Zolar V

i think that the problem is that famine still exists, even if it is going decreasing. Even under capitalism you still are experiencing famine, yet if you were to have a communist or socialist society you would not have any because the food, and other resources would be evenly distributed. the fact that there are multiple countries that are capitalist and there IS starvation is the key issue in saying that under a capitalist society someone has to loose. if you were to be in a socialist society you would not have famine at any level. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged no i was, again, stating the relationship between capitalism and starvation. the term American capitalism would be a more defining element. its not talking about the US, its talking about the form of capitalism we, and other countries, practice. it is defined by how we use/modify our capital and economy with Laissez-faire at its base. as apposed to other forms of capitalism which are controlled by the state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism and if you have such a problem with my references or my wording, cite evidence contradicting mine. therefore making me actually wrong. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged actually i would have to agree with that. i think many people misinterpret capitalism and moral values when they talk about trade. it is good capitalism to extort as much as you can form another. it is bad capitalism to trade equally. it is good morals to trade equal. and it is bad morals to extort. in the purest sense capitalism is about you getting as much as you can without regard to anyone else. morals just guide us in having safety nets in capitalism, and having fair trade. __ actually rereading some excerpts from Karl Marx's book on socialism the widening gap between the (bourgeoisie) and the (proletariat) or our rich and poor, is a good indication that a lot of his writings were right. it seems to me that the rich try to appease the poor to avoid the next evolutionary step in society.

here is a list of some, not all countries that practice capitalism. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_some_examples_of_capitalist_countries one of the countries listed India, can be cross referenced as being capitalist here; https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html which corresponds to the percentile of starvation in those countries. http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/where.htm i am going to cite an example, currently im working on India. might take a while tho

i would think not, because i did not say that these people died in the US. i was talking about the contribution that american capitalism has on starvation both directly, here in the US, and indirectly, those affected by capitalist society.

well, why yes i do have evidence. http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/index.htm http://www.worldometers.info/ "Hunger statistics Main article: Malnutrition In 2007, 923 million people were reported as being undernourished, an increase of 80 million since 1990-92.[6]. It has also been recorded that the world already produces enough food to support the world's population - 6 billion people - and could support double - 12 billion people. Hunger mortality statistics On the average, 1 person dies every second as a result of hunger - 4000 every hour - 100 000 each day - 36 million each year - 58 % of all deaths (2001-2004 estimates). On the average, 1 child dies every 5 seconds as a result of hunger - 700 every hour - 16 000 each day - 6 million each year - 60% of all child deaths (2002-2008 estimates). " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation

yes, even if they dont. its not about if i think they deserve a equal share its about being fair. well no, its mine. the ideal of not denying someone anything means much more than just material goods. it means that i dont have the right to deny a person anything to any extent of what im getting. say i got a ps3 system, well you can go out an buy one too if you wanted. so im not denying you anything. but if i was to buy the last ps3 system then i would be. honestly i actually thought about it meaning: Rather, there are instances in both testaments that tell us we will reap what we sow, not reap what we sow, take a fair portion and give the rest to sloths

what i was referring to was in a cave where you you would have large rubies growing you would have an extreemly iron saturated enviornment. and asking what type of organisms would live in there, is asking what kind of organism can develop and use the chemicals in the environement for energy. in this case the main chemical would be a form of iron. knowing extremeophile organisms and how they use alternate sources for energy, will help us understand that on other planets that cannot recieve enough energy from the sun, there could be organisms living there using these alteranate forms of energy.

well according to my religion (christian) and my beliefs (also christian) yes they do deserve just as much and it does make sense, atleast to me. i dont see what right i have to deny that person any amount that they get that is the same as me. yes they have decided to live the life of a sloth. but that doesnt mean they arnt worth as much as i am and how hard i work. the real question here is should i be able to decide who is worth what based on what they do and thier decisions? i personally do not think that i could be arbitrary enough to decide. and if i was on the recieving end of the stick i dont think that the person doing the deciding is arbitrary enough. so like i said i dont think i have the right to deny anyone anything. Note, i am not quite strong in my faith, but it has served as a moral compass. i being a logical guy, really cant understand God, as i have no proof of his existance or his intervention. that and i have no faith. sorry about the above grammer and spelling, its agian caused by my ps3 system. im using a wireless keyboard and sometimes they keys i het dont register.

omg that is soo awesome. what did it take to get to work there

it is somewhat my responsibility, atleast in my oppinion, i donate as much as i can. the way i see stuff like that, is what right do i have to deny people life or whatever. in my oppinion it could be the landlords fault that he did not help as much as he could. but then that goes even further that its the communities fault for not helping also. in a communistic society that would not happen, and because you dont have to focus effort on things like safty net programs, charities, paying for mortguages, rent, cars, loans, college. you could focus your efforts els where. such as inventing whatever, doing what you love to do. imagine if a carpenter could perform his carpentry because he loves it not because he has to so he can provide for his family. i have seen it before, iv met people who do some job they hate just because it makes them money so they can support his or her self. if they were able to do some job they loved without that kind of worry. i would think it would bring much joy to that persons life. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedsigh i was trying to avoid actually refrencing somehting because this is quite difficult to do on my ps3 system. the we browsing function is not as good as it could be, and it cant view word processing applications or documnets. i would have put linux on it but its the wrong type of console. i am now going to go and research the statistics i need, it will howver tiake a while. i will find the statistics i need to prove my point. besides originally wasnt this a "what if" thread anyways

