Mr Skeptic

OK, so where on a spherical surface is the center?

I suspect it's something you wouldn't want to tell your patients

Of course there are plenty of obvious results from science. Oh, and a few counter-intuitive ones too. Its always been traditional for scientists to occasionally test the obvious things to make sure they aren't one of the counter-intuitive ones.

If they worked they would be the headline of every newspaper and science journal. They are not, therefore they do not work.

You seem to be coming from the perspective that the body is the large scale pieces and organs. We are made of about a trillion individual cells which can individually live or die. Cells need oxygen to live, and so depriving them of oxygen will kill them. The brain in particular needs a constant supply of oxygen and will die in minutes without it. However, there is somewhat of an exception. If a body is very cold, the processes of the cell slow down significantly, and so too do the oxygen requirements. This is why people who "drowned" in cold water can sometimes be revived 30 or so minutes later which would be deadly for someone who was still warm. They say that you're not dead until you're warm and dead.

I've only heard of a "Continuum" in science fiction. However, it is an open question as to whether the universe curves outward (like a saddle) or inward (like a sphere), or is flat (like the Euclidian geometry you learned in school). This would be in relation to itself.

This one says that all the aid from one ship was transferred and that Israel says the rest will be transferred too. This one says that one of the leaders of the group that organized the flotilla didn't think Israel would let the cargo into Gaza, not whether they in fact did or not. --- Apparently you were right that the aid was not delivered. This one says Hamas stopped the delivery: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/02/idf-hamas-stops-flotilla-aid-delivered-by-israel/?iref=storysearch

Hm, is there some reason for not telling what is being blocked? Yup, that fits in with the law http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce 103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to: (a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and (b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Cute, but this set of laws has nothing to do with blockades. It's not surprising that you won't find the laws related to blockades there.

Good points there. Apart from questioning the legality of the blockade, the practicality of it has to be considered too. If the blockade is increasing support for Hamas and hatred against Israel, then it would cause more harm than several rocket attacks.

That's a pessimistic attitude, Severian. Maybe you should become a Buddhist. Their first tenant is, "Life is suffering". Their objective, oblivion. For them, the rebirth they believe in is a curse.

Do you open in the morning or evening?

I did -- check the CO2 levels. Biomass can't be increasing by that much, or coal would be a renewable resource. Yes and no. Whenever you have a temperature difference, you can extract work by transferring the heat from the hot to the cold. If you have no temperature difference, then no matter how hot it is you can't extract work from it.

I don't think what you think my conclusions are is accurate. Right, but if the primary evidence that the police have to link someone to a crime is a confession, then they really had no business arresting them. They don't really want to hurt you. They have a vested interest in "performing well" and in "catching the bad guys".

When someone asks for alternatives, they usually mean things that are already being done (or in this case, already not being done). In any case, it is impossible that Israel is committing piracy. How would that have made it any more legitimate? From my understanding of the laws, doing this would have been irresponsible and not added any legitimacy. In the eyes of many people, yes. I hope a few of them have video/photographic evidence, because if their purpose is what it appears to be, their claims will have no credibility. Of course not. It is the reason why you don't attack armed soldiers unless they are trying to kill you or you want to die. They had neither the means nor the ability to defeat, nor the legal right to attack, the soldiers who were carrying out a legal operation. An operation that these people knew was legal, or at least would have been ridiculously stupid to not know (ie, trying to break a blockade without looking up the relevant international laws). In short, because blockades are not optional. No, but it would have been practically different, in that the US or Britain might declare war on anyone attacking their ships (whether or not they were in their legal rights to do so). Its a benefit of being a citizen of a country with a lot of power.

No, but you are much more likely to win. It doesn't matter how motivated they are. If someone tries to kill you then you usually try to kill them back, whether or not they care about dying. "An eye for an eye" never does work. I've tried it when I was a kid during petty sqabbles, and the problem is that the two sides have a different idea of how much pain should be inflicted on each other to balance things out. Isn't that always the case when one side is using human shields and the other does not? Would Israel be any better if they used hundreds of civilians to hide their military squads behind? It would certainly balance the death toll, don't you agree? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes, always. Go ahead, show me a country that hasn't sent a military force against civilians. (Doing so on their own territory against their own civilians is a different story, however, although I suspect that even so every nation has done this) Not really, anyone who would do that would never be in a position of command. You can't make it to a position of command without realizing that accidents and mistakes happen. Yup, as soon as you use lethal force against someone you can expect lethal force to be used on you. Using lethal force against a military unit is just plain dumb unless your intention is to die. This is just common sense regardless of the legality of the situation. That Israel was within their legal rights to board the ship, and then to attack given that the people on the ship had attacked them, is a matter of international law. Incidentally, the armed escort that Turkey says they will send with their ships will change the legality of the situation, in exchange for Turkey vouching for those ships themselves. It's likely not a matter of protection as might be imagined by those not familiar with the international laws.

For your first question, you should look up the Big Crunch scenario. As I understand it, it is basically the universe collapsing into a single point. Also, consider that we can't leave our universe, much like you couldn't leave a black hole. For the second question, yes, the passage of time is relative. From your perspective if you consider yourself to be continuously accelerating you might get they idea that you're passing the speed of light. From an Earth observer's point of view, your acceleration is slowing and time on your ship looks like it's in slow motion.

It would likely die of hypothermia.

I think it would be valid evidence only if the jury watches the entire interrogation for context. I no longer am willing to accept a confession alone as indication of guilt.

No, it would be the international laws that give them permission to attack ships in the described situation (violating a blockade, ignoring orders to stop, resisting search & seizure). Note they only captured the ship -- they would have been withing their rights to attack it once it had resisted seizure. No, it's not a random raid. It's called a blockade for a reason. If Gaza disagrees with the blockade they would be within their rights to declare war over it. JohnB summed it up nicely in post 22. In addition to what he said, yes,neutral ships may be captured if attempting to breach a blockade, so long as they are not in neutral waters. See number 146 on the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Not in the least. The number of deaths just shows that when it comes to lethal violence, armed Israeli commandos are far superior to poorly (but still lethally) armed mobs of protesters (or possibly martyrs).

I'd see how these numbers compare to the number 1.

I hear some people can be gotten to admit almost anything given enough interrogation. Also, the police can lie all they like when they interrogate you. They can pretend they have an airtight case against you and then tell you how you will be so much better off if you just confess. Hm, I didn't know that aspect either. I just knew I don't have to tell them anything. Seems to me this is a case of following the letter of the law (maybe) and going 180° against the spirit.

"It spins around the earth at a speed and distance such that the centrifugal force equals the gravitational force."

Of course some of us would just trade in energy futures. Also, coal mines would become gold mines. Really, I think the energy cost of stuff is generally far lower than all the other costs. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI think the best solution is to slash military and entitlement spending such as Social Security. Instead of giving people with no jobs boatloads of cash, the government should focus on helping them find a job quickly. Also, the age of retirement needs to return to reality; and to avoid the same mistake they should define it clinically rather than at any particular age. Of course, we could also ignore the problem and let the market solve it. Eventually the government will have to start printing money, everyone who has dollars will hate us, massive inflation, people who use dollars as a stable storage of value will sell them causing even more inflation. Eventually, we will be poor and then China will pay us to do the work no they don't want to do, and our exports will finally surpass our imports. Problem solved.

Well, clearly some people find them offensive. Then again, that can be said about pretty much anything. Of course, simply being offensive is not enough reason to remove them -- the real question would be, are they really linked to violence against women? And to what extent? Given the name of the bar, it would seem to be a case of innocent humor.