npts2020

1)OK. Fair enough, instead, point out a single case where information extracted by torture has ever resulted in termination of an imminent threat (and I will even leave the definition of imminent up to you) by American forces. In order to do this, you will have to get better information than the National Intelligence College and all of the experts working on the treatise I referred to previously could find. In those 372 pages the NIC lists a host of reasons why torture should not be used and not one reason in favor (they also talk about the "Hollywood effect" of why people continue to believe that torture ever works). 2) It is not what I do but what society as a whole does that is important for discussion. While it is true that other methods are tried first (for the most part), the might makes right attitude seems to permeate a significant cross section of American society (from street thugs shooting each other, to military interventionism, to the death penalty etc).

The problems with doing this that I see are as follows; 1) Expense, reactors are very expensive to design, license, build, maintain, and decommision. The more reactors that are built, the more expensive they will become (at least this has held true in the past and I see no reason for it to change). 2) Political opposition, proposing a new nuclear power plant is guaranteed to bring out more NIMBY's than almost anything else someone could come up with. 3) Security and proliferation, the more use you have of a technology, the more people who have access and knowledge the easier it is for some malcontent to concieve of a way to use it for harm. Also materials are more difficult to secure if kept in different places as would be required for even moderately widespread use. 4) Waste, every nuclear power plant will produce some of the most toxic and radioactive waste ever produced by humans. Furthermore, that waste will be around for many times longer than human civilization has even been in existence and nobody has come up with a politically acceptable solution for their disposal. 5) Better alternatives, unlike the case of reactors, alternatives like wind, solar, tides, or geothermal are likely to decrease in cost as more are built. These methods also require less regulation and have more fixed costs for their power sources (basically free). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged IIRC the reactor and power generation systems on a submarine use about 1/3 of the total space on board. The rest is completely dependent on the output of the heat source, efficiency of use of the energy, temperature gradient to your heat sink, etc.

I see what you are saying for theoretical purposes but I think for practical purposes that it will be extremely difficult to get something (even with the strangth of carbon nanotube) to get that much differential between any parts of a rotor. That is why I say that things like cohesion and crystal bonding will overrule quantum effects like frame of reference paradoxes (kind of like not being able to overcome friction without enough force).

I would like for anyone to point out a single case where torture was useful in extracting information that could not be gotten in any other manner. IMO, killing is standard practice, why do you think the ultimate arbiter of disputes is war? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged See above, give me an example of when torture was ever the most effective means of eliciting reliable information. I would say that neither you nor anyone else can say when torture would be more effective than other means. We can argue about the definition of what torture is but two facts seem clear to me; 1) methods that have been prosecuted in the past as torture have been used by Americans 2) those at the highest levels of our government are ultimately responsible for the actions of those down the chain of command, even if they were kept in the dark (they weren't). There is a vast library of hollywood movies showing the efficacy of torturing someone, unfortunately, the experts whom I have read universally state there is no scietifically valid reason to believe torture is useful in any case. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe first link in post #58 from iNow is the most recent study done on interrogation by the National Intelligence College. It is very long (372 pages) and pretty much backs up what I have said.

There was a classic "Star Trek" episode (IIRC "The Librarian) where the beings living on a planet with a dying star did exactly what you are describing. If something like that is even possible, it will require better science than we currently have access to.

One of your problems with visualization, IMO, is that propellers only move at a small fraction of the speed of light, making dilation effects pretty negligible. Other forces (cohesion?) overwhelm this effect.

And what do you suppose the fastest possible amount of time it takes to get any individual to Guantanamo? I would be very surprised if anyone made it to the prison there in less than a week from the time they were taken into custody. When is something imminent? If you accept the proposition that torture is sometimes useful (something I have seen zero evidence in support of), why should you not just go ahead and do it as a matter of standard practice?

