Marshalscienceguy

he already know the age

Well did he give reason for it? Like "I think your cute" or "I known you awhile" or "I like you" or did he just randomly ask for pictures without giving reason? Ask them why they want to see your pictures. Are they asking for perverted pictures? Since if they are asking for pervy photos I would say block them since they are just going to ask for cam, nudes and objectify you. If you are not comfortable giving this person pictures that is your choice. You have a right to protect your identity on the internet and if he demands them you do not need to be talking to someone like this.

Lets say someone wanted to make a fansite or sell fanmade products for a particular fanbase over internet. What would the legal ramifications be if they did not get copyright permission and how do you get said consent? How likely is it to be sued for a fan promoting and or selling fan products? Does anyone know anything about copy-written laws over the internet?

All you wrote was K.

Unless its entirely impossible to do your work without a computer at school I think you should just let it go and do your work at home.

When an innocent boy say to a girl (on social networking) that "i wanted to see your pics becoz............"

what did that mean ?

please help me out

I really do not think anyone can actually answer this. This is incredibly vague. People could ask for pictures over the internet for a number reason. A.they have known you awhile and curious as to what you look like B.Have glamorized what you might look like and want to know if its true C.They want to see you naked and are perverts D.They are attempting to guess your age E:They are trying to date you and want to see if you are hot enough. To properly answer this we need the rest of the question, where you met them, how long you have known them. I dislike putting my pictures online but some people don't mind. If you don't want to put something up though that is entirely your decision.

Karma exists and its not a magical thing. If you are rude to everyone you meet eventually people are going to be rude back even the most polite person in the world. How you act gives you a reputation and if your reputation is bad or good id dependent on your behaviour. If you bully that nerd in school and later have to beg them for a job and they remember you they have the means you screw you over. If you are working with equipment that is dangerous and do not follow procedure, do not lock it, do not tie it up, do not put it away correctly you may end up getting yourself or others hurt. If you hurt yourself you are in pain or you die, if you hurt others you might get sued. So that is karma. Karma says what comes around goes around. If you are stupid, irresponsible and rude it will catch up with you. So be a good person before it does. You think those Celebrities that are getting Tickets and partying are not going to pay for it later? It might shorten the life span, get them in an accident and much much worse. Religion says you will suffer it in the after life but its not like your idiocy does not have bad effects here.

 

Hitlers ideology/hatred, led the attempt of genocide against the Jewish people did he really think he was doing the right and moral thing, that most of humanity though of as the act of a psychopathic monster. Could he be really thought of as an evil monster , if in his twisted mind he was doing the right thing?

I already said different cultures have different sets of morals and rules. Which makes this argument pointless and irrelevant. The fact you picked something like Hitler makes it seems like you are doing this for shock value. Believing I will not answer your argument for fear of prosecution. Hitler was bad for the rest of us but he did in fact deliver prosperity and jobs to Germany. Though it might be arguable that the cost of this was too severe. So one might argue that winning is not worth it unless its done the right way. Which also goes to the argument "Does the means justify the end" or does the "end justify the means". Some people will do anything in search of that one goal and will stop at nothing to get there. Hitler was just one of those people who had one goal in mind and nothing could stop him from getting there at any cost. What he did was really very crooked.

What about people who are good at multiple things?

They will at a point be told to pick which talent they want to pursue.

When you say "a government", what does that mean? Surely a "government" isn't a real physical thing, like an "arm" or a "leg".

 

Isn't it only a euphemism for "bosses" - ie strong people who dominate the weak.

Government like monarchy, dictatorship, democracy, empire you know the kinds.There is different types.

 

there was once a great country that had such ambitions not all that long ago.

do you have an opinion on corporations and small businesses?

That a very vague question could you elaborate? Business creates jobs, the more people working the less people on the street, the more people homeless and on the street the worse a country gets. Its not good to have a lot of homeless and a lot of poor. We can say a company is evil but that does not work. Since in reality we need them to survive. Unless of course we want to be homeless. Even if a company is abusing the workers which is much more likely to happen in large corporations and big company's apposed to a small mom and pop store simply destroying the business will fix nothing. We will just end up of thousands of unemployed and homeless and we most defiantly don't need this. Its horrible seeing people begging on the street. There is countries that have a lot of money to spend but a ton of homeless people. This does not show a strong country.

