Men with guns enforce your laws, men with guns keep your nation safe. The threat of Men with guns are all that stand in the way of you and violence at the hands of anyone who has an inkling to commit it.

Don't pretend for a second that men (human beings) with guns are not what sets limits on human behaviors. Threat of death is the greatest threat, no law has the same capability that the threat of death has, but ultimately all law is backed by the threat of violence at the hands of a man with a gun, without such the law would be so much toilet paper.

Build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door. This applies to anyone with an inkling of capability, and even if by magic every gun in the world disappeared AND the knowledge to build them, it would not take long for someone to create a weapon that would do the job.

Since we have no magic, and technology to make weapons exists in every garage in our country . . . .

Yea. The ideas being put forth by you are far beyond asking for magic, it assumes human nature can be controlled by words written down on paper in absence of the threat of violence.

Silly.

If it was not in self defense then you should probably not answer online unless you think you are above the law.

IANAL

Not all citizens can be armed now, you see what happens, right?

My statement is exactly the opposite of yours, but mine is actually true, where as yours is not.

All citizens cannot be legally armed now, see what happens?


Bet it was a human with that gun . . .

Illogic, and hyperbole, and not a point to be made anywhere at all!

More people need to be like Stossel and care about facts.

Nothing any of our politicians are talking about now would have prevented this incident. That alone should cause pause.

The conversation should be a tactical one, but sadly only politics is on the agenda.

More blather.


No where in Chaos theory is there required acausal events. Again back to the epistemic - ontologic gulf.

What does this mean? It means that claiming the foundation of the universe is fractal does nothing to explain a theory of undetermined free will. Nice sound bytes that make people think your smart, but nothing of substance.

Swing and a whiff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation





To determine Time Dilation.

Being able to say we can measure the difference between a non-simulated reality and a simulated reality necessarily depends upon our capability to know how perfectly any future computational framework may or may not simulate reality.

I am skeptical of our ability to know what frameworks can ever be used as computational systems no less what properties they provide.

If you want to learn plenty of educational links were posted which will help you understand.

I am a physicist, and computer science major. It took me months to understand special relativity. I am NOT going to sit here and try to help you through that same process. What I have done is shown you were you can get the material, and presented a few different ways for you to explore the history of the idea and how it has been shown to be true.

If you were riding on the back of a satalite spinning around the earth at .99 % the speed of light, after 4 years of this you would be 4 years older, but everyone you knew and loved who were still on earth NOT traveling at .99% the speed of light would be something like 80 years older and long since dead.

This relationship between time, space, and matter is a FACT. You can take some time and learn about it, or you can continue to assert it cannot be so.

This being the science and philosophy forum I will only link scientific explanations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

If you can measure it, it exists objectively.

We can measure how time changes when matter moves at significant percentages of the speed of light.

Time exists objectively . . . its just not an entity.

Does gravity have a physical existence?

If so then so does time.

BTW this is a rhetorical question. Also your statement about evidence is completely wrong.

Half your problem JB is reading comprehension. I said time exists, not as an entity.

Do you agree or disagree that saying, "the faster you move through space, the slower you move through time" denotes a relationship between time, space and matter?

Also if I said the faster you eat mexican, the sooner you visit the restroom denotes a relationship without making any claim about the independence of your bowels and you and mexican.

Not sure why I try . . . you CANT understand.

I thought everything was all about energy and vibration JB . . you changing things up? New Guru? New Book?

Time exists, but not as an entity. As a relationship between space, and matter.

Much like gravity exists, but not as an entity, it also exists as a relationship between space and matter . . . just a different relationship.

Actually it is you who insists your version of reality is correct despite any evidence to the contrary. You will balk at science that actually works, and prefer the nonsense of those who have done nothing but make money off of the credulity of others.


Searle is an fool who more often than not confuses himself more than he offers anything of value to the field.

Mckinley is higher than Everest is both epistemically objective as well as ontologically objective . . . just like every other epistmemically objective phenomena . . .

Being ontologically objective is what makes knowledge possible . . . so he basically said nothing of value here at all, just offered this up to confuse the philosophically illiterate.

Also implications must follow directly. He says "and therefore implies that conscious states are illusory"

Why? What exactly is illusory, and what about the way the function of consciousness occurs makes it so? He cannot and will not answer this question because it makes nonsense of his comment and really all of his objections to compatibilism and scientific explanations for consciousness.

First page. However really you wouldn't know a scientific methodology if it hit you in the face.

Assertions are easy. Demonstrating you can support your assertion . . . emmm not so much.

Its relativity demonstrates its interaction with reality.

Stanford course for special relativity part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAurgxtOdxY

Stanford course for special relativity part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbrSKDvRTro

Personally I believe respect should be earned. If an ideology cannot objectively demonstrate how it creates a framework which elucidates knowledge it should garner no respect.

Interested in what?

Also, what exactly are you trying to achieve. I am a slacktivist, come on you have to spell it out for me!

Working to keep Christmas trees off government property, NAAAA, dont care.

Working to prevent Christians from selecting creationist propaganda instead of real text books, were do I sign!

To believe what?

The word god, in and of itself, is not well defined enough for me to answer that question.

By the time someone defines it well enough I end up with, Magic, or Nature.

I do not believe magic, by its very definition, can ever be demonstrated, explained, or objectively referenced, the mystery itself is the magic.

Equivocating nature and god has never provided any useful framework for knowledge so I am again left with little to work with.

I believe god is magic, and belief in god is really just a love, or nostalgia for magic.