JaKiri

Ron Paul proposed the anti Flag burning amendment and then voted against it. This was to demonstrate that current policy allows the legislation of civil liberties without changing the constitution, which is, in itself, unconstitutional.

So I see. I apologise for misrepresenting the Congressman's position.

The "we the people act" was to grant power back to the states. He doesn't believe the federal government can rule on specific issues as you mentioned. Not, because he is against them, but because he doesn't believe the federal government should be dictating these things, either for or against, for the nation as a whole.

So if states outlaw abortion (lets set aside for the moment the rather more prickly issues of abortion in the cases where having the child threatens the mother's life, or of foetuses which are the result of rape) then that infringement on personal rights are fine because it's the states doing it, rather than the federal government?

I'm not sure how this is supposed to disagree with my claim.

Ron Paul's document, the War on Religion, was expressing the fact that secularists take the "separation of church and state" to mean that no religion is allowed in public institutions. Paul argues that it means federal government can't tell people whether or not religion should be allowed to be in public places.

Lets go into the rest of the paragraph that I sourced the quote from.

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs.

The context seems to support my interpretation, doesn't it.

Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.

Similar stuff here, with an aside that supports the interpretation that Paul doesn't have the best grasp of the history, context and indeed text of the Constitution (The words "God", "Creator" or "Lord" appear once between them in the Constitution, in the phrase "Year of our Lord").

The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

Therefore, you cannot make laws that forbid or require prayer in schools, etc. If students want to pray in public schools, that's their business, not the federal government.

It must be noted at this point that there are no laws banning prayer in schools, only prayer which is organised, led or otherwise supported by the staff.

Where was the money for HR573 coming from then, if not from taxes?

As the bill states, the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.

Maybe he voted against HR 180 because he felt it didn't go far enough in limiting federal involvement in Darfur. I'm not sure about this one though, I'll have to do more research.

 

I found Paul's opinion on HR 180.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-h20070730-47&person=400311

it's towards the bottom. I'm reading through it now.

He criticises it because he doesn't support sanctions, and thus the restriction of american businesses to do business.

This is not what divestment is. There were no restrictions upon trade in HR180.

Torque is the rotational equivilent of force, like angular velocity is the rotational equivilent of velocity. That's the easiest way to think about it, anyhoo.

Care to support the claim of Ron Paul not believing in personal liberty? That would be a cool reason to go into it.

His "We The People" act (HR300) would cause SCOTUS rulings to not apply to the states, striking down such things as Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Epperson v. Arkansas, and Engel v. Vitale which stop anti-abortion laws, anti-sodomy laws, anti-evolution laws and defend the seperation of church and state respectively. There are many trigger laws in place in many states if such a thing took place, including the banning of abortion and homosexuality. If "We The People" had passed, then it would be illegal for atheists to hold public office in Texas.

These laws are not merely remnants of history. Whilst referenda have removed some of these laws from state constitutions, others have been retained by referenda and opinion polls suggest that many of these laws, which directly restrict the liberties which the Supreme Court ruled constitutional, would be supported in the event that they became relevent.

In his introduction to the bill, Ron Paul specifically mentioned abortion laws as one of the areas that HR300 was written to address. The Sanctity of Life Act (HR1094) covers similar ground.

He wants to outlaw flag burning (HJRES80, HJRES82), repeal the Voter Registration act, which makes it easier to register to vote, (HR2139), repeal the nationalisation clause of the 14th amendment (HJRES42, HJRES46), repeal environmental protection laws, which are an issue of individual civil liberties if you like things like clean drinking water and air, (HR7079, HR7245 and several more) and supports a whole host of other nasties.

Got a link or something for this one?

Here's an indirect source (apologies for its rather mediocre level, but it's 4AM here).

Seriously, with all the anti Ron Paul spinning out there, we have to be a little more diligent when we see the earmarks of misrepresenatation.

I don't think you really have to misrepresent Ron Paul. F'r example:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State

This is without even getting into things like his opposition of divestment in Darfur (HR180) - a bill to stop giving government money to organisations involved in the genocide in Darfur, which many would argue as the "free market" solution to the problem. Paul was the only vote against, and going by his remarks on the topic hadn't read the bill in question. Similarly for his vote against awarding the Congressional Medal of Honour to Rosa Parks - he voted nay to HR573 apparantly due to his opposition of funding the medal with $30,000 of taxpayers' money despite the fact that the bill stated that the medal would not be funded by the taxpayers.

