LucidDreamer

Yet none of the characters come back to life in another season in this soap opera.

I don't think consciousness is really a separate brain function. I believe it is only a product of man's ability to think abstractly and his superior ability to draw conclusions from the available information. I believe there is a range of what might be considered consciousness among the animal kingdom. Very few animals will recognize themselves in the mirror. If you hold a mirror in front of a monkey he will think he is facing another monkey and he will never comprehend that it's his own reflection, no matter how many times you repeat the experiment. If he starts dancing around then he thinks the other monkey is dancing around. If you do the same thing with a dolphin or a chimpanzee he will soon realize that the image in the mirror is his own reflection. He will then amuse himself by performing various actions in the mirror until he becomes bored. He is aware of his own existence and that his existence is separate from the rest of the world. This comes from their increased ability to make sense of the information given to them. It is this function, only greatly increased in man, that allows consciousness. The same reasoning that allows man to study chemistry and draw many conclusions about the world produces consciousness. Only in the case of consciousness the conclusion that the individual is a separate entity comes from every day information and stimuli. When the person is young he learns to walk and when he falls down he experiences pain. He understands that it is his pain and not the rest of the world's pain because he is the only one crying. He learns that it is his reflection in the mirror because the reflection appears after he steps in front of it. From this kind of information it soon dawns on him that he is a separate entity. He soon learns that the thoughts and emotions he experiences are his own.

That's funny.

What's truly odd is that both camps are so firmly entrenched. Both sides have their share of intelligent individuals and parrots, yet neither side acknowledges the validity of the other sides reasoning. It's only through the adversarial relationship that we are able to establish a workable plan somewhere in the middle. It's like the U.S. is full of lawyers. You would think that with the wide range of issues that most people would be unable to agree with the majority of either party’s stances on those issues. The fact that so many people can so fully agree with their chosen parties platform is just evidence to the fact that we never really make up our own minds and we rely so much on other people to make it up for us.

Never trust a lawyer with a pink scented resume.

Come on guys. Even geniuses have to work hard to accomplish difficult things.

RC cola

Lol, so we were suppose to be discussing Russian laws. Never mind, I should get back to studying anyway.

Yes, that’s true to some degree. But that's mainly because history has shown that's how to win elections. If you avoid some of the controversial issues the undecided will be less likely to turn against you. Bush does the same. The Republicans avoid environmental, health care, and stem cell research issues like the plague. They also avoid the influences of big business on government. Liberals avoid talking about taxes, religion, and the influence of both business and special interest parties. If they have to talk about it then they use diversionary tactics and practice their equanimity. You also won’t find either side wants to talk about abortion or gay rights because the country is so firmly divided.

What word has all those elements anyway? An a$$hole is a noun like any other noun, and it has as much content as an unlikable fellow does. My dictionary says content means “significance or profundity.” I was using that definition. This seems like the definition that is most relevant. My point in bringing that up was that just because the first amendment doesn't expressly say that how you say things is protected doesn't mean that it wasn't implied or that we shouldn't interpret it that way. No magic involved. Calling something a logical fallacy doesn't make it one. In fact sometimes calling something a logical fallacy can be considered a logical fallacy itself.

I rather like pangloss's response. He provided actual reasons instead of calling Kerry a waffle, or whatever it is they call him. I would agree with number 3. It's a plus in favor of the Bush administration. I do think they tried to make too much of an example out of Martha Stewart though. Of course, I could be biased by the fact that it seems twisted to imprison America's number 1 homemaker.

How did I know that the liberals were going to think that Edwards won and that the Republicans were going to think that Cheney won?

There are manned solar planes as well. http://www.kitplanes.com/features/content/FuelCells1.htm

