revprez

No it doesn't. Once again, refer to your infinite Flatland embedded 3-space analogue. If you distort the plane such that a set of points in one scale reference are closer than in another (stretching an infinite elastic sheet), the plane space is obviously expanding. Rev Prez

Looking at the Friedman solution for a fluid with a given pressure and energy density, we have: [math]H^2 = \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2 = \frac{8 \pi G}{3}\rho + \frac{\Lambda}{3} - \frac{k}{a^2}[/math] Would someone mind walking me through how we arrive at a? Rev Prez

My bad, habit. Say, is the LaTeX module down?

I tried \newcommand but clearly that's been disabled. Is there some way to quickly write Einstein notation? [math]\eta_{\rho\sigma} = \Lambda^u{}_{\rho} \Lambda^v{}_{\sigma} \eta_{uv}[/math]

\[ \eta_{\rho\sigma} = \Lambda^u{}_{\rho} \Lambda^v{}_{\sigma} \eta_{uv} \]

Fortunately, there is a legislative process and federalism. Rev Prez

Against it. I presently exist as a single living organism. I've been a single living organism since I was conceived. I had, have and will continue to demand the right to exist as a single living organism as far as the question is not wholly dependent on the choices of others for any given period of time. Since I'm such a nice guy, I extend the same right to everyone else. Rev Prez

It is an argument for both insofar as "state-sanctioned murder" is a final solution for an incarceration design problem that may never be solved by other means. Rev Prez

I think this thread belongs in pseudoscience. Rev Prez

So either detail a plan that would've met your expectations for securing or eliminating weapon caches and justify its force correlation or move on. Rev Prez

I think I do. Tell me where I'm wrong. I started the thread. So we're back at where we started. Either you issued a non sequitur or believe you (or the general population) are better informed about national security affairs than the warfighters.

That is no defense. Very well. What law affords any couple an inherent right to participate in any and all specific civil institutions? I don't think that's quite the case but I'll play ball. I think the law presently provides a viable distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relationships in 49 states. Challenge it. Huh?

Either you brought up a superfluous point or your claiming to posses some special knowledge servicemen and women do not. Then what is your point?

On its face it is an arbitrary distinction, as arbitrary as say the reproductive viability distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. In response to my request for a principle, you referred me to "mutual adult consent." I asked for a defense of it.

1) At most, you've asserted that reproductive viability by itself is not a reasonable standard for providing civil marriage. 2) Beyond that, I don't follow your reductio ad absurdum here. Plus, I don't think contributing the the overpopulation problem is a sufficient justification for an insitution. Why prevent people from being together because they don't want kids? It would be a consideration. Same as above. Possibly. One, civil marriage is a social institution afforded by the state to the people. There is no prohibition of a private state of affairs. What rights? And what's the justification for providing those rights? Bear in mind there is a defense for consent, but I don't think you've touched on it yet.

You did say that "the joint chiefs of staff, politicians and military commanders don't sit them all down and tell them what role their orders will fulfill in the overall strategy." All right. Why should I believe you understand the strategy (if there is a strategy) and the role American servicemen and women than people in uniform do?

What's so important about mutual adult consent? You've just tossed out reproductive viability as a worthy test. Why is consent any different? The point I'm getting at is that there are any number of standards by which we deem a relationship apppropriate, inappropriate, worth supporting through some civil instrument or not. If you ask me to defend reproductive viability you should defend mutual adult consent--either they are both givens or they both demand justification.

1) Why do you claim that unit leadership doesn't clarify the role their men and women will play in a particular operation and what that operation means to the country? 2) Why do you imply that the general population is better informed?

That seems to be an extraordinary, almost movie cliche, claim. You imply that servicemen and women are less capable than others to acquire and analyze information and as a result are intellectually more pliable than the general population. To me, that indicates a familiarity with the services extending no farther than the movie theater. When it comes to national security matters, servicemen and women have an intellectual advantage over the general population--they at least speak the language. They are also more educated than the general population. Americans in uniform are more likely to be exposed to opportunities to demonstrate leadership, management, and analytical skills than the general population. The US warfighter tends to hold more conservative values than the general population. Try crafting an argument from there instead of resorting to bad movie aphorisms.

How much access to information do you think is denied to the American soldier?

MIT '02 EECS. Back in NY

I'm saying that civil marriage is a social instrument used to better sustain society. That involves reproduction and child rearing. In that case, homo and hetero behavior are in no way similar. Why not? Where's the principle?

Annenberg uncovers what everybody knew four years ago and seem to forget.

GR is a theory in four dimensions, not six. That much is obvious from the mere name given to GR's principal subject of study, space-time. Most people are taught classical relativity?