I try to think the best of people, and I'd much prefer that Paul was one of illiterate, lazy or incompetent rather than the alternative, which would unfortunately have to be that Paul was evil.

If you're interested in how science operates, then "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S Kuhn and "Conjectures and Refutations" by Karl Popper are two books of scientific philosophy that describe how things go on.

You're almost certainly not, though. It doesn't have much of a wow factor.

Ron Paul is a joke, but the level of support he has that ignores his horrific flaws turns it a bit sour. He's a traditional right wing christian who seems to have gotten spinned into some kind of libertarian upon the way.

If you want an anti-war liberal, support Kucinich.

Paul reminds me of the founding fathers

Except, say, Jefferson. And all the other guys who believed in personal liberty.

And before you say anything about Paul's stance, his "We The People..." act would... actually, I don't know why I'm going into this. Read it yourself.

Yeah... it turns out that Ron Paul had this newsletter that was published under his name. However, he didn't write all the articles for the newsletter.

 

Perhaps it was poor judgement by his part, but the newsletter was published with the racist remarks without with his prior knowledge. The actual writer of the remarks, whose identity Ron Paul has declined to reveal was fired from the writing staff of the newsletter.

Why did he defend the remarks when asked about them in 1996, claiming that they came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time"?

in a closed system.

In a classical closed system. SR invalidates mass conservation.

An observer cannot be sitting on a beam, a reference frame that has a velocity of c is not valid...

It's perfectly valid, especially in the concept of a thought experiment where people are sitting on poles travelling at or close to the speed of light (the argument still applies if the speeds are less than c, it's just easier to demonstrate that the speed will be greater than the speed of light if you set the speeds to c because you don't have to do any maths at all).

If the observers are sitting on the beams they would see nothing of each other until they meet in the middle.

"Observers" don't actually have to be little people sitting there with stop watches and space suits. It's a thought experiment.

We're sitting in the frame of the image while this is going on. A is moving at c left. B is moving at c right.

C has horizontal velocity equal to B, and therefore must be moving horizontally (from A's point of view) at c as well.

C also has a vertical component of motion, however, and therefore will have a total relative velocity of greater than c.

This is not an actual object going greater than c, of course, so that's ok.

Also, if you are going to use either a or b as a reference frame then it's velocity is 0c in the equation you cite.

Yes, because each rest frame is equally valid.

Well may be due to the warning of "The Strawman's Fallacy by my dear Moderator I changed my mind at the turning point; that is (dy/dx)=0,

That's the biggest load of nonsense I've ever read on here, and believe me, I've read some of the best.

Swansont has already linked top the poll. Why are you all still posting here?

 

Mokele

Because the thread linked has a different function and a very old poll. If people are between the ages of 18 and 25, then chances are their answer will have changed.

Am I the most unfortunate person on earth? Because exactly the opposite[/i'] of my answers do happen!

So you're admitting it's entirely luck based?

sure thats not the FSB?

A 950MHz FSB? Are you insane? Even ignoring that it would have to have a mere 3x multiplier, that's more than twice what the top of the range socket 939 motherboards can do if you get an especially good one. Three or more times what normal high end boards do.

It's a function of Athlon 64 processors*. When there's no load on the processor, it lowers the clock speed to extend both processor and battery life.

There is nothing wrong with the laptop.

*http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487%5E10272,00.html

The only way to explain what I would like answered is at the point that we were still part ape????? what caused our brain to become Human??? and ape to stay ape???...

You're looking at it the wrong way. Human brains weren't human brains until relatively recently; you just had ape brains which were advanced and ape brains which weren't (depending on selectional pressures and just plain chance) and the former either died out or evolved into humans, the latter didn't.

Sorry to you guys out there how many of learnt IRONY[/b'] back at school?

Go away you buffoon.

so in summary, yes the ant would be dead if there were no air resistance, and jakiri is right in saying that you cant calculate the actual force without knowing how long it takes the ant to splatter completely flat on the pavement?

