Zolar V

It is a product, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/product "3.the totality of goods or services that a company makes available;" product includes services, IE a maid cleaning your household.

Your looking at the military in the wrong aspect. It is not a entity in itself where it needs to own products to be considered socialist, rather the military IS the product/industry and WE own it/control it, fund it, and do with it what we will.

Im not sure i would classify communism as an opposite of democracy. my reasoning is as follows; In Communism you have a society that decides what the society needs and controlls the administration/production of the needed items. where as in a Democracy the society still decide what the society needs and if it is something that the government should provide they make it so. really democracy is Communism with another layer of administration. eg, communism people are in direct control of the "government" of the society Democracy has the people in an Indirect control of the government. Capitalism is realted in both Communistic and Democratic governments. you can still have a communist society with capitalism and you obvioulsy have a democratic society engaging in capitalism aswell. they dont seem that unrealted to me.

Huh, now i know why people threw stuff at me now. lol yea ajb i have had some encounters with abusive people. from what observations i have been able to take with these people, it seems to me that they are generally characterized by having large muscles or to be skinny but not knowledgable in areas of logical thinking such as higher maths and science. aka, the abusive people have a general tendecy to be the average (intelligence wise) and the athletic. it might have something to do with testosterone in the case of the althetic people.

I would just like to point out that China is not communist in any sense of the ideology, rather it is a totarian military dictatorship, that calls itself communist to look good. although the US people have decidedly (by media influence) marked communist as evil/bad.

Lol, ok lets try this; Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergeddamn wrong one, god i suck at this LOL i woulda just edited the url from the first post, but im unable to

i suppose that would be dependent of the temperament of the individual. for instance, i do not care for the sacrifice of resources in pursuit of technological advance. i view the "ethics" of stem cell research as wrong. i would rather get those cells and try to gain what knowledge i could from them.

just to add a quick note, the one i submitted is kinda a play on the idea of the internet .net and science is what the Forums orbit around, meaning these forums are about science and without science these forums would be free floating anywhere without any sort of cohesive direction. + the arrows are the whole Phi thing, the original (smallest) arrow is 12 pixles across 12 diagonally and 12 vertically ((Phi *4) probably should have done *3 or Phi*phi) and were scaled transcending 3 times, then inadvertently scaled a *3 size. lol

Now im not much of a artist or anything, hell i cant photoshop worth a crap either. But here is my idea

But you must consider that if God knows everything could you even CHOOSE to think of a thought? in other words, you would not know that you could choose a different set of thoughts other than the ones you are allowed to think.

do you have any references to articles i could read?

thats the way i view gods "free will"

But if he is the creator of all, that should include him thought. example God created Satan, or rather the angel of light. He gave Satan the idea to become "evil" and disobey god. i say he gave the idea because how could one think of anything without the "creator of all" creating it first? sorry cant remember the term for creator of all.. omni something or another.

The problem of evil is that we define evil by our perceptions of what god wants us to believe is evil, But following that logic, Wouldn't you see god as evil for creating it?

Here is a thought, Maybe we are looking at omnipotence the wrong way. We are defining it as within laws and rules, but maybe we should be looking at something other than how it would Fit into laws and rules. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged^^ i kinda lost my thought about half way through, i hope there is enough there to get a spark.

Why do we limit ourselves to ethics? Wouldn't you rather sacrifice yourself or wiling participants for the betterment of society? From what I have read and seen, many scientific endeavors have come to a crashing halt due to ethics, and not necessarily the ethics of the researcher rather ethics imposed by an outside group of people. If we had no ethics to disrupt research would we be better off as a society?

damn, i wish i was here for the beginning of this thread. But here is my take on reality since that seems to be the topic of discussion. In my opinion reality is defined as what your mind has created via the recorded stimuli of past events. i view it as though the mind builds A world populated and all by all of our feedback from speech, sight, sound, touch, taste, ideas wrought through reading and communication between people. Thus being said i don't think that you could ever have a defined "norm" or concrete reality as everyone's reality is subjective to his/her stimuli AND the physical formation of the brain itself.

What kind of research has been done on the spinal cord within the neck. More specifically the research regarding nerve impulses and mapping of nerve bundles to appropriate limbs?

im going to put my 2 cents in on this one, however i want to mention that i only read part of the posts in here so this might be totally right field. Ok, First i want to say that there doesnt seem to really be a need for there to be a multiple party system in any goverment. what i mean by this is that the government being a or b doesnt really play much of a role in governing a society to begin with. rather the people and the local municiplaities are the ones that govern the locals. the government is only instituted to provide a face for the people to an outside nation/society. Now you may wonder how exactly you would circumvent problems associated with a lack of government, such as national programs and policies.

wow my math there sucked horribly, that was supposed to addup to 100 lol:doh: if you say 21% then nitrogen should be 78% and 1% other.

I see what you are saying, but if you were to have a small enclosure, something along the lines of 10"W x 10"L x 4"H the volume of positive pressure wont need to be all that big and would extend the longevity of the bottle. Of course my example assumes we are comparing a 100% oxygen environment to a normal oxygen(plain air) environment. i think air is 72% nitrogen 17% oxygen and 1 %other.. i may be wrong on that but it should be pretty close. I also see that in the OP one of the questions is measure oxygen content in the container and keeping a level of oxygen above normal and measuring its affects. I believe my example of 100% oxygen compared to normal (air) oxygen should be sufficient. the large gap between air concentrations of oxygen and 100% oxygen exaggerate any affects oxygen has on growth.

i would disagree. 1.) the purpose is not to view oxygen consumption in a quantity, but to replace the other elements in air into oxygen to view its affects on growth. 2.) thus being said you dont need to measure the consumption but rather just the pressure which you could do easily with a pressure gauge. ------ i think a simple apparatus could easily be set up without a great need to verify the air tightness of any of the tanks. 1. for the control you could have positive pressure from regular air (through a fan probably) being pushed into your mostly airtight control. thus making the control be constantly filled with regular air, removing pollutants caused by the fecal waste of the creature. 2. for the experiment you could use the positive pressure concept to keep 100% oxygen in the system, and remove pollutants caused by the fecal waste and respiration of the creature.

it really is a scam. you can easily see it if you know what you are looking for. He HAS an input voltage from a wall socket, AND if it did produce 1.X energy then there would be a simple switch so that you could power the device AND a light bulb with the power output. i don't see either in the video, I don't see where he gleans his machine off of the Input voltage and i don't see where it is powering anything. Nor do i see the machine using any of the juice it "makes" rather i just see nothing. just looks like a fancy electric motor imo. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIf anything i could see where it could get ACTUAL energy from, i would suggest making something that uses Gravitational energy. aka slowly absorb and expend energy created by having a GIANT weight suspended above the earth and slowly dropped. or something similar.

That is so dumb, who really cares if someone sees your nut sack or vagina. Its not like were going to find out there someone with a triple tipped penis exuding green slime that has vagina's all around it. Every one has the same parts, there really isn't any "variety" or "uniqueness" that makes having genitalia "yours".