Seasons

I'm not sure brass plaques should be used for anti-insect purposes. Any thoughts jbryanc, holder of the brass plaque?

I have to get back to this one now that this is a regular week night...

Eugene, do you believe in the "concept" of infinity? Crab? How can the universe *not* be infinite? If it weren't infinite, what surrounds us? I can understand, scientifically, how some extremes are definite, like cold (nothing colder than zero kelvin), light (nothing brighter than white, nothing darker than... no light), mass (nothing lighter than zero grammes!) and a few others... even speed may have a limit, but still I doubt that we won't change our minds on that one someday - sorry Einstein! (no pun there, I mean the real Einstein). But I really don't understand how there could be a limit to how old something is, how heavy it is, how much energy it holds or how large it is. Do these things become clear with a mathematics major?

Eugene, you can't possibly be saying that the evolutionary theory is less valid than what the bible says because the bible has been around for some 1800 years longer... We *are* evolving right? Right now? We are, aren't we? I mean, pretty well everyone can write now... and with the Internet, we can keep a pretty close track on historical events and scientific advancements... I would go way out on a limb here and claim that we'll be even smarter in the future... and maybe then we'll want to replace *all* known theories with one that better suits our modern experiences and our new discoveries. I can't agree with the "it's been around longer" argument in this case.

Corwin, I went to school in Sydney - I think it was winter there then, cause I could hardly ever wear shorts... goes to show how mild the weather was down there. Montreal's covered in slush again now...

I'll just let you all assume what my thoughts are on the cause of our marvelous green-house effect.

And now back to our baby... capitalism! Once again, I agree with most of what you're saying Crab. I think freedom is one of the most important aspects of our lives and I don't see why anyone else should tell me how to act... but there are all kinds of ways of interpreting that. What if ones personal definition of freedom is having sex with whoever they want, no matter what age, sex, location or species! See how ambiguous that is? Not so long ago, same sex relationships were even more taboo than pedophelia. So who's to decide what our society permits and what our society doesn't permit in these cases? Surely there are situations where there's gotta' be a line drawn somewhere, right?

Now what get's on my nerves is the concept that we live in a democracy. If you still think the top 1% of the richest people in a country get only 1% of the vote, I'm afraid you haven't been listening to a word I've been typing!

I'll say it again, these people plain and simply *buy* the governments. They give them millions of dollars a year in campaign funding (this is no secret, btw) so that they'll pass laws in their favor! Is there something hard to understand about this? We (the population) only get a say in *who* will be receiving the funding and deciding the laws, we never get a say on *what* laws will be decided! Is there anything you can say to deny this???

With all this money, the government simply passes laws, without consulting the population. If the population does find out about some scandalous law being passed (through one of those gosh darn left-wing reporters) the government has tons of budget and resources to "create" a consensus amongst it's voters. When you have access to every news channel that every voter watches, there's no need to censor anything - you just flood the air waves with smart sounding financial reports describing how this is in each and every citizens best interest. And this is just to create an illusion that everything is ok, because if the government didn't take on this responsibility, people might get distracted by those left-wing reporters (dangerous).

With this kind of system running the show, I can see, Crab, why you'd be hesitant to let the government have a glimpse on ANY aspect of our lives!

Like I briefly mentioned earlier, I've thought of true democratic solution for our modern times. I'm probably not the first person to have thought of something like this, but I don't think I stole this idea from anywhere (perhaps the collective consciousness influenced me a bit, who knows?). It's basically "live voting". Instead of going out and voting once every four years, you can vote as often or as rarely as you like - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week! This is sort of hard to explain at first, but hang on, I'll do my best.

Instead of having a select gang of people discussing things in congress, why not have virtual discussions on a newsgroup web site specifically dedicated to passing laws. After a period of discussion, the laws would be voted upon. Of course, every single citizen would be represented in each vote, but each citizen wouldn't necessarily have to vote individually; you could choose to vote yourself (if you feel the urge) or you can donate your vote to a political party that manages your votes for you. If for some reason, your current political party is no longer serving you the way you'd like to be, you could donate your votes to a new gang from that point on, decide to manage your votes yourself or, I don't care, cancel your voting for a while! NOW THAT'S A DEMOCRACY!!!

This would encourage any number of political parties to be truthful to their promises and to the people they represent. Each party would gain or lose power depending on how they stand on the laws that are being past. Campaign funding would be rather irrelevant, since it would really be the population that decides all those necessary laws that make our society more or less organized. And, the wonders it would do for public interest in politics!

What d'y'all think? I'm terribly curious.

I've thought about it for a while and, personally, I don't see any flaws in it, other than the people who are currently in power will do everything they can to avoid *this* kind of freedom.

Sir Rahz, do you often visit chat rooms - especially political discussion groups? God help us if those people get to run the country.

We don't disagree that the wrong people have too much power in many cases, but your solution seems to be to give the power to more people while my solution is to give less power, period.

Totally confused by this, though:
"What if ones personal definition of freedom is having sex with whoever they want, no matter what age, sex, location or species! See how ambiguous that is? Not so long ago, same sex relationships were even more taboo than pedophelia. So who's to decide what our society permits and what our society doesn't permit in these cases? Surely there are situations where there's gotta' be a line drawn somewhere, right?"

