altaylar2000

Depends on who is the stranger. Yes Yes Parasites do not belong to the innocent, on the contrary, they must be killed

Who does evil. Predator, aferist, parasite and so on Maybe the translator is cheating on me, I mean "evil doer" is it correct translate? May be the word "evildoer" more correct for this case?

I've tried this. Chain weapon strike is always stronger with the same trajectory I think this is due to the difference in centrifugal force.

In karate and taekwondo, this may be imperceptible due to the fact that they do not deal with blows but with effects and a set of points, but any boxer or thai boxer will confirm this.

Not in my ethics. I'll trade billions of villains' lives for one chicken

I agree that the potential for speed there is greater due to the increased trajectory, but this does not prove that this is a general case according to your logic, if we take a stick equal in length to the nunchaku, then it will be equal in length to the nunchaku strike, but its strike will be weaker in reality

This is manslaughter. For this, by the way, and so in some places they can attract, but this does not apply to ethics, for damage to property

This is not convincing. Not the fact that straight-line movement cannot reach the same speed I did

Yes, question is "why" I prefer experiential science, a positivist approach, rather than a scholastic approach. The facts are given, and let if someone does not agree, reason in the context of the facts If someone have another experience let's talk about

ok, I found it especially for you. Although what has been written is enough page 9 https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1008/1008.1459v8.pdf

Carl Hewitt, in one of his papers, proved that the Turing Machine is incapable of full-fledged non-deterministic computation. I am too lazy now to look for this paper, I will retell this proof. Suppose we need to get a random number. The algorithm for a Turing machine will be as follows: add 1 go to step 1 or 3 non-deterministically stop It may never stop. For actors, the algorithm is as follows: Send to yourself 2 messages "stop" and "+1" The computation is guaranteed to stop.

What do you think about Carl Hewitt's model and about how far modern OOP from it's roots now

I will not need your(personnally)explanations even if I will be ready to become a Nobel laureate in physics Is there the button "ignor" here? Yes, I quickly found it. There is a wonderful interface, very user-friendly

Of course, because his ideas in the progressive 19th century were not thrown into the dustbin of history, unlike Newtonian scholasticism

This "intuitive idea" arises from the erroneous everyday view of things, such as "an empty glass". The main difference, despite all the particulars of the interpretation of emptiness, is whether philosophers recognize the existence of emptiness or not, and not how each individual school interprets it. _________ Newton was a Christian preacher. Early Christianity was in many ways identical to Buddhism, they talked about samsara and about tolerance. The Christian cult of foolishness and monasticism is not much different from Buddhist and Jain ideas

Economically it is a circus measure. It is clear from the economy that China is completely subordinate to the United States; it is the main sponsor of the American government. If China was not a US colony, it would have invested in his own economy

it generally requires much less oxygen than aerobic sports aerobics lasts 1-2 hours, or even more(breathing is required, not hipoxia, but still intensive), while high-intensity sets maximum 10-20 minutes in total, not counting rest _____________ What if we assume that this is due to the death of mitochondria (and there is such information that mitochondria die from increased blood acidification). Mitochondria stop turning on signaling pathways for fat storage, and less fat is stored.

Wrong, but this is the fault of society and the government, not of those who doing it I think that in Abrahamic morality, the blame for the suicide on the victim arose because the reduction in the number of slaves was not beneficial to the "elites"

Lying never generates good, except in cases of self-defense. Lies are a tool of predators, villains and cheaters in order to use the deceived victim for their dirty needs. In ancient times, people ascended to the heights of military skill and shed tons of blood to defeat a liar but evil still won

If we had a clear ethical boundary: not to destroy the life of another creature that feels, for food, this would be out of the question. But here, in modern ethics, everything is based on the ephemeral assumption that human life is more valuable than the life of an animal. It is a stone's throw from such a postulate to cannibalism, if it is recognized that the lives of some people are more valuable than the lives of others. Moreover, the statement about the a priori higher value of a person's life is not substantiated by anything. On the contrary, from the point of view of traditional morality, man is mired in sin, and animals are cleaner, at least herbivores This principle has not yet been officially recognized, but in fact that it is already being implemented, in particular, there is information that there is a semi-legal sale of organs in Uyghur concentration camps. It's not exactly the same, but it's from the same category. Moreover, a human consumes meat not even out of necessity, but only for pleasure, since it is possible to provide complete protein nutrition on the basis of dairy products and eggs.

In fact, oxygen is the main destroyer of life. Oxygen leads to aging and cancer in humans, it destroys cells, it leads to decay in the plant kingdom, it is a toxic substance, and a decrease in its concentration in the mountains has a beneficial effect on life expectancy and on athletic performance. In eukaryotes, the native mode of energy consumption is fermentation, not oxidation. Oxidation is only native to bacteria, and humans do not consume oxygen themselves, they feed them to mitochondria, a type of bacteria in cells. By the way, I am not good at chemistry, but I think it would be reasonable to ask whether the effect of oxygen is reduced to the leaching of carbon from biomass, given that we inhale oxygen and exhale its bunch with carbon. This is very significant against the background of the fact that carbon is the basis of life and organics.

In fact, gravity an anti-scientific hypothesis, since action at a distance is rejected by true science There is still evidence of the falsity of gravity, it seems this antithesis was put forward by Galileo. If there was gravity, then 2 objects of different gravity, connected between them, would fall more slowly, because a lighter object would slow down a heavier one. Consequently, an increase in mass both accelerates and slows the fall. This is contradiction.

Typically a comb and hair is used for this example. If the discharge is with the ground, does this mean that it will not be with other objects? a lot and a little is relative always Usually it is in real systems

Not sure, but it's probably sweeping under the rug the question of energy transfer with radiation, I think termodinamics always do it, by this reason there are always very very confusing explanations

Practice shows that circular movements always give a more powerful blow. For example, a mangual(the type weapons such as a load on a chain, this word seems absent in eng? How it correctly?) beats more powerful than a hammer. In martial arts, circular strikes are always more powerful than straight ones. There is a feeling that the centrifugal force gives additional energy to the impulse