Severian

You need to be a bit careful though, since the strength of all the forces changes with energy. For example, the strong force exhibits asymptotic freedom - it falls to zero in the limit of the energy going to infinity.

The only thing this latest attempt tells me (or rather confirms) is how dumb the terrorists are and how dumb the authorities are. I mean, despite the comedic value, exploding underpants is a pretty obvious way around the security checks. How many times have you had the security guy check your suspicious 'package'? It is a wonder that this hasn't been tried before, and it just shows how useless current security measures are for preventing a serious terrorist attack. They prevent us taking a penknife on board, but routinely allow women with metal bra supports in, which could very easily be assembled into a weapon. There are lots of inconsistencies like this, but I suppose it doesn't really matter to the authorities. After all, the aim of the authorities is not to prevent planes exploding - it is to maintain confidence in air travel (and avoid the economic implications a lack of confidence would bring). Because, lets be honest, you could blow up a plane a week and the number of deaths would still be well below road accident deaths (which are something like 800 people a week in the US alone).

I think even bascule can have sensible opinion sometimes.

I responded directly to your points in your first response by quoting you. If you are not going to even consider them, what is the point of debating? There seems little point in responding to your other post (the one you link to) if you are just going to ignore my responses. But in the spirit of concession.... What does this even mean 'doesn't quite help'. Either it helps or it doesn't. I contend that preventing children access does help in reducing their exposure to questionable material. Do you disagree with this? I disagree. The gaming and tv industries are simply producing content with demand. It is our reponsibility, both directly and through our elected representatives, to make sure it does not adversely effect our children. Last night I went to see Avatar at the movies and was surprised to see it had a 12A rating (anyone under 12 needs to be accompanied by an adult). A 5 year old going with a parent to see Avatar is inappropriate in my view, but allowed under the rules. However, this would not be the fault of the film makers, but the fault of the parent and the BBFC. No-one is disputing that. I was disputing the notion that one should not restrict what children are exposed to because it it makes no difference. I think simply reducing the amount of harmful things a child is exposed to is generally beneficial. Not providing your child with a mobile phone is hardly the same thing as "locking up your kid in a basement".

I am not so sure about that. I just looked it up and apparently 80% of the sugar in pineapple is fructose. Looking at the relatively small bottle of (pure) pineapple juice sitting on my desk right now, it contains 25% of my daily recommended sugar intake.

I disagree. Your objection is implicitly assuming an embedding in 3 dimensions. The physical representation in hermanntrude's work is 2-dimensional, with no assumption of embedding, so he/she has indeed overturned physics.

Isn't fructose the sugar you get in fruit? Does this mean that the '5 portions of fruit a day' advice we get is also wrong?

If I were in charge I would implement a slightly different set-up. If a bank opts-in to a Glass-Steagall style regulatory system (so sticks to commercial banking and avoids risky investment banking, however that is defined) then their deposits would be guaranteed by central government. If they opt-out, they may still take deposits, but then their deposits are not guaranteed, and this should be made clear to depositors. That way, you maintain a free-market, but you also provide an incentive for good practice. Perhaps, as Mr Skeptic suggested, you could also have an 'insurance' charge for the opt-in banks.

So is it your opinion that, since we can't remove exposure to all undesirable images, we shouldn't remove exposure from any? I don't know about you, but I think when I was a child, I would have been more 'disturbed' by being sent a naked picture of a class-mate than by seeing a sex scene in a movie. Of course, but that is an entirely separate issue. Any good parent needs to help their child understand the world around them. Rules should never be declared simply as 'rules' - they should be motivated to the child. We must explain why these rules are important so that the child is able to make a rational decision about when rules should be broken. In my opinion, an ability to break rules rationally is as important as a desire to keep them. Even if the children don't understand these rational reasons yet, you should still explain them because it makes it clear to them that every rule worth keeping has a motivation. That is an interesting conclusion. I posted a two line comment, and yet I have something "stuck at some orifice". You, on the other hand, responded with a rather lengthy and (seemingly) emotional defence as if I had attacked you personally. I was making the point that a true liberal would embrace the rights of others to follow the path (in this case regarding parenting) that they think is best. The attitude that parents should not try and protect their children from malign influences, is not liberal at all. I criticised certain liberals who I felt did not fully understand the point of liberalism - I never said that you were one, or indeed that you were even a liberal. I think your response (which, let's be honest, was a bit of a rant) indicates that you feel it may be true for you too though. Perhaps you need to talk this through with someone? I would dispute that. I don't see any studies in which this is scientifically tested. Please show me a study (with large statistics) in which all the children are loved and well educated by their parents, but in one half of the sample are allowed to view pornography, while in the other are not. Please also demonstrate that this lead to better psychological health in the children allowed to view the pornography. I don't think you will be able to.

