MacroQuantum

Heh' date=' yeah, that must be it.

 

(shrug) I accept your withdrawl from the debate, and I'm sorry you weren't able to refute me on point. Better luck next time.

 

As a side note, it always disappoints me to see this kind of personal slander taking the place of a serious debate. I hope you step back and reflect on your goals before entering this arena again.[/quote']

 

You have made no point. You have appealed to emotion, appealed to a nonexistant item like justice. So far you have failed to say anything of substance. There is nothing to refute.

 

Meanwhile your own rudeness is equal to mine. You're right, I am finished with you. And apparently the debate since Jim said it very well.

The hypothetical was intended to probe whether there is ever a situation when "revenge," or less pejoratively, "retribution" justice is appropriate. I have a feeling the vast majority of people would want some punishment for many crimes even if it did not serve a rehabilitation or deterrence interest.

Right now I do feel as though a "wrong" deserves "punishment" although I'm not sure I can say I understand where this feeling comes from. Making sure that it never happens again is only half the solution. Both the victim and the offender deserve something more.

Whenever my little girl does something wrong, and she gets caught, her first statement is always "sorry". She's not really sorry, and so the thing that I always tell her is that "'Sorry' does not mean that you did not do something stupid."

 

I've answered this question already, in great detail -- is there some reason you can't respond directly to the answers that I went through the time and effort to type into this forum before? Are you unable to do so?

You really should come out of your closet. You're great for theory, not so great on reality. It was my hope that you would see the reality of it, but I guess that was asking to much.

 

since if you had you would know that I have not *advocated* the death penalty in any of my posts.

But if I were on this jury I'd probably ask to pull the lever on ol' sparky myself.

That certainly sounds like indirect advocation to me. Yes, I certainly do realize that right before that you said you did not "advocate" DP. Sounds to me like you want to ride the fence. DP is good as long as you don't have to share in the responsibility, e.g. you verbally disavow it.

 

Well thanks for letting me know that your judgement can be swayed merely by the tone and behavior of the poster.

Sounds to me like you're all tone and behavior and not much understanding of your own thinking process.

My concern is with the purpose and integrity of the justice system. If you construct a justice system whose purpose is to make subjective decisions based on each individual case, then you lose the consistency and reliability that you need to make the hard decisions.

What do you think justice is, if not society's revenge on someone who dared to break their rules?

 

While I'm at it you say the death penalty is wrong in one post, and then you advocate it in another? Which way is it?

 

In the end' date=' it's not about whether we're treating the perpetrator as if they are a victim. We don't give them assumption of innocence and all those avenues of defense for their benefit.

 

We do it for ours.[/quote']

I actually liked this argument until you accused augment of playing on emotion, which is exactly what this is. But a realistic question: at what point do you say enough is enough. Oh, wait a moment. I guess that would be the other post.

 

If this is true then anywhere they institute a death penalty for a crime then that crime would no longer exist. This does not occure, so this is not a deterent. A criminal will comit the crime because they don't think they will get caught (or it is a remote posability that they will get caught). So punishment will deter some criminals, but just increasing the severity of a crime beyond a certain point will not have any more effect.

 

You're right, some criminals will in fact commit a crime because they don't think they will get caught. Ergo, you're right, the death penalty does not stop a crime completely. On the other hand if it stops one person from commiting a crime, is it worth it?

For that matter, we've spent a lot of time talking about the criminal but what about the society as a whole. I know I would feel more secure if the death penalty was in full swing, and I knew we were trying, instead of releasing murders because jails are full.

 

One thing about the death penality that most people miss is the relativity of reference. Good citizens try to empathize' date=' essentially putting themselves in the shoes of someone, while looking through their own eyes and honest beleif system. The mind of a criminal sees a different reality.

 

A good analogy is a pickup basketball game. If there are no officials around, some players will cheat, while others will try to play by the rules. If the cheating got bad where it involves elbows, pushes and trips, if one continues to play by the rules there is no incentive for the cheater to stop. It also puts one at a disadvantage. Eventually, after a chipped tooth and bloody nose, one may decide to play by the cheater's rules to give them a taste of their own medicine.

 

This is what the death penality come down to. If we play by the rules of good citizens and allow others to cheat, there is no incentive for change. If we play by the rules sets by the cheater he would begin to understand the affects of his or her actions. There will change from an ego-centric child into a more globally understanding adult.[/quote']

Good point. As soon as someone establishes a line that they will not cross then you know that a criminal will be beyond that line, so that they can successfully thumb their nose at society and do it "their way". Society is not about conformisim, it's about cooperation and the criminal as already stated that he has no intention of cooperation. Obviously that can be taken to far, as well.