I was referring to that, if someone asks me aobut capitalism or communism i would be glad to steer them to something that has the answers to their questions. if you really want a real example for capitalism kills, then here Lets just take a look at the current american capitalism. every day there are hundreds if not thousands of people dying and starving because they do not have the weath to go and buy what they need. however under the american capitalism you do have the safty nets of food stamps, goodwill stores, food distrobution, soup kitchens, but are they really enough. if they were then you wouldn't have the destitute dying. now you have too look at the people who owned their houses,in which the dead people lived, these landlords took what they could from the people to meet thier own needs at the expense of the dead people. so therefore landlords win, dead people, well died. you can even bring this to another level. and say that the landlords had millions of dollars and no heart and took what he could from the people and killed them(eventually). now if you were to look at a communistic society, you would not have people dying because they do not have what they need. Ever. but like i said before the true communisitc state cannot exist because people are well people. i can imagine though that there could be a group of educated people that could infact make a small communistic society and it would work quite well. (OPINION) i think that due to the indoctrination of children into believing the principles of capitalism is probably the biggest reason why we cant have a communist society. while a child is growing up they get saturated with the concept of this is Mine and that is Yours. and i need to ask to use that, or i need to trade this to use/get that. when you are born i dont believe you have any idea of race,religion or moral guidance. you only have basic instinct. basic insticnt is over taken by taught morels, religion, and race. but basic instinct is also greedy. however you can overcome that by indoctrination of the principles you want. so therefore capitalistic indoctrination is probably the main reason why communism will not work, but if you were to indoctrinate communism goal.OR if you were to indoctrinate christianism, you could easily have a communistic state work just fine. if you really look at christianism you will note that between humans it is supposed to be a communistic society but between god and human its a dictatorship.

i would have to agree with you socialism and communism fail to account for human selfishness and natural selection. in that regard i will agree with you in that capitalism is the best soulution due to it taking into account the aforementioned. stating the soviet state as an example of communism is absurd. the soviet state was a totarian dictatorship, the idea that it was a communistic state was propaganda spread by the soviets to quell its people, and the US for giving the enemy a political face and tying that to a new earth shaking ideal that was dangerous to the polititions. i however wonder at your statement, how exactly can you ask what people think of me just because of my comunistic view. how does that have any affect on me laying down all of my hopes, dreams, and aspirations to protect my great country and mine and your freedom. i dont see you doing any of that. the communist and socialistic state has never been and will never be an achievable political state. it can only be an ideal because of the simplicity of the problem of humans. i bet if i mentioned that i was a goth you would attack that and my service too

Just stay relaxed, when you answer answer with your gut, its always right. and stay relaxed personally when i take test i just take it and dont care about the consequences. i dont study either i just game and relax and take the test(i always pass so im not worried). if you know the material as you would since you wrote it then you wont have any problems with it. but staying relaxed is quite litterally the best thing you can do.

i wouldnt assume that it was glass i would think that its would be plastic expecially if its being squeezed. and it does look like it is being squeezed. if it is being squeezed then it does account for the fluid moving fully up to the bulb or down to the bulb because once the pressure is off it would have a vacuum, but not strong enough to start sucking the fluid back down or up the ltube.

well in answer to your qeustion of who is wiling to take the unwanted jobs, i would say this, there are 8 billion people in the world so someone somewhere would do it. in my society i let people decide what jobs they want without having to decide between money and thier favorite job. socialism is a really good solution, until you put people in it. then it just explodes because she wants this, he wants that, they want more. if you did not have natural selection so engrained in the human psych then socialism would be the perfect solution if you had 100 people in a room all deciding to be socialist in their own community then proceede to do it, it would work. until you get that 95th person who wants more. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedcould you imagine what kind of technological advances would occur if there was no need for funding? no oppression for radical "unethical" ideas? if we lived in as communistic state im sure we would have reached space and other planets by now. just because of the simple fact that people dream about it now, but in the communistic state you dont just have to dream you can.

if you watch it carefully you will note that there is a tube going from the middle of the apparatus to the bottom or top of each bulb. the mechanism behind it s pressure as you can see by the white of the fingernail when he presses against the bulb. it looks like a capillary motion. the blue liquid is indeed water with a little food coloring

ok, cool. ill look it up later for a more in depth look

wow Phi for all, you really missed the point of SIMPLIFY. i did not add Collusion, that was merely a joke on making persons A and B exactly the same. however you are somewhat valid in saying that my examples are unrealistic, but then again any government and economical standard you simplify will be. and for the most part the equation for complexity was not real i was just pointing out just how complicated it gets once you factor in bigger values for 2 variables, not to mention actually adding more variables into it. and the other equation was pointing out how can one measure your worth by your work.