Are you *advocating* laws prohibiting homosexuality? Because that's where the line was drawn. Lines tend to be drawn, in a society where power to make laws is not limited, by the majority seeking to enforce their way of life on the minority.

To me, the line is simple: "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose". So yes, feel free to indulge all your consentual sexual fantasies, provided you don't rape anyone to achieve them (hence, consensual). All other lines should be a matter of personal choice or advocacy, not law.

I think you confuse me because in one sentence you say "who's to decide?" (I'm assuming you agree with me that the answer is "nobody") and then in the next sentence you say "surely the line has to be drawn somewhere", suggesting that someone must decide. Explain yourself!

In general I think referenda like the kind you're talking about (24/7) can be a powerful force for good, but also for evil. Those kinds of referenda have helped support medical marijuana on one hand, but abstinence-only education on the other.

I respond to infinty now.

"How can the universe *not* be infinite?"

The same way an apple is not infinite. It is no bigger than the space and time it takes up. But the universe is much bigger.
"If it weren't infinite, what surrounds us?"
"surrounds"? If you mean surrounds the universe, nothing.
"But I really don't understand how there could be a limit to how old something is, how heavy it is, how much energy it holds or how large it is."

You must be similarly puzzled then about the apple, no?

"Eugene, do you believe in the 'concept' of infinity?"

Of course. Just so we remember that it isn't a number. That's one of the first things I learned in Calculus I -- infinity is not a number.
"How can the universe *not* be infinite? If it weren't infinite, what surrounds us?"

For all I know, the universe might be infinite. This may raise some problems in physics, but I don't know about them. But I personally favor the theory that the universe is finite in space *yet* it would be impossible to fly out of it. This is accomplished by saying that the three dimensional universe is the surface of some four dimensional shape -- a hypershere, for example.
"Do these things become clear with a mathematics major?"

Absolutely. If you stand next to me you will understand all the mysteries of the universe. :-)

Seriously, I'm don't think we fully understand the nature of any of the properties you mentioned. But here are my thoughts: The color of light is a matter of frequency rather than intensity. You can have two white lights, with one being brighter. Concerning age, there is a current maximum age for any finite object -- one couldn't very well be older than the beginning of time. This maximum will of course continue to increase until the end of time. I haven't said anything profound, so don't get excited. As for limitation on volume, that depends on whether or not the universe is infinite. Mass has a definite max before something becomes a black hole, but I don't know if it can continue to become more massive indefinitely after that. Of course, the universe only contains a finite amount of matter and energy, so there are limits in that sense.
"Eugene, you can't possibly be saying that the evolutionary theory is less valid than what the bible says because the bible has been around for some 1800 years longer..."
*You* were the one who brought up the issue of age. Maybe I misunderstood, but it looked like you were questioning how I could believe in the Bible when it was so young. This seemed ludicrous coming from someone who believed in a much newer system of thought. I don't believe such arguments hold water anyway, I was just trying to point out an inconsistency.
"We *are* evolving right? Right now? We are, aren't we? I mean, pretty well everyone can write now... and with the Internet, we can keep a pretty close track on historical events and scientific advancements... I would go way out on a limb here and claim that we'll be even smarter in the future... and maybe then we'll want to replace *all* known theories with one that better suits our modern experiences and our new discoveries."

Okay, we get into the lovely phenomenon of ambiguity. By evolution, you seem to mean "positive change". I'm not saying we are incapable of education, scientific discovery, etc. That has nothing to do with Darwin's theory. What I do not believe in is the idea that one species can change into another via random biological mutation. The fact that we have an increased literacy rate says nothing about this question.

Yes, it's the randomness of the mutations which just doesn't wash with me. It seems to me evolving anything of use takes too long if it occurs randomly. The systems of any lifeform are complex beyond belief, and most work in tandem with other parts. If they aren't all there and working at the same time the creature dies.

SirRahz: Yes, winters are pretty mild. From memory, Melbourne (which is a long way south) is as far below the equator as New York is above it. We have had snow once in my lifetime. It was 1982, and there was probably just enough that fell across the whole city to fill a wading pool. It does get below freezing sometimes, but only at night.

Another thought occurs on reading previous posts regarding the infinite/finite universe argument. Say the universe is finite. The suggestion is that it would be surrounded by nothing. What exactly is that nothing? Empty space? That's pretty much what the universe already is, excepting the occasional star or nebula or comet. How would you define where that nothing ended and the universe proper begins?

Well, there's intelligent speculation that what we call "empty space" isn't actually nothing. But do you understand the four-dimensional surface idea?

Yes; all that suggests genes can be informed, and that genetic changes can be responsive to an environment, rather than purely random. We're still looking for the mechanisms by which genes are informed. We do have some clues, though, and are particularly advanced in the areas of post-conception genetic switches.

Right, it's not that there's empty space out there, it's that there is nothing out there because there *is* no out there. I think Eugene was about to mention things that potentially take place outside of this closed universe, but I don't think including those changes the question or the solution.

It's not the randomness that bothers me. If you make the universe old enough, there's enought time for anything to happen if it's actually possible. But I don't believe evolution is possible.

Eh? Explain yourself. You don't think it's possible, say, that lions and tigers share a common ancestor?

Lions and tigers, probably. Lions and bears, no. Horizontal evolution happens. Vertical evolution is a myth.