dimreepr

Whilst reading the thread “Racially-motivated Prison Rapes” I was struck by the following, so rather than sending the thread off topic I’ll start this one. Why does society put so many people in prison? Incarceration of the very violent is sensible, society as a whole deserves protection from such people, enabling the possibility of rehabilitation in a controlled environment. Incarceration of non violent people starts to move into the realm of revenge, driven in a large part by rampant media instilling fear into societies mind. It seems to me that treating people, who for instance sell drugs or fail to pay taxes, like this, can only serve to create hardened criminals. Why do we need to rehabilitate these people behind bars? There must be a better way...

As Zapatos suggested time isn’t relevant as we are very unlikely to reach anywhere significant in the lifetime of the initial travellers. That aside we already have the know how to reach a significant portion of light speed. Project Orion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)) first proposed in 1946 would require a huge spaceship, for the physics to work (from memory something like 70,000 tons), so ships would have plenty of space for a good sized crew and the hydroponic farms needed.

I think it’s as much to do with our naturally protective attitude towards infants, the cute factor. If the cow, warthog or buffalo was an infant I think your attitude would be much the same as with the lion cub. It’s similar to the human attitude towards vermin, as in if it’s a rat, we seem to have no qualms about killing, but if it’s a squirrel, with a cute demeanour, many people have sympathy and avoid killing.

If we take the hyper gravity out of the equation and assume you wouldn’t be mashed or mangled. The event horizon would be unnoticeable, like when approaching a waterfall in a boat that has a top speed of say 10 mph you don’t notice when the speed of the water surpasses 10 mph you’re just going to go over.

Given that in your hypothesis this medium is moving then it definitely can't be at absolute zero (even if absolute zero is achievable). This is confusing do you agree with Einstein or not? The singularities at the start of the big bang, or in the center of a black hole are both as the math's breaks down, infinite. What do you mean by empty space?

It’s all too easy to look into the shadows and imagine monsters, only for them to disappear when you turn on the light...

I’m sorry if I offend but I’m merely playing devil’s advocate. Their seems to be a lot of contradiction in this post, you say you’re a “non gendered person” for me this must, literally, mean no sexual organs. I’m sorry but it most definitely does determine gender, maybe not how you feel, but it’s fundamental to the definition. Yet you are attracted to females (I won’t go into the age issue, though Freud would fill his boots), a clear sexual (and from the procreation point of view, normal.) orientation and another, fundamental, example of being male. I agree “effeminate” isn’t only due to a lack of masculinity. There is of course a scale of masculinity that continues into femininity (A “U” shaped graph), you seem to occupy the fuzzy area at the centre of the scale however it does strike me that you’re mostly definitely on the male side of the line. I would like to add my sympathy if you were bullied as a result of your confusion, although from your first reply in this thread, I sense you weren’t...

I have to wonder where science would be now without Rene Descartes influence. (edit)

I don’t think it’s a question of IQ or human processing power. Modern science builds on the backs of giants, computers help but may never do more than help. As with the hundred meters record there’s always something to shave in terms of the fastest time, it’s an exponential curve that never reaches the zenith. In the past a giant like Newton or Einstein will move the goalposts and others add to that knowledge, there will always be something more to add.

How I wish, it would have gone viral and I'd be famous... A very good point and I feel suitably chastised, however, it does seem that troll season is here and as such it's a little too easy to sometimes assume were the ones under attack.

It’s very scary stuff extrapolation leaves you with the possibility of a new crusade type campaign, with who knows who as the target.

I’m sorry what exactly is your point here? Even God has had his day in court (not literally) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_against_God

The thing for me that is the most amazing about this is the size of the Oort cloud, truly awesome. Thanks for sharing Zapatos.

Having re-watched the video they do seem to be making that claim, they scan the wrench with what appears to be a 3D laser scanner. I can only imagine they skipped the extra input or overlaid the scan with an existing model of the wrench.

I’m sorry I didn’t make myself at all clear. I understand how you could design the wrench to be movable and in one piece the process being layer by layer. What I’m unclear of is how you take an external scan and without further input have enough information of the internal mechanism to make it movable?

I'm familiar with the process in that it’s possible to create plastic (not sure of the chemicals involved) shapes in this way, however I can’t see how the wrench could be made without making it in three separate parts.

Good point. Couldn't this be covered by a living will?

Seriously you think I’m advocating such atrocities? Anyone who takes my post as a call to arms is sociopathic and needs psychiatric help, religious or not...

If one is suicidal couldn’t this be considered to be contradictory by definition?

Having survived my own suicide attempt (at the time of trying it wasn’t a cry for help) I have since changed my mind on the subject. Should this be allowed? Isn’t this just a temporary state of mind however long this state persists? Does a doctor’s oath become meaningless if s/he is allowed to kill?

Please don’t end this thread I haven’t laughed so much since my granny caught her tit in the mangle.

You're getting caught up in the minutia (probably deliberately) of the argument, do the crusades mean nothing to you? Ordered by the pope in which many thousands died in the name of God. (edit) Not to mention the inquisition, torture’s such fun, God loves it when the bloody atheists get what’s coming...

Ok but does this preclude the chance that some areas of space could achieve the required density and temperature to form BEC and if so would this region of space be big enough for observation (given were about to observe) or would the density create a higher temperature and thus inhibit the formation? (edit) I guess I've answered myself here so don't worry about a reply.

This is the definition of evidence in the Oxford English dictionary. Good luck in providing you're evidence btw. noun the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination Law information given personally, drawn from a document, or in the form of material objects, tending or used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in court: without evidence, they can't bring a charge signs; indications: there was no obvious evidence of a break-in I don't have a concept of God, of any sort, I'm an atheist. You don't get to decide the rules of the forum.

Did you miss this part or just ignored it? Coincidence isn’t evidence.