ydoaPs

The mathematical component IS the conceptual component; it's just a different(more accurate) language in which the concept is expressed.

The same could be said of the words you're typing. The difference is that the mathematical descriptions are more accurate and testable. The fact is that time and space are so closely related that we can extremely accurately treat them as one object. General relativity is probably the best tested theory of all time. Time is the separation between states, and the mathematics and tests based on said mathematics reflect that. Observers need not be sentient beings; a proton interacting with an electron is an observer of that electron.

It's not that time 'speeds up' or 'slows down' depending on the reference frame. It's that the magnitude of the entire separation(called the spacetime metric) changes; the separation between individual states included.

I guess I've just been lucky that every hospital I've been to could look up my record. Furthermore, that problem could be curbed by harsh penalties for leaking the information(or if the information is leaked from your account).

Maybe not lawyers, but medical files(including psychiatrists) are already on a nationwide network. You don't have to take your chart with you on vacation; the hospital there can look up your history on their computers.

Like one instance of drunken public urination? Having one and passing knowingly infecting someone else SHOULD be regardless of whether the intent is malicious or negligent. If you're a responsible person who gets infected and do what any responsible human would do anyway, there's no ill effect to you; you're merely on a list tracking the spread of an incurable epidemic. Would it be different if we restricted it further to only the deadly incurable ones, or should it not be a crime to kill someone? The fact is that people who are irresponsible enough to get an STD through their own recklessness(not people who got it through other means such as the infidelity of a spouse) are not likely to be responsible enough to voluntarily inform future and recent sexual partners. Yeah, because that threat doesn't apply equally well to the files of psychiatrists and lawyers. See above.

Publicly? No. To medical officials, yes.

Not really. Many jobs already require physicals and/or drug tests; the test could be added on without the results being given to the employer. I used to have a job where I was required to get STD tests every year. And there's the "OMG OMG OMG MY CROTCH IS ON FIRE!!!!!!!!!!!" factor.

I'm sure pedophiles feel as though the sex offenders registry is a violation of privacy rights. Not informing future partners and recent partners is pretty much the same thing as coughing in their face if you have TB. How many people who were reckless enough to not take the proper precautions to avoid STDs are going to have the moral fortitude to inform future and past partners voluntarily? The right to privacy does not extend past the right of other people to make informed decisions that will affect their health FOREVER.

There are people who scream unconstitutionality about programs the supported only a few years back. Of course the opposing side will oppose it.

What do you think about a possible national STD registry for incurable STDs? I'm thinking something like: If you go to the doctor and come up positive for an STD that isn't curable, then you're placed on a national list of people with that disease, you are required by law to inform any future sexual partners that you are on the list, and you provide names of recent(time length dependent upon incubation period of disease and its current stage in the patient) sexual partners. The aforementioned names are then checked against the list. If the name is on the list and the current patient was not informed(proper protective measures obviously weren't followed), then they are fined. If the name is not on the list, they are tested. If the name does not appear on the list and the test is negative, nothing further is done with this person(although they could provide a bookend for the list of the names if they aren't the last name on the list). If the name does not appear on the list and the test is positive: If the disease in question has noticeable symptoms, then the person is fined, placed on the list, mandated by law to inform all future sexual partners, and must give a list of names of sexual partners during the entire period the person has had the disease and a period of time before. Same procedure for the list generated by this person. If the disease in question has no noticeable symptoms, then ignorance is assumed and no fine is given. The person is placed on the list, is mandated by law to inform all future sexual partners, and must provide a list of prior sexual partners for a given time period. Same procedure for the names generated by this person. There are already circumstances(like gunshot victims) where there is mandatory reporting; such cases may or may not be seen as precedent. There is already a somewhat similar registry for sex offenders which may or may not be seen as a precedent. Is it an unreasonable search? I think that the procedure outlined above provides probable cause for the tests after the test of the initial test. That combined with the fact that it is a public health issue makes me think such a procedure would be an unreasonable search.

Sure, let's start with my first post in this thread.

I thought Randi cancelled the challenge. You could always go in with a gun and a knife and ask the psychic which one is the weapon with which he will be murdered.

