Delta1212

A commune is not an escape from politics. As soon as you have more than one person, politics come into play. Unless your goals happen to be perfectly matched, but most people don't even have perfectly matched goals with the person they were yesterday let alone anyone else, especially over time.

Or at the very least be smarter about it than some of the "nuke the Middle East" "kill all the Arabs" rhetoric I've heard from various quarters over the last decade or so. And just to inject some Machievelli into things: Everybody remembers "It is better to be feared than loved" and forgets the second part that states that the worst thing to be is hated. Hatred tends to overpower fear, so if the methods you come up with to instill fear in your enemies are even better at instilling hatred, you wind up creating more enemies who will fight you longer and harder instead of cowing the ones you are trying to get rid of in the first place.

Why would it be 50/50? Is the ratio of beautiful to ugly people 50/50? What is your cut off between beautiful and ugly? Attractiveness is pretty much a continuum. Health and nutrition are major contributors to attractiveness, and some (not all, but some) indicators of attractiveness are culture-specific rather than being inherently attractive across all societies. That said, yes, there are some heritable features that are considered more attractive than others. The trick is really that men and women have some differences in what those features are. So a woman that is considered less attractive may have very attractive sons because she passed down features that are considered more attractive in men than in women, and vice versa for fathers and daughters. There is no beauty gene. It depends on what combination of features get passed down, which is a bit of a crap shoot, plus a strong environmental influence. Attractive parents may be somewhat more likely to have attractive children based on attractive features being available to be passed down and also based on the fact that they probably have a history of good health and nutrition themselves, which assumes some degree of affluence which is also heritable, although in a somewhat different fashion than your genes. But it depends a lot on why a set of parents are considered attractive or unattractive rather than just being a single box that is either checked or not to determine their likelihood of having attractive children.

Gasoline is placed in tank inside the car. The accelerator pedal is used to inject gasoline into the engine, where it ignites, releasing energy that drives a piston, which causes the wheels to turn and propel the car forward.

Have their methods of fighting deterred us from attacking them?

I was unemployed for about a year. Even aside from the money issue, I'm much happier when I'm working. I'd probably make a few adjustments to what exactly I was doing if financial considerations for covering basic necessities was no longer a concern, but I'm fairly confident I'd keep working even if I didn't need to in order to survive. I know some people who wouldn't, of course, and while I like a good vacation where I can lounge the whole time as a nice break, the thought of doing that 24/7 is profoundly unappealing, even if I had the option to do so.

I'm also not sure why this is being classified as just a "difference of opinion." The person who nominally cares about the shooters family is the shooter. He is dead. ISIS is an organization that sets people on fire and executed its own people by dumping them in acid if they suspect them of being spies. The leadership could give two shits about the well-being of this guy's family. You're banking on ISIS staying quiet and losing a propaganda opportunity in order to protect the lives of people that in all likelihood have nothing to do with them, are not helping them in any materially way and would serve as a huge coup for the organization in terms of recruitment and anti-US propaganda globally were the US to execute them for being related to the shooter. That's an incentive for ISIS to take credit for more things, including attacks they aren't behind in any form, just to try to provoke a response. It's the opposite of a deterrent for anyone who isn't physically pulling the trigger, and anyone who decides to end their lives by killing dozens to thousands of innocent people is not someone whose mental stability I would bank on to the point of expecting a psychological deterrent to be effective in 100% of cases. Given that, you will have been who carry out attacks in spite of this law existing. So are you advocating that we execute innocent people and why don't you think that won't be a huge gain for every one of our enemies?

And what do we do if someone eventually calls our bluff? Execute innocent people? Or say "No, we were just saying that a deterrent, we would never actually do it"? I'm confused as to what you are advocating we actually do in the event that someone breaks this "execute innocent relatives of the perpetrator" law.

Why wouldn't ISIS have claimed credit for the attack if that was the law? They get the propaganda advantage of the attack as well as the propaganda advantage of the world seeing the US execute 50 people in retaliation. That seems like a win-win from ISIS's perspective.

What exactly would banning those words accomplish?

The world should be different, but it isn't, and I'm not sure how banning words is going to improve it any.

But your method of nipping the problem in the bud is threatening to murder people in reaction. The only way you don't murder people in reaction is if you assume that the threat of violence will deter people from ever committing an act that you will respond to. Historically, that never winds up being the case, so you will have to murder innocent people in order to enforce this solution at some point.

