Endy0816

That's what THEY want you to think! Seriously though, ideally there were once aliens and they leave their research and/or technology around for us to find. We also may end up as a progenitor race ourselves. Reasonable to think that different groups will seek different means of adapting themselves as the main technologies become more developed.

Meh, this idea is deeply flawed and by any reasonable standard OP would fail their own test. Open minded would include being able to consider alternate definitions of open minded, let alone standard definitions of words found in a dictionary. The main mistake here is one of hubris. You are certainly free to think you know better than society, but you had better consider the negatives that might follow. Failure to do so was what got other such 'innovators', also known as some of the most reviled individuals in history, into trouble. I'm out. I don't see any more point continuing with an obvious lack of mutual understanding or even rational consideration.

Earlier Swansont actually pointed out there is a rough connection via the choice for the length of the meter. Novel bit of unit history. #4 Swansont's Comment #9 Janus's analysis Though if you switch unit systems this sort of relationship can easily vanish. I'm wondering if this type of occurrence explains (some) other numerology-esque observations as well. Time seems to have the largest potential. Good food for thought. Edit: Unsure of equation.

@OP: People who in the past instituted central planning were reasonably intelligent. They were still naive in thinking that they could outperform supply and demand and worse didn't consider what would occur due to their failure. That is along the lines of the same error in thinking that you are making. You are taking away judges from an already overworked system. You believe that Judges and Juries will welcome their advice. You are instituting a dubious metric to select these advisers. You at least imply that these judges will agree with your own views. For these reasons people can reasonably say your view is naive. I saw and can only tell you that you are disagreeing with a vast number of people on the matter. The definitions disagree with you. What is legal may not be moral, which is part of the definition of just. In your example, in either case you have two witnesses stating that Harry made remarks of a sexual nature to a 12 year old. Could ethically and legally seek to find him guilty of verbal molestation.

Generally hear the process described as mapping signals onto a mental simulacrum. Hence you can lose a limb but still feel an "itch". Thankfully there are fairly unsophisticated ways to trick it. and in only slightly more professional settings these methods are used to help with phantom limb pain. The Pinocchio illusion is similar. Essentially your brain concludes that your nose is extending. Stupidly presumptive system. Poor input validation.

The point I was trying to make about elections was that you could elect your judges instead. You can have experience and yet still be naive in thinking your solution is a good one(many historical examples available). People define what is Just. Treaties define what is Legal. More to the point what is defined as legal changes over time, there's nothing to say that even the most heinous acts today won't again be legal in the future. You only consider them one way or another because of the society you live in. If your word is law you are dictating. It doesn't matter if you have the best intentions in the world.

Well, that almost gave me a heart attack... https://www.smashwords.com /books/view/435068 Mostly your price is unrealistic. You may value your work at that level, but others will not and they are the ones you are attempting to sell to. I know I wouldn't even download free sample text if there is no hope of me ever purchasing. Need to check your market and prices of similar offerings. For speculative works many readers don't expect to pay much if anything and many authors publish for non-monetary compensation. That is what you are contending with in practical terms. Promoting your work is broader in scope than offering free samples(though this remains a good option). Here is a fairly well done example: http://www.jim-butcher.com Author commentary, graphical elements, news, etc. Lot of possibilities open as to where you can take it.

^When do you hold elections? In general I think Arrow's Impossibility Theorem would relate. The 'Just Proof' system(described earlier) would be dictatorial. It may well be that is the way society will need to head, but I personally hope otherwise.

What you observe ties into your own ability to exist.

Most I can say is that much of what I've seen supports the standard view. May be an idea to try publishing in a different venue in order to introduce people to your work(site, blog, social media, etc). There are a bunch of self published works out there along with preprints of professional articles available for free. I know I would be hard pressed to see the need to pay.

What Strange said F = G [m1]*[m2]/r^2 assume [m1] is your object so via F=[m1]a we can state [m1]a = G [m1]*[m2]/r^2 and after dividing by [m1] on both sides... a = G*[m2]/r^2 'g' causes way too much confusion for a lowly acceleration.

It provides the force. You can get back to acceleration via F=ma.

Should look into catabolic activity. If you want to have some fun, ask your teacher ask about the lenses of Trilobites and Chiton.

lol I was just watching that over on YouTube. "How long can you tread water?"

Noah wasn't exactly from the scriptures but it did reasonably well in terms of earnings. I'd label it as an artistic piece more than anything else. Reminded me of his movie The Fountain which was pretty decent provided you could keep up with it.

Genes are a product of evolution. Evolution works to solve a problem like intelligence does, but the two differ in methodology. Generally speaking Intelligence acts upon prior knowledge, while Evolution tries everything repeatedly. Neither is so simple in real life but that's the gist of it.

Some of the islands maybe. There is nowhere totally free from pollution though. Healthy lifestyle + Medical Care + Low risk is mostly what you are looking for.

I like to entertain similar notions but that is all they are without supporting evidence. The question boils down to: "Can I go somewhere that may or may not exist?" There's also the possibility that the multiverse does exist and that the rules for our particular Universe mean we are incapable of accessing the rest of it.

People like to use that analogy. There's no 1:1 equivalence though. I mean literally any amount of mass would work.

What all are you proposing to use for radiation shielding and/or cellular damage prevention?

There's no reason to think they exist as Universes in the first place. Most of the superhero Universes also tend to violate the laws of physics. If there's any kind of 'distance' between Universes necessary to traverse then they would be further from us than many others.

Thanks. I found a couple of the past versions on the Way Back Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20020807212653/http://www.scienceforums.net/

Do you happen to know what the atom symbol is in reference to? Honestly, reminded me of the Naval Reactors logo.

Can you give a synopsis?

Yeah, I have to agree to at least requiring licensing. There's simply too much you can do with one. Doesn't take genius to install a remote release mechanism and start dropping stuff. Just find a descent sized crowd or structure and you are good to go. Probably just nuisance attacks will be the main issue. Delivery of paint bombs without any realistic threat of arrest. More curious how the self driving vehicles are going to pan out. Those are probably going to end up as components in the worst attacks down the line.