 

To a wife of an aboriginal, it is both moral and ethical to eat the brain of her dead husband to keep his essence within herself

 

To me killing a bird gives would be heart breaking and if I were to do it I would have a guilty conscience for killing an innocent creature and I feel it would violate my subjectively sense of what I think is moral (I have never killed a bird).

 

What I am aiming at here is to find by debate if there is an innate ingrained universal morality, which no human will step over?.

 

Is there a bar that no one will step over, or is it constantly being raised or lowered due to circumstances of the day?

 

These differencing in morals and perceptions of morals might account for most of the troubled history down the annals of human history and suffering.

 

Please add your thoughts!

 

Of course not! If there is a rule it can be broken. Of course most people will follow these basic rules of ethics but some people simply do not care. We have people who have committed incest, had relations with animals and all other sort of morally questionable acts. We have free will and so the answer is no. Just because most people might be against it does not mean everyone is going to follow this rule. As well as that with every culture is a different set of moral codes. So what might be considered bad to some might be considered alright to others. An example would be in some places in India eating a cow is bad but in the US no one cares and eat mostly cow, pig and chicken. Pig is another thing that is considered unclean and bad too eat in other cultures such as jewdiusm. In fact most animals aside from people are not really bothered by the concept of incest either. So there is no such thing unbreakable moral boundaries and there will never be such a thing.

For some reason, I have always had an abysmal public speaking ability. My brain will randomly deny me certain memories that I know like the back of my hand when not in front of a crowd. I also forget how to simultaneously breath and talk, taking deep breaths and not being able to find a pause in my sentence to take another. I realize public speaking is a vital tool in a person's toolbox, so I want to perfect it.

 

For those of you who were once like me, what were some of the steps you took to improve?

 

Thanks!

I actually can not present myself speaking either. I think you have to just practice and get use to speaking in-front of people do you don't panic or forget anything. A lot of people get stage fright. I had to practice all year just to be able to present myself ONCE.

What should matter in government? Being productive or being weighted? The issues with most government set ups is that they are either a complete mess, easily taken over by corruption, or weighted to one side. government will be more beneficial for the poor, one more beneficial for the rich, one easier for business men or all only beneficial to a small group of people. Such as kingdoms and emperors which is most beneficial to the royalty and those in charge since they seemingly cant do any wrong. In school our teacher asked us to make a utopia. This was a long time ago I was like 14.

Mine was based on a logical set up which was equally beneficial to all people and would encourage and aid people in pursuing careers they were actually good at. Such as scientist minds being pushed to do science and prepared to pursue science. People who are good at art would be trained and encouraged to pursue art careers and training kids from the time they are little. However many complain this is unfair. That if someone is great at science and a terrible actor they should have the freedom to be an actor even if they later end up poor.

We cant afford to take care of poor people. We should make sure there is the largest amount of people working and that everyone is well off. We should not have homeless and people starving. this is terrible and shows that a government is not efficient. So whats more important? Insuring everyone is working, productive and not homeless or freedom to choose something you are probably going to be terrible at? In a lot of societies the only people who can make something of themselves are those with the money to pursue such things.

There exists a doctor, who saves a life every week day. On weekends, she takes on a persona in the lines of American Psycho and kills one person on Saturdays and one person on Sundays.

 

Lately she has confided in you and has given you the option to decide whether they should commit suicide or not. Their life lies in your hands, what would you chose and why?

I really hope you are not basing this on a real person first off. Second I guess that would depend. Was she killing bad people? If I knew this women I would probably be tempted to turn them into the police but would first attempt to get evidence. You know so I dont get in trouble for slander.

It can die and be killed and it acts on its own. Nothing is controlling it so how can you say its anything besides a living thing? It replicates and survives. A virus is kind of like a parasite. If you can kill a virus how can it not be a living thing? In fact in biology and this is actually also how my doctor explained when I asked as well they said "vaccines are made from a dead or dying Viruses". http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-science/how-are-vaccines-made.html It also say "Kill" and "Killing" in this article.

Recent innovations, such as the nook and kindle, have made it possible to read a book on an electronic device. Is this a miracle, or is it a curse that has not yet manifested.

 

Let us go into a hypothetical future. You are reading a nook, kindle, or another electronic device, and suddenly the power shuts down. You would have no form of entertainment whatsoever.