here, let me give a nice example on what i mean by someone winning and someone loosing. person A works and Mcdonalds. Mcdonalds pays person A for work (losing money) person A gains money from working at Mcdonalds(winning money) now there you have a nice simplified example without all the "well his work is worth x and they payed him y which x=y." and "her work is worth W and they payed her Z which W>x and W>Z" here is another example, Jonny applied for a job at stock inc. the manager there, billy, reviewed jonny's application. betty, jonny's cousin, also applied for the same job and same everything, they both are exactly the same in every way, hell jonny's even got boobs if you really wana go that far... now pretend this is the ONLY job on earth and stock inc can only hire 1 of the 2 applicants. so lets say that jonny got the job. Well jonny just WON, and now because jonny has the job he lives. however because betty the transvestite didn't get hired she or he LOST and therefore now he/she dies. so therefore i stand correct saying Capitalism is about wining and loosing or living and dieing. saying Capitalism Kills is just kinda catchy, BUT, once you start to factor in 2 or 3 or 10 jobs in a community the above examples would get infinitly more complicated. i think that its something to like A= persons B= jobs C= complexity C=A*B^2 or something like that..

huh, thats interesting. honestly i was thinking that the increased temprature would allow the electrons to move about more freely. but it looks like its quite the opposite. originally i was thinking about this because i was thinking about tolemaik reactors and how they use electricity to heat the gas iand change it to plasma. but i was also thinking about resistance on circut boards and how iron,silver,gold,copper have a specific impedance to current traveling through the circut and how much heat is produced as a result. for some reason its still not quite making sense to me. if you have 2 metal atoms at 50* K both in a solid form(obviously) and their resistance is lets say 1, you would think that adding heat (energy) would allow the electrons to move about more freely. if you were to base the observation on the standard atomic model.... but if you have 2 metal atoms at 2000*k in a gasseous state but still appearing to be solid (aka the atoms have not moved away from each other), their resistance is <1?

ok let me get into more detail. i was wondering if you had a gasseous metal in a area that fills it in such a way that one atom is close enough to another atom to allow for normal current flow similar to a solid piece of metal, what would be the total resistance or impedance to the flow of electrons. i would think that because of the increased energy state that there would be less resistance to current flow, therefore increasing the amount of current that could be applied to the metal gas.

personally i would rather live in a government that is small scale, almost village/town to town. as you can easily see throughout all largescale governments of countries, it just doesnt work. at the macro level politics and economics leave out at eventually snuff out the micro minority. in a small scale government the macro will not overtake the micro because all the people of the micro make decisions and affect the macro. yes i know that this is how its supposed to work for largescale governments but it doesnt due to different forms of corruption and ignorance. atleast in small scale both of those are significantly reduced. now, my government would be socialist i would think because Capitalism Kills. let me explain, in order for capitalism to work some one wins and someone looses, so simlified someone lives someone dies, basicly natural selection caused by us. in my socialist government it would be true socialism, one without a ruling head, where everyone has a say in what happens. in the natural evolution of this type of government you are going to have differnet families start to grow accustumed to doing certian things, such as a schooled man might become an engineer, he might have his son do it and they might become the leaders in that industry. eventually you will have smart people doing the smart jobs, and mechanical people doing the mechanical jobs. without the basis of economical gain for each person, they are able to persue their lovejob without any want to do something else for more money.

yea i know that they are considered rare and that gypsum is quite common, hence why our drywall is omade out of it most of the time. but i would think that givin the age/size/volume of the planet that somewhere there is a cave filled with giant precious stones. you could almost call the Debeers diamond mine in souther arfrica a giant diamond cave just because of the sheer immensity of the volume of diamonds found there, despite their lack of size. its would just be really awesome to find a cave filled with giant precious stone. quartz and gypsum are interesting in their crystal structure but others would also be abit more interesting imho. + think of what organisms could live in lets say a ruby cave.

what would be the potential current traveling through a Gasseous metal such as iron?

so i was watching National Geographic's program Explorer where they explored a Giant Crystal Cave in Naica, and watching it i saw all the scientist wonder in amazement over the giant gypsum crystals. Is it really all that suprising that there are giant crystal caves? i mean honestly, how could you not know that there are these subterranian caves? personally, i think the book Journey to the Center of the Earth isn't all that far-fetched. you have alot of area near old and new magma vents that could form such caves and we see this in the naica cave. if anything i am suprised we haven't found a Giant "ruby" Cave or other gem stones. all ruby takes is iron.. or maybe copper for emerald.. or dare i say diamond

sounds like a classic case of teenager and misplaced morals.