Leaderboard

The OP refers to modifying the looks, smarts and athleticism of people, not just eliminating disease. In this case the two groups will be competing for the same limited resources. University places go to those who can pay and have the grades - some smart or athletic poor people may have got through to uni on scholarships, but now they are barely average so no go. Same for jobs. The modified people will be stronger and smarter and better looking (which shouldn't impact on getting most jobs, but the reality is that is does - they even get away with more crime). Social mobility is hard enough as it is, this would erect an iron curtain through which very few poor people could ever overcome. Add to that our track record on how we treat groups different to our own. It would take an extreme optimist to think there would be no abuse of the new under class.

Multiply 0.9999... by 10 Subtract 0.999999... to get 9 but 10X -X =9X so 9 times 0.999999.... is 9 so 0.999........ =1 I hope you are now happy that you can prove it with elementary school maths.

The spectacular thing about Republicans is their incessant moral sermonizing on every subject under the sun while giving Donald Trump a pass. Who will give them any credibility now?

I understand your concern but I still feel it is misplaced. The problem is not smarter or better looking people, it is the laws, customs, etc. that hold the disadvantaged group down. It is unreasonable to not allow one group to excel simply because of the gap that would be created or extended. We don't stop rich kids from getting an education simply so they can be as uneducated as the poor, and we don't disallow expensive drugs for rich people just so they can be as sick as poor people. The gap needs to be addressed by lifting up the disadvantaged, not by holding back those with means.

Here this will also help to know the commutations as applied to Hamiltons. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://web.science.mq.edu.au/~chris/quad/CHAP04%20Quadratic%20Algebras.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjX-ICd9fbWAhUDzGMKHV8nBfIQFgg3MAg&usg=AOvVaw0KDOtRQEktblBG0YfpB1Us Unfortunately the better explanations are typically in textbooks so I will keep digging for you. The first link is an example applied to a spacecraft. Second link has added details

mine too lol night mate. Here add this to your study list, you will find understanding the 4 quaturnion numbers incredibly useful to understand Hamilton and any QFT theory. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://malcolmdshuster.com/Pubp_021_072x_J_JAS0000_quat_MDS.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi5-J3R7PbWAhUH92MKHUO4DHsQFggwMAM&usg=AOvVaw2rwLoxBYHemplrpKOPlPpF Above once again can be applied to any number of dimensions including time. (basis behind the rotation matrixes) ie modelling a particle state under acceleration.

Mixed states will involve both linear and nonlinear treatments. Mixed states is interesting, I'm not steering you from mixed states but you will find understanding curvilinear a necessity to some of the mixed state examinations.

Wasn't Ronald Reagan a Hollywood Actor; isn't Arnold Schwarzenegger as well? Donald Trump is a reality TV star and Kid Rock is running as a Republican in MI. I never understood the well worn claim that the entertainment industry as a whole is all a specific thing socially or politically. Mr. Hollywood royalty Charleston Heston was the face of the NRA. All entertainment celebrities aren't the same. You can't lump Jesse "the Body" Ventura's libertarianism in with Martin Sheen's left-wing activism.

Glass.

I don't know what is so spectacular about it unless you were under the impression they were somehow morally superior to any other group of humans. Democrats, Republicans, Christians, people from small towns, whites, etc. They all have individuals who are very good people, and others who are very bad. Treating 'Hollywood' as if it is a homogeneous group of sermonizing pass givers (and liberals as socialists, or conservatives as heartless, etc.) is a very big reason we are not able to solve our shared problems.

No you did not make that clear, quite the reverse. My apologies if you do not, in fact, have a computer science degree, perhaps you call them something different in your part of the world.

As the saying goes: it takes all sorts to make a world. If everybody was of a particular cognitive type it would likely create deficits of ability in some areas of work where they are not suited. Pushing this to an extreme to illustrate: what if everyone wanted their children to be pop stars, actors and scientists (beautiful or intelligent); how long would a society like that last without all the other needs of society met? As that article Strange linked to says, scientists need to think carefully about the ramifications.

