dimreepr

Sounds like a well insulated diving suit with, not only oxygen but heat, supplied through the umbilical would suffice. It would just depend on how far the explorer intends/needs to go.

It has been suggested that gravity is so weak (compared tothe other forces) because it bleeds into a 5th dimension.I really don’t think gravity itself is a dimension. http://www.scribd.com/doc/18474193/The-Elegant-Universe-Notes http://www.cheniere.org/books/aids/ch4.htm

Not at all, think about bacteria and viruses. Larger isn't better, more effective is better and that doesn't depend on size or intelligence and tougher is relative.

However credible and undeniably factual science becomes, there will always be people who deny the obvious in favour of what could be. Science will always have gaps, however small, into which doubt can be inserted. God will always be the fantasy of doubt in some people as a way to deal with stuff they don't want to face with reality.

It isn't about data and processing power, Heisenberg see's to that, predicting the future is just a dream, however deterministic our universe is or maybe. Larger organisms isn't what's inevitable, better fitting, as in environment, is all that's inevitable hence the word "evolution".

They talk of making the ring of exotic matter, so it would be powered by magic.

They talk of making the ring of exotic matter, so it wouldbe powered by magic.

It’s caused by being in the right place at the right time i.e. having the sun at 42 degrees above and behind you.

So, that’s where Sasquatch went, he’s an elusive bugger.

You’re thinking of water, without which one would die very quickly, food however, one can live without for quite some time. Phi and Appolinaria are right, in our modern world we need money to at least achieve the lowest order of Maslow’s hierarchy, we need farming to feed the world, and modern farming wouldn’t be possible without money.

I don’t advocate a revolution but I do see the potential for one. It’s never good to be in the middle of a revolution, as the mythical Chinese curse, “may you live in interesting times”, suggests such times are to be avoided if at all possible.

I do agree with your premise, if we lived in an ideal world, however, with money you not only have access to homes, cars, luxuries etc... You also have access, and influence, to politicians. As we all know the political system we have is very short term in its thinking and very much doesn’t want to rock the boat, this means they are likely to make headline statements like “lets tax the rich” and speciously implement such a tax on the rich, knowing full well that without plugging the loopholes that exist in the system, nothing will change and the rich will continue to pay practically nothing in tax. What we actually have now is a law that attacks the fundamental needs of the poorest in our society but does nothing to enable them to, as you say, “Honestly acquire a home”. I would be happy to see this law implemented if there were measures such as you suggest. The gov’t run the risk of swelling the numbers of the disenfranchised to the point, that with nothing to lose, they will turn on the rest of society.

Of course, who wouldn’t want that?

Just making the rich and wealth members of our country pay some tax would be a great start. However, we all know, trying to prize even a modicum of tax from these people is like pulling a muscle from a rock with just your fingers. In the meantime, at the other end of the spectrum, people in our society with nothing will be criminalised for wanting to exist with shelter.

This is a little disingenuous, as you well know; this is not what I’ve said. There’s a big difference between, the fundamental need for shelter and the desire for a car or other chattels. Also there’s a big difference between an owner/occupier and, for instance, a developer who board up an otherwise useable dwelling or a council with more homes than they can afford to maintain.

Without medical intervention, no sex = no offspring. Life sucks when you let it suck. The point of this thread is to establish the conditions when the act of killing is considered lawful.

Except there will be no increase in social housing. This law will simply create a bigger underclass of people who slip through the welfare net. They will be left with a stark choice, live on the streets or be imprisoned, because let’s face it, by definition; they will not be able to pay any sort of fine. Can we really afford to overload, even more, an already creaking prison system? As I stated in my previous post “A tweak in the law to make it easier to evict squatters from a primary residence” to deal with your only objection. In the 70’s the problem was dealt with in a much more sympathetic way that worked reasonably well.

Go on say it...

In the original story by H G Wells the Aliens were from Mars and “regarded this world with envious eyes” (so not habitual invaders) and had long since eradicated disease from the planet. I think H G was trying to suggest, having done so they overlooked the effect viruses and bacterium would have, add to which the accelerated evolution of such organisms. The premise of the book is much more plausible than that of the film, as not enough background is present in the film.

I’d live in Douglas Adams “hitchhikers” universe (another one you missed), if I could be president.

Edit/ double post

I revisit this thread as “The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness” is relevant here. http://networkedblogs.com/BBW18

The problem is much bigger than most people think, if taken as a world issue, it has been estimated that 1 in 7 people are squatters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting If this number is even close, in Britain, then the new law will create far more problems than it solves. Joatman Whilst I agree that your home is your castle, so to speak, I really don’t think, many home owners will come back from their annual holiday to be faced with a squatter issue. Besides which a tweak in the law to make it easier to evict squatters from a primary residence, would address that issue reasonably well. This law, however, isn’t really aimed at the ordinary homeowner, for me it smacks of protectionism of the wealthy upper middle and upper class’. Do we really want a return to the inequities of the Victorian era?

Squatter’s rights dismissed... a triumph for landlords? Or a draconian Law, that marks the beginning of the end of a decent society?

Is a ball still a ball when deflated?