dimreepr

In a word yes, however there’s nothing like a deadline to concentrate the, collective, mind. I have likened the situation, as I see it, to a plane full of people arguing over how fast to hit the mountain. No doubt the captain will rest the controls just in time to steer us clear, we can but live in hope.

I didn’t, either actually or by inference. I do understand this issue is very emotive and I apologise for any offence I have caused. However this is a science forum and as you can see from the links I have supplied my post does have, at least some, foundation. Of course as with any stat it’s not universal true 100% of the time. I’m not really sure of your point, in WWII it has been documented that this was the case on both sides. To account for this the modern army has altered its training regime.

Ok so my memory of the stats was exaggerated, it turns out it was 15% to 20% willing to kill. http://www.cynical-c.com/2007/08/08/only-15-to-20-of-combat-soldiers-in-wwii-would-fire-at-enemy/ http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/hope_on_the_battlefield Not too sure this miss remembered stat is worth 2 neg rep points though. Edit/ I can’t find the paper/article that supports my assertion directly but these are close. http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/kuszewski20091117/ http://www.sociopathworld.com/2012/04/natural-born-killer.html http://www.alternet.org/story/130947/america_is_a_dangerous_vigilante,_heroes_are_sociopaths%3A_the_not-so-mythical_world_of_'watchmen'/?page=3 I’m sorry you feel this way, maybe you misinterpreted my post? Many people seem to interchange the term psychopath with sociopath there is a difference. http://suite101.com/article/the-difference-between-psychopaths-and-sociopaths-a258748

This strikes me as easily defendable; just make any potential target very reflective. A mirror would be immune to any sized laser.

I would tend to agree, generally, accept technology takes a lot of graft to establish. Someone is working hard.

I’ve always wondered about the similarities between the big bang explanation and black holes. In my ponderings the initial state of the universe being in a hot dense state, could be the result of a black hole going through a natural process of reaching a critical mass and rebounding. Could every black hole have this potential? I’m sure that this is nothing more than just ponderings of an inarticulate mind and easily dismissed but is there a specific reason this process couldn’t explain the accelerated expansion of the universe? If more than one black hole goes through this process.

AFAIK the percentage of men on the front line that deliberately shot to avoid killing was up to 95%, the other 5% were known as “heroes”. In peacetime these men/women are known as sociopaths. Most people can easily tell the difference between a game or entertainment and life. Demonising the enemy is one way of subverting this fact; another is to train the modern army in a way that normalises the act of killing.

From my observation of humanity without a positive input, we do tend towards laziness. For me it has nothing to do with tools and technology it’s more fundamentally a problem of nurture and environment. IMO the most important lesson a parent can impart to its children, apart from the basics i.e. safety and socially correct behaviour, is a good work ethic. With a good work ethic technology becomes an aid to enrich life. Without a good work ethic technology enables laziness.

Selfishness implies an introspective understanding of social intricacy and a willingness to demand special treatment in spite of need. Intelligence comes at a cost, that being a long and dependant infancy.

A lot of my favourites have already been mentioned, so I’ll limit my reply to those that seem to have slipped through the net: East of Eden, Sweet Thursday, Cannery Row and The Pearl, Steinbeck. For Whom the Bell Tolls and The Old Man and the Sea, Hemmingway. Anything by Pratchett. Dirk Gentlys Holistic Detective Agency and The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul, Adams. There are lots of others that, for the moment, slip my mind.

I’m sorry this is a reference to an English science fiction series called “Dr Who”, TARDIS means time and relative dimensions in space and is a time machine.

You do realise a “TARDIS” is a purely fictional concept?

Most explanations of different dimensions seem to explain them as curled or twisted to the point that they can’t be recognised or measured in a conventional manner, or are you trying to represent “A TARDIS”?

An interesting question, but it seems to me to have nothing to do with God. Isn’t these just cases of psychosis pinning an apparent cause “God” to actions they can’t otherwise explain?

I'm certainly no genius, but I'm constantly asking myself questions, most of which are of such nonsense as http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/61840-elbowcaps/page__p__641777__fromsearch__1#entry641777 so for me it would be a pre-requisite for such great people, just a higher quality of question. Edit/ Not necessarily a childlike quality though.

I’m at risk of sending my own thread off topic here but, in the UK the NHS’s biggest drain is, the “ethical” need to keep people alive (for the sake of life). If, along with the “Donor Card” a “Living Will Card” could be kept about ones person many, many millions could be saved, here, at least, in the UK.

I haven’t been here too long but, my observation is, the average thread doesn’t get much above 20 replies, yet some achieve much, much higher. My question is twofold firstly what thread, apart from “The official introduce yourself” thread, has the largest amount of replies and which of these was the most enjoyable debate?

I think you need to define the term “childlike”. Is it that, a capability to have fun, is childlike, or is it just something adults share with children? Isn’t it just a case of them being human?

This is true as of now, but I see no reason it couldn't be extended, legally, to encompass such wishes.

What's the question?

You clearly have no idea of what “evidence” actually means, in that it requires empiricism or proof, if you will, and your book simply doesn’t provide such.

I read a book recently “unseen academicals” by Terry Pratchett, it however, doesn’t provide evidence of trolls or any other fictional characters. Why do you think your book does?

Eugenics was never a good idea; seriously, it’s the thin end of the wedge.

In England, as in America, it is an example of; governance by accountancy, in that education and many other aspects of society is defined by numbers, which if manipulated well enough can show just how well our society is doing. Intelligence hasn’t changed, in general, but the numbers sure do make it seem like they have.

For me it goes deeper still, in that, the Elders saw a way to use these observations (that all agree on) to manipulate the thinking of the tribe in general. Wisdom of the aged, in a simple society, goes a long way. Herd behaviour is exploitable as long as the “herd” is unaware of the scrutiny.