I may disagree with you but I am still respecting your opinion. Your replies are filled with pointless subtle attacks. I only ask that you give me the same respect that I give you. I did in fact read that bit. The primary emphasis of this thread has been about whether profanity is protected under free speech. Whether or not the current Russian government can legally pass laws against profanity is a matter for Russian lawyers and lawmakers. I don't think the intention of the original poster was to discuss the intricate details of the Russian judicial system or lawmaking bodies. My disagreement with you does not necessarily constitute a lack of understanding on my part. If I say' date=' "I am unhappy with this" then the content of my sentence is about me being unhappy. If I say Damn in a certain way then I am saying the same thing. They are both filled with content if my point is that I'm unhappy. If you agree that this is true then there is no need for me to provide a precedent. They don't mean the same thing. One says that they passed the law and I am unhappy about it. The other one only says that they passed the law. The first one has more content. If I had provided an example where I said, "I am unhappy," then another example where I said, "Damn, I am unhappy," then this would be an example of emphasis. In this case I would still argue that the damn is important because emphasis is an important part of communication. Like I said before there are many words that you could remove from the English language and still have the ability to communicate the same idea, but that doesn't mean its a good idea to outlaw any of them. The lines between emphasis and content are blurry. I have forgotten which author but there is an interesting story that concerns this. This author wrote a book and published it but went on a trip immediately afterwards. He was up all night wondering about how his book was being received. He sent his publisher a letter that only contained a single question mark. His publisher sent a letter back with a singe exclamation mark. Usually an exclamation mark is considered just a mark of emphasis but in this case it had great meaning and content. The book was being exceptionally well received. If the book was doing poorly then I believe that the publisher should have the right to send the single word damn without having to worry about both of them being fined or carted of to jail if the author opened and read the letter in public. Btw, what does QED mean?

How would we know if it was a secret?

First of all you want to totally avoid fatty, heavy meals while you are doing any kind of extended mental activity. This is because your body will divert some of the brain's blood supply to help in digestion. Avoid fried foods especially. The day before I would eat complex carbs with a good portion of protein. I would also eat lots of vegetables and fruits. This way you will be stocking up on nutrients the day before. Also, take a multivitamin if you don't normally, but don't take it late because it might keep you up. Make sure you drink lots of water. During your writing marathon eat lots of fruit, vegetables, and other light low-fat snacks with a light meal in-between. Trail mix can be a good one if they don't add too much sugar. Take a multi again. Make sure you drink lots of water too. Don't do heavy exercise the day before or the day of your writing marathon if you don't normally exercise. Taking a break and doing some light exercise will probably be helpful. If you are not normally a heavy caffinated beverage drinker don't drink too much caffeine because you can end up too wired to write. Music is a matter of preference so listen to what you like. Anything could get the creativity going, except country music lol. I have found Mozart and Tzechalsky (have no idea how to spell because I lost my cd) really good for boosting my creativity. The steve miller band too, but thats just me.

Get a nice relaxing alarm clock that lets you wake up to the sound of birds chirping or one of your favorite songs.

I agree with sorcerer. You should be checked for apnea, but I'm not a doctor or even sane by some peoples accounts.

True, you could go in business for yourself while you are at it. I bet there is still some land on Mars you can sell.

There are already solar planes in existence today. If you use an electric powered propeller then you no longer have a glider--you have a plane. Solar powered planes have huge wingspans to take advantage of the enormous lift and so that they have large surface areas for the solar cells. They have multiple propellers with multiple batteries/fuel cells. Their wings are designed to have great lift and to travel at high altitudes at a slow speed. I guess it goes without saying that they use very lightweight but strong material in their construction. Helios, built by NASA: http://www.herelectricvehicle.com/helios.html

I say let them vote if they are a citizen. Anyone that meets are criteria for citizenship should be allowed to vote. Alot of the people that don't speak English but are citizens are the children of illegal immigrants that grew up in isolated Spanish speaking communities. They often don't go to school or go the Spanish speaking schools. We should work harder at providing these children with an English-speaking education rather than barring them from voting. Its too late for this generation, but lets not let the next one slip by.

It's just a novelty gift, not an official name. I imagine that the land on the moon thing is just a novelty gift as well and I can't imagine too many people taking it seriously. I don't think anyone has any more right to sell moon land than they have the right to sell you the atlantic ocean.

I don't think the origin of swear words comes from any one event or person. Nearly every society has swear words, including societies that have only recently come in contact with the west. Swear words are a natural part of communication. Just as every society needs words that describe friendship or love, so does every society need words that will convey great displeasure or anger. If you outlaw the words sh**, Fu**, and ass then you will have words that take their place in the time it takes you to say crap. Making laws against swearing has nothing to do with an arbitrary choice of syllables. It's a means to control rebellious or unruly behavior. Saying swear words is a no-no. Swearing is usually a sort of semi-taboo that is lightly restricted. That's fine as long as you don't take the restrictions too far. Getting the government too involved is bad idea.