john5746

IMO, life intelligent enough for space travel is going to be very rare. But, we exist so I'm sure there are more out there. If we lived in a solar system that had another planet that was habitable or at least had some life, I'm sure our space programs would be much more advanced than current.

This worked for me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8uc8ICHNWY And I like this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTVrsupSrCg

Cannot offer an axiomatic proof, only confirmation. We have a model that doesn't just say, duh it happened before so will happen again. We have a model that predicts when, where, etc. It works, but can and will fail someday. You are basically saying 99% = 1% If something isn't 100% or 0% true, then we know nothing. You don't operate that way. If you were a brain in a vat, maybe. But there is a reality out there, or at least that's what I'm going with. Logical proof doesn't separate the two, but EVIDENCE and VERIFICATION do. That's why you see all the noise about evidence. Without it, anything goes. Going back to the swans, we have some idea why there are white ones and black ones and some mixture. Would you expect to find a tie-dyed swan? How about a transparent one? Is there a REASON why you might be skeptical about that? Is it only because no one has ever seen one?

An alternative to keeping your head stuck in a hole, while waving your arse to everyone? Pull it out.

I would be more likely to overeat cashews, so almonds probably would be a better choice for me.

This is exactly the argument for regulation and restraint. Humans are fallible, we will cheat a little if we can get awaywith it. We will cheat more if we see others getting away with it. The more abstract "money" becomes, the easier it is to horde it and feel justified. Very few would take food from poor people, but mortgage backed derivatives? This is the point of rules and punishments. Voluntary taxes won't work. You obviously feel that less restrictions are better, probably oblivious to many of those restrictions that benefit you. But it is an ongoing battle, a balancing act, so there is an argument as to what and how much. But to try an make a blanket statement either way is foley, IMO.

How about no capital gains tax on certain level of profits/income and then more progressive as profits increase? There is this thing called math that can help. You don't just have to waive your hands and say its too complicated. How about funds that have first dibs for buying into IPOs for small investors? Why do you think other countries seem to have less inequality than the US? Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. Are they less free? Are they just better? Are they fools? I invite you to watch the following video He talks about how our irrational behaviour leads to greater immorality and how wall street is a great breeding ground. The environment matters. It isn't just a few bad apples. We can improve. It isn't either every man for himself or no freedom.

hobby? really? I think if you had true faith, you wouldn't feel the need to discuss anything. You would leave it all up to God and keep your mouth shut. Don't vote, don't express your opinion about anything. Why would you do that? God will take care of it, have faith. To do anything else is childish and unwise. I understand your desire, but to do anything else but what I just said is anti to your beliefs.

Having a trading system that favors the wealthy is contrary to a free and just society. edit: I'll take that further Having a trading system that doesn't attempt to compensate for the advantages that the wealthy have is contrary to a free and just society.

In regards to definition. re·li·gion noun \ri-'li-j?n\ : the belief in a god or in a group of gods : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group The third option is just in terms of common usage as below. Hockey is a religion in Canada. Politics are a religion to him. Where I live, high school football is religion. Food is religion in this house. Atheism is religion to Dawkins. Basically, religion is a metaphor for passion in that context, we are discussing the literal meaning. This site gives a good analogy to the issue, IMO so, just as a tomato may blur the lines between fruit and vegetable, Buddhists do the same with Theism and Atheism.

Let's look at two examples to see if we can agree on something: 1) Some people create a group that studies the sun. They emerse themselves into all kinds of data and observations of the sun. They have regular meetings and even dress up and get drunk to celebrate the solstices and the equinoxes. 2) A man worships the sun as a living entity. He celebrates all the sun provides - life, warmth and happiness. He claims the sun speaks to him at certain times and provides revelations for all of humanity. He mostly keeps to himself, but he does jot down these revelations. Based just on this information, I would say the first group could claim to be atheists, whereas the man cannot. The first group may appear to be more of a religion - having ritual, gatherings, etc., but that isn't the essence of a religion. The essence of religion is that humanity can't think for themselves, they need a superior leader to show them the way. Of course in practice, this means the leader of the group, but they are claiming it comes from "up there". This doesn't mean atheists don't believe in kooky stuff. They just are not allowed to believe in a superhuman controlling power. That makes them not an atheist.

I think the link you provided is about as good as you will get for your side. Working for little is better than starvation, I guess. If sweatshops and cheap labor benefit the poor, wouldn't cheap labor from the mega-wealthy be even better? Make them work/invest for little to nothing. They still would work less and in better conditions than sweatshops.

Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. Who do I worship?

You think this is the best method? If so, what is the best shot to getting this done? Democrat supermajority!

I chose happy, but in reality happiness comes in temporary states, whereas intelligence sticks with you. I think the pursuit of happyness was about realizing your potential. Gattaca was a better movie on this theme. I think society is driven towards acquiring, not intelligence. How about happy or empathy?

The ACA belongs to the democrats. That doesn't mean they thought it was the best thing that could be done, but they thought it was better than the status quo. The republicans? Well, there is a long history on this issue, but the individual mandate came from the right. According to Newt it was just something to get away from Hillary care. Present day, I tend to think republicans just want sick people to bury themselves and go away, so yeah the ACA is democrat, while sickness and death in the emergency room is republican. Happy?