Yes, I'm sure murdering 50 people, most if not all of whom had nothing even tangentially to do with the attack and would do lots to win hearts and minds. If your family was all executed because some second cousin twice removed went on a rampage, I'm sure your first reaction would be "I should make sure to turn in anyone who wants to attack the people who slaughtered my innocent relatives in the future" and not "I should kill the people who slaughtered my innocent relatives." You actually managed to come up with a punishment that is worse than North Korea's three generation rule. I'm impressed.

I apologize if I misunderstood your post.

When we woke up this morning, the first thing my girlfriend said was how she felt so bad about the singer who was killed by a shooter following her concert in Orlando last night. Then we checked the news. Not a good night in Orlando. Why do you think no one is fighting ISIS?

He's saying you could use the correlated data to derive a key for the encryption that is developed on Bob's end. It's essentially the same as saying that because you immediately know what the other person measures, that that information was transmitted instantly, which is obviously not how it works.

This was my first thought as well.

That's not really instantaneously sending information from Bob to Alice. That's sending information from a third point that reaches Bob and Alice at the same time, transmitted at light or sub-light speeds.

You're assuming that the options are either that it started or that it does not exist. There is also the possibility that it has always existed. We can track it back to a hit dense state at a specific point in time, but we don't know what, if anything, came before that at this point.

And yet, despite what you are saying should happen, that is not what we are seeing actually happen in practice. Simply having a job does not mean that you have cash to spare. We are talking mostly about people who are living paycheck to paycheck. Being able to pay your bills is not the same thing as having a $1,000 on hand to post bail. Nor does having friends or family mean that you know anyone else who has money they can put up for you. That's the problem. It is an actual problem. Assuming that it doesn't happen and therefore there is no problem does not solve anything.

Where do you draw a line between "kinds" anyway? Is a lobster the same kind as a shrimp? How about a crab? Are they all the same kind as land spiders? How about scorpions? Insects? Centipedes? Millipedes? Worms? Are mammals all the same kind? Are vertebrates? Are apes? How do you define the boundaries of a "kind."

Let's be fair here. In the years post-9/11, there was lots of help to be found in more than just conservative quarters, and while the pushback since then has come more from the left, and the main bastions of support for this kind of rhetoric are generally conservative in nature, there is not a strict partisan divide here, certainly not as much of one as some people pretend. I know plenty of conservatives who are quite unhappy with many of the ill-considered or uncomfortably totalitarian moves we've taken in response to terrorism over the last fifteen years, and I know some people who are otherwise liberal on many issues that have what I consider to be some unfortunate ideas about the proper way to combat global terrorism. There are definite partisan leanings to the issue, especially with Trump as the standard bearer right now, but pretending it is a purely partisan issue doesn't help things.

It took a few seconds to find this picture of the sun and the moon both quite high in the sky in the middle of the day:

That's a false dilemma. You'd first need to show that torturing them would actually save lives. And then you have to take that a step further and ask whether it's ok to torture innocent people to save lives. Because that has happened, more than once. We've picked up people who, through faulty intelligence or cases of mistaken identity, we thought were terrorists and imprisoned and tortured them. Because they don't get trials ahead of time to determine whether or not they are actually guilty of anything, we have a case where it is not "Do we want our government to be able to torture terrorists in order to save lives" but "Do we want our government to be able to pick up anyone they want, take them to a hidden location and torture them?" And frankly, no, I'd rather live with the risk than be a tacit part of that. It's exactly the kind of thing that we criticize every despotic regime in history for doing, and they always had a label for the people they were doing it to in order to justify it. The existence of terrorists doesn't make me any more anxious to live in a country where the state disappears people that it suspects of being its enemy.

Yes, but the solution we have is then to take their liberty ahead of time before they've been convicted of committing a crime just in case they might decide to run off in fear of us taking their liberty. Even a few days spent in jail is likely enough to lose these people any job they may have had, since they won't be able to show up to work and "I couldn't because I was in jail" is not generally considered a favorable excuse for missing work by most employers, even if you wind up being acquitted or having the charges dropped. The people we are talking about are generally living in a fairly precarious financial state. Getting jailed for extended periods of time is likely to destroy whatever financial standing they do have going and could quite literally destroy their lives. And again, these are people who haven't been convicted of committing any crime. It's often cheaper and easier for them to plead guilty to a minor charge even if they are innocent and get released that way, now with a criminal record, than to stay locked up because they can't afford to post bail. That is not a good way for a justice system to operate.