So let me get this straight. You think my daughter not having a mobile phone will not prevent her from getting sent inappropriate pictures on her mobile? And on the other issue, I never said one should teach only abstinence. The funny thing about so many so-called (read self-declared) liberals, is that they are only tolerant of opinions that fit with their preconceptions of liberalism. Not very liberal...

What's wrong with teaching abstinence?

But, but, but, I am going to write a paper overturning the laws of physics any day now!

Another good reason not to let my daughter have a mobile phone.

Congratulations! As a matter of interest, don't you feel short changed that it was just an hour? I did one (as external) yesterday, and although he was quite good, I kept him in there for four hours. My longest so far is six and a half.

Revelation 3: vs 15-16 15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

It Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged is Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged rather Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged ugly Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged and Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged annoying, Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged but Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged just Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged imagine Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged how Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged annoying Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged it Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged would Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged be Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged if Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged all Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged these Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged posts Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged were Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged separate!

I think capitalism is a pretty shit system, but I think you need a word of congratulation for managing to find an even shittier one.

The video doesn't work for me (probably the GOP are blocking me).

Isn't this simply a case of which constitution over-rules the other: state constitution of federal constitution. I don't see why it would be any different from federal law over-ruling state law.

Exactly. All we get in response to 'relevant secular reasons' is either 'its not relevant' or 'its not secular'. Indeed, it seems that the word 'secular' in this thread is defined by whether or not a notion supports or opposes gay marriage.

I think that is completely wrong. The state should reflect the views of the population, entirely independently of how (or why) the population comes to their opinion. If their view is religiously motivated, it is just as valid as a secular view. Indeed the "separation of church and state" should be guaranteeing this because it doesn't ask its voters to specify whether or not their views are based on religion. The worry about a system of government which was not separate would be that it makes a judgement call on their worthiness, depending on how it conforms with the government's view. So your statement that the government should only regard secular viewpoints as valid, is in fact a violation of the separation of church and state, since you seem to believe that the government should only listen to the practitioners of your own church (secularism).

As I said before, but will say again, it is a bit of a 'fixed' question though. Any reason that we could possibly come up with, you will brand as either not relevant or religious, so it seems a bit of a pointless exercise. Also, we do we need a 'relevant secular' reason for opposing it? Isn't the point of a democracy that our opinions should have weight (the weight of one vote each) irrespective of what they are and irrespective of how well we may be able to justify them to you? There are plenty of things I object to even though I don't have a 'relevant secular' reason. For example, I object to masturbation in public, but I honestly can't think of a 'relevant secular' reason to oppose it. It would simply make me, and others, uncomfortable. Similarly, while I don't really care myself, I can understand that legalising gay marriage will make lots of people uncomfortable. I think the difference in our position is that you dislike these people so much that you don't care that they are uncomfortable with gay marriage, and instead value the opinion of the gay couple more. I actually think that is a fair enough position (even though it is intrinsically undemocratic), but it is wrong to declare that it is the only valid position.

None of them. Any and ever model makes wrong predictions, or fails to predict things we know are true, so no theory of physics we have is entirely correct and complete.

No, being unable to have sex would mean you are married.

And we measure gradients via change in one spatial dimension with respect to another. Does that make different space dimensions inequivalent too?