And how do businesses create money? Do businessmen pee coins? I don't think so. They leverage resources of the country. Minerals, infrastructure and chiefly people. They also enjoy safety from theft of property, both physical and intellectual. Everyone enjoys the fruits of those around them and before them. The more fruits you enjoy, the more you should pay and the more you should invest in sustaining and improving the system. Adam freaking Smith understood this in times when we still thought slavery might be OK. You seem to balk at the idea that one would not mow lawns for £15 an hour(that is pretty good, I would do that myself, until I ran over my foot), are you worried that one would not run a company if they can't be a billionaire? Yep and if the foundation that the businesses rest upon collapses, they are gone as well. Of course, the wealthy would leave to some other country, since they have true freedom. I'll just speak as an American. The truth is that Americans are overpriced compared to the rest of the world. This is true of the labor class, but more so the white collar and owner class, imo. The labor and white collars are getting hammered by competition from overseas. Not so for top level management and ownership. Just more opportunity for them. They can move operations to enjoy low wages or automate here. The system is rigged to increasingly lower wages for actions that add value - such as food, production, etc. while increasing returns for actions that just leverage assets. I've worked in manufacturing and while I dislike unions, I do see the need for workers to be protected in some way. Financial pressure makes many good people do bad things. Safety protocols, hazardous waste procedures, maintenance and especially QA go out the door if enough pressure is applied. It happens all the time with the wealthy who are just protecting their standard of living, you can imagine how it happens when you have a children whose healthcare and food depend on you. So you can keep ranting about how monopoly is a game where everyone who loses, chose to lose and that the game can't be changed. I don't buy it. I doubt this link is completely accurate, but you get the message. Top management doesn't have to make so much more than workers. Investors don't need to make sky high returns. Sure, I want to get money for nothing and my chicks for free, but that's not the way to run a society. Culture can change. Maybe posting ratio's like this for companies would be a start.

They are working hard to do anything against Obama. The only thing I can think of that the "Republicans" might be consistent on is tax breaks for the wealthy and some social aspects. I say wealthy, because they didn't seem to like payroll tax cuts. Anything else, they are all over the map. Immigration, spending cuts, healthcare, military action, disaster relief etc. Down the line, I couldn't tell you what their position would be. It can change month to month.

Looks like the architecture for the website is crap, not just glitches of code. Will be some time to iron it out, especially miscalculations of premiums, etc. Should this delay the individual mandate? I'm thinking it probably should, we do have to file taxes and do other things without a website, but not sure how practical it is to do this over the phone. Problem is that without the mandate, you don't get the healthy young people to contribute. I'm thinking we may see a "compromise" slip into the budget deals to delay the mandate, but not at the threat of a shutdown. Republicans fighting it tooth and nail doesn't help. The only hope will be to see how well it plays out for the states that actually work with it. I guess we shouldn't try to do anything hard, unless it involves killing people. "no we can't"

I think there is evidence that the bible is like "Forrest Gump" - a fictional account with some real happenings thrown in here and there. As mentioned previously, the virgin birth was mentioned thousands of years before Jesus. This is something we have been obsessed with for a long, long time. I'm sure there were women who became pregnant while their hymen stayed intact. Also, the pressure to lie is tremendous - you go from hatred and death of you and your unborn child to worship status.

Actually, it was offered as evidence to support his main position, which is that his opinions are equivalent to science. If he relies on science and reason for events that he understands, why would he use something else for those that he doesn't understand? If there is this being that created everything and can do anything, why can't he be involved at any given moment? Why "jump to the conclusion" that God is not involved in any given murder, birth, etc. Why does a method that disregards "God did it" come up with the answers so much more readily than asking God? nothing equates to the beginnings of the universe, that is why we need to utilize science instead of equating it to objects or rules within the universe. The example I provided was not intended to address that.

What we do today, and tomorrow and the day after that is modulated by external factors. Does the future look rocky or rosey? IMO, things are looking up - we are getting out of wars, trying to avoid new wars and concentrating on domestic issues. We are actually trying to get people insured, which is a start to improving healthcare, which is a great drain on our system. But, congress is getting in the way and I think will continue to get in the way as long as do nothing factions are able to control a party. I don't see the Fed easing anytime soon. New chair who is cautious with shutdowns always on the horizon. If congress actually came to an agreement on the budget, then it might happen, but the only way I see that happening is if the dems cave and cut spending so low that it stalls the economy.

Say you are walking down the street and you see a dead man laying down with an object stuck in his back. To begin the process of determining what happened, you will probably start with an assumption. 1) The man was stabbed by someone or somehow fell backwords on the object 2) God did it. Which assumption makes sense to you? Why? Which one will more likely lead to a meaningful answer?

Guess I didn't understand that very well, I thought that they could still petition with a majority of the house and call a vote. Tar, I was going to comment earlier that I think your posts in this thread probably mirror the majority of Americans in terms of fiscal policy. But, I think that's what Obama tried to do with his grand bargain back in 2011. Some cuts with some taxes. I think iNow has presented some really good data in support for more spending and I guess this makes sense on the aggregate, but in practice I am very skeptical about throwing more money at the problem. So, I completely understand why people want to cutback. Pragmatically, I think that argument has been won, but its a question of how much and where. I think I would prefer actual compromise, where we make some cuts(more emphasis on structural, long term) and get more revenue, instead of having a supermajority of Democrats. But with the current situation with the Republican party, I want them out of power as much as possible. In terms of this shutdown, debt ceiling issue, it is the Republicans that are the problem. There is hate on both sides, but in terms of politics, the republican congress is fractured, with a significant portion who get rewarded for bad behaviour. The spoof of Miley Cyrus "we can't stop" is accurate. These guys will not stop, they will continue to shutdown and ask for concessions and act like 20 years olds with more money than sense. They will twerk and enjoy the feedback. Hopefully, they will do a long range plan next time, but it will be even harder than this one. Keep posting. Peace from the left.

Looks like the monkeys aren't going to be men, so I think either a few decent republicans and the democrats will force a vote in the house or Boehner will have to fall on the sword. Not sure which one is politically better for Boehner, which is all that is driving this mess at this point.