 

Snail

This just seems to be a blatant disregard to the conditions on why people murder. First, people don't kill unless they are driven to murder, or they are mentally ill, or it's an accident. Is there less murder in the states where the death penalty is a punishment.

You really need to get out more. "Driven to murder"? When people starts considering murder as a viable alternative then, yes I say it is time to start cleaning the gene pool.

 

apologies for bringing in the same argument as the 'death penalty' thread. I just can't see how execution solves anything...murder keeps happening despite the sentence

 

But look at it. Every year the laws gets padded a bit more, to make sure the criminals get their rights, etc, and what happens? Every year the murder statistics goes up.

 

I can only see that learning from the mind of a criminal is the only way forward.

I'm not exactly sure there is a way forward in this respect. There will always be people who beleive in cheating, people who beleives that what they want is more important than the soceity they live in. Therefore the only thing that can be done with them is to remove them. The cheapest way to do that is a .45.

However, in the case of the criminally insane could/should they be cured? I don't know. Does the idea that they were ill make it better, them less responsible? And if cured should they then take responsibility for what they did?

Of the three people that I know of that should have went to jail, two of them did. It did not change their minds one bit. The third probably should have gone to jail but didn't, and years later he turned into a very compassionate man. So does jail help?

For a quick look around, let's touch on the SF mindwipe. Would this be any better than the death penalty? I don't see how. It still comes down to 'personality death'.

 

and absolutely yes. if we are all at the level of this "criminal mindset" that you speak of, we will all be just like criminals.

When speaking to a criminal it is a good idea to speak a language that they can understand.

 

and if you're going to be offended by the fact that your tax dollars pay for the feeding and housing of certain criminals, why not be mention any offense you may have at the fact that your tax dollars pay for the defense of such criminals?

Last thing I heard, before he is convicted he is not a criminal. He is being held in custody and is innocent until proven guilty.

I cannot say that revenge is okay... but lets face it the victim or victims family must get some comfort in "seeing justice served". I think Stephen King put it best in... I don't remeber the book when he said approximately "Justice is the honest man's revenge".

 

... best to sink to the level of the criminal ....

Are we actually doing any good to "rise above" the criminal mindset. The death penalty delivers a clear and distinct message that might actually cause a person right on the verge to change his mind. That message being simply "certain conduct will not be tolerated".

And yes, I find it offensive that I am paying someone's cable/internet bill who has killed, raped or stolen. I find it offensive that I am putting food in their mouths when they are generally not earning that food. If not the death penalty then bring back the chain gang, where some use was gotten out of them. They have shown that their conduct is somewhat less than human, yet, for some reason they feel like they should be treated humanely? Make that make sense.

I find it offensive that we have to build another prison. Obviously we are not doing something right, so it might be time to change tactics. I would almost be willing to guarantee that if everyone who cost the life of someone else was executed, no discrimination, then murder statistics would go down.

First of all, just for the record, I am NOT a xenobiologist.

 

Physcial Characteristics

Chances are that a creature from a non-Earth like planet or from an ocean would have a psychology so vastly different from humans that the chances of common ground are so slim that I pretty much left my speculations to earth type planets. That being said....

Eggs and marsupals are pretty much precluded by the maturatin times required. In the case of eggs, tying the parents to some sort of nest also becomes non-viable and creates a distinct vulnerability.

Cold blooded creatures are precluded by the temperature zone. Any planet where they could expand to a wide range would leave the equator a desert.

Tentcle (pseudo-pods) are precluded by the amount of muscle tissue necessary to work in a 1G environment. Less than 1G starts creating problems with a viable atmosphere. Greater than 1G only expands the problem of the necessary muscle tissue required.

A caraprice is precluded by the fact that if it were large enough to protect an 'intelligent' being it would crush the carrier, or, as I understand it, would bake the interior, hence no insects.

That leaves us with a internal skeleton mammal. Which also means an opposable thumb and a front set of 'paws' that would ultimately be purely manipulators, e.g. not for walking.

Color vision would certainly be a survival trait since its what allows distinctions to be made in non-moving objects. Like-wise for depth perception, definitely a survival trait, which would mean two eyes with a round iris. Also, becuase of the complexity of the nerves both eyes and ears are likely to be located close to the brain.

Chances are a generalist would be most survivable so specialized items like rotating ears (like a dog or cat) would probably breed out. Like wise an omnivore wold be more likely to survive than an herbivore or carnivore, which would mean an omnivore teeth set. It also seems to me that bipedal would be most likely. Whereas 4 (or more) legs might make running and carrying a bit easier it seems like the lack of flexibility would be a major drawback to surviving any sort of predator.