 

What point am I trying to get across? This topic is about whether or not books should be kept on paper.

 

I am not sure if anyone has debated about this yet, but the coming future promises that books may be nothing but a thing of the past. Books may serve as a form of entertainment if the power shuts off, not to mention that books do not have a battery that will run out after hours of use. Prolonged exposure to different types of light may also cause seizures in certain people, making this a very unhealthy form of entertainment for some readers.

 

Books have been used since the dawn of time to pass on information to the reader. Nooks and kindles are not able to survive for more than a few hundred years, but papers such as scrolls are able to last for thousands of years if treated properly. This begs the question, is it ethical to get rid of books? Honestly, I do not codone the destruction of books, mainly because of the preservation of certain old ways.

 

What does everybody else think of books?

Well I personally do not like reading normal books on the computer. I have read fan-fiction but those are usually from random/unfounded writers over the internet. Furthermore I had a kindle and it was frustrating! I could not figure out how to erase sites I been on and I could not figure out how to maneuver the apps. Currently there is certain books you can ONLY get as a ebook. Further more I have heard complaints about these books being shortened in Ebook version apposed to the actual version. Which I do not understand. I mean if its digital they should be able to do more since its not like they are killing any trees. I also wonder what will happen to libraries if this happens. I think its a safe bet to say that they will soon become obsolete. I mean people in the 90s where still taught to write cursive and not that as well as printing is obsolete.

If you attack someone based on what country they are from is it racist? A lot of people will attack someone based on what country they are from and claim its ok since they are not attacking this persons race but this persons country. Is this not still racist? Like saying "American is not a race" or "British is not a race". Is this truly a reasonable argument for it? When someone argues with these people over it they counter with "Its not racist, British is not a race and your an idiot for believing so" its ok to attack you for it as long as it is not race". If so what else would you call it?

You shouldn't do, it's set up on an IRC server. It's very quiet in there most times, though I haven't been in IRC for some time.

So it doesn't require webcam?

There have been photos recently spreading on facebook about the recent shooting during the Batman premier. These people are suggesting that it wouldn't have been nearly as bad if someone in the crowd had a gun. Not only do I disagree with this premise, but I think it is insanely ridiculous. Discharging a firearm into a crowded room is extremely dangerous even when trained professionals in ideal conditions. To think that untrained civilians could have safely stopped the tragedy while under a cloud of teargas is insane and dangerously so.

 

Now, moving from the specific to the general case, I found this article citing studies showing the obvious conclusions that more guns means more gun violence and more strict gun laws mean fewer shooting deaths.

 

Thoughts?

This argument is ludicrous. Honestly who the hell is going to bring a gun to the theater? Second I really doubt a theater is going to allow guns and the man who brought it most likely snuck it in. Third guns for self defense is one thing but I doubt everyone is going to be carrying guns holstered to them at all times of the day. fourth not just adults go to theaters. Little kids, family's and teens go and I don't think anyone could have predicted some idiot was going to come in and shoot up the place. Just like I don't think anyone could have predicted some crazy man with a machete would try to chop up a bunch of kinder-gardeners. Also I am sure they probably tightened security after this incident to assure nothing like this ever happens in the future. Generally people predict for accidents, and motives. People who commit these sort of crimes don't have logical motives. Anyone could have done this but I don't think anyone expected anyone was stupid enough to try. If a man leaves his dog outside while he goes in the grocery store I doubt he is going to believe "Oh well he what if some maniac comes and beats my dog too death". Since normal people do not do this type of stuff pointlessly like the maniac in the theater. He killed people in the theater because he was angry at the characters. It makes no sense to go after the people if he truly believed that. Since killing the people in the theater does nothing to the people in the film.

We know that there are lot of new inventions in physics so why are we still learning the old thing not mesons and quacks?

Most schools and school subjects are boring. This is not just for this one class or subject. A lot of times schools use outdated textbooks and outdated methods of teaching. A lot of schools simply give kids a book and say read this and you better pass the quiz on Friday. Now there is better ways that have been proven to make material stick better but a lot of schools still never use such methods. There is a way to teach where a child is engaged, enjoys the material and the material sticks but a lot of schools do not know how to do this and so children struggle trying to pay attention and trying to understand and pass. I also believe it helps if someone teaching actually does something with the subject rather than just attempting to teach it. If a novelist decides to become a teacher he is often going to teach better than an ordinary English teacher. Some of the best teachers I know have had jobs in the subject before they decided to later pursue teaching. I believe experience helps a lot.

