich and went to expensive schools because they could speak this way. Even today this exists i think, you might be more hard up to find the the son of a man in high society swearing casually compared to just a common man's son, therefore raising a child not to swear is considered good parenting by many people because then they could enter high society better. but i think this is disappearing more and more. So then by teaching our children to swear we may be helping end segregation and prejudice, so please do the world a favor, stop censoring and teach you children to swear and use any words they like, but only for the purpose of being good people. it doesn't matter what words you use, what vocabulary you use, how perfect your grammar is, how perfect your spelling is, it only matters what you say, the rest is just window dressing.

the problem is simple. That which decides the actions of humanity as a whole is profit, money, production, however you want to say it. A people with the best ideals doesn't win the war, the people with the best weapons do. Greed rules and wins, and the predominant society of the world is perfectly designed to allow for this. Thus we have many problems, nobody is being intelligent and observing whether or not mankind should undertake certain endeavors, that which makes money is done. Curing cancer would be a bad thing, it would mean more humans, too many humans is a bad thing, too much of anything is bad, too much water is bad, too much oxygen is bad, too many people means that too much of the materials on earth are being converted from one thing to another thus causing an imbalance in the world. Some might say we would never create slaves.. but then I wonder what truly is a slave? Men that work 9-5 could invent anything during their shift make anything during their shift and own nothing of what they did, they are rented slaves essentially.. but then we would say that they are payed and free to do as they please.. even collect enough capital to be the renter rather than the rentee. Slaves however were given food and lodgings probably even nicer than what a lot of people live in today. So is there really a difference between a slave and a person that must work most of the hours they are awake in order to sustain a life no better than those classic slaves endured? out of country out of sight out of mind. Is the bad part of the US invasion in Iraq the deaths? would it be better if the states could over throw a government without any casualties? perhaps just a mere threat? Not at all, and i think or at least would hope that most would agree with that especially those that live in the US. I believe an enlightened society would live without economic boundaries between countries. With only one world army no private ones (of course some may be produced illegally thus the requirement for the world army). And Greed should not dictate our actions, it should be by the thoughts of our smartest men who may best foresee the consequences of our actions, they would certainly fail at times, but they would be the best mankind has to offer what more could we do? You would likely disagree with me completely but look where our greed has gotten us so far. I remember when pollution, global warming was a myth, people are alive today that were alive before we had even the technology of producing most of the pollutants we produce now, our population is ever increasing, our yearly production of pollutants is accelerating, even if we manage to reduce the acceleration rate to 0 we would continue to produce the same amount of pollution year after year. how many years do you think we would have at this rate? do you even think reducing the acceleration rate to 0 is feasible? Sure we can reduce how much we make per person, but we are still making more people, our technology has limits it seems like we will be making more people forever. There is a set quantity of energy available on our planet, we enjoy converting its various forms for our own use, we discover that this unbalanced the world too greatly, and we believe that all we need to do is take our energy from elsewhere and everything will be fine, also, granted, trying to convert what we have too much of into things we have less of, not bad but still temporary because one day we will have too much of that too. you want to make cars that run on hydrogen and produce water as exhaust? good idea, it will rain everyday. We are in it deep. I don't think you can't fix it by voting for someone different or recycling everyday or buying an energy efficient vehicle. People will sell that idea to you because they will make money from you believing it. What if buying less stuff was the best thing you could do for the world? who would tell you? nobody that would lose profit from it... so pretty much nobody then i guess. There's no profit in discovering profit is bad, so in a profit run world that is not likely to be discovered or at least shared if ever it was. Right? Or who would let us know this if this were true? we need an overhaul of worldwide magnitude i think. But we are too greedy for that. Animal farm is a funny book huh? it shows us how our greed is destructive, it demonstrates how a society attempted to run equally would never work because of the greed of mankind of those in power and the implicit solution is to make everybody greedy have us all fight for stuff call it fair and watch the world consume itself. Imagine if tomorrow we were able to maximize the economy fully i don't mean fully as our capacity of production would currently allow, i mean fully as our raw materials would allow, we would spend all of our raw materials in a day. hmmmm. maybe having a great economy is not the greatest thing, our economy perhaps simply shows us the rate at which we are depleting our resources? (barring recycled products of course). Perhaps truly a good economy would be one that consumes our resources at a rate at which they could regenerate properly? certainly better technology could help us regenerate our materials more quickly but perhaps we should have invented those before going crazy and using up all our raw materials and creating a perhaps insurmountable imbalance of our planet. But a society based on greed would never be so wise.

Jfk was assassinated it would seem because he wanted to prevent a war in Vietnam, john Lennon was probably assassinated for the same thing in New York City, Lincoln was assassinated because he wanted to free slaves robbing a lot of people of a lot of wealth, Malcolm X was assassinated, Tupac was another revolutionary assassinated, Martin Luther king. These people, i believe, were not just assassinated for what they believed in but also because they had the power to actually influence the way things were, they spoke loudly. Freedom to speak so long as nobody listens? I'm just saying that you never know, the US has political style of making things not seem like the government is doing it like bay of pigs and the controversy that started the war in Vietnam, so i wouldn't put it past a lot of wealthy people with a lot of power that would have also government affiliations or are the government or prospective government or maybe not government at all and just stinking rich, hiring people to assassinate key figures for the sake of greed and have it seem like some random occurrence. Revolutionaries are rare you don't need entire armies to silence them, just a faceless pistol. Unless of course they reside in a whole other country. But that still won't stop them. It just makes it more obvious.