It also seems like I recall carbon would be the basic building element, that water would be a must and that an oxygen atmosphere is the only atmosphere that would support life. Don't ask me the reasoning on these three elements; they were something that I read years ago, so they may well be outdated by this time.

Oh yes, I nearly forgot some sort of pump (heart) and circulatory system to spread nutrients over the entire system. Some sort of lung to introduce oxygen, stomach to hold food for the digestive tract.

 

Socialology

Pre-tech I suppose any sort of variations are plausible. However once technology sets it (which is a must given intelligence) mechanical tech seems the most likely because of its simplicty. (Can't get much simpler than a lever.)

Any sort of tech would bring with it the need for money because of limited resources. Money, in turn, would give the pre-tech aggession something to focus on. I also think that tech would ultimately spell the doom of non-confirmable beleif systems, e.g. religion, because of the need for logic in tech, a logic that would eventually creep into society as a whole.

 

Now, these are actually little tidbits that I've picked up over the years so I certainly cannot vouch for their realibilty. But a lot of it does make sense, in some ways. But given all of that how much variation could you actually have in an alien?

 

Be kind its way to early in the morning to be to terribly rational.

Regarding the ill-fated person, as long as they can make a conscieous decision you can't force them to do anything. Even if you could make a decision, for that person, there are legal ways by which such decision must be done.

Unfortunately, the US also has a strange bent for ethics. I might be able to find it later today, but there was a story last year about a man who went to a hospital with an infection in his foot. Gangreen had set in and the doctor advised amputation. Because of religious reasons the individual was against this. The doctor agreed to do the best that he could. Once the patient was unconcious the doctor quoted "incapacity" and did what he thought was best.

Stil, the orginal theory is an interesting one. I would find it highly ironic if, having acheived so much in the terms of technology, we were knocked back into the stone age by weather.

 

Although I'm not sure I could actually say as far back as the stone age. Certainly our technology would take a hard hit if circumstances got servere enough.

There's two questions here that are seperate and clear.

 

1)Should you treat a patient that does not wish to be treated.

No. It is his life. He has the right to choose whether he is treated or not, regardless of his reasoning for doing so.

 

2)Should a patient be given a treament perfected via 'immoral' means.

All testing is ultimately done on human beings, but I suppose the question of morality implies that the test subjects were not volunteers. But provided that the patient wished the treatment, I don't see why not.

Yeah. That's certainly one of the things it could be. It could also be the new, safe(?) additicion.

IBODThis may not be the right place for this, but is an interesting piece of technology. Unfortunately the web-page doesn't tell you a lot about it. According to the news broadcast that I heard it allows the user to directly affect heart rate, blood pressure and several other biological functions. In short you could run 2 miles without ever leaving your office. No, it's not available for sale... yet. Should this kind of technology be put in a layman's hands?

Really the theory should be able to predict the state of the universe at any time; past, present or future. Seeing as that is not possible how can we have a true theory of everything? Its not possible because of the uncertainly principal, we would need to know both the speed and position and we can't thanks to the Uncertainty principle[/url'].

By the same logic then, it would be impossible to know everything, since everything that has happened before you reached a certain point would be unknowable.

Think about it, all those hundreds of millions of books, computer stored information etc. and guessing by the fact we learn loads of new things every day we can't even be close to the ultimate knowledge otherwise we would be learning less and less not more and more as it appears we currently are.

Are you sure that everything we are currently learning is not in devolpment of 'the universal theory of everything'. With such a theory, if it could possibly exist, it may not be possible to know everything, but everything might be predictable, ending in the same result.

Well, excuse me for asking... or for not making myself clear which ever is the case.

Is there a disparity between math and cosmology or just the present and when I went to school.

 

As I recall a point established one dimension, a line established two dimensions, and a second line from the point of origin establish depth. And movement of a point in the established dimensions creates a 4D world having height, width, depth and time.

 

Although, if I understand your definitions correctly, we would essentially live in a three plane world. Can time be expressed mathematically?

 

Or is there simply no relating the two?

As I understand it all we know about planets around other suns is information that we can gather as the planet passes in front of its sun.

First of all, does anyone know the name of this (or these) method(s) so I can research it?

And secondly, what happens if the planet is far enough off the elliptical plane that the planet never passes in front of the sun (from our point of view)? Granted this would be a highly eccentric orbit, but it could happen.

Eleven dimensions is the minimum for String Theories with Supersymmetry' date=' if I remember that correctly.

[/quote']

 

My apologies I was assuming that what's-his-name's book (don't have it handy right now) was the commonly accepted theory. But it did talk about string theory, so I imagine that is why he used 11.