When I click it says something about webcam. Do you need webcam set up to use it?

I do not think our sun is actually large enough to become a black hole. I think it would become a white dwarf. However losing our sun would kill us.

Will immortality ever be possible, if it was created what do you think the people with the key to it would do with it, how would having the key to immortality affect society in such a case?

 

Where did I claim you were a liar? exactly where and when did I point out to you specifically as a liar??? Lighten up man!

You have stated that withholding information is deception and that deception is always a lie. If someone lies they are a liar. I stated I withhold information and so you are too stating that I am a liar.

At any stage of life we are usually (practically) presented with at least 2 choices.

 

This is in keeping with the dichotomy of quantum mechanics.

 

There exists a concept in database theory where we normalize data. (remove redundant choices) and make the data the best fit.

 

If we apply this to our everyday lives, can we not eliminate choices that offer less immediate benefit (much like heuristic chess programs) and positively influence the course of our destiny.

 

We can also learn from our mistakes and this too will help us to make better and more informed choices.

 

That way many of us will be spared the pains arising out of substance abuse etc.

 

Is this really feasible in the long run?

Well eliminating something with no immediate benefits does not mean it wont benifit you in the future. Also something which gives you a benefit now will not benefit later. If you look at it when we are kids. We can say "I can be cool, mess around, and get awful grades but have lots of friends and a hot girlfriend/boyfriend".you might have a job cleaning toilets and that is all you will ever be qualified to do. Since you only thought about the immediate benefits. Where as if you say "I know I will be a complete loser in school and graduate, go to university, become something like a chemist you are going to be rich while all those people getting drunk and getting in trouble are probably poor or on the streets". So the immediate choice is not always the best option. Some things you can fix later but some things are not repairable. Certien drugs in long term use create mental problems and some addicts get off the drugs saying they can never feel normal and happy again without them. Even when they are clean. Some things have irreversible effects and what we choose often determines it.

 

I have never heard of companies using polygraphs, I am very surprised to hear than fact, I am not disputing your comment just surprised by it.

 

Are you not confusing deception, with simply withholding information?

You stated that withholding information is being deceptive and being deception is always a lie. Yet what you posted says simply being deceptive does not make it a lie. You are the one who claimed I was being a liar by choosing not to share something. You are the one who stated it was deceptive. Even if we agreed it was deceptive according to the link all deceptions are not lies but lying is deceptive. So if you truly believe this anyone who has information they do not share with everyone must be a liar. So do we not have a right to privacy?

People choose to remain virgins for a number of reasons. Some times it not even the persons choice at all. Some people have some kind of social issue in which they can not socialize well and so do not make friends and cant find partners as easily. Some people might have some kind of mental issue in which they do not like being touched such as OCD(often have problems with germs) or some Autistic people dislike being touched. Some people have been abused in some manner and so do not any-longer trust people. Some people are doing it for religious reasons such as nuns. Some do not want to risk getting pregnant and wait for the perfect partner. Some are too afraid to try. Some are afraid of intimacy which is one thing listed under Schitzopal and so avoid it,

Some women are not wanting to since they believe it hurts, which it probably would for most women since you have they break a hymen. Some people might have medical problems that will not let them have sex such as maybe polio and those such things and maybe people who legs don't work and stuck in a wheel chair their whole life. So unlike you might believe its not always since people choose to and its not like everyone is always going to have the option to anyways.

There is also a number of medical and psychological problems which would make one want to not lose their virginity. A person who has several partners is probably going to be 1.rich 2.pretty 3.has not many disabling issues 4.is confident enough to be in a relationship(this is not guaranteeing they have done it either but that they have a lot of girls/guys) 4.have no religious reasons to not do it 5.is not worried about it having bad effects to them in the future.

Which is nature would be the difference between a wanted mate and an unwanted mate. If a mate in nature was short, fat and had a lot of medical problems they probably wont get a mate, but if they have the exact opposite features people are all going to be after this one mate. However people have a lot more reasons to pick a mate next to what an animal looks for. People look for money, popularity, looks, connections, which an animal might just worry about how strong the mate is.