By the way, does anyone else find it funny that Einstein is making cracks at "some silly haired guy" and his "theory of special nonsense"?  Irony much?

Anyway, an actual post later.  big_smile

Whoops, misread!

Einstein wrote:

Zarf... think solar fission...

*cannot believe Xeno outsmarted Zarf yikes

The sun's power is fusion, not fission.


@xeno

Again, your own link on antihydrogen cited a requirement of uranium... An insanely rare resource.

Also, fusion energy hasn't been successful as a manmade energy source yet, so it's outside the purview of this discussion.

Hydrogen fission?  Errr...

Xeno wrote:
The Great Eye wrote:

Okay, let's start from the top.

Energy?

nuclear fusion / nuclear fission

Since when did uranium become an infinitely accessible resource?

Okay, let's start from the top.

Energy?

383

(9 replies, posted in Politics)

... so did I win?  tongue

None of us are questioning whether a writer could conceptualize the idea of a self-sustaining spaceship.

You specifically alleged that this was possible with current technology.  Reading your post... that hasn't been shown at all (aside from the nuclear propulsion system... oh come on, nobody's yelling about this one?!?).

No, I mean that in the grand list of "things which would be needed to build an indefinitely lasting space colony," that's not the most difficult thing to overcome.

What you've addressed so far is possibly the easiest part (well, except for the whole "we're going to detonate dozens of nuclear warheads to launch stuff into space" thing, but that includes an insane can of worms being opened up).

Xeno wrote:

It's possible, feasible, ... with our current technology to build thousands, hundreds of thousands of "Ramas" from Authur C Clarke's book Rendezvous with Rama:

*passes the popcorn around*

Oh, this should be interesting!  smile

388

(32 replies, posted in Politics)

Xeno, a basic philosophical question for you!

If a population votes to permanently remove the right to vote, is it antidemocratic to ignore the result of that vote?

389

(495 replies, posted in General)

It's also called the Damn-It-Gwyn-No-More-Stupid-Fishes Shark!

390

(495 replies, posted in General)

Another stupid fish...

391

(19 replies, posted in Politics)

*expresses general agreement with xeno's above post*

Okay, time for me to go to the psych ward now!  Clearly this is an indication that something's terribly wrong!

392

(19 replies, posted in Politics)

So what you're saying is that "morality" exists, but is essentially a utilitarian calculus?

393

(19 replies, posted in Politics)

You_Fool wrote:

Zarf: I think you find that Flint understands this, he was going to make a political point based on what was answered and bring it back to how his politics is the best type because of whatever... It was very obvious.

It would be interesting to have an actual debate on this, but I am on side with you, possibly even further, there is no good or evil to begin  with, let alone what humans may or may not be inherently.

That said maybe I should take a side opposite to you?


Well, a definition for "evil" was provided, and I asked that for a specific purpose.  His definition of "evil" is better understood as behavior which is fundamentally in conflict with most organized societies.

Which in itself should be evidence that at least his definition of "evil" is not something inherently existing (i.e., why would every act which encompasses "evil" also be acts which are inherently harmful to organized society, unless the definition of evil was inherently an endorsement of organized society, something which fundamentally is entirely artificial).

394

(19 replies, posted in Politics)

Okay, then I'm going to protest this question because there's no such thing as a human with which this is testable.

Determining whether a human is "inherently good" or "inherently evil" is asking whether or not a person, without the influence of outside forces, would independently choose good or evil actions.  However, whether by laws, social stigma, or teachings of morality, those influences are a constant.  Even if you assume someone who's living in the jungle, that person will be shaped by their parental heritages.

So what if we pretended a person didn't have that parental heritage to fall back on?  That person wouldn't survive, and thus you have no test case.  Unlike reptiles, mammals require the link to their parents in order to survive.

In short, this is sort of like asking what's outside the universe.  Even if there's a discussion to be had, it's not one that any of us are educated enough to engage in because the circumstances required for it to be a legitimate thing are beyond observation.

395

(19 replies, posted in Politics)

First thing's first: What are "good" and "evil?

396

(39 replies, posted in Politics)

*glares at Flint and xeno*

Please don't make me have to actually do my job, guys.  Not that I have a problem with the discussion going on, but try and keep it civil with one another.  Yes, that includes poo-flinging too, particularly when your aim is terrible enough to where hurling a semi-solid pile of matter is likely to result in portions breaking off from the larger mass and hitting random forum moderators who just happened to be standing around at the time!  X(

397

(57 replies, posted in General)

It's already been tooked!  tongue

398

(6 replies, posted in Politics)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

Your thread's been fixed!

399

(495 replies, posted in General)

Another fishy!  big_smile

400

(57 replies, posted in General)

*looks around baffled*




Nobody?  I gave it 15 hours...

so... *jumps up and down raising his hand*!  big_smile