ParanoiA; Nice try but the question doesn't really answer itself because any scenario where you take people into custody can involve "stakes too high for a person to really comprehend". My personal belief says that all human beings should be treated the same regardless of their national origin, race, or creed so why restrict torture to non-Americans or to some few individuals that are imagined to be able to provide useful information, when anyone might have that same information? Just because there are people out there who do torture does not mean that it is a good practice for a supposedly free society to sanction. I would like for anyone to show torture fits into the worldview that America is purportedly trying to win over the "hearts and minds" of the world with? One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that by the time any prisoner arrives at Guantanamo Bay any "imminent" situation would have already played out.

That is exactly what i told you to google describes, even better, they have a whole movie(s) showing how it works. The same sort of concept could be applicable to the wings being speculated on by the OP. The giant caveat is that it may not be possible at all and certainly isn't possible with the current science and technology available. IMO that is what good science fiction does, make the seemingly impossible, plausible.

Well, after googling jupiter/ionosphere the first hit is a lengthy, but interesting treatise by R. V. Yelle of Arizona University and S. Miller of University College of London. They seem to think the upper temperature limit of the ionosphere is the 1200 K mentioned by D H and that there is a large gradient through it, possibly as much as 800 k. This compares to 2200+ K that the Earth's ionosphere maxes out at. Why haven't we lost all of our atmosphere on Earth to space yet?

I have never even met anyone who has met the man but he doesn't seem to mind trying to explain his ideas in language everyone can understand. In the article he gives an excellent description of what practical application his ideas might have. I especially liked the part about him saying most of his ideas are probably wrong but he has fun with them and it is OK to be wrong.

Most of those who use torture, realize that the thing it is most effective for is intimidation of more than just the one who is tortured. Why do you suppose that most democracies around the world are against it and for the most part only dictatorial countries use it? How does this fit into the plan to win hearts and minds of the world? Again I will ask (for a third time), if torture is an effective means of gathering vital information, why not just torture every individual you pick up on the battlefield or from a suspected terrorist hideout?

I am not an expert on this subject but it seems to me that language is just the expression of conscious thought. I would submit to you that it is possible to have thoughts for which there is no language and impossible to have language with no thought.

Mr. Havel is a great man we can all aspire to be like. Unfortunately, I hear he is ailing at the moment.

For the most part the lines are drawn by whatever political party is in charge at the time. Sometimes the grossest abuses are challenged in court but rarely with any success.

OK, so for the sake of argument we say that a single American life is worth using the most extreme methods your values judge you may take for prevention. Why not just torture every individual you pick up on the battlefield or arrest in a suspected terrorist hideout? You never know what small piece of useful information a given individual might have.

IMO; Thought does not require language or science, language requires thought but not science, and science requires both.

It is just taking advantage of the human propensity for "group-think", IMO. Humans are far more alike than they are different. It is still impressive though.

Try googling "The Guyver", you might be interested in the concept of body armor presented. The movies (animated and live action) I found pretty entertaining as well.

I agree. It would be more surprising to me for there never to have been any kind of life. The problem is in proving it.

Do conservation laws require photons to be emitted in pairs?

Why not just torture everyone you pick up then? Any individual "might" have that piece of information you need to prevent "disaster" and save umpteen lives.

None in particular but it seems that if Obama can influence who her replacement is in any way, that a supportive junior senator would be a better senatorial ally than a more senior senator who may or may not be completely on your side. After all it is usually the senate that gets legislation tied up or passed more than the house.

How about waterboarding (something people have been prosecuted for as torture by the American government since the Civil War) or just good old fashioned beating to death? Are those getting a little closer to the "level" of a terrorist? The problem is that some of the methods used have been clearly defined as torture for many years. In eight years (or over 7 years if you only want to consider since 9/11) what laws have been proposed to change those definitions? Every interrogater I have heard interviewed or read (at least a dozen if they are actually all different people) has stated that they got better information without torture than with. If you apply enough pain to someone they will tell you whatever they think you want to hear. If torture was efficacious and needed, why would it be wrong to torture everyone you picked up off of the street since anyone might have a small piece of information you could use?

Maybe Hillary was seen as an impediment to the Obama agenda if left in the senate to promote other interests?