Aardvark

Just because the solar cells absorb the photons doesn't alter the fact that the momentum of those photons has been transfered to the craft. And not all of the crafts sail will be made up of solar cells anyway. Think of the photons as cannon balls fired at you. If they hit you, it doesn't matter if they bounce off or if you catch them, they have still transfered momentum to you, pushing you away. The photons are like a constant stream of cannon balls fired at the craft, pushing it away.

Good old randomised guilt. Get over the liberal guilt trip, i thought that decadent rubbish had died with the 1970's. We may not be innocent in the same way as unborn children, but simply participating in life doesn't make us guilty of anything. In comparision with a hijacker i certainly consider myself innocent.

I didn't state that there is one. Rather, that another species specialising in intelligence would be likely to be occupying the same ecological niche. As intelligence is our main defining evolutionairy characteristic if another species also specialised in intelligence our ecological activities would be likely to overlap. When that happens, mother nature becomes cruel.

Thank you, that was informative, but of the twenty points only two actually refer to illegality, the rest just to actions which may be regretable. point 13) which law is the embargo breaking? I don't think UN resolutions on such matters are legally binding. point 15) possibly correct re force in Nicaragua, but as you acknowledge, this wasn't G W Bush. It seems that people have got into the habit of calling G W Bush an international lawbreaker, without having anything to quantitively back the accusation. On a general note,i wish people took some more care making sure their criticisms of G W Bush were based on facts rather than prejudice. ( i'm not refering to you personally, Tetrahedrite)

They haven't and they don't.

Hope you do well in Mississippi as a super genius. It just goes to show that IQ tests don't really work, and maybe the Republicans should do more to screw up the education system and so get even more votes.

I wonder, which exact law has GW Bush broken? People often talk about international law. But what laws exactly?

The information can not be correct. How would it be possible for the average intelligence of all the millions of people in a state be lower than another state? Unless the inhabitants of different states were seriously genetically different it is not possible. This just goes to show the limitations of IQ tests.

But the momentum built up by the solar sail will remain effective after leaving the solar system. Slowing due to friction in deep space should be negliable. Does anyone have any idea how fast it would need to be going to escape the solar systems gravitational pull?

I didn't mean that they were on opposing teams. They represented different things and despite sharing the command of the Greek forces were opposed to each other almost right from the start. The story of the Illiad is almost as much their struggle as the struggle for Troy. A physical war for Troy, psychological struggle between the two men. The two men could be seen as contrasting and opposed archetypes.

I can't help feeling that we would be occupying the same ecological niche. It would be pretty tricky to avoid direct competition with another species that also specialised in intelligence. Unless it was aquatic then we could have problems.

Incidentialy, i think you should note that Homers idea of heroes were not restricted to one side. Even those on the 'wrong' side could be acknowledged as heroes. For instance both Achilles and Agamemnon can be seen as heroes despite being on opposing sides and despite both having some pretty serious character flaws. Homers view on heroism can be seen as ambigous, but he seems to acknowledge the complexities of the human character and motivations much more than later more simplistic contemporary renderings. His notion of heroism is removed from our morality, a man we would consider bad can be a hero in his eyes. Perhaps this has links with the persistent Greek concepts of noble tragedy. Of doomed Kings, warriors, lovers, forced into actions they know are evil or futile. And yet retaining our basic admiration or respect. A love of paradox is evident.

Here's a link you might find useful. http://www.123helpme.com/assets/16572.html

It's nice to know that the whole point of the universe, the billions of years of evolution, countless galaxies and stars, us. Egomania is fun

It does. Unblemished skin, long glossy hair, clear eyes, all attractive in a partner, and all indicators of good health. What we find attractive is very largely based on our DNA, the vagarities of culture only influence our choices marginaly.

I know it's a bit off topic, but that's not strictly historically accurate. For one thing the Nazis tried to keep genocide secret, they didn't acknowledge it was happening, let alone use God to justify it. And they didn't incessantly invoke God. Your theology seems a little eccentric to say the least, quoting Bible verses which at best are ambigious in the context of this discussion and then coming out with the concept that God is punishing atheists by making them atheists. Which inceidentally contradicts the Christian dogma that everyone can be saved, right up to the last moment. And how do you know that your Bible is the true source of Gods wisdom? There have been different versions of the Bible, some gospels were removed entirely in the days of the early Church and a great deal of 'pruning' and 'tiding up' was done. Or maybe another holy book entirely could be the source of Gods word, what makes you certain that the Bible is true rather than, for instance the Koran? I'm not attacking your faith, these are serious questions.

I wouldn't be pissed off, more like completely amazed.

So he did reply with bullshit. He's changed the terms of his argument. He now advocates abolishing ALL taxes, not just income tax, and establish a rebate system to guarantee a minimum income. He also says he will abolish all tax loopholes. The rebate system will be wide open for abuse, and consumption taxes are notorious for fiddling, just look at the efforts needed to collect VAT in the UK, it can get pretty nasty, esp when some things are zero rated and some not, it's amazing how inventive business's can be in labelling and defining goods. The yield at 23% would be far lower than present taxation, which half of gov spending does he advocate axing? The minimum income would be very expensive to undertake. At a rough estimate you'd need a tax rate nearer 70%, and then the tax dodging comes into force. Also the assertion that consumption is stable while income varies is wrong. Expendiiture on the basics of survival remain constant but on all else vary. Consumption rises and falls with the economy. The tax base would vary, going up and down. Basically, he advocates cutting tax by a huge amount, then giving a large free handout to everyone and magically stop all tax evasion and avoidance. It makes as much sense as saying 2+2=74. A bigger deficit than ever seen before, tax evasion, an unstable tax base and a huge drain through an expensive open to abuse minimum income 'rebate'. He doesnt begin to make sense anywhere.

I don't know any links unfortunately, just know about them from reading. They didn't issue their own currency, they did happily loot money and accept tribute from both Tatars and Muscovy. They were a fighting people in terms of external behaviour, only being genorous and sharing with each other. Being stuck between Tatars and Muscovy, it really was a case of fight or die, they bought their liberty and held it with violence. Not so nice for you maybe, but realistic.

In the long run not being environmentally responsible will cost money and jobs. Chopping down forests without replanting, denuding soils and polluting water may save some money and maximise income immediately, but will end up costing jobs and income. So with an eye to the bank balance, lets not completely bugger the environment up.

Australia has some of the best camels in the world. Imported by Afghans in the 19th century. They are disease free and geneticaly better than the inbred Arabian camels. Australia exports camels to Arabs for racing and to Indonesia for eating. They don't require as much water as cattle reducing the need for water holes on stations which reduces the number of ferals such as foxes and pigs. Their feet are soft compared with cattle so reducing damage to vegetation. Drought resistant, environmentaly friendly, at the start of a great economic future, intelligent and just great to know.