npts2020

Are birth certificates always validated against state records, or are there cases where they're just trusted?

Sometimes state records aren't even that good. The hospital I was born in burned to the ground about a decade later and there is no "official" record of the people born in that hospital. What is funny is that I have the original birth certificate (the one with the baby foot prints) but it is not considered to be a valid form of id.

I don't think we should change the calendar until we make contact with an alien sentient species. Until then we are living BC (before contact).

Well, it really would not cost much if any more than high speed rail (the most expensive form of transit to build) to automate the highways and power the vehicles with wind and solar energy. I would like to give a reference for this but it is a compilation of literally hundreds of things from my research of the topic over the past 2 years (it is easy enough to find that high speed rails are the most expensive to build though). It would be nice to see an efficient train system in America but I think that we are fast approaching the point where we cannot afford both a high quality highway and rail system. It seems to me that getting Americans to give up the convenience and privacy of a personal vehicle for a train is a losing proposition, so I have been proposing that we combine the two and automate them. I believe that I have solved most of the problems associated with automation that people bring up, other than the obvious political one of bringing about a major change.

Hello,

 

I am trying to re-invent the steam engine.

Is there a way to use volatile chemicals to create gas expansion, that is cheaper than boiling water to produce steam?

 

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Few things are cheaper than boiling water. Not only that but water is particularly well suited for this use and a fairly safe substance to work with. Any possible alternative I can think of will be toxic, volatile, less efficient, and/or more expensive.

I think it should be a fundamental right to have access to the internet. If there is not universal access you are creating/perpetuating a rich get richer system where all but the poorest, who may need it the most, will be able to use it. Until the past century most people did not consider health care to be a fundamental right but most countries, besides the U.S., now consider it to be one and provide universal care because it has been deemed to be in the best interest of society to do so. I believe a case can be made that would show society as a whole would be better off by not having significant numbers of people with no access to the internet as well.

I think the money would be better spent automating the highways but then what do I know?

The theory of spontaneous generation has been disproven.

 

It is now a scientific law that all lifeforms must come from at least one parent life form (if it is at only one, it is called "asexual reproduction"). Maybe the parent dies in the first place, but it has to have been alive at some point in time because organisms don't just pop up out of nowhere.

 

But, if that's the case, then how did the world's first organism come into existence?

 

It had to have come from somewhere, and if it just spontaneously generated, why is that organism the sole exception to the rule?

 

Science doesn't deal in "unique exceptions;" science follows the notion "If you repeat the conditions, you repeat the actions," which means if we allow for one instance of spontaneous generation, we have to allow for many, many more.

 

So, where did the first organism come from?

Who disproved this theory and how? There may be spontaneous generation happening all over the universe right now but how would we know it?

A buffer solution is this.

You mean scrith. Building it out of scree doesn't make much sense. And technically they weren't rockets. They were giant ramjets, fueled by directed solar flares. So that's what we need.

Thanks for the correction. It has been about 30 years since I read any of the series, shoulda checked.

C'mon now, haven't you guys ever read Niven's "Ringworld"? All you need to do is build it out of scree, have some auto-fired rockets to keep it in place, and call on Louis Wu when things screw up.

Michel; If the mass of the Earth changed enough to allow gravity to significantly change, how would that affect the moon's orbit? Is there any evidence that it has ever changed much beyond the current miniscule amount it is receding at the moment?

All of the logos so far have been good and we should be proud to have any of them no matter which is ultimately decided on.

We could start our own 2012 cult to take over the world after it all ends.

Well that might work if you didn't flush billions of cells out of your body everyday. If hundreds of thousands didn't just fall off of your skin to become dust.

 

In no way is that humanly practical, nor is it possible to "save" every single human cell. I do not believe that this is murder though. IMO abortion is murder for the simple fact that we go thru a complex, sterilized process in order to eradicate a mass of human cells that will in due time become a human being, it is already a "human life." This is all a matter of opinion and subjective observation though. I know most of you would contend otherwise.