Owl, your questions are more suited for the Philosophy forum. Why must it be more than it is? Time is to states as space is to objects. Like distance(space) is the separation between objects within a given state, duration(time) is the separation between states themselves. The magnitudes of both distance and duration depend on the energy and chosen reference frame. Since time and space are so similar, we can take a larger picture here and take all the states together as a whole block of spacetime. For a good primer on the philosophy of space and time, I'd suggest Four-Dimensionalism by Theodore Sider This site employs a quote feature so that it is more easily discernible which portions of a post are quoted material. If you would like information on this feature or one of many other features of the site, we do have a tutorial.

So is your face

Fewer.

If anything, it's easier once you can legally sit and drink a beer with someone.

For pure nerd cred, I'd suggest Lynx. For more practicality, however, I'd suggest Chrome. Chrome even has a comic about what makes it so awesome.

Should Christmas be celebrated even by the non-pagans because it is an awesome holiday?

Politics is restricted by post count. You are not to evade this restriction by posting politics threads in the Lounge.

[01:50] <AzurePhoenix> I sometimes wish i had an ovipositor, then I'd rape someone with it and implant my embryo in their abdominal cavity

Been there. Done that. No, they don't.

The real question should be "For those of you who are theists, what makes you believe that there are one or more deities?". Atheism is simply saying "I don't believe you" to theism. The burden of proof here is on the theists. It'd be awesome for prosecuting attorneys if they could say "That guy murdered Frank. Prove me wrong.". Fortunately for us, that's now how burden of proof works. You've gotten that mixed around. Scientifically, there has been no evidence to suggest that there is a God, so why do these people believe in a Creator? There is, in fact, evidence that the modern version traditional western concept of God doesn't exist(and even moreso if you're of the unsophisticated old school type of theism like YECs). Evidence like humans, reasonable nonbelief, and horrific suffering. Given a continuum of moral natures from 0(perfectly evil) to 10(perfectly good) and S(the set of all possible worlds inhabited only by creatures higher on the moral continuum than humans): (1) God is omnipotent (2) So, it is possible for God to actualize a member of S (3) God is omniscient (4) So, if it is possible for God to actualize a member of S, then God knows that He can actualize a member of S (5) So, God knows that He can actualize a member of S (6) God is morally perfect (7) So, a morally perfect being should attempt to maximize the likelihood of moral goodness and minimize the likelihood of moral evil in the world (8) If God knows He can actualize a member of S, then every world in which God exists is a member of S (9) Therefore, every world in which God exists is a member of S (10) Therefore, if God exists in the actual world then the actual world is a member of S (11) The actual world is not a member of S (12) Therefore, God does not exist _________________________________________ 1)If there is a perfectly loving God, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God are in a position to participate in such relationships--i.e., able to do so just by trying to. 2)No one can be in a position to participate in such relationships without believing that God exists. 3)If there is a perfectly loving God, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists (from 1 and 2). 4)It is not the case that all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists: there is nonresistant nonbelief; God is hidden. 5)It is not the case that there is a perfectly loving God (from 3 and 4). 6)If God exists, God is perfectly loving. 7)It is not the case that God exists (from 5 and 6). __________________________________________________ _ Given Horrific Suffering as the type of suffering which is so bad as to make a person feel their life is not worth living: (1) Necessarily, if God exists, finite persons who ever more fully experience the reality of God realize their deepest good. (2) Necessarily, if God exists, the prevention of horrific suffering does not prevent there being finite persons who ever more fully experience the reality of God. (3) Necessarily, if God exists, the prevention of horrific suffering does not prevent there being finite persons who realize their deepest good. (from 1, 2) (4) Necessarily, if God exists, there is horrific suffering only if its prevention would prevent there being finite persons who realize their deepest good. (5) Necessarily, if God exists, there is no horrific suffering. (from 3, 4) (6) There is horrific suffering. (7) God does not exist (from 5, 6) Pascal's wager is utterly terrible.

We do have evidence that it wasn't nuclear bombs; New York.