What is a CME? The first time you use a TLA in a post you should define it, just for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the TLA. (TLA: Three Letter Acronym)

LØL

-The latin hell- Two guys happen to die at the same time in their countries, Germany and somewhere in Latin America. While waiting in line for Saint Peter to decide their destiny, they got into a intense conversation, and found their affinity to each other, having lots of fun and interesting talk. When they reach Saint Peter, and the history of their lives examined, they are both sent to hell. They start walking towards hell, and Saint Peter stops them, directing each to their corresponding hell ! So the guys that had a very good time and thought that would continue in hell, had to separate. The rules said that they would have only one day of vacation a year. The punishment in hell was that every minute, they would get a bucket of shit poured over them. So both went to their separate punishments, and after looong 365 days later, they found each other again, at recess, as their days coincided. The German was covered in putrid shit hair to toes, complaining that without fault, every minute got a bucket poured over him with total precision and the latin guy felt bad for him. The German, found the latin guy smelling like roses, dressed in a white suit, immaculate white shirt, neat tie, well shaved and groomed, shiny shoes, a total dandy, and asked... Hey, I have been suffering the worst of the punishments during a year and find you fresh as fresh can be. What happened ? Well, says the latin... in the latin hell, when there is shit there is no bucket; when there is a bucket there is no shit; when there is shit and bucket, there is no one to pour it on you... [if you can refine this, please do. My English could be better]

If Donald Trump published an academic article http://imgur.com/BYn8rVv

To be fair iNow, that article makes the perception of the victim the criteria for whether a crime has been committed, not the intent of the accused. And the same justification could be used to generalize, and accuse all black people , because some have mugged, or all Muslims because some are terrorists. And that would be just as wrong. The standard procedure, because men ( and women ) are human, and are prone to saying or acting inappropriately, is to let them know that they are acting inappropriately, and if the speech/acts continue, then there is intent. And then it becomes harassment, or criminal; prior to that it is just stupidity ( I know I say stupid things from time to time ). The problem with the Weinstein situation, is that no-one, other than the young, starting out, starlets that he targeted, seem to have told him that he was acting inappropriately, or criminally. From all the jokes at awards shows ( S Mcfarlane ), and interviews from 20 yrs ago ( C Love ), a lot of Hollywood seemed to know about 'Harvey's problem', yet all of them stayed silent till after the 'dam burst', and they were called to account for their silence. That bothers me; not as much as H Weinstein's repulsive actions, but surely the established 'stars' that knew of his habit were enablers.

Real locker room talk is not tall tales, not outrageous fibs, they are boasting of TRUE exploits. This lends total credibility to Trump's claims about assaulting women sexually on a routine basis. A decade ago Trump was 61 when he was busy forcing himself on "beautiful". Do all his employees sign nondisclosure agreements? A delusional person as Trump does NOT know that his victims DIDN'T want to be grabbed. Donald Trump is a text-book case of Harvey Weinstein.

(emphasis added) Given the number of women who came forward to confirm they were assaulted (and who knows how many are under NDA), I call BS on that statement. "Letting" in this example means they would not file a complaint. But that's because of the rigged system, not because they were consenting. Doesn't make it legal, or palatable. Asking to be the object of desire is not nearly the same thing as "asking" to be sexually assaulted. News flash: Bill Clinton is no longer the president. We're discussing (reasonably) current events. (also, tu quoque is a logical fallacy)

This seems a very tenuous correlation and a highly suspect inference. If you consider probable grazing/predation range for such beasts one does not need a supercontinent to provide the space for a viable populations of each. If you dispute this could you provide citations or a well-reasoned argument to justify the claim.

What is tenuous or suspect about making valid observations? Were there not large reptiles, dinosaurs, and mammals on the large landmasses? Did they not get smaller as the landmasses got smaller? In extreme cases, when the landmass was so small we have examples of dwarf species adapting to that environment. Atmospheric oxygen levels were between 12% and 13% during the Triassic and Jurassic, and dropped to between 10% and 11% during the Cretaceous, so atmospheric oxygen levels could not have been the cause for the size of the reptiles and dinosaurs during this period. What part of this line of reasoning is "highly suspect" to you?