Firstly, I would not call ingesting an abortifacient a complex or sterile process. Secondly, how is a blastocyst any more a human life than is a more highly developed organ like a heart or kidney? The only difference is that a blastocyst is not yet differentiated into its constituent parts. Even then the real argument is about what is considered to be a "person". Is a blastocyst a person?

IMO the only part of the process where a line can be clearly drawn is in giving birth. I would not argue that abortions a week before the baby is due would be a good thing because it seems like a choice should have been made a long time before that point. However, it seems that there is no clear line before that time anyone can point to which will be consistent without granting personhood to a fertilized but not yet divided egg. That is why I believe that it should be up to the woman to decide for herself and not the government or anyone else.

So if I hallucinate a giant hole in my chest, or a monster dismembering me, etc., then I'm going to die?

I would say that if you can't distinguish it from reality, then yes. I would also say that such a scenario is highly unlikely at best, though.

Personally I have only looked at transit using vehicles, so I can't answer many of your questions. However, when building a tunnel, you have to be able to pump out water from leakage, rain etc. and the same pumps would be used to pump it dry in the first place. Each section has some kind of seal to minimize leakage and only some construction methods require that the ends be sealed since you can pump the water out once it is completed.

It seems to me the reconciliation route is about a day late and a dollar short. Nobody I have talked to has a good idea of what any sort of reconciliation bill is going to look like but it also seems to me that, if this had been done a year ago, there would have been enough time before this coming election to see if it was working or not. As it stands now, Republicans will gain from painting it in the worst possible light because there will not be time enough to see if it works and they know Americans will not vote for a second party when the more liberal side of their own party (Democrats) screws up.

Go further. Suppose I perfect an amazing technology that lets me extract a cell from an adult, turn it into a stem cell, then an egg cell, all while preserving the original DNA and encouraging it to grow. It doesn't even have to be fertilized, since it keeps the original DNA. It's a clone, basically.

 

At what point in the procedure is destroying my miracle cell murder?

If you are on the anti-choice from the time of conception side of the debate, it seems to me that destroying any human cell should be considered "murder" since technology might one day make any cell into a person. What happens when biologists discover how to convert say a grasshopper cell into a human one? Does that then mean that squashing a grasshopper underfoot becomes murder? Or what if they discover how to turn inert materials into cells etc., etc.

That is why at birth seems to be a more objective criteria.

Nondenominational nontheist is a better term than atheist for most people. If I define "god" as simply anything greater than ones self, who would argue that there was nothing greater than themseves?

I was raised in a pretty strict Methodist household but was always interested in reading anything and everything. By the time I was 20 I began to question why whatever Jesus, Mohammed, Confucius or whoever had any more validity than what Neitsche, Marx, or Sartre had to say. Although most religious people would likely refer to me as an atheist, "god" can be defined in such a way that nobody is truly an atheist. I use the term nondenominational nontheist.

Are you sure about that? Isn't that the entire point of hallucinations, to be indistinguishable from reality?

If a hallucination is truly indistinguishable, it is reality. Reality is subjective, although I will grant that when more than one persons realities coincide, you are closer to a more "objective" reality.

I had heard that the 1.26 microsecond difference wasn't even measurable yet, that is why it had to be calculated.

It might be interesting to compare the amounts of anti-oxidants in wild vs. domestic varieties of strawberries or blueberries.

Exactly. This is what it comes down to. The problem is of choosing at what point in the cycle a new "person" has arrived. And so you have to define what a "person" is, and decide what attributes of a person make it worth protecting, and decide when those attributes have emerged.

 

I say "decide" rather than "discover" intentionally, because this isn't something for which there is going to be an objectively correct answer. Because of the cyclical and gradual nature of the process, any single cutoff point is necessarily going to be arbitrary.

Isn't this the reason you allow the woman to decide at what point that is?

To paraphrase someone more famous. "I'm not sure if I can define reality but dammit I know reality when I see it".