Severian

He ideosn't seem to be a crackpot. There have been a few paper in the past which include extra dimensions with a negative signature in the metric. This idea is a little different - I will be interested to see if it comes to anything. It is a little strange that a search of spires turns up zero papers from him though.... http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+A+MAYER%2C+a

Can you back any of these up? Has anyone in Iran ever been executed for 'disliking Islam' for example?

I am also rather appalled by how the mainstream media is reporting this. The big channels are only showing the people with signs calling for beheadings etc, or people attacking embassies. They are giving the crowds of peaceful protesters very little air time. I think this leads to a misperception among the less educated parts of our society that it is all muslims who are calling for violence. I think we should all abhor the behaviour of the extremists, but we should also recognise that they are a small minority and most muslims do not want violence.

Yes that is the danger of Wikipedia. To be honest, I hadn't even read it, which show how even I subconciously (and naively) trust it.

I am curious as to our member's perception of particle physics in comparison to space exploration. From the NASA site http://www.nasa.gov From http://www.linearcollider.org If you could only fund one of these programmes, which one would it be and why?

Lol. Well, I suppose it is just my 'personal opinion' that bugging people without proper process is wrong. If you don't think this is wrong, then there is not much to discuss. But let me repeat the question I have asked a few times (although I think some were deleted): would you regard the leader of Hamas as a 'suspected terrorist'? Your argument seemed to consist of 'the sky won't fall down', which I can't really argue with either, but it isn't a very persuasive line of reasoning.

Because it is not the basis of an argument. As I said before, I think the reason you shouldn't give the NSA the freedom to bug people's phones willy nilly is because it is wrong - not because it is a slippery slope. The sequesnce of events was merely a prediction - I left it to you to asses whether or not you like that world. Also - it has to be causal to be a slippery slope. In other words, the bugging of A'qaeda operative would have to lead to the bugging of Al'qaeda supporters etc. I think the NSA are sufficiently amoral to bug people without needing a cause.

How can you have 6 heart stoppages during a car crash?

lol. That made my day. (Who said I don't have a sense of humour?)

Pleonastic pretty much sums up this thread I think.

Nope. No slippery slope there. Try harder next time.

I never once used a slippery slope argument. I am against bugging people's phones because it is wrong. You already have internment camps run by America - what is the difference? It wasn't. I accused Pangloss of lacking empathy (seriously - those were my words!). He is a sensitve soul...

We think we understand the force at very small distances <1fm (or about the size of a proton) very well, but when the distances become larger than that our traditional methods of investigation (perturbation theory) break down. Although it seems reasonable that the quarks which make up the proton are held in there by QCD and its gluons, no-one has ever been able to prove it. The phenomenon is called "confinement" and whomever proves it will win the big one. There are of course atomic models which describe nuclear bonding via the (residual) strong force, but they are just models, not real understanding. Gribov claimed that he had proven confinement, but he refused to write down his proof or explain it to anyone. And then he 'conventiently' died... [Edit: there are a few papers on the web which claim to understand Gribov's confinement, such as http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0008229, but they are all pretty much devoid of content.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_inequality

Why is this called the 'selfish gene theory' and attributed to Dawkins? The idea described at http://bovination.com/cbs/selfishGeneTheory.jsp for example is just one facet evolution by natural selection (and not very well expressed at that), as originated by Darwin.

I am just curious to see if you think that anyone understands what holds the atomic nucleus together. Do you think that? Your original post seems to imply that you do. (Let me give you a hint. If you can answer my original question, and prove it, you will win the Nobel Prize - or rather I will, since I would steal the proof.)

Compromise and sacrifice are all very well if it is your own comfort or security you are compromising and a sacrifice that you are making, but it is not acceptable when you sacrifice others for your own security. You are living in a dream world if you think that compromise was the reason that the founding fathers didn't object to slavery. They didn't object because they didn't want to give up their slaves. ....but we are all a little bit poorer in spirit.

Getting a bit happy with that ol' delete button there.... So you think slaverly is OK to practice too then, do you? In summary, you seem to think that it is OK to do evil things because 'the sky won't fall in'. Is that a fair summary of your position?

Religion is a belief in anything that cannot be proven but changes the way you live your life.

Was he dead at the end?

That is the point. Who is going to asses the NSA's ability to not abuse their powers? You? Who would you class as a "suspected terrorist"? The guy living down the hall with a turban perhaps? What about the leader of Hamas - is he a terrorist in your eyes?