I will answer the question tonight. Thank you.

I think that you read a bit too much into my response and too little from my inference. I'm referring to the underlined portion above. Not only did I take the numerous mathematics courses I may have mentioned in previous posts, I worked 10 years for an American corporation as a computer programmer from 1982 to 1992 and lost more than a little sleep over the problems to which I alluded in my previous post and for which I was payed to solve. More than that, I'll list the languages I learned in order of most used--many of which used much more than "liberal use of mathematics (your words): APL APL2 C+ C++ Pascal Prolog PLI Assembly Fortran Cobalt Visual Basic Shockwave Flash Please note that it was the inanity in your sentence that led me to make the response you didn't quite like. If you dispute anything, then please let me know.

When the "sexual-assaulter-in-chief" was asked recently about Weinstein, he said "I'm not surprised." Trump was also asked recently about the Access Hollywood tape by a reporter. Here are some snips of Trump from the famous tape of Trump boasting to Billy Bush about his routine of sexual assault on women: "I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and f*** her. She was married." "She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’ I took her out furniture– I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look." "Yeah, that’s her, with the gold. I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." "Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything." http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-bush-transcript-20161007-snap-htmlstory.html Trump's reply to the recent question about this tape was "That's just locker room, that's locker room." So that makes it ok? Yeah, "Make America the 1950s Again!"

Airbrush, Much of the rules on sexual harassment have to do with "unwanted" sexual contact and even the mention of sex where it makes someone uncomfortable. Crude jokes are considered sexual harassment, and are lumped in with a boss demanding sex or you facing dismissal if you reject the advance. A person in a position of wealth and power often uses that wealth and power to get what she or he wants. A dominated person is dominated because they have submitted to the other's power. Rock stars have groupies because the groupies are attracted to the celebrity. You are not in a position to say that everybody that Trump ever made a sexual advance toward, rejected the advance. Or to say, that he ever proceeded after being told to stop. One accuser I remember from the election cycle, said the flight attendant told her Trump was in first class and had found her attractive, and want to know if she was interested in sitting with him. She went up and he fondled and kissed her...for a rather substantial period of time. Which part of that story sounds like a sexual assault to you? Now she can say it was. Then she could have not gone up, or could have stood up and gone back to her seat at any time. Regards, TAR

Airbrush, I understood Trump's "locker room talk" apology, having been in many locker rooms and having been in the Army. The access Hollywood tape was from a decade ago, when he was not on the road to the presidency but an entertainer. He after all, did not grab anybody by the privates that did not want to get grabbed by the privates. He just said that since he was a star, people would let him do that to them. Everybody here knows the stories about couch casting. Sex is for sale in Hollywood. I saw a very crude show on cable about the porn stars awards, best this kind of sex that kind of sex awards. The recipients were scantily clad and spoke very crudely. It would be almost a badge of honor for one of these folks to suggest they were so desirable sexually as to have used that power to get a leg up in the industry. The main stream Hollywood culture is only a little bit North of this kind of standard. After all, sex sells, and in the magazine and advertising and film industry, the better looking get the jobs. If two young ladies had identical looks and identical acting prowess and one put her hand on the casting director's shoulder and the other stood 6 feet away, the approachable one, might have an advantage in the hiring decision. Or consider casting for a movie with a sex scene and one candidate bears her shoulders and the other puts on a thick sweater. If you are a starlet and you purse your lips and show off your figure, are you not asking to be the object of desire? Regards, TAR And Hillary's outrage at having a powerful man in the oval office using his power to gain sexual favors, is addressed at Trump's access Hollywood talk, when it more appropriately should be aimed at her husband's actual acts. In the actual Oval office. With the power of the presidency being overtly used to get a blow job.