 

So given current theory, the Sci-Fi standard of Hyperspace and Faster Than Light Travel are impossible?

This may not be the place for this, but I had a hard time decided where it would appropriately be placed.

As I understand it, current theory has it that reality is made up of 11 different dimensions (don't ask me what they are). Does this imply that in order for any object to exist that it touchs on all 11 dimensions, or are some objects not related to the other dimensions (strings for example).

In other words, if an object exists in the basic 4 dimensions (3 of space and 1 of time) then must it also touch on the others?

Or would it be possible to have and object that exists only in the other 8 dimensions?

The math is beyond me. But I am willing to take a shot at English.

 

We understand that the circumeference and the diameter of a circle are not independent' date=' otherwise we might feel tempted to postulate a plethora of possible universes, each with a different value of pi. [/quote']

 

Because circumeference and diameters of a circle of dependent upon one another, so to must Pi be a fixed value across the multi-verse.

 

Perhaps' date=' argue some physicists such as the Nobel Prize-winning theorist Stephen Weinberg, the fundamental constants of the universe, which at present we treat as independent of one another, will in some Grand Unified fullness of time be understood to have fewer degrees of freedom than we now imagine. [/quote']

 

Septhen Weinberg argues that there is a Unified Field Theory, in which fundamental constants of the universe are fixed; not truly variable as we now perseve them.

 

Maybe there is only one way for a universe to be. That would undermine the appearance of an anthropic coincidence.

 

If universal constants are truly constants, if there is only one way for life to be, then the universe did not appear by accident.

I happened to overhear two people talking. Theirs seemed to be a debate over instantaneous communication using the Quantuum universe. I'm not sure of the details (way over my head), but it did sound intriguing.

Much later I was surprised to see Tony Daniel in his book Superluminal suggest the same thing. Although I did not follow the vauge explanation Mr. Daniel gave, once again it sounded intruiging. (I'm not sure if I failed to follow Mr. Daniel or he simply wasn't very clear.)

In a vauge sort of way I follow Heisenberg. But I'm not sure how it went from his statement to the old Sci-Fi standard of the Heisenberg Drive. However, assuming it's base is in science, it might also provide a method of instantaneous communication.

It does sound like there are some possibilities. Anybody care to try and clarify, perferably using small words?

No, I mean 'what kind of force' as in a measurement of impact (?); a measurement of damage; a measurement of force.

I tried looking at the formulas at a site, and I had no real idea of what I was looking at. All I'm really looking for are some generalities anyway. (Although if someone wants to take a swing at even pointing me in the right direction of the right formulas that would be a start.)

 

Basically, a 0.4 pound object traveling at 73.3 feet per second would impact on a target with what kind of force?

 

The other item I'm trying to get a grasp on, is a 80 pound object that is thrown (so I really don't know how fast it would be going) would impact on a target with what kind of force?

 

Any help would be appreciated.

Let's see if I can't simplify the problem. A 0.4 pound object moving at 73.3 feet per second would impact on an object at ? (pounds per square inch?). If object is 2" x 4", this then would give it a total surface of 8". If amount of impact (?) is greater than 60 pounds then target should get knocked on his asterisk (?). Or am I missing something?

That being my general point Klaynos. I'm trying to get a grasp on how hard someone would have to hit something to move that 80 pounds, assuming it's not braced against a wall, etc. Friction from the ground, I would tend to say would be negible since the only surface of that 80 pounds on the ground (to experience resistance) would be about 2 feet.

I supose the real question would be: what kind of force would the fist connect with.

Wouldn't the same hold true on the horizontal as well? I don't know how hard Bozer hit Gozer (in pounds?) but wouldn't it potentially move him (or both) along the horizontal plane a significant distance?

I'm trying to get a concept of what low gravity combat would be like. This should come down to a physics problem. A baseball player can throw a baseball at 90 mph. Therefore his hand must be traveling at 90 mph when the ball leaves his hand. So let us assume that in combat the average fist is traveling at just 50 mph, or just 73.3 feet/second (unless someone can reference something more accurate).

Bozer weighs in at 200 pounds, or in 0.2G a mere 40 pounds.

Gozer weighs in at 300 pounds, or in 0.2G a mere 60 pounds.

Bozer throws a punch and connects with Gozer's chin. His fist (roughly a 2 lb object at 1G, or 0.4 lbs at 0.2G) is moving at 73.3 feet/second. Unfortunately, its about here where I get out of my depth. Bozer's fist would have a mass of ? and would impact on Gozer's chin with a force of ?, which would do what to the two objects. Logically, Gozer's chin would would be moved away. But would not the force of the impact also move Bozer away (dependent upon Gozer's mass)?