Yes, well, sort of.

It would, most likely, be fine if air resistance was taken into account, however.

Louis de Broglie? He noticed that wavelength = h/p for light, and decided it applied to everything else.

He was a bit crazy.

But right, crazy but right.

Find the flaw in the following "contradiction": According to relativity, length (or distance) decreases and time increases as speed increases. Since speed is the ratio of distance to time, however, speed should decrease as distance and time increases

2x/2y = x/y = 1000x/1000y. Distance and time increase in exact proportions (1 over gamma), and this only applies for things not moving at the speed of light in any useful sense anyway.

SR has two axioms (although these are fairly easily proved):

1. The speed of light is invariant for all observers.

2. All rest frames are equally valid.

If I see something going away from me at 3/5 c, then they see me going away from them at 3/5 c. The only difference is when it's a recession speed between an object and a moving rest frame, in which case it's (a-b)/(1-ab/c^2), or the same with + instead of minus.

Try that equation with one of the speeds being the speed of light, c; you'll find out that c will always be approaching or receding at c, no matter the speed of the other object.

In the Michelson-Morley experiment, no interference pattern was found. This meant that both light beams completed the same total distance in the same time.

Because the speed of light is invariant for all observers.

What would be a corresponding result in the boat-river analogy? what would be its signifigance?

Given that the boat analogy (if you're thinking of the same one) is used to demonstrate how light is not like a boat on a river, travelling with a medium, its significance is that... light is not like a boat on a river.

but..that's gravity!

ahh..newtonian physics..the old days.

Ah, I see we're in the "talk a lot of bollocks and ignore actual physics" zone here on Science Forums.

Well, the OP stated "o" air resistance, which I take as a vacuum so terminal velocity would not occur.

Well, it would in a sense. When the thing hits the ground.

Impact on what?

The ground?

so maybe he`s factoring in the length of time for the drop

The time taken to stop, from when it hits.

If it stops instantaneously upon touching the ground, the force would be infinite.

Force x (change in time) = mass x (change in velocity). (This is the definition of an impulse, derived from Newton's Second Law of Motion; a Force times the time over which it occurs, or integrated in the case of a non-constant force)

Mass x (change in velocity) is a value you can find out from the above information (the change in velocity will be equal to 80m/s, for example) and the mass of an ant, which can be easily estimated.

However, you do not know the time it takes to impact, so you can find the impulse it undergoes - but you can't find the force.

No you wouldn't to know time to determine the force.

I'm afraid you do, unless you think that the force isn't proportional to the rate of change of velocity with respect to time. Newton II and all that jazz.

No I definitely meant entering.

In which case they've entered every world cup for the final 40 years.

Qualifying is a whole different thing.

It is, but qualifying is an achievement, entering is not.

Costa Rica is ranked 16th in the world, which isnt that bad.

26th, and that's artificially inflated, by various factors.

The Netherlands is playing, which is all I really watch it for. They better win it before I die. They ranked 3rd in the world according to Fifa. Probably some random team like France will take it this year.

"Some random team like France"? France are hardly some also-rans, they've got guys like Henry and Vieira.

if you knew how much the ant weighed and the exact height you drop the ant from you can figure out the force of impact!

You'd also need to know how long the impact would take.

When you think about it. Animals are mentaly at the same stage they were a long long time ago, why is this???

Lack of selectional pressures to develop it.

Remember that the development of the primate brain was, initially, very slow; it's an exponential increase, and it's only in the last few tens of thousands of years that the human brain has reached its current relative stature.

everyone has stated the same thing in a round about way, What I wanted to know is, where did the spark to have the human mind come from,and why did it happen.

It's a self perpetuation thing. The human brain is large because a larger brain makes it more beneficial to get an even larger brain. So, once random mutation brings about a larger brain, it will, if the conditions are good for intelligence to provide a selection advantage, grow. At first it will go slowly, very slowly. Only once it gets large will it grow at a large rate.

Is Costa Rica even playing?

Yes. The first match.

I've never heard of Costa Rica entering any world cup before.

"Entering"? "Qualifying", I think you mean. Nigh on every country in the world enters the World Cup, and Costa Rica have been at two previous world cups - 2002 and 1990.